Josephus, Pompey and the Jews

5/25/2018 Josephus, Pompey and the Jews

1/26

Josephus, Pompey and the Jews

Author(s): Jane BellemoreSource: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Vol. 48, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1999), pp. 94-118Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436533

Accessed: 27/08/2010 05:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlagis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHistoria:

Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4436533?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4436533?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv


2/26

JOSEPHUS,POMPEYAND THE JEWSA comparison of the two accounts by Josephus of the period leading to the

defeat of Aristobulus II of Judaea by Pompey in 63 B.C. reveals that there is adifference in presentationof material which occasionally gives rise to irrecon-cilable views of the encounter between the Romans and the Jews (BellumJudaicum 1.123-54; AntiquitatesJudaicae 13.398-14.97).1 It would seem that,between the time of writing of the Bellum (in the 70s) and of the Antiquitates(dedicated in the Domitianic period, 93/4), Josephus altered his perspective ofthe late Hasmonaean period. In this paper, I shall point to some of the majorincongruities in Josephus' portrayalof these events, and I shall suggest thatthereason for the different views that appear lies in the sources he used for thisperiod of history.

The following works appear cited in this article: G. Alon, Jews, Judaism and theClassical World Jerusalem,1977),trans.by I. Abrahams;E. Badian,'The EarlyCareerof A. Gabinius',Philologus 102 (1959) 87-99; V. Burr, Rom undJudaea m l.Jahrhun-dert v. Chr.', ANRW 1.1 (1972); S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden,1979); L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, 1993); I. Hahn,'Appian und seine Quellen', in Romanitas - Christianitas. Untersuchungen zur Ge-schichte und Literatur der romischen Kaiserzeit. Johannes Straub zum 70.Geburtstag am18.Oktober 982 gewidmet,herausgeg.von G. Wirth Berlin, 1982), 251-76; R. Laqueur,Derjudische Historiker Flavius Josephus (Giessen, 1920; reprinted Darmstadt, 1970);S.G. Leuty, An Inquiry into the Historical Methods and Contributions of Flavius Josephus(MA thesis, California,1971);L.L. Levine, Caesarea UnderRomanRule(Leiden, 1975);B.C.McGing,'Appian'sMithridateios',ANRW2.34. (1993) 496-522; R. Marcus trans-lator), Jewish Antiquities, (London, 1943); N. Lewis, The Documents From the BarKokhba Period in the Cave of Letters (Jerusalem, 1989); Y. Meshorer, Ancient JewishCoinage (New York, 1982); A. Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiogra-phy (Oxford, 1977); A. Momigliano, On Pagans, Jews and Christians (Middletown,1987); T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London, 1983); A.E. Samuel,Greek and Roman Chronology (Munchen, 1972); E. Schurer, The History of the JewishPeople in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135), ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar(London,1973);R. Seager, Pompey,A PoliticalBiography Oxford,1979);S. Schwartz,Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden, 1990); S. Schwartz, 'Language,Power andIdentity n AncientPalestine',Pastand Present148(1995) 3-47; R.J.H.Shutt,Studies nJosephus (London, 1961); E.M. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden,1976);H. Thackeray translator),TheJewishWar London,1927);P. Villalbai Varneda,The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1986).

Historia,BandXLVIII/1 1999)C FranzSteinerVerlag WiesbadenGmbH,Sitz Stuttgart


3/26

Josephus,Pompeyand theJews 951. Introduction

One school of thought suggests that the Bellum Judaicum was written tojustify the Roman conquests of Judaea, particularlythe overthrow of Jerusalemundertakenby Titus.2In some respectsthis observationmust be correct.Josephushimself had not had a distinguished record acting for the Jews against theRomans, and in the Bellum he has blatantly tried to justify his own activities bydemonstrating the invincible power of the Romans and the inevitability of thedefeat of those Jews who had stirred up the Jewish nation against the Romans.3A pro-Romantendency is clearly evident in the descriptions of the period fromA.D. 66.

In addition, Josephus wrote the Bellum at Rome in the early 70s, and hepresented a Greek version of it to the emperor himself (Contra Apionem 1.48-50). The fact of the presentationalone dictates that the sections dealing with theaffairs of the Flavians must have shown the imperial house in a good light. Thereasons for writing the Antiquitates, however, seem less obvious. Josephuscompleted the Antiquitatesduringthe reign of Domitian (ca 93/4), but this workis without specific reference to the emperor, except for dating purposes. Assuch, there seems to have been no particularreason for Josephus to glorify theRoman achievement over Judaea in this later work, and the Antiquitates hasbeen viewed generally as without particular bias towards the Romans,4 al-though an occasional reservationhas been expressed.5

In comparison with the Bellum, the Antiquitates does bear a point of viewless understandingof the role andposition of the Jewish kings, which may havegiven rise to its negative portrayalof both the Hasmonaeans and the IdumaeanHerod.6This negativity has been assigned to an anti-Herodianbias developedlater in life by Josephus,7and/orto his increasing appreciationof the role of thePharisees in the history of the FirstCenturyB.C., both of which factors are seen

2 Leuty, 7, 17, 23, 32ff. Schwartz 1990), 9-13, 15.3 Shutt, 18ff.;Schwartz 1990), 15; Varneda,54ff., 95ff.; Cohen,97ff.4 Josephusseems to haveaimedtheAntiquitatesat the Greek-speakingworld; see AJ 1.5,

9;cf. 16.174.5 This has been hintedat by Marcus; ee in particular d 14.72. Fault has been foundwithmanyotherincidentsrecorded n theAntiquitatesby Alon, 26ff.

6 Onthe anti-Herodian ias, see Laqueur,128-220;Schwartz 1990), 120, 125-6. Laqueur,145ff., has also noted that some bias has arisen in the Antiquitatesowing to the pro-Roman natureof its sources;cf. Varneda,81; Schwartz 1990), 92ff. (cf. 151-4, 170ff.,185ff.). Schwartz 1990) suggests that Josephusbackedthe Herodianhigh priestsin the70s and80s, thenwithdrewhis support.This soundslike special pleading

7 Schwartz(1990), 151-4, feels that the AJ has an ambivalentor inconsistent attitudetowardsHerodand other Herodians; f. Cohen, 236ff.


4/26

96 JANE BELLEMOREto have given the Antiquitates a pro-Pharisee, anti-king stance, at least morethan was apparent n the Bellum.8Theories concerning the changing and developing viewpoints of Josephusdo explain the apparentbias against the Jewish monarchs in the Antiquitates,butthey do not necessarily explain the pro-Romanandthe less-than-sympathet-ic portrayalof the Jews also evident in the Antiquitates. I should like to suggestthatall of these 'developments' found in the Antiquitatesarise from changes inperspective which Josephus adoptedandadaptedfrom his various sources; thathe shifted from his parochially Jewish stance in the Bellum to one whichincorporateda broaderview of matters.

A typical example of the way thatJosephusmodified his stance to incorpo-rate the 'Roman' point of view can be seen in the reasons he gives for Pompey'sinterference in the internal affairs of Judaea. When Josephus considers theoverall aspect of the conflict between the Romans led by Pompey and the Jews,in the Bellum, he links Roman interventionin Jewish affairs to the struggle forthe Judaeankingship, a contest which had arisen between the incumbent Has-monaean king, Aristobulus, and his elder brother, Hyrcanus.9 Since Pompeyentered the fray ostensibly to adjudicatebetween the warringbrothers,Josephussees the Jews as partly responsible for their own hardships,but Pompey himselfis not viewed as a disinterested participant. He is portrayedas having takenruthless advantage of the struggle over the kingship to force the Jewish king-dom under Roman control.10In this respect at least, the war against Pompey ispresented from a Jewish point of view.11

In the Antiquitates, the theme of internecine struggle similarlyunderlies thedescription of Pompey's participation in Jewish affairs, but Josephus in addi-tion points to the nature of the rule of the Hasmonaeansas a majorfactor behindthe turmoil in the Jewish state,12and he seems almost to excuse, on the grounds

8 Schwartz 1990), 170-1;cf. 211-2, 215-6, claims that theBJ has an agendagoverned npartby "the nterestsof Agrippaandthe old high priests" cf. 16-8, 130ff., 141 f., 176ff.).He also relates the changebetween the BJ and theAJto Josephus' new theme of God'srewarding he righteousand punishing he transgressors; f. Varneda,251-3.

9 In BJ 1.19, Josephusnotes that the squabblesof Aristobulusand Hyrcanusattracted heattentionof the Romansand Pompey, buthe statesno more than this. In this, Josephusdraws a loose parallelwith the type of internalpoliticaldisturbances hat broughton theJewish war of A.D. 66; see 1.12, 4.386, and see also his 'own' speech in 5.395-6, cf.5.362ff.

10 Insome respects,theportrait f Pompey n 63 B.C. in theBellum s a pale versionof thatof Titus in A.D. 70. On Titus, see Cohen, 234-5.11 As we might have expectedfromreadingJosephus' ntroductiono this work(e.g. 1.7-9,12); cf. Varneda,164. On this aspect of theBJsee furtherpp. 12-9; also Rajak,10.

