Incidentally, it is a mistake to see Josephus’s notice that the Phar-
isees are lenient in punishment (A.J.13.294) as some kind of commenda-
tion. Leniency in applying laws was no more popular in his day than it is
in ours. In Josephus’s view, the inexorable severity of the Law toward
wrongdoers, and its serviceability as an instrument of public order, were
an important part of its great appeal (cf. A.J.1.14, 20, 22, 23; C.Ap.2.178,
187, 194); he assumed that his readers would agree, because they per-
ceived their age as a time of rampant lawlessness (see especially C.Ap.
2.276–278).
It is most interesting for our purpose that, in such a brief survey of the
laws, which deals only with those elements that would attract the reader,
Josephus should so conspicuously feature the treatment of aliens:
It is worth considering how the lawgiver gave attention to the fair treat-
ment of foreigners. It is obvious that he took the best possible precau-
tions so that we should neither corrupt our own customs nor jealously
keep them from those who elect to share them with us. For those who
wish to come and live under the same laws with us, he welcomes gen-
erously, holding that a community consists not in race alone but also in
the selection of a way of life. Nevertheless, he did not desire that those
who come by with only a minor interest should be involved in our spe-
cial way of life. (C.Ap.2.209–210)Several aspects of this passage merit comment. First, Josephus distin-
guishes between those who are merely interested in some part of Judean
culture (casual visitors) and those who, like Helena and Izates, come and
live under the laws. Arguably, Josephus is trying here to influence his read-
ers to move toward a full commitment. Second, there is a noteworthy coin-
cidence of language between this passage and the preface to Antiquitates
judaicae:just as the high priest Eleazar did not wish “jealously to hoard” the
Judean Law (A.J.1.11) and so led the translation of the Septuagint for
Gentiles, so also here Josephus’s Moses insists that Judeans not jealously
hoard their treasures. This coincidence of language underlines Josephus’s
consistency of purpose in both works. Third, the language has a philosoph-
ical tinge: to choose Judaism is to choose (proaireomai) a way of life (bios)
and not simply another national cult. It is therefore like conversion to phi-
losophy in Arthur Darby Nock’s analysis (1933).
InContra Apionem 2.220–286, Josephus turns again to a polemical con-
trast of the Judean constitution with other systems. The Judean Law is
superior to all others because it is more practical and, therefore, more prac-
tised than Plato’s laws; it inspires more commitment than Sparta’s famous
laws; Judeans have a famous willingness to die for their laws; and the