Judaism became a capital offence, though rescinded by Nerva, became law
again with Hadrian’s general prohibition of circumcision. If, as many think,
Hadrian did not mean to proscribe Judaism per se, but only conversion, then
his successor Antoninus Pius got it right when he prohibited the circum-
cision of non-Judeans. Proselytism evidently continued to merit legisla-
tion, however, for Septimius Severus imposed severe penalties on converts
(Script. Hist. Aug.,Sept. Sev. 17.1). A century later, the jurist Paul prescribed
the death penalty for those who circumcised non-Judeans, and exile for
those who converted (Sent.5.22.3–4). These prohibitions, as is well known,
became a standard part of later Christian legislation. Whereas the central
government was generally tolerant of foreign traditions, and may even
have been conspicuously benevolent toward Judean communities around
the empire, proselytism in Rome was evidently an ongoing problem for it.
In the face of such diverse evidence, the only reasonable hypothesis
seems to be that Gentile attraction and also full conversion to Judaism
were easily observable phenomena during Josephus’s residency in Rome at
the end of the first century CE. Since that much is admitted not only by
scholars who have accepted the notion of a Jewish mission but also by
those who seem to have little at stake in the issue (Smallwood 1981, 201–16;
Leon 1960, 250–56) and even by some who deny a Jewish mission—Scot
McKnight curiously suggests that the Roman situation was exceptional
(1991, 74)—we may leave the issue as provisionally settled. Cohen (1993,
26–27) holds that the evidence for conversion to Judaism in Rome is “abun-
dant and unequivocal.” Although some of the evidence is post-Hadrian,
there seem to be clear lines of continuity. Attraction and conversion to
Judaism were readily observable in postwar Rome.
Aversion
There was, of course, another side. Not everyone in the world capital of
that time was eager to convert. Roman literati tended to disparage Judean
culture, partly because they disparaged all foreign cultures in Rome and
partly because Judeans had exclusivist traits that smacked of misanthropy.
Egyptian accounts of Judean origins appear to have had some influence in
Rome, perhaps through the activities of Apion and other resident Alexan-
drians. These slanders have now been thoroughly documented, and we
need not reproduce the evidence. Our interest is in the particular postwar
situation in which Josephus found himself: Was the image of Judean cul-
ture in Rome affected by the revolt?
We do not have much direct literary evidence, but we can piece together
some clues. First, the highly visible postwar celebrations must have had an
impact on Roman observers: after Vespasian’s glorious return from his
TheContra Apionemin Social and Literary Context 145