“... The striking similarities between the story as told by Josephus, and the story as told in the Babylonian Talmud, combined with the implications of this account for our picture of the political tensions in Jewish society under Hasmonean rule, have given rise to countless scholarly discussions. The independence of the two versions of the story, and their provenance in a source which preceded both Josephus and rabbinic literature, is evident on several counts. First, the obvious nature of the passage as an insertion in A.J., as shown above, proves that we are not dealing here with a rabbinic citation from a coherent and continuous Josephan narrative, but rather with a unit which is from the outset exceptional and secondary within A.J. as well. Second, as mentioned above, the talmudic version displays exceptional vocabulary and syntax, typical of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period but otherwise unattested throughout the entire rabbinic corpus. This could not have been invented by any talmudic-era rabbi or redactor as a translation of Josephus’s Greek for a much later Hebrew/Aramaic context. Third, notwithstanding their broad similarities, the Josephan and the talmudic accounts also differ in many details. The original core of this legend should therefore be traced to some lost repository of Jewish traditions which predates Josephus just as it predates the Babylonian Talmud. [...] It is obvious, however, that the most significant difference between the two versions of the story in question is the name of the Hasmonean leader who is being attacked. While Josephus designates this ruler as John Hyrcanus (reigned 135–104 BCE), the rabbis identify him with Alexander Jannaeus (the son of the former; reigned 103–76 BCE). ...”