12 Onthethemeof internaldissension, see, forexample,AJ 14.491. InAJ 13.417and430-2, Josephussees the long-term fate of Judaeaas havingbeen broughtaboutby QueenAlexandra hroughherunwomanly mbitionandher ack of provision or the futurepeace


5/26

Josephus,PompeyandtheJews 97of Rome's strategic needs, the fundamentallydestructive role Pompey played.He implies, in the Antiquitates, that Pompey's ambitions had not lain at all inthe direction of Judaea,butthathe had needed the country to be peaceful so thathe could pursuehis military objectives elsewhere. In the Bellum the aggressiveintentions of the Romans are clear; in the Antiquitates the Romans bringsufferings upon Jews almost by default.

The interpretationsJosephus offers for the origin and course of the conflictmay differ only slightly, but it is important that the changes in aspect tend,virtually without exception, in affairs dealing with the Late Hasmonaean peri-od, to put the Roman position (in the Antiquitates) in a better light.13 Let usexamine some of the details of the events of this periodto substantiatethis pointfurther.

2. Pompey in JudaeaIn 78 B.C. the Jewish king Alexander died,14 leaving his kingdom in the

handsof his wife, Alexandra.15The queen assumed the throneherself, allegedlydeeming both her sons unsuitable for kingship: the elder, Hyrcanus, because ofhis incompetence, although she did appoint him high priest; the younger,

andgood governanceof herkingdom.The themethattheroyalhouse wasresponsible orJudaea's plight is repeated n AJ 14.77. No such commentsaboutAlexandraare to befound in the Bellum. Herreignis in factpraised BJ 1.112).Thereare some places in theBellum where criticism of Hasmonaean ulemightbe inferred.BJ 1 170 suggestsat firstglance that the people did not want any form of kingship, but the context of thesecommentsagainst the 'monarchical'rule of Hyrcanussuggests that it was Hyrcanushimself who was the problem.Later,Antipater,atherof Herod he Great,seems to havehad no trouble n being acceptedas king (BJ 1.207, cf. 209, 213). Josephusrecordsthatthere was much oppositionto the decision by Antony to make Herod and his brothertetrarchs f Judaea BJ 1.245-7).13 This change in perspective is dubbed simply 'mattersof nuance' by Schwartz (1990),120,and the whole thrustof thisargument unsgenerallycounter o modernopinions oftheAJ.See, forexample, Leuty,40ff., Cohen, 236ff.14 The date is either 78 or 76 B.C. Problems arise in trusting AJ 14.4 for the date ofAlexandra'sdeath.Accordingto the Bellum, Alexanderdies from disease andoverwork(1.106), whereas n theAntiquitateshe dies from heavydrinking,disease and overwork(13.398 cf. BJ 1.97). Although his difference is subtle,theAJdoes depictAlexanderasless worthyof having ruledbecauseof his drinkingproblem.

15 The portrait of Alexandra is quite positive in the Bellum, but she is inconsistentlydepicted n theAntiquitates. osephusnotes thatshe was loved by the people(BJ 1.107-8;AJ 13.407) andthat her opinionwas respectedby both Hyrcanusand the Pharisees(AJ13.428-9); that she protected hecountryagainst ts enemies(BJ 1.112, 115;AJ 13.409,419, cf. 429, 432); and that she listened and acted upon some complaintsagainst thePharisees AJ 13.417,cf. BJ 1.108, 114).In theAntiquitates osephusdisapprovesof her


6/26

98 JANE BELLEMOREAristobulus, because of his excitable temperament.16Alexandra is said to havefallen subsequently under the detrimental influence of the Pharisees, the rea-sons for which are presented differently in the Antiquitates andthe Bellum.17Inthe Bellum it is her religiosity and womanly weaknesses thatlead her to becomedependent on and subordinate to the Pharisees, and the latter in turn takeadvantage of her (1.110-12). Josephus implies that Alexandra put too muchweight upon religious matters and that, because she was a woman, she was notstrong enough to withstand the religious pressuresbeing applied by the Phari-sees. By inference, what Judaearequiredat the time was a king independentofthe Pharisees.

In the Antiquitates, however, the dying king Alexander is said to haveadvised his wife to share power with the Pharisees because of their influenceover the people, and he is made to claim thatthe Jews hate him because he hasnot treated the Pharisees well (13.401-2). The Antiquitates suggests that thepeople had sided with the Pharisees against the king, and the 'revised' accountof Josephus gives some legitimacy to the activities of the priests who areassociated, most particularlyin the Antiquitates, with 'popular' rule;18 hat is,to what is later depicted as a rule without kings.'9

In the Antiquitates, Josephus has introduced the idea, not evident in theBellum, that what the Jews really wanted and needed was to replace thekingship with hierocracy. This looks forward to the settlement Pompey in factimposed on the kingdom after the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem (AJ14.73-4). The Bellum, on the other hand, notes the inherent popularity ofAlexandra (1.107), not that of the Pharisees, and does not express any views onthe need or wish of the people for the dissolution of the monarchy.

As we pick up the the story-line of Josephus again, in the Bellum, it is saidthatthe partisan activities of the Pharisees against many leading Jews promptedthese men to approach Aristobulus to plead theircase before the queen. In thisversion of the events, Josephus makes it clear that many leading Jews sawAristobulus as a natural eader and that he had influence with his mother, sincehe won indulgence for these men ( 1.1 14). The Bellum presentsboth Aristobulusand the leading Jews in a neutral light, even at times in a sympathetic light.

assumptionof the throne 13.417,431-2), yet seems to have acknowledgedher capacityto rule (AJ 13.430-1; BJ 1.1 12).16 Onthe supposed ncompetence f Hyrcanus, ee furtherBJI .203,AJ 13.423.Itis odd,for

this reason, that the queen should havemade him high priest,since thatoffice was veryprestigious.On Aristobulus, ee BJ 1.107-9; AJ 13.407, cf. 14.13.17 See also Schwartz 1990), 172ff.,who also relates he difference o the changingopinionsof Josephus.

18 On implicitinfluence of Phariseeswith the people, see AJ 13.401,406.19 AJ 13.410-16. Josephus lsewheresuggestsgeneraldislikeof the Jewishrulinghouse (AJ

13.399ff.).


7/26

Josephus,Pompeyand the Jews 99In the Antiquitates, however, Aristobulus is relegated to being only one of a

group of leading citizens who approach the queen to complain about thePharisees; these leading men are said to have threatened the queen by intimat-ing that they could leave the country to go to fight for her enemies; and, inaddition,Aristobulus is reportedto have been looking simply for anopportunityto strike at the queen and to have made open complaint against her (13.410-16).The Antiquitates thus marks out Aristobulus as an adventurer who does notdeserve the position of king and his followers as truly disaffected from theregime. This portrayalof Aristobulus prefigures his takeover of the kingdom,and it suggests that his treachery against the regime was of long-standing.

When the queen fell ill, Aristobulus started an uprising against her andagainst her designated successor Hyrcanus. In the Bellum, Josephus commentson the many devoted followers of Aristobulus ( 1.1 17), but in the Antiquitates henotes rather he dismay of the populace at this turn of events ( 13.422-5), and hesupplies the added informationthat many foreign potentatesjoined Aristobulusto take advantage of Judaea in its weakness (13.427). The Antiquitates under-mines the suggestion of the Bellum that Aristobulus enjoyed evident popularity,and the Antiquitates hints again that the interests of Judaea could only havebeen compromised by his leadership (cf. AJ 13.43 1).

Josephus notes that Alexandra died after a reign of nine years, and herecords that Aristobulus claimed the government outright. Hyrcanus, for per-haps two years or so, resisted the forces of his brother,but Aristobulus was theleader preferred by the Jews. Hyrcanus was finally forced to acknowledgeAristobulus as king and at first swore to restrict his ambitions.20Although hehad agreed to these terms, Hyrcanus, promptedby a faction hostile to the newking, sought to take over the country again, this time with outside help, that ofthe Nabataean Arabs.21

In the Bellum, the Nabataean king, Aretas, is said to have helped Hyrcanusbecause of the righteousness of his cause (along with a few gifts). In theAntiquitates, the faction of Hyrcanus allegedly bribed Aretas by means of giftsand by offering to hand over cities and large grants of territory. In the latterversion, the edge is taken off the position of Hyrcanus, who is portrayed asready to surrendersubstantial parts of the kingdom to win his case, and this typeof innuendo mirrorsthe impression of Aristobulus: that he, like Hyrcanus, waseager to betray his country by inviting in foreign interests. The groundwork isbeing carefully laid by Josephus in the Antiquitates to have the Romans inter-vene to put an end to the corruption of the Jewish state by the Hasmonaeans.

20 BJ 1.118-22; AJ 13.430-14.7. On the ambitionsof Hyrcanus, ee Marcus,ad 14.6. Thepopularityof Aristobulusamong thepeasantsof Judaea an also be seen in BJI1.153, 171and indirectly n AJ 14.4.

21 BJ 1.123-6; AJ 14.8-28.


8/26

100 JANE BELLEMORE

The tendency to denigrate both Hasmonaeans appearsagain in the Antiqui-tates when Josephus describes the outcome of Aretas' support for Hyrcanus.Hereportsthat Hyrcanus would have gained supreme power in Judaeain 64 B.C.,since Aristobulus was at his mercy, had not Aristobulus bribed M. AemiliusScaurus, who had been sent by Pompey to oversee mattersin the region. In theBellum, Josephus states that Scaurus was bribed only by Aristobulus (1.128),whereas in the Antiquitates it is said that Hyrcanus also offered Scaurus bribes(14.30-1). The latter work discredits both contenders for the Jewish throne.

