The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

examination of the way in which the individual parts] intersect: it is oriented in a direction
other than that of the surrounding passages and originates from a different time than these, as
is proven above all by the entirely different evaluation of John. A self-contained older
report that first deals with Josephus’ journey to Sepphoris (30/31) and then his
continued travels to Bethamus was subsequently split by an insertion that
completely disrupted its context. And if 336 - 337 was merely disturbing, then it must be
said here, the result of the insertion was that the context was factually and formally stripped
of any reasonable meaning. The defensive trend inherent within the entire Life can therefore
not have anything to do with the combat against Justus which was only inserted afterwards
and which stems from an entirely different time period.
Now, if 32 - 62 is a later insertion into an older text, then all those parts which are
based on this [47] report or are in some way connected to it must be likewise secondary and
discarded without objection. Those passages that deal with Justus of Tiberias and with Philip
and the Babylonian Jews will be affected by this stipulation. Our expectation is not only
fulfilled but in truth is greatly exceeded.
Already H. Luther 22 , to whom the methods adopted here were totally unknown,
nevertheless observed correctly that “in two passages where mention is made of Justus’
alleged participation in the opposition against Josephus, it appears exactly as if his name was
added only afterwards.” Luther, who likewise clearly realized and stressed that there was no
mention ever made of Justus’ opposition in the parallel presentation of the War, had sections
88 and 279 in mind there. In fact, the word τοῖς λεχθεῖσιν here does not acquire its correct
reference until elimination of the intervening sentence ταῦτ’ εἰπόντα τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπῄνει ...
63 and 64; moreover, since in 64 μετ’ αὐτῶν refers to his fellow envoys, these were [therefore]
discussed previously, i.e. 63 belongs to 64, and we obtain a division point between 62 and 63. If
according to this, 63 includes the factual continuation of the description of the events in
Sepphoris (30/31), then this agrees excellently: it was precisely there that the fellow envoys,
who were indeed priests (29), had enriched themselves so much. Had they just recently arrived
in Galilee then the acquisition of wealth would remain incomprehensible. Factually the
insertion includes sections 32 - 61. In its intersection [with the preceding passage] Josephus
formulates the phrase τοὺς ἐν Τιβεριάδι (31), while section 62 is to establish the connection
[with the following text]. Hence an allusion to the envoys had to be placed here, which
formally fulfilled a connective function, even though it is factually awkward — Josephus had
not even given an account of the envoys.
22 Josephus and Justus von Tiberias, page 45 f.
44