The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

argument (345 - 353) deals with the question of why Tiberias persisted in continuous
resistance to Rome. Admittedly Justus was no longer in Tiberias at that time (354) but had
already fled long before (357); accordingly Josephus, in his remarks, turns deliberately not to
Justus, but rather to the other Tiberians (345, 350, 351 ff.). But despite this, the entire question
is dealt with διὰ σὲ, i.e. on account of Justus (345). Given that Justus cannot come into question
as a statesman due to his absence from Tiberias, it follows that the presentation has been
provided only on account of his literary activity, precisely in order to prove the inherent
untrustworthiness, indeed the impossibility of the picture created by Justus (ἠλεύθησε δὲ οὐδὲ
περὶ τῆς πατρίδος 338). A similar problem exists with the question of who had set the rebellion
in motion in Tiberias (340 ff.) Justus had recounted that the Tiberians had been friends of
Agrippa and the Romans (345) and that only Josephus had persuaded them to abandon the
friendship (350). Josephus believes that he can refute this allegation as well, yet he does not do
so out of political motives, but rather only for the purpose of disproving Justus’ claim that he
was δεινότατος συγγραφέων, otherwise he would have also addressed him here (340) as
statesman, and not as author.
To all intents and purposes, in the understanding of that time such a literary battle was
played out in the realm of the personal. Justus had actually claimed that Josephus was a bad
man – a reproach that, aside from general human reasons, cut particularly close to a rhetorical
author because a rhetor can be only a vir bonus (Quintilian 12.1). In response to this, Josephus,
on his part as well, now incorporates evidence of Justus’ [15] badness in his literary combat
against him (355 - 356); indeed, a man thus labelled is capable of writing only a historical work
that is totally indistinguishable from forgery of documents (337). However this attack also is
only a means to an end, and evidence of the opponent’s badness is discontinued shortly
thereafter (356) in order to resume the real literary combat; for just as Justus is attacked
because of his historical work from the very beginning of Josephus’ insertion (336) so the
presentation also concludes in this same vein (357ff): “You claim to write history better than
others; but how can this be possible, since you were not acquainted with the events in Galilee
nor with those from Jotapata because you were not present and you could not gather
information? And if you should claim to have faithfully reported the incidents in Jerusalem,
then this is likewise false; for you were not at all present at the war and you have not read
Vespasian’s own reports; otherwise your book could not contradict them. And since you claim
17