HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY

IN THE AGAINST APION OF JOSEPHUS

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

Throughout his writings Josephus plays the historical critic.' The Jewish War
opens with an attack against the Greek historians of the war of 66-70 CE: they
disregard the truth, base their narratives on little data or false data, vilify the
Jews, and magnify the Romans (Jewish War1.1-8).2Greek historians care more
for rhetoric than truth (Jewish War1.13-16). In the Jewish Antiquities Josephus
criticizes Polybius, "a good man," for ignoring the true explanation of the death
of Antiochus Epiphanes (Jewish Antiquities 12.358-359),' and criticizes Nicolas
of Damascus for being biased in favor of his patron Herod (Jewish Antiquities
16.183-187). In the Vita Josephus devotes a long digression to the malfeasance
of Justus of Tiberias as both politician and historian (Vita 336-367).4 These and
other passages show that Josephus practiced historical criticism in all his works,
but it is the Against Apion that contains his most detailed reflectionson the duties
and methods of the historian.
The Against Apion of Josephus, completed in the last decade of the first cen-
tury CE or in the first decade of the second, is a magnificent defense of Judaism
and Jewish history. In the first three quarters of the book Josephus attempts to
prove the antiquity of the Jews and the falsehood of various stories told about
them. In the last quarter of the book Josephus describes the beauty, harmony,
and perfection of the constitution established by Moses. The book is usually -
and rightly - regarded as "apologetic"; Josephus himself calls it an apologia
(2.147). In fact, it is the only extant representativeof ancient Jewish literature
that clearly and unambiguously was an apology for Judaism.5 But the Against
Apion is not just an apology; it is also an essay in historiography and historical
criticism, as an outline of the work will make clear.

1. A study of Josephus as historicalcritic is needed. Pere Villalba i Varneda,The Historical Method

of Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1986) collects much material but does not analyze it. In this essay I
am studying the method of the Against Apion; its purpose requires separate investigation.
2. See Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. (Jerusalem,
1974-1984), #200.
3. Polybius suggested that Epiphanes died because he wished to plunder the temple of the Persian
Artemis; according to Josephus he died because he plundered the temple of Jerusalem.
4. Shaye J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden, 1979), 114-120.
5. Whether Greco-Jewishliteratureas a whole was apologetic or not, and whether it was intended
primarily for a gentile audience or a Jewish one, is the subject of scholarly debate. Modern discus-
sion of the question begins with Victor Tcherikover,"Jewish Apologetic LiteratureReconsidered,"
Eos 48 (1956), 169-193.
2 SHAYE J. D. COHEN

After a brief introduction (1.1-5) setting out the purpose of the book, the
Against Apion attacks Greek historiography (1.6-27). Since the early Greek
historians do not mention the Jews, some people have deduced that the Jews
are a recent people. This deduction is false, says Josephus, because the Greeks
themselves are a recent race and have no regard for historical truth, as is proven
by their notorious habit of contradicting one another, their failure to preserve
records and documents, and their preference for rhetorical display rather than
accuratereportage.In contrast, Josephus continues, oriental peoples (Egyptians,
Babylonians, Phoenicians, and Jews) preserve their records accurately and are
devoted to the historical truth. The historical reliability of the Jewish scriptures
is proven by their prophetic authorship, their unanimity, and the loyalty they
inspire(1.28-46). This argumentleads to a defense of Josephus'Jewish War,which
has been the object of malicious attacks by Greek historians who had no access
to the truth and who are writing for vainglorious display (1.47-56).
Following this digression, Josephus begins again with another introduction
settingout the purpose of the book (1.57-59).He explainswhy the Greekhistorians
do not mention the Jews (1.57-68) and quotes oriental authorities who do men-
tion them: Manetho the Egyptian; Tyrian records and the historians who use
them, Dius and Menander;and Berosus the Babylonian (1.69-160).Josephus even
manages to quote some Greek writers who refer to the Jews and thereby prove
the Jews' antiquity: Hermippus' biography of Pythagoras; Theophrastus;
Herociotus;Choerilus; Aristotle (as quoted by Clearchus);Hecataeus of Abdera;
and Agatharchides (1.161-218).Josephus then refutes a series of Egyptian writers
(Manetho, Chaeremon, Lysimachus, and Apion) who give different versions of
an anti-Jewish exodus story in which the Egyptians are righteous and the Jews
are despicable (1.219-2.32). Next he disposes of the charges that Apion brings
against the Jews of Alexandria (2.33-78) and the charges that Apion and his
sources (Posidonius, Apollonius Molon, Mnaseas, and others) bring against the
temple of Jerusalem and Jewish life in general (2.79-144). At last comes the
panegyric upon the Jewish constitution and a comparison between the perfect
constitution of the Jews and the imperfect constitutions of the Greeks (2.145-
296).
The clarity of the structurecannot mask some lack of clarity in the argument.
Josephus says he will prove the antiquity of the Jews on the basis of the tes-
timony of those writers "judged by the Greeks to be the most trustworthy con-
cerning all matters of antiquity" (1.4), but the bulk of his evidence is drawn from
oriental "barbarians" whose testimony Greek historians routinely ignored.6
Josephus attacks the reliability of Greek historiography, but all of the writers
whose works are criticized at length are Egyptian, not Greek, and this in spite
of the fact that earlierin the work Josephus praisesthe accuracyof oriental writers
in general and Egyptian writersin particular.7The testimony of the Greek writers

