5 min read

Josephus Shreds the Oath Against the Greeks

Apion claimed Jews swore never to favor foreigners or Greeks; Josephus tore the slander apart with logic, converts, and ink.

Curated by Arthur · Told by Maggid ·
Table of Contents
  1. The Oath That Failed Its Own Story
  2. Alexandria Near the Waves
  3. Why Greek Histories Wobbled
  4. Converts as Living Counterproof

In Rome, a Jewish historian set his pen against a lie that had already traveled farther than most armies. Apion had told the world that Jews swear by the Maker of heaven, earth, and sea to bear no good will to any foreigner, and especially to none of the Greeks.

Josephus Shreds the Oath Against the Greeks Click for full size

Josephus read the claim and began to cut.

The Oath That Failed Its Own Story

If a writer invents a hateful vow, he argued, at least make it fit the other inventions in the same pamphlet. Apion's own twisted tale said the Jews were driven out of Egypt. Then why would their secret oath target Greeks rather than Egyptians? The slander could not keep its characters straight. Hatred designed for one enemy had been pasted onto another for the sake of a Greek audience's pride.

Josephus pressed the absurdity until it squealed. There was no native, eternal enmity between Jews and Greeks written into Jewish law. The opposite evidence stood in open daylight: Greeks had converted to Judaism. Some lacked the strength to keep the whole discipline and fell away. The attraction itself disproved a people sworn from the cradle to hate every Hellene on sight.

Ink hit the page like a rebuttal in a courtroom where the jury was the Mediterranean world.

Alexandria Near the Waves

Apion had also sneered at the Jews of Alexandria for living near the tempestuous sea, as if salt air were a disgrace. Josephus laughed the geography back into sense. Everyone knew the quarter by the water was prime ground. Alexander himself, founder of the city, had granted Jews land and rights equal to the Macedonians. They were even called Macedonians in civic speech, a name of acceptance, not of squatters clinging to a reef.

Would Apion have preferred them in Necropolis, the city of the dead? The insult collapsed into spite. Location became, under Josephus's hand, proof of honor rather than stain.

A people with a deed from a conqueror-founder does not need to steal shoreline in the night. The historian made sure Rome heard the deed.

Why Greek Histories Wobbled

Josephus's larger war was not only personal. He argued that Greek historians often lacked firm ancient records, then filled the gaps with eloquence, flattery of kings, fantastical spice, or the critic's pose that finds fault to look wise. When sources are thin, disagreement multiplies. Style becomes a substitute for archive.

Against that fog he set Jewish care for lineage, priesthood lists, and the stubborn memory of a people that writes its origins as obligation, not as entertainment. The absurd oath was one more Greek-facing fiction that preferred a sharp story to a checkable one.

He was not asking Rome to love every Jew. He was demanding that accusation pass through evidence before it hardens into common sense.

Converts as Living Counterproof

Return to the converts. A community sworn to hate foreigners does not keep a door that Greeks walk through toward covenant. Josephus names the phenomenon without romance. Some stayed. Some left. The movement existed. That was enough to break Apion's oath like cheap pottery.

In the streets of Alexandria, Jewish and Greek lives already tangled in trade, argument, festival noise, and the occasional riot. Complexity is harder to weaponize than a forged vow. Josephus chose complexity and called it truth.

When the scroll of Against Apion left his desk, the invented oath still had admirers. Lies travel light. But the counter-case traveled too: a people not founded on a curse against Greece, a shoreline grant from Alexander, a historian willing to spend his Roman years defending the record of those who still prayed toward Jerusalem.

The Maker of heaven, earth, and sea, in Josephus's telling, was not the sponsor of a secret hate-club. He was the God whose people could be argued for in public, with facts that stung.

Josephus wrote as a man who had seen Jerusalem fall and still refused to let Apion's inventions become the last word on who Jews were. Defeat in war is one grief. Defeat in the archive, where a people is redescribed as congenital haters, is another. He fought the second with the weapons left to him: Greek prose, Roman readers, and a memory of Alexandrian rights older than Apion's spite.

He imagined, for the jury, a forged oath recited in a cellar. Then he held beside it the open fact of Greeks at Jewish doors asking for the law's yoke. The two pictures cannot both be true. He forced the contradiction into the open.

