The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

) because ταῦτα formally either refers to Sepphoris as well, or along with
Sepphoris it eliminates Tiberias too, both of which are factually
impossible.
Now the words at issue in the end of 31 and in 62 constitute necessary parts of the selfcontained
exposition about the conditions in Tiberias, Gischala and Gamala and the tidings
that Josephus has received from there. As they are incompatible with 30/31 on the one hand
and with 64 on the other, so they at the same time entrain the entire presentation that they
enclose, in which we are thus to recognize an insertion.
An examination of the content itself confirms that this conclusion [arising] from the
intersection of the passage[s] is irrefutable. That is to say, whoever reads through Josephus’
Life observes that solely personal experiences of the author are portrayed. Of course, it is
inevitable that once in a while, for factual clarification of the situation, a sentence is provided
in which Josephus does not appear; but then Josephus does regularly enter into the indicated
situation directly thereafter. I cannot cite examples otherwise I would have to copy the whole
book. The exceptions to this rule, which is by the way to be taken for granted in the portrayal
of a life [story], are all the more significant. The first occurs in our section 32 - 61: not only is
there no mention of Josephus here, but Josephus never comes into later contact with the
circumstances described here either. Admittedly, 32 - 42 deals with the town of Tiberias that
also plays a large role further on, but this part does not even remotely prepare the reader for
the continuing exposition. In truth, the task that Josephus was to accomplish in Tiberias was
the demolition [40] of Herod’s palace (65 ff.). The difficulties that opposed him there came
from the radicals — the sailors and the poor — under the command of Jesus, son of Sapphias,
about whose leadership Josephus would have already reported previously. And, as a matter of
fact, he would have had to speak of this leading character if he had wished to inform the
reader in advance about the forthcoming tasks in Tiberias and their execution. But in truth we
neither learn about Jesus nor do we hear the slightest about Herod’s buildings, although the
political circumstances in Tiberias are reported in 32 - 42. In short, an insufficiently informed
reader who would read part 32 - 42 in order to understand 64 ff. better, would gain no benefit
from it. For this reason, the piece does not fulfil that task upon which its right to exist could
solely rest. Conversely, instead [of concerning himself] with this, Josephus deals with his
literary opponent Justus, who on his part plays no role in the following events; the two reports
38