6. See below, fn. 28.

7. For this reason Josephus is forced to say (1.228 and 287) that Manetho's history was accurate
only in those places where the author followed the Egyptian sacred books and records.
 THE AGAINST APION OF JOSEPHUS 3
adduced to prove the antiquity of the Jews is especially ineffective, because even
Apion, whose chronology for Moses is later than that of all the other writers
quoted by Josephus (Apion assigns Moses to the period of the seventh Olym-
piad, what we call the eighth century BCE)8 - even Apion would freely admit
that the Jewish nation had been formed by the time of the Greek sources quoted
by Josephus (sixth-third centuries BCE). In other words, Josephus' chronolog-
ical argument proves nothing. These inconcinnities imply either that Josephus
was a sloppy thinker, or that he failed to homogenize his sources, or that he re-
vised the Against Apion several times and did not notice the roughness of the
final product, or that he knowingly used some less-than-perfect arguments in
his defense of what he took to be the truth.9 In any case these problems and
possibilities cannot be pursued here.

This summary outline of the Against Apion shows that the work is basically
an extended essay on historiography. Josephus explains in some detail how his-
tory should and should not be written, and attempts to prove that certain ver-
sions of the past are truer than others. The book therefore closely resembles the
On the Malice of Herodotus by Josephus' contemporary Plutarch. In this rhe-
torical showpiece, Plutarch attempts to show that Herodotus was not a harmless
story-tellerbut an insidious propagandist on behalf of the Persians and against
the Greeks, especially non-Athenian Greeks. The Against Apion uses neither the
terminology nor the precise mode of argumentation of the On the Malice of
Herodotus,10but the parallel between the essays is clear nevertheless. In these
works Josephus and Plutarch attempt to show that some historians have inten-
tionally distorted the record through bias and fraud. Each critic proves his case
by "internal"evidence alone. Plutarch does not appeal to other historians or

8. See 2.17, and contrast 2.156 (with Thackeray's note) and 2.288.
9. There are other indications too that the work is composite. Molon is mentioned in 2.16 as if
he were one of Josephus' targets in book 1, but he is not. Rajak, 124-125 writes that "There is no
reason to suspect that Josephus has borrowedthese arguments from some literarysource."But Rajak
cannot imagine that Josephus was sloppy, inconsistent, or unequal to the task of combining diverse
sources; see my remarks in Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986), 350-352. Contrast the recent
work of Seth Schwartz, who argues that the Against Apion is a Josephan paraphraseof severalAlex-
andrian Jewish sources;see his Josephus and Judaismfrom 70 to 100 CE (PhD dissertation,Columbia
University).
10. For example, the term kakoetheia (malice), which appears throughout Plutarch's essay, ap-
pears only once in the AgainstApion (1.222). Josephus prefersother terminology to designate preju-
dice and mendacity (phthonos, loidorein, blasphemia, dusmeneia). Plutarch catalogues seven ways
in which a historian, in this case Herodotus, evinces malice (De Herodoti Malignitate2-9 = Moralia
855B-856D): 1. A historian might use harsher terms than necessary when criticizing his subject; 2.
A historian might include irrelevant information that discredits or otherwise casts a bad light on
his subject; 3. A historian might omit relevant favorable material; 4. A historian, when confronted
by differing versions of the same incident, might deliberately choose the one that discredits his sub-
ject; 5. A historian might invent a malicious explanation for an admirable or justifiable action; 6.
A historian might attribute the success of his subject to some unworthy cause rather than the sub-
ject's own virtue; 7. A historian might narrate slanderous material but temper his attack with faint
praise or insincere denials of the credibility of the slander. Of the seven manners of evincing malice,
Josephus ignores all but number 4, perhaps because the anti-Jewish animus of the texts discussed
by Josephus was much more evident than the anti-Greek animus of the text discussed by Plutarch.
4 SHAYE J. D. COHEN

