The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

to the royal couple by whose order Ptolemy was travelling. According to this, Josephus is
determined here to maintain Agrippa and his wife as the rightful owners of their belongings
(τοῖς δεσπόταις 596; τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν 597). But the Life does not remain true to this view
throughout its narrative; because, in contrast to section 128 but in agreement with the
passages of the War referred to just [above], Life 130 and 131 explain that Josephus awarded the
possessions to Agrippa who alone may be understood by δεσπότης and ἐκεῖνος respectively. 26
And when we compare even the words τὰ χρήματα τῷ βασιλεῖ τετηρηκέναι (Life 140) with the
thought referring to the same incident διαφυλάξαι τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ (Life 128), then the
contradiction between the two passages of the same writing becomes obvious.
Thus arises the following matter of fact: the Life and the War are oriented
according to different points of view. While the War maintains its view
consistently until the end, the Life is influenced by the outlook of the War in
some passages.
2. According to the version in the Life the attack of the Dabarittans is absolutely
legitimate. Ptolemy’s wife, who was attacked, had intended to cross from Agrippa’s realm over
to Roman domain and the Dabarittans had at least prevented the removal of goods into the
enemy’s land. According to this, it is understandable that the Dabarittans, proud of their
success, bring the plunder to Josephus who disposes of it in the manner to be discussed later.
The War [is] completely different. There is not a trace of [the fact that] Ptolemy, who is indeed
the one attacked here, wished to cross over to Roman territory; [59] therefore it is a matter of
a simple armed robbery. But when these stolen goods are brought to Josephus, a justification
for this is required: “the Dabarittans could not conceal their robbery”. Josephus, however,
naturally wants nothing to do with the robbery “and therefore reprimands the Dabarittans
because of their violence against the royals” (596). In conclusion: when the Dabarittans wish to
malign Josephus who did not give them a share of the plunder, they indict him absolutely
logically in Life 129 and 132 “of betrayal to the Romans”; for when, under suspicious
26
When Josephus uses the singular here as opposed to the plural [that is in] the War, then this
is the necessary consequence from Life 126 where Ptolemy is designated as vice-regent of the
king alone, whereas War 595 named the royal couple. That only Agrippa may in fact be
understood by δεσπότης and ἐκεῖνος respectively follows from 131 where ἐκεῖνος refers to
βασιλεὺς. Josephus avoided a precise designation in 130/1, however, in order that the
contradiction not be made too obvious.
54