here are not meant to be controversial, I discuss only what seems to me to
be the most telling evidence.
Literary Evidence The fullest extant portrayal of Judeans by a Roman
author is that of Tacitus, who attempts to describe the Judean character in
order to create a context for his account of the revolt in 66–73 CE(Hist.
5.1–13). That Tacitus is familiar with many traditions about the Judeans is
clear, both because he says so and because his account intersects with var-
ious remarks made in other authors. Tacitus thus provides something of a
compendium of contemporary literary perspectives on the Judeans.
The dominant theme here, in keeping with Tacitus’s purpose, is Judean
misanthropy: they oppose the rest of humanity in their values. It is strik-
ing, however, that the first item mentioned by Tacitus in his proof of Judean
depravity is the fact that “the worst rascals among other peoples, renounc-
ing their ancestral traditions, always kept sending tribute and contributions
to Jerusalem.” Tacitus continues: “those who are converted (transgressi) to
their ways follow the same practice [circumcision], and the earliest lesson
they receive is to despise the gods, to disown their country, and to regard
their parents, children, and brothers as of little account” (Hist.5.5). Clearly,
Tacitus did not invent the phenomenon of conversion to Judaism; he can
only try to explain it away as the actions of the worst people (pessimi—
presumably, the lower classes).
The perception by Tacitus that the Judeans invite life-changing conver-
sion is confirmed by other Roman authors. It is remarkable, since these
others have so very little to say about Judeans, that conversion should fig-
ure so largely in what they do say. For Epictetus (ca. 100 CE), according to
Arrian’s notes, it was already proverbial that, “Whenever we observe some-
one caught in two directions, we are in the habit of saying (eiothamen leg-
ein), ‘He is not a Judean, but only plays the part’ (hypokrinetai). But when
he takes upon himself the attitude of the one who has been immersed and
made his choice (haireomai), then he really is, and is called, a Judean”
(Diatr.2.9.20). This is the only place in which Epictetus singles out Judeans
for special mention (though twice he mentions their food laws alongside
those of other nations [Diatr.1.11.12–13; 1.22.4] by way of illustration).
Interest in and conversion to Judean culture are common enough that
Epictetus can cite a proverbial saying in support of his point about being a
true philosopher.
We get the same impression from another contemporary, Juvenal, who
satirically illustrates the potentially corrupting example of a parent with the
example of a Judean sympathizer whose son goes as far as conversion by
“putting aside his foreskin.” Juvenal (Sat.5.14.96–106) assumes, as do
TheContra Apionemin Social and Literary Context 141