epigraphical evidence to disprove Herodotus; rather, he relies on a close reading

of Herodotus' histories to reveal the author's malice. Similarly, Josephus, once
past the sweeping assertions about the historical reliability of the Jewish scrip-
tures, disproves the accounts of Manetho, Chaeremon, and the rest, by demon-
stratingtheir internal inconsistencies and implausibilities. These authors are con-
futed "throughthemselves,"that is, by their own words (Against Apion 1.4, 219,
and 226).
The parallel between the On the Malice of Herodotus and the Against Apion
does not imply that the one was somehow modeled on, or inspired by, the other.
Both books are workingwithin the traditionof Greekhistoricalcriticism.Josephus
himself makes this point about the Against Apion (1.219-222):
I havestill ... to exposethe fictitiousnatureof the accusationsand aspersionscast by
certain persons upon our nation.... That many other [nations] have, through the ani-
mosityof individuals,met with the same fate is a fact of which, I imagine,all habitual
readersof historyare aware.Variousauthorshaveattemptedto sully the reputationof
nationsand of the most illustriouscities,and to reviletheirformsof government.The-
opompusattackedAthens,PolycratesSparta;the authorof the Tripoliticus... included
Thebes in his strictures;Timaeus in his histories freely abused these and other states be-
sides. These critics are most virulent in their attacks upon persons of the highest celebrity.
Theopompus attacked Athens, Polycrates attacked Sparta, Apion and company
attacked the Jews. The AgainstApion is not (or, perhaps better, is not only) a
response to "anti-Semitism"or "anti-Judaism,"but a salvo in a battle of books
in which one historian criticizes and corrects the work of his fellows.
Josephus did not learn historical criticism from Jewish sources. The historians
of the Hebrew Bible collected their information from diverse sources, but never
reveal the criteria by which they determine the reliability of their sources. They
do not even reveal any awarenessthat historians must evaluate their sources and
arbitrate between them in cases of disagreement. The biblical historians never
criticize one another. The author of the Torahcombines the sometimes contradic-
tory narrativesof "P" and "J"without ever alerting the reader to the composite
nature of the final product. First Samuel is filled with doublets, but the author
neverexplains why he included alternativeversions of the same events. Chronicles
rewritesKings, but never explains why the original narrativewas unsatisfactory
or by what authority he rewrote it. The historians of the Hebrew Bible never
step forward from behind the curtain to address their audience. They never write
prefaces, never speak about themselves, and always write anonymously. The bib-
lical historians conceive of history not as interpretation but as testimony, and
see the historian not as an artist creating a picture but as a witness describing
events whose reality is independent of that of the witness himself. In this con-
ception the identity of the historian is irrelevant."
The Greek conception of history is precisely the opposite. Historians interpret
their data and, through their labor and dedication to truth, create a work of art
 THE AGAINST APION OF JOSEPHUS 5
and a monument for the future. Historians write prefaces, talk about themselves,
give their names, and, in general, reveal a self-consciousness completely missing
from the biblical historians. They criticize each other and point out each other's
errors. The Against Apion's denunciations of bias, ignorance, invention, sloppy
documentation, and rhetorical display cannot be paralleled in the Hebrew Bible
but are readily paralleled in Greek historiography, notably Polybius' criticism
of Timaeus and Duris.12The Against Apion may attack the reliability and in-
tegrity of Greek historiography,but it is from the Greeks that Josephus learned
the idea and techniques of historical criticism. Josephus attacks the Greeks with
their own weapons. 3

