Gentile readers not to remain “casual visitors,” as he says, but to come and
live under Judean laws.
Second, I have argued that Contra Apionemhas the generic features of
philosophic protreptic: it exhorts an interested outsider to find happiness
in one option on the philosophical landscape through conversion to that way
of life (bios). It uses polemical contrast (synkrisis) to disqualify other options
under consideration, thus confirming the hearer’s preliminary direction. It
would be difficult to distinguish Contra Apionem,generically, from such an
undisputedlogos protreptikosas Clement’s Protrepticus.
We may now note Bilde’s independent suggestion that Contra Apionem
is “primarily a work of missionary literature” aimed at “those who were
interested in Judaism” (1988, 120). Although he has not, as far as I know,
developed this suggestion, the foregoing argument would support his claim.
Here is a text that was undeniably written by a prominent Judean for Gen-
tiles, it was very probably read by Gentiles, and it recommends conver-
sion. Whether Judaism was a missionary religion or not, Josephus tried to
be a Judean missionary in Rome.
I am aware that this reading of Contra Apionemsits uncomfortably with
common views regarding both Judean proselytism and Josephus’s own
character. The question of Judean proselytism we must leave with the
observation that, no matter how strange it may seem that people would
abandon their native traditions for a markedly different regimen of life, it
is difficult to explain in any other way the Roman evidence concerning
such a possibility. As for Josephus’s character, it is basically unknown,
since all we have are highly rhetorical writings from his hand. Whatever his
real character may have been, his literary legacy moves in a single direction:
from urgent refutation of postwar anti-Judaism (in Bellum judaicum) to
leisurely advocacy of Judean tradition (in Antiquitates judaicae) to forthright
appeal in Contra Apionem.Josephus was famous among Gentiles not as a trai-
tor to his country but as the Judean historian (Suetonius, Vesp.5.6.4; Dio,
Hist. Rom.65.1.4). Lacking any direct access to his mind, we may neverthe-
less be sure of at least two things that he really did believe: (a) the God of
the Judeans controlled and predicted all of world history, and (b) philosoph-
ically-minded pagans were now steadily moving toward the ethical
monotheism that Judean culture had always taught. If he believed these
two points alone, we may understand something of his eagerness to share
the benefits of his tradition with outsiders.
TheContra Apionemin Social and Literary Context 173