The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation
The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation
The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
We also understand, however, that <strong>Josephus</strong> did not save his work by such means. <strong>The</strong><br />
Greek grammarians, one of whom — Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Comp. 4) — counted Polybius<br />
among unbearable authors, had to give preference at all times to the skilful belletrist and<br />
formalist Justus, even should they have been as convinced of <strong>Josephus</strong>’ objectivity and love of<br />
truth as we are — not. Thus <strong>Josephus</strong> never could release the new presentation of the war<br />
together with the continuation into the present as he had envisaged in 93/94. Justus’<br />
competition had beaten him.<br />
[36] For our subsequent investigation, however, we shall bear in mind that in the year<br />
93 <strong>Josephus</strong> retained the thought of publishing his war history in a modified form. Had he<br />
perhaps drafted some preparatory work for this in the years 93 – 100?<br />
3. Justus in <strong>Josephus</strong>’ self-portrayal<br />
One error tends to induce more. If, as a start, <strong>Josephus</strong>’ battle against Justus is<br />
transferred to the political arena, then it was inevitably associated with the observation,<br />
unavoidable to any reader, that the bulk of the Life is a writing of political defence. Hence the<br />
conclusion: outside the insertion as well, i.e. even where he does not name him, <strong>Josephus</strong> turns<br />
against Justus, and the entire self-portrayal is nothing but a reply to Justus’ political attacks.<br />
<strong>The</strong> conclusion collapses with the supposition: should one encounter in Justus the literarybookselling<br />
competitor, whose writing provoked <strong>Josephus</strong>’ train of thought now familiar to us,<br />
and should the remainder of the self-portrayal be pursuing the goal of political defence above<br />
all, then the two have nothing to do with each other, and the παρέκβασις, which the author<br />
himself senses as disruptive (367), is that which its name already proclaims, [namely] an<br />
insertion that does not belong to the surrounding [text and] that has some other purpose. We<br />
may entertain even fewer doubts about this since the same attacks against Justus can also be<br />
detected in the writing against Apion and it is out of the question here that the contents of the<br />
writing had been influenced by the combat against Justus. If conversely, the combat against<br />
Justus is designated as παρέκβασις also in the writing against Apion (57), then we may<br />
conclude from the parallel designations that the insertions have the same character: they have<br />
nothing to do with the theme that is actually under discussion [within those writings].<br />
35