The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

the same fate as the other segments about Philip and Justus that we have dealt with: they are
to be eliminated from the original context.
We may be brief about the remaining segments dealing with Justus and Philip
respectively since, with one exception, they are generally passages such that it would be
downright possible to weed them out— [although] we could, in principle, accept them within
their surrounding [text] — because they are inserted quite loosely. Apart from the long
insertion 336 - 367, this applies to 390 - 393 which deals with Justus, as well as 114 which
belongs with the passages about Philip and Gamala. By comparison, matters lie differently in
407 - 410 [50] where for the third time we encounter the peculiarity that the parts about
Justus and Philip, exist in conjunction [although] they do not at all belong together; here it is
impossible to eliminate [the passage] from the surrounding [text]; for it is only through it that
we learn of Vespasian’s arrival, information which is indispensable for the continuing course
of the entire narrative.
But the passages that name Justus personally are not the only ones in which [his
existence] is presumed in the self-description. In chapter I we already established that our Life
is announced in Ant. 20.266; however section 266 represents the conclusion of a longer
exposition beginning in 262: nobody else has the same factual knowledge at his disposal as
Josephus has. His fellow citizens testify that nobody knows the law and its interpretation as he
does. But this is important only for the Jews; of course Josephus must admit that his knowledge
of Greek is sketchy, and that despite all effort he was not successful in completely mastering
Greek. From this angle, the statement that no one could have written this work as he did
requires a qualification; but — he adds disdainfully — even slaves learn to speak foreign
languages fluently; for him only knowledge about the Holy Scripture has value. That he,
however, holds [such knowledge – ] it is to prove this that he wishes to describe his life while
there are still people living who can testify to its truth or who may wish to dispute it (266). The
logical continuation of these thoughts is provided in the introductory pieces of the Life. Here
Josephus describes his priestly lineage, in order to prove thereby the tradition in which he was
raised. But just as we see from Ant. 20.266 that another agenda was in effect here, so the
overview of his family concludes with the significant words: τὴν μὲν τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν
διαδοχὴν, ὡς ἐν ταῖς δημοσίαις δέλτοις ἀναγεγραμμένην εὗρον, οὕτως παρατίθεμαι τοῖς
διαβάλλειν ἡμᾶς πειρωμένοις χαίρειν φράσας (6). To family tradition must be added one’s own
47