The basic argument against the Greeks and for the Jews is that the former are
characterizedby divisiveness and instability while the latter are characterizedby
concord and stability.Josephus develops the argumentby appeal to history,canon,
and community:the Jews observe unchanged the laws establishedby Moses, while
the Greeks disrespect their laws and are unable to abide by any constitution (an
argument from history); the historical books of the Jews are few in number and
uniform in content, while the Greeks have myriad books that contradict one an-
other at every turn (an argument from canon); the Jews are famous for their
concord and observe their laws everywhere in the same way, while the Greeks
are a diverse lot (an argument from community14).
These arguments appear most conspicuously in the beginning and end of the
Against Apion. Greek histories routinely contradict one another (1.15-18) be-
cause the Greeks fail to preserve documentary evidence (1.19-22) and because
Greek writers are motivated not by love of truth but by love of display and a
desire to upstage one another (1.23-27).
Those who rushedinto writingwereconcernednot so much to discoverthe truth ...
as to displaytheir literaryability;and theirchoice of a subjectwas determinedby the
prospect which it offered them of outshining their rivals.... In short, their invariable
methodis the veryreverseof historical.Forthe proof of historicalveracityis universal
agreementin thedescription... of thesameevents.Onthecontrary,eachof thesewriters,
in givinghis divergentaccountof the same incidents,hoped therebyto be thoughtthe
most veraciousof all.
Like the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Phoenicians (1.28), the Jews too have taken
great care of their records and documents (1.29-36).
It thereforenaturally,or rathernecessarily,follows(seeingthat with us it is not open to
everybodyto writethe records,andthatthereis no discrepancyin whatis written;seeing
12. KennethSacks, Polybius on the Writingof History (Berkeley,1981).On Josephus'use of histori-
ographical commonplaces, see Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 276, index s.v. "Josephus,
historiographical techniques, use of commonplaces and types."
13. As far as the extant fragments reveal, none of the earlier Greco-Jewish historians was an his-
torical critic. Demetrius, with his interest in biblical chronology, comes closest; see E. J. Bickerman,
"TheJewish Historian Demetrius,"Studies, II, 347-358. Josephus'contemporaryand arch-rivalJustus
of Tiberias criticized the Jewish War.That Josephus used Greek arguments against the Greeks is
demonstrated by Schaublin, "Josephus und die Griechen," passim.
14. For a discussion of the argument from community, see Rajak, 129-130.
6 SHAYE J. D. COHEN

that, on the contrary, the prophets alone had this privilege, obtaining their knowledge
of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to God,
and committing to writing a clear account of the events of their own time just as they
occurred)- it follows, I say,that we do not possess myriadsof inconsistentbooks, conflicting
with each other. (1.37-38).
The Greeks view their books as collections of stories invented by their authors,
but the Jews reveretheir books, not daring to change them, always abiding by
them, and even being ready to die for them (1.42-45).
It is the duty of a lawgiver to enact laws that will endure and it is the duty
of the masses to abide by the laws and not to change them (2.153). This maxim
was followed by the Jews, not the Greeks. The Mosaic legislation has endured
through the centuries without modification (2.169, 189,5 and 221). As a result
Jews are famous for their concord and harmony (2.283 and 294).
To this cause [the fact that Jews are learned in their laws] above all we owe our admirable
harmony.Unity and identity of religious belief, perfect uniformity in habits and customs,
produce a very beautiful concord in human character. Among us alone will be heard no
contradictorystatementsabout God, such as are common among other nations.... Among
us alone will be seen no difference in the conduct of our lives. With us all act alike, all
profess the same doctrine about God....

