English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper addresses the issue of the historicity of another, older son of P. Quinctilius Varus who is attested in Joseph. AJ 17.288, but not in the parallel version at BJ 2.68. Modern scholarship, as evidenced by Ladislav Vidman (1998) and Klaus Wachtel (1999), finds itself at a loss as to which opinion, that of Walther John (1958) or of Meyer Reinhold (1972), to support. Whereas John rejects the evidence for an older son of Varus in AJ and proposes L. Nonius Asprenas (cos. suff. 6 CE) instead, Reinhold tersely rebuts John, supporting the validity of the text. This article examines the textual and prosopographical bases upon which scholars have built their cases for and against the existence of an older son of Varus. In the process, it is shown that there is greater reason to take the evidence for another son of Varus at face value than to follow John’s problematic argument, and further, that Reinhold’s article left unexamined significant details upon which his argument needed to be built.

The Case for Another Son of P. Quinctilius Varus: a re-examination of the textual and scholarly traditions around Joseph. BJ 2.68 and AJ 17.288