On the way to this generic definition, Jordan makes some particular
observations that bear on Contra Apionem.He notes that the address to an
individual, such as Aristotle’s Protrepticusfor Themison the King of Cyprus,
“gives the treatise that concrete urgency appropriate to protreptic” (Jordan
1986, 321). And Jordan shows the importance of synkrisis(polemical con-
trast) in repudiating all claims to knowledge other than those being advo-
cated by the author (1986, 321).
Aune puts it this way: “The central function of logoi protreptikoi,within
a philosophical context, was to encourage conversion....However, logoi pro-
treptikoialso characteristically included a strong element of dissuasion
(apotrepein) or censure (elenchein) aimed at freeing the person from erroneous
beliefs and practices” (1991, 280). After noting that the genre could take
either discursive or dialogical forms, Aune quotes a fragment of Philo of
Larissa (Stobaeus, Flor.2.7.2) to the effect that all protreptic consists of
two parts: demonstration of the value of philosophy and refutation of its
detractors. At least in the abstract, then, Contra Apionemseems to corre-
spond well to the thrust of the logos protreptikos.A brief consideration of
protreptikoifrom the century following Josephus’s floruit will clarify the
issue.
Examples of logos protreptikos It is noteworthy that the largest num-
ber of surviving examples comes from Christian apologists in the mid-sec-
ond century CEand beyond, i.e., from the time at which Christianity
consciously began to present itself to the world as a philosophical school.
But if Christian authors seized upon this genre for attracting converts, once
they had begun to think of Christianity as a philosophy, then one must
ask whether Judean writers who had long before conceived of Judaism as
a philosophy did not also employ the form. Aune mentions several Hel-
lenistic-Roman and Christian examples of the genre, but does not discuss
them in detail. We shall consider three of the clearest cases: Lucian’s Wis-
dom of Nigrinus,the so-called Epistle to Diognetus,and Clement of Alexandria’s
self-styled Exhortation (Protrepticus) to the Greeks.
Although Lucian frames Nigrinusas a dialogue at the beginning and the
end, the bulk of this writing is given to the speech of Character B (as A.M.
Harmon in the Loeb edition helpfully labels him). Character B has just
returned from Rome, where he met the Platonist philosopher Nigrinus,
otherwise unknown. The encounter has suddenly changed the life of Char-
acter B, transforming him into a happy and blissful man (eudaimon te kai
makarion). Recall Josephus’s promise of eudaimoniato those who would
embrace the Judean laws. Then, Character B says: “Don’t you think it won-
derful, by Zeus, that instead of being a slave, I am free; instead of being poor,
TheContra Apionemin Social and Literary Context 169