The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

suppose that they appear to be the most truth-loving of all when they recount the same things
(ταὐτὰ not ταῦτα) in a differing form.
In part, there is nothing further to these expositions other than the usual aversion to
rhetorical historiography: the rhetors wish only to display the art of their rhetoric and
therefore chose for themselves subject matter that appears conducive to this in that they
either deal with legends or compose [19] encomia or defamations. But in the second part, this
accurate and widespread train of thought takes a totally inappropriate turn. Encomia and
defamations correspond naturally to such discussed subject matter and accordingly both
statements τινὲς δὲ πρὸς χάριν ἢ τὰς πόλεις ἢ τοὺς βασιλέας ἐπαινοῦντες and ἄλλοι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ
κατηγορεῖν τῶν πράξεων stand correctly in parallel juxtaposition to each other. But the
sentence ἢ τῶν γεγραφότων ἐχώρησαν is tacked onto this last thought, which disrupts the
unity of the structure and, moreover, arouses the impression that there existed a work of
historiography whose purpose was not censure of the subject matter but rather censure of
other historians who had dealt with the same subject matter. Josephus once again fiercely
emphasizes that the goal of this group is only their own fame, in that they censure their
predecessors; and we remember that Josephus, in his combat against the unnamed opponent,
also viewed the very essence of Greek historiography as chasing after literary goals by
deprecating previous records. This issue, which so deeply disturbs the structure of 24 ff., is
what truly preoccupies Josephus and therefore only one conclusion remains: Josephus
assumed the general combat against unobjective historiography, but on his own account he
attached to this an attack against such historians who defamed their predecessors. At present,
the assumed general good has less importance for us than these very factors concerning
Josephus himself. Here we now see that he is attacking an author who disparages the other
historians, because he himself hopes to acquire renown in this way. But it was precisely for
this that Josephus reproached Justus; the latter had attacked him in order to achieve the prize
of φιλοπονία (Life 338; cf. page 10 ff.). He had believed, to apply now the words in Contra
Apionem 1.24 and 1.25, that he could thereby establish his fame. Therefore the words ὑπὲρ τοῦ
δοκεῖν φιλόπονος εἶναι ἐμοῦ μὲν κατέψευσται (Life 338) and ἄλλοι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ κατηγορεῖν ... τῶν
γεγραφότων ἐχώρησαν ἐνευδοκιμήσειν τούτῳ νομίζοντες (C. Ap. 1.25) are in fact directed to
the same addressee, Justus.
21