This, in fact, is the origin of the reproach brought against us by some critics of our having
produced no inventors in crafts or literature. In the eyes of the world at large there is
something fine in breaking away from all inherited customs; those who have the temerity
to defy them are credited with the possession of consummate ability. To us, on the other
hand, the only wisdom, the only virtue, consists in refraining absolutely from every ac-
tion, from every thought that is contrary to the laws originally laid down. (2.179-183)
Owing to their relentless quest for novelty, the Greeks are mendacious, discor-
dant, restive- and innovative.The Jews in contrast are trustworthy,harmonious,
and stable.
All of these pro-Jewishand anti-Greek arguments have Greek origins. The ar-
gument from history (the Jews preserve unchanged their original constitution)
resembles the claims advanced by some Greek states, and derives from Greek
speculationsabout the best form of constitution.16 Josephus is awareof the origins
of this argument: he compares Moses with the lawgivers of the Greeks (2.154,
161-163, and 223-224) and argues that the constitution of the Jews has endured
intact far longer than the constitution of the Spartans (2.225-235 and 273). The
argument from canon and the argument from community are variations on the
Greek argument from universal consensus. If all people believe something to be
true, it must be true; that which is accepted by a largernumber of people is better
than that which is accepted by a smaller number. This argument presumes that
the people as a whole is an arbiter of that which is good and true, and that agree-

15. The last phrase, translated by Thackeray "all our lives" and by Reinach "toute notre vie," is
better translated "through all time."
16. The best known such speculation is by Polybius in book 6 of his Histories. Josephus perhaps
knew this Polybian discussion; see Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius," History
and Theory 21 (1982), 366-381, at 368.
 THE AGAINST APION OF JOSEPHUS 7
ment proves truth."7(Cf. "forty million Frenchmen can't be wrong.") In the ar-
gument from canon Josephus uses consensus to provethe truth of Jewish histori-
ography (since all the Jewish books agree, they must be true). In the argument
from community Josephus uses consensus to prove the virtue of the Mosaic con-
stitution (since all Jews agree in religious matters, the Jewish constitution is su-
perior to all others). The arguments from canon and community, and yet other
versions of the argument from consensus, sometimes reinforced by an argument
from monotheism, are much used in later Judaism and Christianity."8
Since the Against Apion proves the virtue and superiority of the Torah on the
basis of societal consensus, it ignores the Torah'sown claim to be the revelation
of God. In the Jewish Antiquities Josephus describes the Sinaitic revelation and
accepts the biblical claim that God spoke with Moses and gave him rules and
laws. Josephus is aware that some people may not believe this story (he remarks
"Of these happenings each of my readers may think as he will"), but persists
in the telling nevertheless (Jewish Antiquities 3.79-92, 99-101). The Jewish con-
stitution was established by God himself through the agency of Moses (Jewish
Antiquities 4.193, 302, 319), a fact that even "our enemies" admit (Jewish Antiq-
uities 3.322). The Against Apion, however, omits any reference to the Sinaitic
revelation, and fails to assert outright that the laws are divine."9 The fact that
Moses wrote the Torah under the inspiration (epipnoia) of God (1.37, quoted
above) is invoked only in the context of defending Jewish historiography (the
argument from canon). The entire Tanak is seen as a book of history whose ve-
racity is guaranteed by its inspired authorship. But when Josephus turns to the
Mosaic legislation, his argument changes. Moses himself (2.160) and every Jew
(1.42 and 2.184) after him had no doubt that he wrote and spoke the word of
God (cf. 2.279), but in the Against Apion Josephus cannot assume that this
belief is true. Other legislators too attributed their laws to one of the gods
(2.161-163),2oand Josephus has to demonstrate that Moses' claims are stronger
than those of his fellow lawgivers. The demonstration is given by the argument
from history and the argument from community. The fidelity and endurance of

17. A detailed history of the argumentum e consensu omnium remains to be written. See Klaus
Oehler, "Der consensus omnium als Kriterion der Wahrheit in der antiken Philosophie und der
Patristik,"Antike undAbendland 10 (1961), 103-129, reprintedin his Antike Philosophie undByzan-
tinischeMittelalter(Munich, 1969),234-271; GerhardSauter, TheologischeRealenzyklopadie8 (1981),
182-189 (sN. consensus); L. Koep, Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum 3 (1957), 294-303 (s.v.
consensus).
18. See Shaye J. D. Cohen, "A Virgin Defiled: Some Rabbinic and Christian Views on the Origins
of Heresy," Union Seminary Quarterly Review 36 (1980), 1-11.
19. Rajak, 127 misses this point. The closest Josephus comes to affirmingthe divinity of the laws
is at 2.218.
20. "For among these [the legislators of the Greeks] some attributed their laws to Zeus, others
traced them to Apollo and his oracle at Delphi, either believing this to be the fact, or hoping in
this way to facilitate their acceptance" (2.162, as emended). Cf. Diodorus of Sicily 1.94.2 = Stern,
Authors, #58, "They [various legislators, including Moses] did it [attributedtheir laws to God] either
because they believed that a conception which would help humanity was marvellous and wholly
divine, or because they held that the common crowd would be more likely to obey the laws if their
gaze were directed towardsthe majesty and power of those to whom their laws were ascribed."Many
modern scholars identify Posidonius as Diodorus' source; see Stern's commentary.
8 SHAYE J. D. COHEN