Josephus has recordedin the Bellum that Scaurushad rushed from Damas-cus to intervene in Judaea because the civil disturbances there offered him a'god-sent opportunity' (BJ 1.127).22The phraseology of the Bellum at this pointimplies that Scaurus was undisguisedly seeking a reason to interfere in affairsin Judaea,and to this end he threatensthe Jews with Roman forces. The Bellumopenly admits and describes the aggressive actions of the Romans. When hecame to pen the Antiquitates, however, Josephus omitted the information thatScaurus was looking for trouble. This omission concerning the blatantly ag-gressive attitude of Scaurus is significant, since without this intelligence theRomans appearto have had a neutralstance on the issue of the kingship and tohave been interested only in a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Scaurus decided in favour of Aristobulus. Although at first it seemed thatPompey was going to respect this decision, when he actually enteredthe regionof the Levant, he began to follow a different policy, one which eventuallyforced Aristobulus into conflict. The Bellum and the Antiquitates diverge intheir description of these events. First, the Antiquitatesfleshes out the interac-tion between Pompey and the Jews with a remarkableamount of detail, verylittle of which is given in the Bellum.Josephus' knowledge of the happeningsofthis period has apparently increased substantially, particularly when he de-scribes the movements of Pompey. In addition,the actualcourse of events priorto the outbreakof hostilities at Jerusalem is described quite differently in thetwo works, and lastly, the Antiquitates offers strategic motives for Pompey'sattacks on the Jews which are not to be found in the Bellum.

In the Bellum, Josephus takes the readerdirectly to a meeting between theRomans andthe Jews at Damascus.He claims that the factionof Hyrcanusbribedand cajoled Pompey to turnagainst Aristobulus,and that, althoughAristobuluscould have used briberyto influence the Romans in his favour, he chose not toandleft in a huff.IntheBellum, t is afterAristobuluseavesDamascus hatPompeyaccepts the argumentsof Hyrcanus'side and virtuallydeclareswar on Aristobu-lus (1.131-3). The Bellum suggests that Aristobulus thought that there was no

22 BJ 1.127:cp gpgatov. Theopportunitywasone whichScaurushad evidentlylost in thecase of Damascus,which Lollius and Metellushadjust captured AJ 14.29). See alsoBurr,875-87.


9/26

Josephus,Pompeyandthe Jews 101point in discussing the issue with Pompey, since the price for his compliance wastoo high. The Bellum also indicates that Pompey was insulted by Aristobulus'rebuffand that this was the reason for his subsequentattacks on the king.23

In the Antiquitates, however, notice is given of diplomatic activity prior tothe meeting at Damascus (14.34-8), where representatives of the warringbrothersare said to have met with Pompey. On this occasion, Aristobulus is saidto have sent a very expensive gift which Pompey later dedicated in the templeof Jupiter on the Capitoline.24 In the presence of Pompey, Nicodemus, theenvoy of Aristobulus, is said to have made accusations against Scaurus andGabinius (whose presence has not previously been mentioned), that they hadtaken bribes,25and it is noted that the result of this denunciation was to makethese two officers hostile to the cause of Aristobulus.The overall impression ofAristobulus in this section of the Antiquitates is of a king overtly corrupt,inherently deceitful, and stupid as well.

After the first round of diplomatic activity reported in the Antiquitates,Josephus goes on to describe the destructive pathtaken by the forces of Pompeyas he made his way, probably from Syrian Antioch, to Damascus (AJ 14.38-40), where he gave the disputantsa chance to present their cases in person. It isat the meeting at Damascus that we hear explicitly for the first time in theAntiquitates that the whole Jewish nation was against the idea of kingship.Leading Jews are reported to have claimed that the country wanted neitherHyrcanus nor Aristobulus as king but preferredpriests to rule again.26 Thesesentiments look forwardonce again to Pompey's final settlementof the kingdom.

It is also reported in the Antiquitates that the charge was levelled by theleading Jews, that Aristobulus and Hyrcanus were trying to enslave the Jews23 Dio 37.15.2-3 hasa verybrief accountof the interactionbetweenPompeyandthe Jews.24 AJ 14.34-6. This gift was said to havebeen inscribed,not with the nameof Aristobulusbut with that of his father. There are, however, textual difficulties here, since theepitomatorof Josephusand the Latintranslation ay that the nameinscribedon the giftwas that of Aristobulus.See Marcus, ad loc. The item could have been dedicated byAlexanderin the temple of Jerusalem,since such offerings to the temple were notunusual,and even Romanswere knownto have madeofferings (e.g. Sossius in BJ 1.357.AJ 14.488). It might have been removed by Pompey after the capture of the temple.Pompey 'explained' the item as a diplomaticgift rather han as somethingimpiouslytakenfrom the temple(Dio 36.16.4). See Seager, 51-2.25 BJ 1.157 and AJ 14.80-1 suggest thatPompeydid not, however,lose faith in Scaurus,since he left him inchargeof the laterprovinceof Judaea.Gabiniuswas laternotedfor hishonestdealings,especiallywhere thepublicani wereconcerned.See Badian,esp. 89.26 More than two hundredof the most outstandingmen (accordingto Diodorus Siculus40.2.2) were at Damascus o make thisclaim. The suggestedenmitybetweenAristobulusandthe priests s surelyexaggerated see alsoAlon, 27-34), since itwas mostlythis groupwhichfoughtwith himagainstHyrcanuswhenthe latterwassupportedby theNabataeans

(AJ 14.20)and whichfoughtto the bitterendagainstPompeyas thedesignated actionofAristobulus BJ .143, 150-1; AJ 14.14.58,66-8). OnAJ 14.20,see Laqueur,142-3.


10/26

102 JANE BELLEMORE(14.41). In return, the Hasmonaean brothers put their cases, but the reportedcontents of their respective speeches contain material prejudicial to both con-tenders for the throne. In the first speech, Hyrcanus states his rights to thethroneby primogeniture,then goes on to claim that Aristobulus had made raidson nearbycountries, stirringup the problem of piracy in the area, and that thenation had revolted against him. Hyrcanus is then said to have produced athousandJews of high standingto support his case, providedfor this purposebyAntipater (14.43), father of Herod the Great.

The charge that Aristobuluswas behindpiracy in the region portrayshim asa renegade, a man unworthy of kingship and hated by his people, and a long-term enemy of Rome's power, perhaps even as an ally of Mithridates.27Theargument works implicitly in favour of the necessity of Roman intervention.Such implications about Aristobulus do not appear in the Bellum and seemridiculous from the Jewish point of view. Why would Aristobulushave becomeengaged in all these theatres of war when he was having so much trouble simplyholding his own against Hyrcanus, and why would he, on the one hand,antagonise the Romans, when, on the other, he was expending so much energyovertly conciliating the Romans?

In reply to the speech by Hyrcanusagainst him, Aristobulusin the Antiqui-tates notes the incompetence of his brother,and himself produceswitnesses, butthese are describedas a bunchof useless fops ( 14.44-5). The blatantdenigrationof the followers of Aristobulusmakes him the unworthyproponentof an unwor-thy group of effeminate courtiers. Further,the insults allegedly levelled byAristobulusagainst Hyrcanusin returnmake Hyrcanus'case less substantial.Inthe Bellum, on the other hand, Josephus implies that Aristobulus did not evenpresent a case to Pompey, let alone participatein the circus described in theAntiquitates (cf. BJ 1.132).28The Bellum also intimates that Pompey decidedimmediately in favour of Hyrcanus,and that he effectively commenced hostili-ties againstAristobulusstraightafterthe diplomaticactivityin Damascus( 1.133).Josephus paints a different picture in the Antiquitates:that Pompey openlycriticised Aristobulus for his use of force,29but did not make a final decision

27 BJ 3.414ff. notesthatpiracywas a problematJoppawhenVespasianwas intheregion nA.D. 68. Josephusrecords hat hesepirateshadseriouslydisrupted rafficalongthecoastof Phoenicia and Syria,but he says nothingabout activity in the time of Aristobulus.Justin40.2.4 suggeststhatPompey fearedJudaean nd Arabianbrigands nvadingSyria.Onthepro-Romanbias of the source,see Laqueur,153-4.

28 The accountof theAntiquitatess supported o some extentby the epitomeof DiodorusSiculus40.2, whonotesthe meeting,althoughFlorus1.40.30-1 suggeststhatthemeetingperhaps ook place at Jerusalemafterthe defeat of Aristobulus.On Straboas a sourcecommonto bothDiodorusandJosephusAJ 14.34,see Laqueur,148-52.

29 Diod. Sic. 40.2.2 claims that Pompeymade threatsand criticisedthe partyof Hyrcanusfor having nunspecifiedways harmedhe Romans. n thishe is in conflictwithJosephus,


11/26

Josephus,Pompeyandthe Jews 103about he kingshipatthis time,at theconclusionof themeetingatDamascus,30becausehe feared hatAristobuluswouldtryto stirupthecountryandpreventhim and his armyfrommarching hroughJudaea o attack he Nabataeans.31Josephus henassertsthatAristobulusproceeded o do exactlywhatPompeyfearedhe would;yet, in fact,the kingdidnothingbutretreatromtheRomans,andhe yieldedto everydemandmade by Pompey.32Despitethe lack of anyevidenceof hostilityon thepartof Aristobulus, e is depictedparadoxicallyntheAntiquitates as theaggressor gainst heRomans.IntheBellum theultimate bjectiveof Pompey, o attack heNabataeans,snot recorded, ndPompey,we shouldnote,did notgo on to attack heNabatae-ans, at least according o Josephus;33et one inference o be drawn romthe

who assigns the trouble o Aristobulus.Thename Hyrcanusmayhaveinadvertentlybeenplacedin the epitomised text of Diodorus nsteadof that of his brother.Note, however,thatthere exists the same generalview of the Jews, who are said by Pompey to haveharmed the Romans, although in fact they appearto have done nothing against theRomansto warrant his charge.

