The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

Ἰοῦστος καὶ ... συνέπειθεν and the same applies there to αὐτοὺς after the sentence μάλιστα
.......τῷ Ἰωάννῃ is removed. Above all, however, even here Justus plays no role whatsoever in
the continuing course of events; what occurred here was a retroactive grafting of names. But
just like these cases recognized by Luther, [the same] stands for the parenthetical ἐληλύθει δὲ
σὺν αὐτοῖς καὶ Ἰοῦστος (65), which is once again totally left in the air. Not even by a single
word is anything at all mentioned about Justus afterwards. Luther perhaps did not come to this
realization only because the connection of this group of words to section 36 ff. must have
prevented him from doing so. To be sure, not only these two passages but all those that deal
with Justus belong together. But after seeing that even 32 - 62 is secondary, the factor which
stood in Luther’s way not only applies no longer, but conversely it also becomes evidence for
the later addition in section 65.
This same parenthesis is inserted almost verbatim in section 175: ἦν δὲ σὺν αὐτοῖς
Ἰοῦστος καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ Πιστός, and assessment of it must naturally be exactly like that of
the phrase in section 65. How peculiar are things here after all! [48] While Josephus
understandably virtually never adopts parentheses for the introduction of people and actions
elsewhere 23 , this form is implemented consistently in all four passages where Justus is
mentioned in few words. This cannot be a coincidence, rather it is only a gratifying
confirmation for our conclusion, already established, that all the Justus passages have been
subsequently inserted.
23 It must be said about Josephus’ use of parenthesis that this means of expression, which
generally betrays a poor style, is to be encountered rather frequently [in his works]. By far the
most prevalent application is used for the purpose of justification, be it an objective
[justification on the part] of the author (e.g. the type in 11.107: τοσαῦται γάρ εἰσιν αἱ... φυλαὶ),
be it a subjective [justification] in terms of one of the people under discussion (e.g. the type in
11.253: φιλεῖσθαι γὰρ ἑαυτὸν). The second case, which is already much less common, occurs
with the more precise definition of the appearance of a person or a matter, that is mentioned
in the actual sentence, but the author presumes that the reader does not know them or does
not expect them in this passage. The link is then provided with δὲ (e.g. the type in 11.235 οὗτος
δ’ἦν ἐκ ποικίλης μὲν ἐσθῆτος), and a demonstrative pronoun then most often establishes the
connection (cf. 11.1; 12.171; 303; 13.144; 228; 270 etc.); thus, substitution for a relative clause.
Lastly, in order to identify, [elsewhere] in Josephus, a formation such as that regularly found in
the passages discussed above concerning Justus — i.e. the mention of a new matter or person
within the framework of parentheses — I was obliged to read through four books of the
Antiquities before I found the longed-for parallel in 14.328 (συνῆν δ’ αὐτοῖς καὶ Ὑρκανός)! It is
seen that Josephus is obliged to work with stylistic makeshifts in the later insertions of Justus.
45