the Jewish community prove that the Torahis divine. Since the laws of the Torah
are excellent, widely imitated, and uniformly observed, they must be perfect. Since
the Torah is perfect, therefore it must be divine. In the Jewish Antiquities, and,
of course, in later rabbinic and Christian piety, the syllogism would be reversed:
since the Torahis divine, thereforeit must be perfect.2"The Greek argument from
consensus has shaped the historical and theological argumentationof the Against
Apion.
Josephus adapts these Greekargumentsto an ahistoricalor anti-historicalview
of Judaism. After Moses laid down its laws, Judaism endured many vicissitudes
but has not changed. That which all Jews are doing now is that which all Jews
have always been doing. Judaism is unchanging and unchangeable, beyond the
forces of history. I do not know whether Josephus would have agreed to (or
understood!) this formulation of his position, but certainly those Greeks who
believed in the notion of progress and admired inventors and discovererswould
hardly have been convinced.22Even Josephus would not have been convinced
by his own position. In the Jewish Antiquities 16.176 he writes "For there is no
nation which always follows the same customs," an opinion that would have been
shared by many of his Greek readers.23
Least convincing of all would have been Josephus' argumentfrom canon. Many
historians, both ancient and modern, when confronted by a doubtful point, might
accept the opinion endorsed by the largest number of authorities, but no other
ancient historian, as far as I have been able to determine, argues, as Josephus
does, that disagreement among historians is invariably a sign of error and men-
dacity, and agreementis invariablya sign of truth and reliability.In fact, Josephus'
argument would have seemed absurd to a Greek reader.24Human knowledge is
advanced through argumentation and through trial and error. Philosophers and
historians disagree with one another not only because of jealousy and vanity
but also on genuine grounds. Debate allows the truth to emerge. Such is the Greek
conception - and ours.25Josephus, however,has returnedto the biblical concep-

