to imitate our harmony (homonoia) with one another, distribution of
goods....The most marvellous thing is that it is without the alluring
bait of sensual pleasure, but only because of its intrinsic merit, that the
Law has proven so effective; and, just as God permeates the universe,
so the Law has found its way among all humanity. Each person who con-
siders his own country and his own household will not disbelieve what
I am saying. (C.Ap. 2.282–284)If we leave aside the historical (im)plausibility of this oft-cited passage and
ask only about its force within the text, we see that Josephus has pulled
together a variety of particular conditions to serve his general point concern-
ing the global influence (and therefore the vitality) of Judean culture. In
good rhetorical fashion, he employs all available means of persuasion, from
alleged imitation of Judean harmony and charity (impossible to prove), to
borrowing of the weekly rest-day custom (which may indeed have been
growing in his day), as well as the specific adoption of Judean fasts, food
laws, and Sabbath rituals, which could be expected only of God-fearers
and proselytes. Leaving aside his more far-fetched claims of imitation, we
may still find here understandable cause for celebration on Josephus’s part
(cf. his earlier enthusiasm about Daniel) in the wide spectrum of attraction
to Judean ways. These same phenomena are cause for complaint by Seneca,
Juvenal, and Tacitus. Although Josephus here acknowledges, for rhetorical
purposes, many levels of imitation, his consistent position in Antiquitates
judaicaeandContra Apionemis to prefer full conversion.
This rousing celebration of Judean culture forms the extended perora-
tion of Contra Apionem.As in Antiquitates judaicae,this has the effect of sub-
ordinating the defensive material to a positive appeal. A brief epilogue in the
proper sense (C.Ap. 2.287–296) reprises both the denunciative and persua-
sive positions of the tract. Josephus reiterates that Judean laws represent
the very highest of human aspiration; they cannot be surpassed; and Judeans
deserve credit for first introducing these beautiful ideas to humanity.
What response should all of this provoke in the friendly (interested)
Gentile reader? Should the reader respond: “Well, I’m glad to hear that
you Judeans are not as guilty and depraved as I might have thought on the
basis of what I had heard from your detractors”? No! This is not primarily
an exercise in forensic rhetoric, debating the truth about the past, but it hov-
ers between the epideictic (confirming shared ideals) and deliberative
(requiring further action) species. The proper response to Josephus’s appeal,
I suggest, would be to explore Judean culture more intensively and to con-
sider choosing its biosas one’s own, accepting Josephus’s invitation to
share its laws completely.