(6) The objections to Destinon’s theory are that Josephus is elsewhere generally accurate in the matter of references: the formulas of reference used in the veritiable references are not unlike that used in the unverifiable cases: the first person, undoubtedly meaning Josephus, is used in Close proximity to KaOds dedyAdKapev (Ant. XIII. 347): Josephus does not give the impression of being such a careless compiler as this theory would require us to assume. (c) If the phrase has been borrowed from a source, it is simpler, with Schiirer, to identify this source with Nicolaus, in whose Uni- versal History one or more books would probably be devoted to the history of the Seleucids, rather than, with Destinon, to invent an anonymous writer. (@) If we reject altogether the theory that the phrase is taken over from an earlier source, we may, with Driiner (Untersuchungen uber Josephus, Marburg, 1896), suppose that Jose- phus refers to a preliminary work (Vorarbeit) to the Antiquities, which was never given to the world, in which he briefly sketched the histor of the Seleucids. Niese (Hist. Zeitschrift, Bd. Ixxvi.) regards the phrase merely as ‘a con- venient and euphonious formula for breaking off the narrative’; but this leaves unexplained its almost complete limitation to Syrian history.
For the history of Herod the Great, which occupies the greater part of four books (xiv. 158- Xvi. 192), there can be little doubt that the prin- cipal source was Nicolaus of Damascus, from whom also, apparently, was derived the much briefer account in the BJ. Josephus, however, does not accept all his statements without ques- tion, and more than once censures him for the partiality which he shows to that monarch (xiv. 9, XVI. 183 ff.). He appears to have had access also to some document in which an unfavourable view was taken of the king. Mention is once made of the ‘Memoirs of king Herod’ (ra trouriuara re To) Baoiéws ‘Hpwdov, XV. 174); but it is doubtful whether Josephus used these at first hand. A difference in the arrangement of subject-matter is to be noted in the two accounts of Herod. In BJ the external history of the reign is first given,
=
466 JOSEPHUS
ending with an account of Herod’s buildings (to I, 430); and then, as a pendant to the picture of the patent prosperity (ai Uaadpo evmparyia), is added the tragic story of the domestic dissensions. In Ant. this division is abandoned, and the events follow one another in chronological order.
After the death of Herod, when we should especially value any details which might throw light on the Gospel narrative, the history becomes meagre, expanding again into greater fulness when the reign of Agrippa l. is reached. With regard to him, Josephus would be able to obtain full in- formation from his son Agrippa II., who had already offered his assistance in the composition of the BJ (Vita, 366); and for the events leading up to the war he could draw on his own recollections. The most striking feature in the latter part of the Ant. is the disproportionate length at which the somewhat irrelevant story of the assassination of Gaius and the accession of Claudius is given: it occupies the greater part of Book x1x. This must be derived from some contemporary source, and is of primary importance for the Roman historian. Mommsen (who is followed by Schemann) has suggested that this source was the history of Cluvius Rufus, who was present in the theatre at the time when Gaius came to his end, and of whom a remark is quoted by Josephus (Ant. XIx. 91f.) ; but we do not know that Cluvius’ work embraced more than the reign of Nero and the events of A.D. 69.
Throughout his history Josephus is careful to note the succession of the high priests ; and at the close (XX. 224-251) he gives an enumeration of them, from Aaron to the destruction of Jerusalem, with some divergences from the earlier notices. (Destinon has laid stress on these divergences as pointing to the use of different sources). For this part of his work he must have had access to the ‘priestly records, which, as he tells us, were kept with such strict exactitude (c. Ap. i. 36).
Of great value for the historian are the decrees, mainly concerning exemptions granted to Jews, which Josephus has grouped together at various points in the narrative (XIII. 260ff., x1v. 149 ff, 185-267, 306 ff., XVI. 162-173). Of their genuine- ness there can be no doubt; whence Josephus obtained them is doubtful. He refers in two passages to the archives in the Capitol at Rome (XIV. 188, 266); but it is improbable that the decrees concerning the Jews of Asia Minor were preserved there. Niese (Hermes, xi. [1876] 466 ff.) has con- jectured from Ant. XVI. 48, where Nicolaus, defend- ing the Jews of Asia, appeals to similar decrees, that a collection of them had already been made in his Universal History, from which Josephus has borrowed them ; Schiirer (G4JV i. 86, note) has shown, however, that this will not account for all the documents quoted by Josephus.
As to the character of Josephus as a historian, very various estimates have been held, from that of Jerome, who extolled him as a ‘ Greeeus Livius’ (Zp. 22), to that of some modern critics, who have accused him of subjectivity and gross misrepre- sentation. The apologetic nature of the history is evident on the face of it. Its object is to represent the maligned Jewish nation in the best light to Greek readers. This has occasioned the suppres- sion of some of the darker incidents in the Biblical story. But, granted this, there remains no very serious charge to be laid against the historian. His work is, on the whole, a skilful compilation, its value naturally varying with that of the autho- rities consulted, while the criticisms passed upon Nicolaus (XIV. 9, 183) show that these were used with discrimination. Attractiveness is one main object. To this end the narrative is diversified by legendary additions culled from all sources. Nor,