30 AJ 14.42-7. Florus 1.40.30 states thatPompeywas made an arbiter n the case to decidebetween the brothers,andthathe chose Hyrcanus; hatwhenAristobulus riedto regainpower,he threw him into chains.

31 OntheNabataeans,ee AJ 14.31,andonPompey's ambitions, ee AJ 14.46, 48; Plutarch,Pompey 38; AppianMith. 106; Dio 37.15.1-2, cf. Florus 1.40.31. Burr,esp. 876ff., feelsthatPompey'sambitionagainst heNabataeanswas in factthe onlyreasonhe attacked heJews;cf. Laqueur,156.Aristobuluswould have been likely to help Pompey against the NabataeanKingdom,which so recently had supportedHyrcanus.Aristobulus n fact had already inflicted adefeatupontheNabataeans s theywerewithdrawing romJerusalem, fter hey had beenorderedto leave by Scaurus BJ 1.127; AJ 14.31-2). Pompey may have suspectedthatAristobuluswould block him, as Alexander,Aristobulus'father, had tried to block theSyrian monarchwhen he wantedto march throughJudaeaagainst the Nabataeans BJ1.99-102). Yet Aretas he Nabataean ing had also turnedon Alexander,defeatinghiminbattle(BJ 1.103). The Judaeansand the Nabataeans eem to have been inveterateene-mies.

32 The Jews could obviously not compete militarily against the Romans. That Pompey'sarmy was large is suggested by the comments attributed o Aristobulus' friends, whopoint out to himthathe cannotbeat the Romans BJI .135, cf. AJ 14.48). We should alsonote thetrailof destructioneft by Pompey n63 as he madehis way southwards romhiswinterquarters o Damascus AJ 14.38-40). His aggressive intentionswere obvious.

33 Josephusmakes it clearthatPompeydid notgo further ouththanJerusalemand that henever reachedPetra,the Nabataean apital of Aretas. Scaurusdid this in 62 (BJ 1.178;AJ 14.80-1). Despite claims thatPompey fought against (Plut. Pomp. 42; Appian Mith.106;de Vir.Ill. 77) or conquered heNabataeans Florus 1.40.30; Dio Cassius 37.15.1-2;Festus Brev. 14, 16; Orosius6.4.9, 6.6.1-2; Eutr.Brev.6.14; cf. Diod. Sic. 40.4), weshould accept the evidence of Josephuson this issue, because it is the most detailedsource we possess,and s supported y Pliny's recordof Pompey'sachievements PlinyNH7.97-8). There is perhapsa suggestion of a furtherpossible reason for the Romanincursion into Judaearecorded in Antiquitates 13.419-21, not in the parallel Bellum


12/26

104 JANE BELLEMOREAntiquitatesconcerning Pompey's motives is that he had a large army on hand,not to use against the Jews, but against the Nabataeans who were his primemilitary target.This difference in appreciationof the overall military situation,arising as does from the fact that the Antiquitates reveals a knowledge ofPompey's unfulfilled intentions, underlines the divergent historical interpreta-tions of the Antiquitates and the Bellum.

The two accounts of Josephus run parallel again after the meeting atDamascus. Pompey, upset either because Aristobulus had left the meeting in ahurry (Bellum) or because he feared the king would attack him (Antiquitates),chased Aristobulus to the fortress of Alexandreion, and, afterextensive negoti-ations, forced him to hand over this fortress to the Romans. Josephus, in theAntiquitates in particular, suggests the arrogance and potential duplicity ofAristobulus, yet, on every point, as both versions agree, the king seems to haveceded to Pompey.34

Pompey was not content with the minor capitulation of Aristobulus atAlexandreion, so he began to make further military moves against the king,who had retreated to Jerusalem. En route to Jerusalem Pompey heard of thedeath of Mithridates,news which, accordingto the Bellum (1.138), spurredhimon to be even more aggressive towards the Jewish monarch, but this itemconcerning Mithridatesandthe consequent impetusto Pompey's militaryambi-tion has been omitted by Josephus from theAntiquitates.As with the case of theScaurus, the Antiquitates has failed to reportthe truculentattitudes and actionsof the Romans.

To try to appease Pompey, Aristobulus is reportedto have left the securityof his capital Jerusalem, and, in the subsequent negotiations, is said to haveoffered to surrendermoney, himself and the city, anything, it would seem, toavoid open hostilities with the Romans.35In the Bellum, Aristobulus is 'terri-fied', goes to Pompey as a 'suppliant' and voluntarily surrenders himself intocaptivity (1.138). In the AntiquitatesAristobulusmaintainshis arroganceto theend. He goes out to Pompey simply because he has 'changed his mind' (pre-sumably about attackingthe Romans), makes offers of money and the surrender

1.115-6: that the Romanshad already 'saved' Judaeafrom invasion by TigranesofArmeniain 69. Note that Josephushas madea seeminglyincorrectclaim in the samecontextof the Antiquitates:hatLucullus nvadedArmeniaafterMithridateshadfled toIberia.Appian,Mith.83, a moreplausiblesourceat thispoint,statesthatMithridates adfled to the ArmenianTigranesfor help. Josephusmay have pickedup the erroraboutLucullus'movementsfroma sourcewhichwas more interested n Pompey'saffairsandwhichhadsoughtto undermineLucullusby portraying is invasionof Armeniaas a wasteof time.34 BJ 1.135-7;AJ 14.49-52. Incidentally, ecorded n the Bellumbut notin the Antiquitatesis thefactthatHyrcanus, n at leastone occasionatAlexandreion,was theone to ask hisbrother o parley with Pompey.The Bellumrevealsa measureof concordbetweenthebrothers.

35 BJ 1.138-9; AJ 14.53-5.


13/26

Josephus, Pompey and the Jews 105of Jerusalem, then Pompey 'forgives' him (14.55), implicitly allowing Aristob-ulus the freedom to leave.Josephus reports, in Bellum 1.141, that Pompey put Aristobulus in custodyimmediately, then sent Gabinius to Jerusalem, where the partisansof the kingrefused him admission to the city (1.140). In the Antiquitates, however, it isclaimed that Pompey did not arrest Aristobulus until after Gabinius had beenrefused admission to the city.36 The subtle difference between the accountssuggests a difference in interpretationof the events. The Antiquitates has an airof Romanjustification about it, since yet again Aristobulus is portrayedintend-ing to deceive the Romans, and the Romans as simply reacting to his duplicity.

Concerning the details of the siege of the temple of Jerusalem, the twoaccounts of Josephus are in almost perfect accord. Josephus records that, whilePompey's forces surveyed Jerusalem, the gates were opened to him by thefaction of Hyrcanus, which recognized the superior strength of the Romans.The followers of Aristobulus retreatedto the temple, which was separatedfromthe city by a deep ravine, and Pompey tried in vain to come to terms with them.For three months Pompey's forces besieged the temple, aided by Hyrcanus,then, taking advantage of the religious practices of the Jews, captured thetemple, where approximately of twelve thousand men, many of them priests,were killed.37The Bellum says that it was the faction of Hyrcanus which inflicted theheavier losses on the followers of Aristobulus when the temple was captured(1 150), whereas the Antiquitates allows the reader to assume that the Romansdid most of the killing (14.70). Similarly, the Bellum reports that, although theRomans lost few men, many of them were wounded, but the Antiquitates notessimply how few of the Romans perished. In the Antiquitates, Josephus hasexcised notice of the military activities of the Jews, andhas stressed the Romanachievement. This account favours the Romans, inasmuch as Pompey claimedthe defeat of the Jews as partof his triumph,and he must have reported that theJews were killed in their thousands by the Romans, with little loss to his men.

Both versions, however, make it clear thatthe priests were slain while in thevery act of worshipping their god, and Josephuscomments on the interest of theRomans in the piety of the priests, noting in the Bellum that Pompey admiredthe Jews for this ( 1.148), although in the Antiquitates the particular interest ofPompey is not recorded (14.64-8).38 The former work suggests the pride the

36 BJ 1.138-41; AJ 14.56-7. An abbreviated but similar account is also given by Dio37.15.2-3, although he states that Aristobulus refused Pompey's demands.

37 BJ 1.141-5 1;AJ 14.57-71; see also Dio 37.15.3-16.4; Orosius 6.6.2-4.38 See Schwartz (1990), 87, who notes this point. Similarly Schwartz (1990) sees a differ-

ence in the accounts over the reasons for the priests' continuing to sacrifice even thoughdeath threatened: in the BJ it is out of subservience to God; in the AJ out of subservienceto the laws (pp. 196-7).


14/26

106 JANEBELLEMOREJews had in their religious practices and the hope that others of importanceappreciatedthese matters too. The fact that Josephus modified this observationfor the Antiquitates, omitting Pompey, suggests that he found this commentinappropriate,not mentioned by other sources, or perhaps even contradictedelsewhere.

