Josephus was much more important and well connected in Jerusalem than
Wa rhad volunteered. Scholars concluded that if the entireLiferesponds to
Justus, we are in a good position to figure out the historical truth: we not
only have Josephus’s preferred account(War),but we can reconstruct
Justus’s challenge by mirror-reading Josephus’s responses. Thus, if Josephus
claims to have rejected bribes and preserved every woman’s honor (Life80,
259), then Justus must have accused him on these accounts, and those
charges provide a window into Josephus’s historical career.
The fundamental problem with all this is that it ignores Josephus’s
own statements about his reasons for writing theLife.He introduces it at
the end of theAntiquitiesas an autobiographical appendix, motivated by
his desire to celebrate his credentials, including his ancestry, education,
and events of his life; after that he will conclude hisAntiquities(Ant.
20.262-67). Correspondingly, at the end of theLife(430) he declares that he
will indeed now close theAntiquities,having surveyed the events of his life
and offered material for assessing his character. TheLifewas clearly written
as an autobiographical addendum to the magnum opus, to which it is
joined in most surviving manuscripts, and it was understood by Eusebius
to be part of the larger work (Hist. Eccl.3.10.8-11). It did not need a sepa-
rate motive.
The main reason for writing “lives” in antiquity was rhetorical, to
demonstrate character with illustrative material. That is precisely what
Josephus claims to be doing, and he follows the prescribed categories for
such exercises, moving from illustrious ancestral pedigree (1–6) to prodi-
gious education (7–12), to remarkable achievements in public life, featur-
ing especially military exploits (13–412), to benefactions received from il-
lustrious friends and bestowed on the less powerful. This is the material
that constitutes hisLife;he focuses on the five months between his ap-
pointment to Galilee and the beginning of the siege because that is the
only period of his life from which he could illustrate his military-political
achievements.
A standard technique in ancient rhetoric for exposing one’s own good
character was the polemical contrast with some convenient wretched per-
son who behaved with despicable unworthiness. In theLifeJosephus uses
several such characters: Agrippa’s commander Varus, his own priestly col-
league, John of Gischala, the delegation sent from Jerusalem, and indeed
Justus of Tiberias. But Justus is not targeted until near the end of the work,
with a decisive turn to this new subject: “Having come this far in the nar-
rative, I want to go through a few points against Justus, the very one who292steve mason, james s. mclaren, and john m. g. barclayEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:09 PM