The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

acknowledge his opponent’s ability in this field (Life 40). Since Josephus himself had definitely
not renounced the deliberate application of rhetorical measures, but rather had drawn upon
the help of authoritative judges for this purpose (C. Ap. 1.50) thereby announcing that he was
by no means indifferent to form, 7 then the publication of Justus’ brilliantly written work must
have been doubly painful to him. He probably understood that he could not damage his
opponent in the latter’s own field of expertise; and so instead of a head-on, open attack he
chose a flanking engagement, i.e. to twist Justus’ words. Since Justus himself had claimed that
he has written ἄμεινον than the others, Josephus reinterprets the word ἄμεινον as
ἀκριβέστερον and then proves that there can be no question of ἀκρίβεια in cases where Justus
neither was present at the crucial events nor understood the amplitude of significant
documents (357 - 358). Since Justus had extolled himself to his readers as δεινότατος
συγγραφέων because he mastered all the stylistic devices of Greek rhetorical art, Josephus
again twists the fact to imply that Justus thereby wished to claim an outstanding factual
knowledge, and then Josephus proves at length that Justus is truly lacking in this. For this
reason, Josephus must deal here with the presentation of the events themselves, and it is
precisely the detailed discussion of these events (340 - 354) that has led researchers to see
them as an end in itself and hence to derive their view of the political antagonism between the
two men from the time of the rebellion. That this is entirely out of the question is already
illuminated by the fact that Josephus utters no word about Justus in the War where he
mentions all his opponents. As has now become clear, the antagonism was, in truth, literary:
Justus had commended his historical work through its stylistic perfection and had obviously
found such approval for it that Josephus’ treatment of the war was pushed back by Justus’ new
work. Therefore Josephus, [14] on his part, now attacks his competitor, but because he must
acknowledge his stylistic superiority, he attempts to prove that Justus made factual errors in
order to shake his renown as an author.
If we may therefore, on the strength of these observations, view the extensive
discussion of the Tiberias question simply as a device in the literary competition, then a
consideration of individual points leads to the same realization. The major part of the
7 To this effect, in the Antiquities as well, he strives for the correct usage of words and for a
corresponding σύνθεσισ ὀνομάτων, αnd he wishes to spread the embellishment of rhetoric
throughout the whole [work] (Ant. 14.2).
16