The military activity of the disaffected Jews paradoxicallyenabled Pompeyto penetratethe holiest of holies, an act of wholesale sacrilege. InBellum 1.152,Pompey's intrusion is described as a avgjpopa;39 in Antiquitates 14.71: ov

Kp& ... "atov. This difference in approach to the sacrilege is instructive,reflecting again perhapsthe changed perspective of the Antiquitates, since thelater work did not view the intrusion as a 'disaster'. Josephus continues tomitigate further the sacrilege to the inner sanctumof the temple in the Antiqui-tates by underscoring the respect that Pompey is said to have shown the holyitems because of his piety and virtue.40

The temple was purified again on Pompey's instructions.Pompey thankedHyrcanusfor his support,41 which is described in a low-key fashion as Xpo0-,uo; in Antiquitates 14.73, but on a more importantnote as npo1l4uo'6ato; inBellum 1.153) by making him high priest.42Josephus reports,at the end of thissection in the Bellum, one of this work's few pro-Roman sentiments (1.153) -thatPompey's goodwill, ratherthan compulsion, helped to resolve the difficul-ties faced by the Jewish people.43Since Titus in A.D. 70 also entered the innersanctum of the temple and allegedly took great pains to try to ensure theintegrityof the holy items, Josephus may have felt himself restrictedin describ-ing the sacrilege perpetratedby Pompey, since a comparison between the twogenerals could have been so easily drawn by Titus himself on reading theBellum, and so we can understandhis pro-Romanline at this point.

Pompey executed the leaders of Aristobulus' faction and divided up thekingdom, making the northernsections partof the new province of Syria andturningthe rest, Judaeato Egypt, virtually into a Roman province, over whichhe placed Scaurus. Pompey seems to have been determinedto turn the countryinto a 'conquest', and, in the eyes of the Bellum at least, Pompey's supportof

39 Schwartz 1990),87-8, asserts hat theAJ does not note the reactionof thepeopleto thesacrilegeof Pompeyas does the BJ. This omission by Josephusundermines he Jewishposition. In AJ 14.487, the term an4upopd,however, is used to describe Pompey'sinterventionn Judaea.

40 See Marcus,ad 14.72.41 BJ 1.153also notesthatPompeydid notestablishHyrcanus s kingbut reinstatedhimashigh priest,although t seemsto havebeen kingship hatHyrcanushadwanted.42 The changingattitude o the typeof helprendered y Hyrcanuso theRomans ies inwiththeearlierpointof shiftingmilitaryKci3o; forthedestruction f thetempleto theRomans

alone.43 See Marcus,ad 14.72.


15/26

Josephus,Pompey and the Jews 107Hyrcanus was merely a ruse to force Aristobulus, the king, into opposition withthe Romans.The account of Pompey in Judaea in the Bellum concludes with a simplestatement that Pompey set off for Cilicia (1.157), the vanquisher taking hisprisoner Aristobulus with him. In Antiquitates 14.77-8, however, Josephusapportionsblame for the events to Aristobulus andHyrcanus. As a result of theactions of the brothers, Josephus laments, the Jews exchanged freedom forsubjection to the Romans; territory and money were taken from them; and,finally, the kingship of Judaea fell to men of ordinary birth. To the last, thedetermination of Josephus to demean the achievements and patriotism of theHasmonaeans in the Antiquitatescontinues.In summary,we can observe that the Bellum and the Antiquitates differ in anumber of significant ways. The Bellum displays the unabashed aggression ofthe Romans. The point of view of the Antiquitates, on the other hand, is onewhich qualifies Roman activities in Judaea as follows: that the ruling house wasunworthy of kingship; that the priests and people wanted neither Hyrcanus norAristobulus as king; that Pompey, en route to Arabia, was invited to choosewhich brother should be king; that Aristobulus was plotting to harm the Ro-mans and then failed to live up to his agreements; and that Pompey, who was inthe region with a large army, was forced to overthrow this potentially malevo-lent king Aristobulus.

The case for a change in presentation of some of these affairs by Josephushas been put. Let us now consider whether or not we can determine thatJosephus used different sources for the two works and the influence such adivision of sources might have had on the composition of the Antiquitates inparticular.

3. Sources Used by the Bellum and the Antiquitates 44Josephus does not name the sources he has used for the Bellum. In the

ContraApionem he goes to great pains to demonstrate that there were sourcesapartfrom the Greeks who had written about the Jews, and this claim is echoedin the opening of the Bellum (1. 17). In the preface to the Bellum, he also tells usthat Greeks had translated Jewish history of the early period, taking theiraccounts from Jewish writers, and he states that he will begin the Bellum whereGreek historians and Jewish 'prophets' have concluded (I.18).45

44 Varneda,81; Schwartz 1990), 35.45 Although it seems most likely that these 'prophets'werethose of the canon of the OldTestament, they are not alone in being classed as such by Josephus.In AJ 1.240, heindirectly cites a 'prophet' Malchus (Cleodemus) who seems to have written some


16/26

108 JANE BELLEMOREThe tenor of these remarks mplies, at the very least, thatthereexisted local

Jewish histories of the period from the Second Century B.C. onwards, none,however, which could be classed among those of the npoqpitawof the earlierperiod (and the 'modest' suggestion of Josephus is that he will fill this breachby composing the Bellum;cf. AJ 1.5-12). Since the periodfrom the mid-SecondCentury B.C. had been the first occasion of Jewish independence for manyhundreds of years, it must have been a time well known to most Jews anddocumented in some way for local consumption, if only in school-book fash-ion 46It is more than likely that Jewish sources were available to Josephus, hadhe wanted or needed to employ them.47

Since he composed the Bellum originally in Aramaic(his 'native' tongue),48then had this work translated into Greek,49 t seems not improbable that he hadoriginally used sources in his native tongue. If he had used Greek sources, thiswould have involved him in the cumbersome process of translatingtheir ideasfromGreek into Aramaic,constructinghis own work incorporatingdetails fromhis Greek sources, then having these translatedback into theiroriginal Greek.50

Despite these problems of composition, most authoritiesaccept that for theperiod from 170 to 4 B.C., including the events of 64/3, the Bellum followed the'GeneralHistory' of Nicolaus of Damascus as its main source.51Since, howev-

Hellenisingformof Jewishhistory in Hebrewor Aramaic? andnot to have been oneofthe standardprophetsof the Old Testament.Perhaps he terminologyused by Josephussimply reflects lack of precision concerning distinctions in literary genres (Schwartz[19951, 10).Josephusalso seems to be overlooking he 'Greek' historiansof the Jews, Nicolaus andStrabo,either becauseat the time he wrotethe Bellumhe did not know of theirworks,orbecause in a strict sense they had not 'translated' heworks of Jews into Greek.

46 Josephusmakespassingreferenceto the glory of the Hasmonaeans n ContraApionen2.134, suggesting thatsuch things were common knowledge. On his 'school' style, seeContraApionem 1.53, perhapsa criticism of the earlypart of the Bellum.Momigliano(1977), 24-5, holds thatthe Jews never wrotelocal histories of the style of the Greekhistoriographicalradition.On whatwas available ocally,however,see Schwartz 1995),20, Feldman, 19-31.

47 On Josephusas his own source, see Shutt, 26-9; Cohen, 49, 50, 65 cf. 52ff., 65-6, cf.232-3. TherewereJewishsources Herod, or example,wrotememoirs AJ 15.174),andwe have evidence for some Hellenising Jewish historians; Eupolemus, for example(Schwartz [1995], 31; cf. Feldman,28-9). In AJ 1.5-7, Josephusalso implies that hemighthave used Hebrewrecords.

48 See Rajak,174ff.,230-2.49 Skill in Greek language was largelya servile talent,one ostensiblyavoided by upper-class Jews. On this, see Feldman,19ff.

50 Josephustook short-cutswhereverpossible. He seems to have used already existingGreektranslations f theOld Testament orthe AJ(Thackeray, d 1.5-7).

51 Schurer, .5 1; generally,see Cohen,49.


17/26

Josephus, ompey nd heJews 109er, Josephus does not mention Nicolaus as a source for the Bellum,52and thispart of Nicolaus' history is extant only in excerpted form, and none of theseextractsdeals directly with Pompey in Judaea,it cannot be proven thatJosephusused Nicolaus as an authorityfor the Bellum. To assume that Nicolaus was themain source for the Bellum, therefore, is unsubstantiatedguesswork, and thereare argumentswhich suggest instead that Josephus used Nicolaus only for theAntiquitates, not for the Bellum.

