Romans and Jews 431the war (Gruen 2002: 41–52). Romans did not ascribe the revolt itself to Jewish character
traits, disposition, or makeup. Josephus put into the mouth of Titus, the conqueror of
Jerusalem, sentiments that have a convincingly Roman resonance to them. Titus stressed
his nation’s generosity to the Jews, the long-standing permission to follow their ancestral
laws and customs, the policies that allowed them to enjoy privileges and prosperity—only
to have the Jews turn on their own benefactors (BJ, 6.333–336). There is no racial
bigotry here. In Roman eyes, the Jews were guilty of ingratitude.
Conversion and Manumission
The irrelevance of ethnicity emerges quite clearly in two revealing institutions, one on
each side. They are rarely noted in this connection, but critical to an understanding of it:
the “conversion” of gentiles to Judaism, and the manumission of foreign slaves (including
Jews) by the Romans, which gave them immediate access to Roman citizenship.
Conversion itself is a concept fraught with complexity. We possess no formula from
antiquity to indicate how one became a Jew, what that meant, or in what ways the life
of a convert was changed. Although a variety of texts attest to conversion, specifics are
largely absent. It is unlikely, at least before the rabbinic period, that a fixed procedure
existed, that particular requirements were in place for all converts, or that uniform expec-
tations held for everyone who entered the fold. Circumcision was often reckoned as an
especially distinctive characteristic, yet the ancients were aware that peoples other than
Jews also followed that practice (Philo,QG, 3.48). Nor did it constitute an obligatory
ritual for admission, certainly not for everyone. In Philo’s view, proselytes could forgo
physical circumcision; they needed only to circumcise their desires, pleasures, and other
passions (Philo,QE, 2.2). Aseneth’s transfer of allegiance to the faith of Joseph in the
Jewish novellaJoseph and Asenethrequired little more than repentance and the smash-
ing of all her idols—of course, circumcision was not an option for her (Jos. As. 9–10;
Chesnutt 1995: 153–84). Certainly, the idea that gentile entrance into “Judaism” in
some form meant the full embrace of a theology, a “religion,” a belief system, or even a
pre-determined way of life is far too simple. The Jewish openness to conversion, however
defined, constitutes the main point.
Biblical texts supply precedents for the intermingling of Jews and gentiles in marriage
(Gen. 16:1–3, 25:1, 38, 41:45; Exod. 12:37–38, 2:16–22; Num. 11:4, 12:1–8; Deut.
29:10–11; Ruth, 4:12–22; I Chron. 2:4–15). If such unions were welcome, conversion
was doubly so. For Philo, writing in the first centuryCE, the process goes back to the laws
of Moses and signifies that the proselyte abandon his gods, country, customs, and kinfolk
to adopt the worship of the Jewish god (Virt. 20.102–103). It does not follow that all
proselytes went so far as to shed all earlier allegiances and devote themselves to Yahweh.
A wide variety of ways existed for exhibiting one’s entrance into or engagement with the
Jewish community. The Roman historian Dio Cassius even asserted that those of alien
race who emulate the customs of the Jews can count asIoudaioi(Dio, 37.16.4–17.1).
Claims that Jewish ways were embraced by people scattered across the Mediterranean
and beyond evoked great pride. Philo boasted that the laws of Moses inspired admiration
and attracted followers all over the world (Mos. 2.17–27). Josephus goes further still to