21. In the City of God 18.40-41 Augustine presents his version of the argument from canon, but,
unlike Josephus, Augustine explicitly says that God speaks through the sacred books. Philo omits
the Sinaitic experience from his Life of Moses, perhaps because that essay was "apologetic," like
the Against Apion. Cf. 4 Maccabees 5.18. This subject requires further study.
22. On the admiration for discoverers see below fn. 30.
23. Of course, some Greek intellectuals did admire the antiquity of oriental civilizations (cf.
Herodotus, Plato) or the effectiveness of oriental education. Diodorus of Sicily 2.29.4-6 writes that
the oriental habit of "alwaysabiding by the same things" is superior to the Greek habit of speculating
and arguing about everything important.
24. "Absurd" is the verdict of both Rajak, 126 and Schaublin, 321.
25. Aristotle, Metaphysics 993a30-bl9. Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Thucydides 2-3, who
explains that his criticisms of Thucydides, the greatest of historians, is motivated not by malice or
contentiousness but by desire for the truth. See the annotated translation by W. Kendrick Pritchett,
Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Thucydides (Berkeley, 1975). Skeptics sometimes argued that the dis-
agreement among philosophers rendered the truth unknowable (see, for example, the Hermotimus
of Lucian);the disagreementdid not mean, however,that all the positions were false. Contrast Origen,
Against Celsus 2.12 (disagreement among philosophers does not prove that philosophical systems
are false) with Augustine City of God 18.40-41 (even if the disagreements are inspired by love of
truth, they show that philosophers cannot be trusted to teach the truth).
 THE AGAINST APION OF JOSEPHUS 9
tion of history discussed above. Historical truth is not created or discovered by
human inquiry, since it exists as an "objective""fact." The historian testifies to
what he has seen. If witnesses confirm one another's words, their testimony is
true. If they contradict one another, their testimony is false. Greek readerswould
not have known that the Jewish histories, in spite of Josephus' protestations to
the contrary, contain numerous contradictions and disagreements, but they cer-
tainly knew that agreement is not necessarily a sign of truth and disagreement
is not necessarily a sign of mendacity, because for the Greeks historiography is
not testimony but art.
Another weakness in Josephus' argument is that the presumed contrast be-
tween the stability of the Jews and the restivenessof the Greeks in reality mirrors
an internal Greek debate. Each of the Greek philosophical schools had charac-
teristic doctrines that were transmitted from teacher to disciple. In one sense,
then, the duty of each generation was to preserve the doctrines of the school.
Students who broke away from the school committed "apostasy."The Epicureans
and Pythagoreans remained so loyal to the (real or alleged) doctrines of their
founders that they excluded all innovation. For them philosophical education
consisted of the memorization of the words of their founders. In contrast, the
other schools (for example, the Stoics, the Academics, the Peripatetics) were far
more dynamic, combining loyalty to the founder with innovation and individual
achievement.26The position that the Against Apion ascribes to the Jews closely
resembles that of the Epicureans and Pythagoreans, while the position ascribed
to the Greeks resembles that of the other schools (except that the Against Apion
does not allow that the Greeks preserve anything intact).
This debate even has an internal Jewish analogue. The Pharisees, Josephus
reports, "show deference and respect to their elders, nor do they rashly presume
to contradict their proposals," while the Sadducees "reckonit a virtue to dispute
with the teachers of the wisdom that they pursue"(Jewish Antiquities 18.12and
16).27 The virtue of the Jews as a whole in the Against Apion is the virtue of
the Pharisees alone according to the Antiquities, while the vice of the Greeks
is also the vice of the Sadducees. (How the harmony and concord of the Jews,
celebrated in the Against Apion, can be reconciled with the existence of three
or four Jewish sects, described many times in the Jewish Warand the Jewish
Antiquities, is a question Josephus does not answer.) Thus Josephus' defense
of Judaism and attack on Hellenism is not entirely fair to either, but no one
expects apologetics to be fair.
Josephus was hardlythe only "oriental"writerto use the Greeklanguage, Greek
rhetoric, and Greek argumentation to mount an attack on Greek culture and
historiography.Greekhistorians and ethnographersof the Hellenistic and Roman

26. Epicureans: Diogenes Laertius 10.9. Pythagoreans: Numenius fragment 24, ed. des Places.
On "apostasy,"see e.g. Diogenes Laertius 4.28; Cicero, De Finibus 5.4-5; and Numenius fragments
24-28, ed. des Places (fragments of a work entitled "On the Disagreement of the Academics with
Plato"). See the essays on the philosophical schools in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition 3: Self-
Definition in the Greco-Roman World, ed. Ben F. Meyer (Philadelphia, 1982).
27. The Jewish War2.166 seems to preserve a different version of this contrast.
10 SHAYE J. D. COHEN

periods usually disparaged or ignored the historical traditions of the peoples of

the east and claimed that only their own histories were accurate. The mytholo-
gies of the other nations wereadjusted to fit Greekmythology and a Greco-centric
view of the world. In response many oriental intellectuals wrote ethnocentric his-
tories of their own. These histories disparage or ignore the historical claims of
the Greeks, and argue that Greek civilization is younger than, or derives from,
the civilizations of the east, especially that of the writer.28
The Jewish Antiquities has much in common with this literature,29and the
Against Apion even more so. Only in the Against Apion does Josephus argue
that the Greek philosophers in general, and Plato in particular, were inspired
by Moses and learned from him (2.168, 257, 281; cf. 1.165). This claim, widely
repeated elsewhere in Hellenistic Jewish literature,closely resembles the claims
advanced by other ethnocentric writers on behalf of their own cultures, but it
never appears in the Jewish Antiquities. The Jewish Antiquities does not view
the biblical heroes as the discoverersof culture, although other, more ethnocen-
tric, Jewish writers presented them in that way.30 Similarly, it is only the Against
Apion, not the Jewish Antiquities, that attacks Greek historiography.Manetho
the Egyptian (Against Apion 1.73)attacked Herodotus, and Berossusthe Babylo-
nian attacked the Greek historians generally (Against Apion 1.142). Philo of
Byblos, a contemporary of Josephus, dismisses the Greek histories as "inconsis-
tent" and composed "more for the sake of disputation than truth."31Even the
antihistorical stance of the Against Apion, evidenced by its claim that Judaism
has not changed since the Mosaic legislation, has an analogue in this oriental
literature. Berosus contends that an early figure of Babylonian mythology re-
vealed to humanity all the arts and sciences required of civilized society and,
since that time, "nothing further has been discovered."32

