The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

high priests are incorporated into it and whatever could perhaps appear objectionable to a
non-Jew is explained and excused by its peculiarity. Nowhere do we encounter this genuine
Jewish spirit so tangibly, however, as in the reworkings, which Josephus effected on his source.
Josephus had prefaced his history of the war with an introduction, for which he used Nicolaus
of Damascus as source. This also is characteristic of the Roman period of the author, that he
used a work as the basis, which blatantly took the side of Herod who was so despised among
the Jews. In the Antiquities Josephus could no longer be satisfied with such a view; since he is
writing as a Jew from now on, his [261] opposition to the Herodians had to be elaborated
above all. Of course, he could not have based book 14, decisive for our discovery, on new
sources; he must use the base provided to him by his War, but twist its view into the opposite.
[From a] source analytical [perspective], this reworking is one of the most interesting sections
that I have ever encountered, and by virtue of this the extensive discussion that we have
dedicated to it (page 128 - 221) is justified; as far as Josephus did not consult complementary
additional sources [Nebenquellen] – and these can be completely identified – these parts of the
Antiquities are worthless for the investigator of Jewish history, but irreplaceable for an
understanding of Josephus’ inner development, which from now on sets itself in pronounced
opposition to the Herodians and stands up for the legitimate Hasmoneans. Everything is
subordinated to these ends and as a result the history is falsified in a manner and way that has
no parallel.
Basically, it is a matter of the same procedure that Josephus adopted in the War with
respect to his administrative report, and the personal attitude is shifted only insofar as the War
is also inwardly false as a whole, whereas the apologetic of the Antiquities corresponds to
Josephus’ inner convictions; therefore [from a] human [perspective] the Josephus of the
Antiquities may seem closer to us than [the Josephus] of the War, even though his work in both
writings was falsifying to an equal extent. Josephus has falsified the history of the past as a
nationalistically sensitive [nationalempfindender] Jew, even less so could he pass by the present.
It has been noticed already for a long time that the view about the regnancy of Agrippa I and II
that Josephus reveals in the Antiquities stands in stark contrast to the presentations that the
War has developed. Here both Agrippas are favourably judged, yet the Antiquities disapproves
of these rulers just as vehemently. In the complete isolation from which this question was
being considered, one wished to draw the conclusion that Agrippa II, who had been a patron of
228