For example, when Josephus specifically names Nicolaus or others asauthoritiesin the Antiquitates, it is often at points where the Antiquitates differsmaterially from the Bellum.53In addition, many of the references to Nicolausand Straboas sources in the Antiquitates come in the form of direct quotations,a style not found in the Bellum.54 Are we to suppose that Josephus based theBellum on the work of Nicolaus, then when he came to write the Antiquitates,he overlaid a work already derived from Nicolaus with verbatim extracts fromthat same source? The use of quotations rather implies that Josephus hasinserted these to verify and justify the essence of what he had already publishedas 'history' in the Bellum.55

52 Nicolaus is a historicalparticipantn the dramas associated with King Herod in theBellum. Strangely, it is as if when he wrote the Bellum,Josephusdid not know thatNicolaus was a historian.In fact, Josephuscalls him simply a friend of Herod;cf. BJ1.629-38, 2.21, cf. 1.574.53 In AJ 13.250-2, Nicolaus is cited for the informationthat HyrcanusI accompaniedAntiochuson campaign n 130 B.C., which is notmentioned n BJ 1.61-2. InAJ 13.284-7 and313, quotations romStraboaregiven whichprovidematerialnotinBJ 1.86 or 1.84respectively.Further, n AJ 13.324-71 there is muchdetail aboutPtolemy LathyrusofCyprus,Cleopatrahismother,AlexanderJannaeus' ampaignsand of Syrianhappenings,in the course of whichJosephuscites Timagenes(344), then StraboandNicolaus(347);cf. BJ 1.86-7. (Onthis,see Cohen, 50-1.) Similarly,whendiscussingAntipaterAJ 14.9;cf. BJ 1.123), it is when citing Nicolaus that Josephus in the AJ gives a more detailedgenealogythanthatfound n theBJ(cf. Laqueur,136-8). InAJ 15.9 Strabo s quoted;notin BJ. Similarly, AJ 16.29-57 cites a speech of Nicolaus; not found in BJ (cf. also AJ16.332-50). In AJ 16.179-83, Josephussays that Herod tried to pillage the tomb ofDavid,andhe usesNicolaus asoneauthority orthis- notmentioned n BJ. InAJ 17.106-27 Josephusquotesandparaphrases t length a speechallegedly made by Nicolauswhichis also very brieflyreported n BJ 1.637-8, but the two speechesare quite different inemphasis(e.g. inBJAntipatermadePheroras potential ratricide;notmentioned n AJ).54 QuotationsfromNicolaus: AJ 1.94, 1.159, 7.110, 13.250-2, cf. 16.29-58, 16.332-50;fromStrabo:AJ 13.286-7, 13.319, 14.35-6, 14.114-8, 14.138-9, 15.9.Josephusdoes notsay thathe has used eithersource,buthe simply refers to themto substantiatehis ownaccount, to differ from them (AJ 1.108),or to suggest thatthe reader ook to them forfurtherdetail (AJ 12.127). His use of them for the AJ may also have been minimal,restrictedargelyto verbatimquotation.55 Let us consider anexample.InAJ 14.68Josephusvouches for the religiouspiety of theJewshaving beendisplayedall during he siege of Jerusalem, ven while the templewasbeing taken. Forverificationof his claims, he cites the authorityof Strabo,Nicolaus of


18/26

110 JANEBELLEMORE

a) Major Sources ForAntiquitates Books 13 and 14As we have seen, the Bellum and the Antiquitates present parallel accounts

of Roman intervention in Judaea in the 60s. There are few comments found inthe Bellum which Josephus does not repeat in the later work,56 and so theAntiquitatesdiffers from the Bellum, in the main, only in the extra material thathas been added. It seems likely that most of the new material on the events of 63B.C. comes from the three sources who are specifically mentioned during therelevantchaptersof theAntiquitates:Nicolaus of Damascus, Strabo andLivy.57

The works of Nicolaus were possibly used by Josephus in the account ofPompey in Judaeain the Antiquitates largely to add detail about the IdumaeanAntipater, father of Herod the Great. Josephus has not followed Nicolausblindly, however, since he recognises and criticises Nicolaus' open bias to-wards the family of his patron Herod. On one occasion, this criticism refersonly to the fact that Nicolaus apparently gave Antipatera slightly better pedi-gree than he himself had given him in the Bellum (AJ 14.8-10 cf. BJ 1.123),58but later in his work, for events aboutHerod, Josephus more broadly highlightsthe obvious bias of Nicolaus towards his patron and says that he has acted toobviate it (AJ 16.183-7).

Generally, Josephus may have believed that Nicolaus was a reliable sourcefor this particular aspect of Jewish history, and it is probably from this sourcethat we get most of the quite detailed commentary on the dealings betweenHyrcanus, Antipater and Aretas, the king of the Nabataean Arabs, which ismissing from the Bellum. For example, in the Antiquitates, but not in theBellum, Josephus notes that land and a dozen named cities were offered byHyrcanusto Aretas as payment for his supportagainst Aristobulus, an arrange-ment engineered clearly by Antipater (AJ 14.18). Josephus also recordsonly intheAntiquitatesthatHyrcanusoffered Scaurus a bribethroughanenvoy ( 14.30-

Damascusand Livy, whichhe has not done in the Bellum.Josephuswants, through heauthorityof these eminentauthors, o support his versionof theevents he haspreviouslyrecordedin the Bellum. This desire for corroboration uggests thatJosephushad notpreviouslyusedthesewritersas sourcesfor theBellum.

56 Although t is outsidethescopeof thispaper ocompareall aspectsof theBJandAJ,thefact thatthe formerdescribessomeRomanmilitarypractices,whereas he latterdoesnot,suggeststhat the latterwas directedat an audiencefamiliarwith suchmatters.Varneda,126-7, cites the descriptionsof assaultmachines BJ4.19ff.), the marchingorderof theRomans BJ 3.115-26, cf. 5.47-50) and RomanstandardsBJ 3.123), featuresperhapsofinterestto a non-Roman eader.On a similaremphasis n theBJ on Roman nstitutions,see Varneda,176-7.

57 On the use of Nicolaus and Strabo for the AJ particularlyn Books 13 and 14, seeSchwartz 1990), 48, 56; also Cohen,50.

58 See Laqueur,162.


19/26

Josephus,Pompeyand theJews 1111),59and since Antipaterwas Hyrcanus' most formidable ally at this time, theoffer was almost certainly made by Antipater himself. The details of thesetransactions probably derived from Nicolaus' work.

Similarly, the Antiquitatesdescribes in some depth the siege of Aristobulusin Jerusalem by Hyrcanus and Aretas. During the siege there is recorded anincident showing the impiety of the besieging forces, for which God is said tohave punished the country by destroying all the crops in the land (AJ 14.20-8).60 This piece of anecdotal information is not mentioned in the Bellum andalso probably comes from the work of Nicolaus.

Antipater was also present at the first diplomatic meeting with Pompey,since he was puttingthe case for Hyrcanus.As noted above, the Bellum does notrecord this meeting, so the Antiquitates has used additional sources for thisevent, and Josephus has clearly used more thanone source, because there existsa chronological rift between AJ 14.34 and 14.37. We can identify one source,that for AJ 14.34-6, since Josephus names Strabo specifically as an authority,and Nicolaus is almost certainly the source for the later sections that detail themeeting, in which Antipaterplays a vital role.

As soon as Pompey enters on the stage, Josephus in the Antiquitates quotesan extract by Strabo (AJ 14.35-6). From this point in the text, Josephus beginsto introduce material which has a Romano-centric focus which finds no parallelin the Bellum. For example, the Antiquitates gives the specifics of the destruc-tive route Pompey's forces took from his winter quartersto Damascus in early63 B.C. (14.38-40). It is easy to jump to the conclusion that Josephus is usingStrabo as a source for Pompey's activities and perspective, and this would helpexplain the shift in emphasis between Josephus' two accounts.61

Indirect evidence for Strabo as a source for the Antiquitates appears in thedating of the fall of Jerusalem in 63 B.C. In the Bellum Josephus reports onlythat the city fell to the Romans in the third month of the siege (1.149). In theAntiquitates Josephus gives the year, dating it both by an Olympiad and by the

59 In AJ 14.31-2, Josephusgives the considerationshatallegedly prompted he decision ofScaurus n favourof Aristobulus: irst, thatScauruscould not trustHyrcanus o live up tohis pledge; and second, thatScaurus hought hatdislodging Aristobulus romJerusalemwould be too difficult, whereasthe followers of Hyrcanuswere few and his supporters,the Nabataeans, poor fighters anyway, and so Hyrcanus would be the easier to ruleagainst.Oneimplication s thatScaurusmadea choice in favourof Aristobulus orall thewrongreasons; hatAristobulusdid not deservehis crown. Laqueur,144,puts the changein emphasisdownto thelateranti-Herodian ias of Josephus.This perspectiveof events,not in the Bellum, could have been derived both from Nicolaus (concerning Jewishdetails)andfrom Strabo on Romanmotivation).60 Cf. Schwartz 1990), 91, 183,who believesthatJosephushereis not followingNicolaus.

61 See Laqueur,145ff., 155, who, since he considers thatJosephusemployedNicolaus fortheBellum, suggests thatthis new material omes solely fromStrabo.


20/26

112 JANE BELLEMOREconsuls at Rome (14.66).62 In the Antiquitates he also supplies the precise daythe temple fell, which he calls a 'fast' day (probably understandingby this theday of Atonement).

It has been argued convincingly that what Josephus' source meant by a'fast' day was in fact the Sabbath, which Greeks commonly believed was a fastday, and it has been suggested that Strabo must have been Josephus' source atthis point, since Strabo records precisely this in his Geography: that Pompeytook Jerusalem on a 'fast' day and that this was a day on which Jews refrainedfrom work (Strabo 16.2.40 [763]; cf. Dio 37.16.2-4). Josephus seems to havefollowed Strabo blindly on this point, since he reports the fall of Jerusalem on a'fast' day along with the reference to an Olympiad and to the name of theRoman consuls, which has involved his account in some chronological difficul-ties.63

The account of the second meeting between Pompey and the Hasmonaeans,that at Damascus, is reported in the Bellum differently from the Antiquitates.The differences, I believe, should be put down to Josephus' introduction ofmaterial into theAntiquitatesfrom the pens of both Strabo and Nicolaus. Strabohas presumably put the (Roman) theme, that the Jewish people did not wantkings at all, since Nicolaus could scarcely have promoted this point of view.Nicolaus, on the other hand, has probably supplied some of the informationdetrimentalto the cause of Aristobulus,and that which dealt with HyrcanusandAntipater;such as, for example, that Antipaterhad provided Hyrcanus with athousandJews to supporthis case (AJ 14.43).