28. Greeks do not trust the native histories of the orientals: see Against Apion 1.6, 15, 161 and
cf. Jewish Antiquities 14.187and Strabo 11.507.See Elias Bickerman, "OriginesGentium," Classical
Philology 47 (1952), 65-81, reprintedin Religions and Politics in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods
(Como, 1985), 399-417; Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom (Cambridge, Eng., 1975).
29. Tessa Rajak, "Josephusand the 'Archaeology' of the Jews,"Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982)
465-477.
30. Forthe claim that Plato learnedfrom Moses, see Nikolaus Walter,Der ThoraauslegerAristobulus
(Berlin, 1964), 43-51. Eupolemus, ps. Eupolemus, and Artapanus present Abraham, Moses, and
Joseph as the discoverers or inventors of culture. Euhemerism had an enormous impact on ethnic
historiography,as each nation claimed for itself the primacy in the creation of cultured society. See
the excellentdiscussion by Ben Zion Wacholder,Eupolemus (Cincinnati, 1974),71-96, and for general
backgroundsee K. Thraede,ReallexikonfurAntike und Christentum5 (1962), 1191-1278(sv. "Erfinder
II"). The Jewish Antiquities, however, does not share this historiographical tendency. The Jewish
Antiquities 1.168portraysAbraham as the crucial link in the transmission of Chaldean lore to Egypt
and thence to Greece, but it does not portray Abraham as an inventor (even if he was the first to
realize that the world was created by one God, 1.155).
31. The fragment is preserved by Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.9.27 and 28; for text
and translation see Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden, Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician His-
tory (Washington, D.C., 1981),30-31. For discussion see R. A. Oden, "Philo of Byblos and Hellenistic
Historiography,"Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110 (1978), 115-126, at 122.
32. For a translationof the fragmentsee StanleyM. Burstein,TheBabyloniacaof Berossus(Malibu,
1978), 14. On this Babylonianview see W. G. Lambert,"Ancestors,Authors, and Canonicity,"Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 11 (1957), 1-11, at 9.
 THE AGAINST APION OF JOSEPHUS 11
The Against Apion is Josephus' fullest statement on history and historiog-
raphy. Josephus joins other oriental writers in attacking Greek historiography
and defending the historiography of the peoples of the east. Josephus learned
historical criticism from the Greeks, but in the Against Apion the student turns
upon his masters. He is not completely Greek, of course. The argument from
consensus is used in an entirely non-Greek way. His conception of history as
absolute, "objective"truth is derived from the Hebrew Bible and is also very non-
Greek. Although the Against Apion sides with the orientals against the Greeks,
when Josephus turns to the real labor of historical criticism in defense of his
people, he attacks not Greeks but fellow oriental historians, almost exclusively
Egyptian. The Against Apion, then, is a complex work that faithfully mirrors
the ambiguous place of Judaism in the ancient world.

Jewish Theological Seminary

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The works of Josephus are cited from the Loeb Classical Libraryedition of Henry St. J. Thackeray,
Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, and Louis H. Feldman, 9 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1926-1965), ex-
cept that I have occasionally modified the translation. The Against Apion is in volume 1 (ed. Thack-
eray). Another useful edition is Theodore Reinach and Leon Blum, Flavius Josephe Contre Apion
(Paris, 1930). Lucio Troiani, Commento storico al "ControApione" di Giuseppe (Pisa, 1977) is dis-
appointing. I have learned much from Christoph Schaublin, "Josephus und die Griechen,"Hermes
110 (1982), 316-341, and Tessa Rajak, "The Sense of History in Jewish Intertestamental Writing,"
Oudtestamentische Studien 24 (1986), 124-145.