The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

“preserved” for people, to another [set of attributes] in comparison, which they “conferred” of
their own accord. And it is only with this that the transition to the gifts of the Romans has
been located. So it follows anew that something is reported in the problematic segment, which
should come only later according to the plan, and it follows above all that by this premature
insertion, an element is intended as subject in the phrase καὶ γὰρ οὐ δίκαια ... , which is not
grammatically possible, since up to now there has been no mention of gifts from the Romans.
Therefore the end of 47 and 48 is eliminated as an addition and then, in effect, we gain a clear
train of thought: “Agrippa, we beg you for help, so that we are not prevented by the Greeks
from observing our traditions, so that they leave us our customs and so that they do not
oppress us in [ways] in which we do not oppress them; // for not only to us but to all people
have you left their traditions, but you have added even greater benefits etc.” Therefore the
reference to the decrees of the senate and the documents of the Capitol is an addition 80 that
Josephus has inserted into the report about [226] the speech, which was taken from Nicolaus –
and this is what is significant within our context. Therefore if we established above that
Josephus, directly in contrast to Nicolaus, inserted the documents for Hyrcanus, that he
therefore cannot have [taken] them from Nicolaus, then this finding is now fully confirmed.
Niese, for his part, quite impressively drew a connection between the passage Ant. 16.48 and
the bundle of documents, however, we have now learned that Nicolaus is not the source for
this, as Niese thought, but that Josephus himself has inserted this passage as opposed to
Nicolaus. It is therefore Josephus, in reality, who placed the documents into his work; they
have nothing to do with Nicolaus.
As is well known, Ritschl (Rheinisches Museum 28, page 599) was the first to point out the
fact that the greater part of the documents in the text were inserted downright senselessly,
they are for the most part not connected to the Antiquities in any way and they are without
order and connection to each other; on the basis of an incorrect equation of names [the dating
of] documents has been incorrectly assigned by centuries, etc., and what may be said in
individual passages about the insertion of documents is nothing other than what can be
educed from the documents themselves (Niese, loc. cit., page 473). Hence it follows for the
nature of the source, from which Josephus has obtained the documents, that it cannot have
80 Another of Josephus’ additions to Nicolaus’ line of thought is in sections 43 - 44, as an
examination of the contents and the surrounding [text will] prove.
198