The influence of Strabo is also perhapsevident in the material that detailsPompey's motives for his actions, such as at the conclusion of the meeting atDamascus (AJ 14.46-8). Josephus also tells us in the Antiquitates, on thisoccasion, of the unfulfilled intentionof Pompeyto marchagainstthe Nabataeans.In addition, Strabo is probablyalso behind those partsof the Antiquitatesthatseem to enhance the Romanposition (relative to the Bellum); for instance,whenthe potential deceit of Aristobulus is mentioned (on many occasions, but at thesiege of Alexandreion and especially at the time prior to the siege of Jerusa-lem); when the details of Pompey's victory over the Jews are given; and whenblame is assigned to the Hasmonaeans for the destruction of Judaea's liberty.64

62 The AJ, by giving the datingby Olympiads,suggests that Josephushere is definitelyconsulting some Greek-orientedwork (Hahn, 255ff.; McGing, 499). In addition,theoverlapof an Olympiaddate anda consulardate suggeststhat the fall of the city tookplacein the firsthalf of theyear.63 See Marcus, ad AJ 14.66 and Thackeray,ad BJ 1.149; also Laqueur,161-3. In his'History'Strabomaynot haveadded he riderwhichclearly dentifiesthe 'fast'day withthe Sabbath.Josephusprobablyhad beforehim only the information boutthe 'fast'. Seealso AJ 14.487.

64 On the biasof Straboagainst he Hasmonaeans, ee 16.2.37,40 (761-3).


21/26

Josephus,Pompeyandthe Jews 113The influence of Livy is generally harder to detect than that of Strabo and

Nicolaus, but Josephus may have consulted him for details of chronology,when, for example, he needed to specify a date by a consular year. The use ofconsular dates, we should note, is limited to events in Book 14 of the Antiqui-tates (69 to 37 B.C.),65 a period also dealt with in some depth by Livy, and it iswithin this section of the work that Livy is actually named as an authority byJosephus (cf. AJ 14.68).

These observations abouttheAntiquitatesgive the impression thatJosephusused Nicolaus, Strabo66and probably Livy as his sources for additional detailon Pompey's campaigns in Judaea and upon the details of the activities ofAntipater, sources which were perhaps not used for the Bellum. If this is so,then the use of these three authorities would account for the less sympatheticportrayalof the Jews that appearsin the Antiquitates.

b) Chronology and Sources for the Bellum andAntiquitatesThe suggested pattern of Josephus' use of sources: unspecified (perhaps

Jewish) sources for the Bellum; and Nicolaus of Damascus, Strabo and occa-sionally Livy for theAntiquitates, is found again when we consider the works ofJosephus from another angle, that of his use of chronological references. TheBellum tends to follow local Jewish systems of dating; the Antiquitates, on theother hand, avoids uniquely Jewish dating criteria, and supplies 'international'dates.

For the most part in the Bellum Josephus uses referential systems of timeunique to the Jews, and so these chronological pointers must derive ultimatelyfrom Jewish sources. Since the Bellum (unlike the Antiquitates) dealt with aperiod of history which was easily able to be cross-referenced with universallyrecognised systems of dating, the fact that Josephus has not regularly usedexternal dating criteria in the Bellum (as he does in the Antiquitates) suggeststhat his immediate sources also did not follow generally accepted patterns ofinternationaldates, but instead restrictedtheir range to local Jewish standards.On this basis, the argumentthat in the Bellum Josephus followed the account ofthis period by Nicolaus of Damascus, a Syrian Greek, seems unlikely.67

65 AJ 14.4, 66, 389, 487. In the firstexample,Josephushas madean errorover the dating,perhapsbecause he followed a source less reliable for Jewish matters,such as Livypresumablywas; see Marcus,ad loc. In AJ 14.389, Josephus also seems to have hadtroublereconcilinghis GreekandLatindates; see Marcus,ad loc.66 As he implies in AJ 14.104, where he notes that Nicolaus and Strabo do not differsignificantly ndetailsaboutPompey andGabinius),buthedoes notactually say thatheused eithersource.

67 For a summaryof the generalopinion thatNicolausserved as Josephus'sourcefor theBellumforthisperiod,see Schwartz 1990), 223, cf. 38-9, 45, 120.


22/26

114 JANE BELLEMOREThe Bellum operates first by using Jewish sacerdotal genealogies (1.31,

1.36-7, etc.), then, after the advent of AristobulusI, by recounting the lengthsof Jewish 'regnal' periods (1.84, 1.106, etc.). It is only in the Roman Imperialperiod that Josephus adopts a more widely accepted system of dating, that bythe years of Roman emperors,68but these in effect served the same purpose asJewish regnal periods, as local coinage from these periods demonstrates.In theMaccabeanperiod of the late Second andFirst centuries B.C., coins sometimesrecord the regnal year of the king, as do some coins of the Herodianperiod, andcoins from the Imperialperiod appear bearingthe year of the emperor.69 n thelocal Jewish context, therefore,dateswere given by means of thereigningpower.This is the system that Josephus has followed almost exclusively in the Bellum.Apartfrom 'regnal' dating,only occasionally does the Bellum use recognis-able external dating criteria, but these references demonstrate the generalpaucity of 'international' chronological standards applied elsewhere in thework. For example, Josephus does refer in the Bellum to the one hundredandseventy years of 'Macedonian' (i.e. Ptolemaic and Seleucid) domination ofJudaea (1.53), but this period of domination by the 'Macedonians' is open-ended to non-Jews, since only Jews would have known when this takeover ofJudaea had occurred. In the corresponding reference in Antiquitates 13.213,however, Josephus has expanded this dating criterion,reckoning in addition bythe 'Syrian' kingdom and specifying furtherthat 'Syrian' chronology beganwhen Seleucus Nicator occupied Syria (312/1 B.C.). This was an easily recog-nised standard,70even though it had been the Ptolemaic kings who had firsttakencontrol of Judaea.The difference in aspect between the two works couldnot be clearer.

On one occasion only does the Bellum adopta truly internationalstandard,a date by an Olympiad (1.415),71 but this exceptional date is used in the contextof Herod's foundation of Caesarea.Josephushad close links with this town: hehad many dealings with it as a general in 66; he spent two years in captivitythere (where he may have begun to make notes for the writing of the Bellum);and he married a native of the town. During his two years in the town, he musthave seen inscriptions dealing with Herod's foundationof Caesarea72and with

68 For example,to Nero:BJ 1.20, 2.284, 2.555.69 Meshorer,esp. i. 35ff., ii. 5ff. On Roman Imperialcoinage minted at Caesareafor

example,see Levine,21.70 See Samuel,245-6.71 Josephushimselfnotes thatfact thatOlympiadswereusedfor 'international' ating,e.g.Contra Apionem 1.184, 185, cf. 2.17. See Samuel,189-90, 243.72 It is likely that there were inscriptionsrecordingthe establishmentof the games ofCaesarea,particularlyince both AugustusandLiviamade sizeablecontributionso the

events (BJ 1.415,AJ 16.136-41). Note the ancientreference o inscriptionsof Caesarea,allegedlymadeby Apolloniusof Tyana(Ep. I1),cf. Levine,35, 36-8.


23/26

Josephus,Pompeyand theJews 115the celebrations of its games.73 The town itself also became important in theFlavian period, since Vespasian turnedit into a colonia. This strong associationwith Caesarea and deep knowledge of the local history of the site promptedJosephus to describe Herod's building activities there at very great length, andfor the same reasons he no doubt recordedthe official date associated with its'foundation.'74

Josephus has to some extent in the Bellum tried to give the whole period ofJewish history an overall chronology, butthis he has done late, in Book 6, whenhe records the date of the sack of the city of Jerusalem by Titus (6.438-42).From King David, he tells his reader, until Titus 1179 years have elapsed. Theperspective is yet again wholly Jewish.In addition to the infrequent use of internationalchronological standards,there are several anomalies in the Bellum which suggest a uniquely Jewishsystem of reference,particularly n theearly partof the work. For example, whendescribing the events ca. 170 B.C. Josephusrefersonly to the fact that sacrificesat the temple of Jerusalem had been interruptedfor three years and six months( 1.32).75 In the comparablereference in Antiquitates 12.248, Josephus does notreckon by the suspension of temple sacrifices, instead he gives a date both bythe Seleucids and by an Olympiad. Similarly, there are curious chronologicalanomalies to be found in the Bellum;first in BJ 6.269-70, where, although thereis a reckoning given by Vespasian's reign andthat of Cyrus the Great, there is afurther point of reference which seems peculiarly Jewish; secondly, in BJ6.435-7, where, again after dating by Vespasian, Josephus uses an unknownsystem of chronology, perhapsone relatedto that found in 6.269-70.

