Body of Contra Apionem
Josephus introduces his positive appeal into his so-called “digression”
(C.Ap. 1.57), which anticipates some important features of the later argu-
ment, when Josephus asserts that (i) Oriental historians in general have
older and more trustworthy historical records than the Greeks; and (ii)
among Orientals, the Judeans have excelled in record-keeping (1.29). The
Judean records have long been completed, whereas the Greek records are
late and contradictory. Since “old is good” in the Roman world (Feldman
1993a, 177–78), this proof of antiquity amounts to high praise. Moreover,
the Judean laws, unlike those of other nations, demonstrably enable their
advocates to hold death in contempt (1.43), which was a critical test of
authenticity for ancient philosophy (MacMullen and Lane 1992, 63–69).
Josephus’s proof of Judean antiquity (C.Ap. 1.60–218) is also a vehicle
for his positive claims about Judaism. For example, when Josephus claims
that Judeans have seldom been mentioned in the literature of other peo-
ple because they are not a maritime nation but have traditionally devoted
themselves to quiet agriculture (1.60–64), he is—in addition to making a
rational explanation—evoking the old Roman bucolic ideal. Greek law-
givers and philosophers, he says, have long admired and imitated aspects
of Judean culture: “Not only did the Greeks know the Judeans, but they
admired any of their number whom they happened to meet” (1.175). So the
venerable Pythagoras incorporated Judean principles into his philosophy
(1.162, 165); Aristotle was deeply impressed by, and learned from, a Judean
whom he met (1.176–182); and Hecataeus of Abdera wrote an entire book
about the Judeans in which he admired their resolve to observe their laws
in the face of opposition, their imageless worship, their freedom from
superstition, and the fertility of both their people and their land (1.191–204).
Even in the most obviously defensive section of the work—his refuta-
tion of anti-Judean slanders (C.Ap. 1.219–2.144)—Josephus assumes a posi-
tion of superiority. First, he isolates the source of the slanders as Egypt, and
then argues that Egyptian hatred of the Judeans stems from envy, since the
Judeans formerly ruled that country (1.222–224). He sarcastically cites the
difference between Egyptian and Judean religion, which is as great as the
difference between irrational beasts and the real nature of God. He contin-
ues: “These frivolous and utterly senseless specimens of humanity, accus-
tomed from the first to erroneous ideas about the Gods [i.e., regarding
animals as Gods], were incapable of imitating the solemnity of our theol-
ogy, and the sight of our numerous admirers filled them with envy” (1.225).
In effect, then, Josephus dismisses all the slanders heard in Rome in his day
as derived from envious and spiteful Egyptians. Cohen’s point (1988, 4–9)
TheContra Apionemin Social and Literary Context 161