In the Bellum Josephus also refers to years from the Babylonian captivity(1.70), a date of great relevance to the Jews,76 but he supplies no other chrono-logical details, which implies that this referencecame from a Jewish history. Onthe other hand, the context surrounding the corresponding reference in theAntiquitates has supplied many other relative dates, so that the period of thecaptivity can be easily calculated in 'absolute' terms (13.301, cf. 13.253-4,

73 Josephusrecords he celebrationof games by AgrippaI in A.D. 44 (AJ 19.343).74 Josephusrefers to the townon many, manyoccasions,and he gives a disproportionatelylong descriptionof Herod'sbuilding programmehere;cf. BJ 1.408-15; AJ 15.331-41.His interest may have also stemmedout of Caesarea'spolitical importanceas a Romanprovincialcapital, and it is noteworthy hat VespasianandTitusspent much time there(Vespasian:BJ 4.87, 130, 419, 443, 491, 501, 550, 588, 620,: Titus:BJ 4.663, 5.1, 40,7.20, 22, 36, 407.) On its early importance,Levine, 34ff.75 Similarly nBJ 1.16, he speaksof the lengthof timeAntiochusEpiphanesheldJerusalem,of interestonly to Jews. The importance f thetemple is noted by A. Momigliano 1987),89-91.

76 Otherreferences to the Babylonian captivity are less specific; BJ 2.86, 5.389, 6.250,6.268, cf. 6.439.


24/26

116 JANEBELLEMORE260, 269-70, etc.).77 It seems clearthat, in the case of the Antiquitates, Josephushas availed himself of a source without the solely Jewish frame of referenceapparent n the Bellum.

By way of contrast to the Bellum, the Antiquitates almost overflows withexternal dating criteria which, since they do not come from the Bellum, must,therefore, derive from the sources Josephus used to 'upgrade' the Bellum intothe Antiquitates.

For the earlier books of the Antiquitates (where dates must have been in anycase largely conjectural), Josephus has, whereverpossible, providedanexternaldate of some sort. For example, in Antiquitates 1.80, Josephus gives a date withreference to Noah, and he also specifies a Jewish month in this context, but thenconverts this to the equivalent months by the Macedonian and Egyptian calen-dars.78In contrast, not once in the Bellum has Josephus supplied a reference toa Macedonian month. Although Josephus need not necessarily have copied thenames of the Macedonian and Egyptian months from his sources for theAntiquitates, he has clearly altered his perspective from the predominantlyJewish point of view of the Bellum to an outsider's point of view, perhapsreflecting the influence of an 'international' sourceon the Antiquitates,such as,for example, thatof the SyrianNicolaus of Damascus.79A difference in attitudeto the importanceof chronology in theAntiquitatesis underlinedby the fact thatJosephus notes the attention to chronology paid by the prophet Daniel in hisbook (AJ 10.267).

All throughthe account of the period of Seleucid dominationof Judaea,theAntiquitates uses Seleucid dating, which the Bellum, as I have noted, does onlyonce.80 In some books of the Antiquitates, in fact, Josephus has provided

77 Josephushas provideda strongchronologicalramework. n AJ 13.236, he mentions he162ndOlympiad,and later, he 177th n associationwithRoman onsulardates(AJ 14.4).Between hese twocitations,an absolute ime-frame asbeenestablished.nAJ 13.259-64,Josephushas also recorded senatusconsultumwhichcould have beendatedby a Romanaudiencethrough he mentionof Romanmagistrates.Note the chronologicaldifficultiesimportedntoAJ 13.254(cf. BJ 1.62),presumably y Nicolausof Damascus,whohasbeennamed mmediatelyprior o thispassage 13.250-1), andwhowas probablyhe sourceforall of thisnewchronologicalnformation. trabo s also citedby JosephusnAJ 13.286-7,319, 347 (withNicolaus).Seleucidregnaldateshavealsobeengivenin AJ 13.365and387.The contrastwith thelackof a systemfor thisperiod n theBellum s striking.On thechronologyfortheAJ,see Cohen,42ff.

78 Also AJ 2.311, 3.201, 3.239 (Macedonianalone), 4.84 (with Athenianmonth),4.327,8.61-2 (with referenceto Eiromosand the foundationof Tyre), 8.100, 11.106-7 (withregnalyearsof Darius),11.109,cf. 11.286.

79 The extantworks of Nicolausand Strabounfortunatelyhow little, if any evidence of'international' ating.We do not,however,possesstheir 'Histories'in full.

80 Thereareotherexamples:n BJ 1.37-8 and 1.61,no datesareprovided,butin the parallelpassages, AJ 12.285and 13.236 respectively,the Seleucidsystem is found.We should


25/26

Josephus,ompey nd heJews 117Seleucid and other chronographic criteria to date events on a year-by-yearbasis.81 Again this contrasts with the vague references given in the Bellum.When Josephus describes the Jewish 'regnal' period in the Antiquitates, inaddition to references to lengths of reigns (as appear in the Bellum), he mostcarefully cross-dates the beginning of the whole period, the 'reign' of Hyrca-nus, against the regnal year of Antiochus VII of Syria and against an Olympiad(13.236).82 Similarly, the Antiquitates announces the startof Herod's kingshipwith notice of both an Olympiad date and the names of the Roman consuls(14.389). Such a patternof cross-referential dating suggests thatJosephus has atleast referredto a range of different sources for the Antiquitates, since none ofthis attention to chronological detail is evident in the earlier Bellum.83On other standards too the Bellum is found wanting in comparison to theAntiquitates. Although the Bellum has mentioned one Olympiad, that for thefoundation games of Caesarea, the Antiquitates refers to this dating criterionquite often.84 Lastly, it is only in the Antiquitatesthatwe find dating by Romanconsular years, a sign that Josephus has modified the Bellum using a source thathad at least some notion of what the Romans were doing.85

All of the chronological evidence discussed above suggests in summarythat in the Bellum Josephus did not follow sources which used internationalconventions of dating, as any 'Greek' history would have; ratherhe has fol-lowed sources which used idiosyncratic, Jewish systems of dating.86In compar-

also note that,in contrast o the BJ, the Maccabees also uses dating by Seleucid regnalperiods, e.g. 1.1.11, 1.1.21, etc., even for periodsafter Judaeawas supposedly free of'Macedonian'domination,e.g. 1.15.10, 1.16.14,2.1.10. See also Cohen,44-7.

81 This is quite noticeablein Book 12 where a succession of Seleuciddates in the 160s isprovided 12.246, 12.285[cf. BJ 1.37-8 (undated)];12.297, 12.313, 12.361, etc.).82 Josephusseems in fact to have createdchronologicaldifficulties by introducing o manystyles of dating.See Marcus,ad AJ 13.236;notesimilarproblems or thestartof the reignof Hyrcanus I (AJ 14.4).83 If Josephusused the same sources for the Bellumand the Antiquitatesat points where,inthe latter, orexample,he introduces onsulardating,we must assumethathe deliberatelyomitted suchdates when writingthe Bellum,thenreturned o his original sourcestwentyyearslaterwhencomposingtheAntiquitateso reimpose hese dates on his text. It seemsmorelikely thatthe Antiquitateshad the Bellumas its basis, but that Josephusexpandedtheoriginalby theadditionof material roma varietyof new sources, which contained,enpassant,datesby Romanconsuls, by Olympiadsandby Seleucid eras.84 12.248, 13.321 (twice), 13.236, 14.4, 14.66, 14.389, 14.487, 15.107, 16.136 (foundationof Caesarea).

85 An analogouspattern s discernible in the documents concerning the woman Babatha,where it is onlyafterthe Romanconquestof Arabia n A.D. 106 thatconsulardating s inevidence. After 106, the documents are dated by consuls and by the 'Macedonian'calendar.See Lewis, esp. 27-8.86 On overt chronologicalproblems, see Cohen,32-3. Momigliano(1987), 46ff., notes anindifferentattitude o externalchronologicalmattersalso in the book of Daniel.


26/26

118 JANE BELLEMOREison with the Antiquitates, the Bellum is a work of parochial derivation anddesign. In stark contrast, the many and varied systems of dating used in theAntiquitates, arising as they do from the detailing of the general history of theperiod, have elevated theAntiquitates to a work of internationalstanding, and itis clear thatJosephus has consulted many non-Jewish sources for this work. Onthis basis, it is not unexpected thattheAntiquitates exhibits a broader apprecia-tion of the overall context in which occurred the episodes of Jewish historypreviously described in the Bellum, and thus displays a less pro-Jewishpoint ofview.

4. ConclusionFirst, I have attempted to show that theAntiquitates portraysthe actions and

motives of Pompey in Judaea from the Roman perspective, whereas the Bellumdeals with the Jewish view-point. Secondly, I have suggested that this alterationin perspective has arisen from the totally different types of sources used byJosephus for the two works for the Bellum, local Jewish works; for the Antiqui-tates, Nicolaus of Damascus, StraboandLivy. If these points areaccepted, thenthe possibility arises of treatingthe two accounts by Josephus of the demise ofthe Hasmonaeans virtually as two separate sources. Which version is to bepreferredis a question that obviously cannot be answered, but the pro-Romanline evident in the Antiquitates surely hints that the later account is the lessreliable and should warn historians not to accept that Roman intervention inJudaeawas necessary or inevitable.87University of Western Australia, Jane BellemoreNedlands, Perth

87 As does, forexample,the otherwiseverygood analysisof thisperiodin the 60s B.C. bySmallwood,1-30, amongstothers.