In the harbor quarter of Alexandria, waves really did dash, and Jewish houses really did take the sea air. Josephus turned that poetry of insult into a real estate argument and won it. A founder-king's grant outranks a pamphleteer's sneer.

The scroll ends, in the mind's ear, with the sound of a pen laid down hard. Not every Roman believed him. Enough of the counter-case survived that Apion's oath did not get to stand alone as if it were Torah from Sinai.

He had lived among Greeks and Romans long enough to know their appetite for a simple villain. A people of secret anti-Greek oaths would have been convenient. Josephus denied them the convenience. He offered instead a people argumentative, convertible, deed-holding, and unwilling to be summarized by a forger's punchline.


← All myths

From the tradition

Sources

3 sources

The texts behind this telling. Some cards carry a translation of the source; others are our own retelling of it, and each card says which. Every card links out to the original.

Against Apion 10:1Against Apion

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Against Apion, trans. William Whiston · Public Domain

He claimed they swore "by God, the Maker of the heaven, and earth, and sea, to bear no good will to any foreigner, and particularly to none of the Greeks."

Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote Against Apion to defend his people against these kinds of slanders, absolutely tears this claim apart.

He points out the sheer absurdity of it all. If you were going to invent such a hateful oath, wouldn't it make more sense for it to target the Egyptians? After all, according to Apion’s own twisted narrative, the Jews were supposedly driven out of Egypt! Josephus argues that Apion should have claimed the oath was against Egyptians, because that would at least align with Apion's other false claims.

The Greeks? Josephus makes it clear that there was no inherent enmity between Jews and Greeks. In fact, he notes something quite remarkable: many Greeks had actually converted to Judaism! Some, he admits, didn't have the strength to stick with it, but the fact remains that there was a clear attraction to Jewish law and tradition for some. Greeks, embracing Judaism. Does that sound like a people consumed by hatred for foreigners?

Josephus is basically saying, "Nobody ever heard of this oath! Apion, you're the only one who ever 'heard' it because you made it up yourself!" He exposes the lie for what it is: a fabrication designed to paint the Jewish people as xenophobic and hateful.

Why this need to invent such outrageous claims? What motivates someone to create such a blatant falsehood? Perhaps it's fear, perhaps ignorance, perhaps just plain old prejudice. Whatever the reason, it serves as a stark reminder of the power of words to wound and the importance of challenging those who spread lies.

Full source
Against Apion 4:1Against Apion

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Against Apion, trans. William Whiston · Public Domain

He's responding to the claims of a writer named Apion, who seems to have a real bone to pick with the Jews of Alexandria.

Apion, you see, is going after the Alexandrian Jews, criticizing their origins and their place in the city. He says they “came out of Syria, and inhabited near the tempestuous sea, and were in the neighborhood of the dashing of the waves.” Now, Josephus is having none of it. Is Apion really trying to diss the location? Seriously? As Josephus points out, everyone knows that the part of Alexandria near the sea is prime real estate!

It gets worse. Apion’s implying that the Jews somehow seized that land. Josephus sets the record straight. It wasn't taken by force. Alexander the Great himself granted them that land and equal rights with the Macedonians!

Josephus then gets really fired up. What if the Jews lived somewhere less desirable, like Necropolis? Would Apion be happier then? And what about the fact that they were even called Macedonians? It's a clear indication of their acceptance.

He then brings up the receipts. Where are Apion's facts? Has he even bothered to read the letters of Alexander, Ptolemy, or any of the subsequent rulers? What about the pillar in Alexandria that spells out all the privileges granted to the Jews by Julius Caesar? If Apion knew these things and still wrote this nonsense, Josephus says, "he hath shown himself to be a wicked man; but if he knew nothing of these records, he hath shown himself to be a man very ignorant." Ouch.

And Apion also seems confused about how Jews can even be called Alexandrians. To this, Josephus patiently explains that colonists often take the names of those who brought them to their new homes. It's like the Jews of Antioch being called Antiochians because Seleucus, the city's founder, granted them privileges. Or the Jews in Ephesus who share the same name as the original inhabitants. Even the Romans, Josephus says, were so generous that they allowed entire nations like the Iberi, Tyrrheni, and Sabini to call themselves Romans!

Josephus then throws down the gauntlet: if Apion rejects this way of obtaining citizenship, then maybe he should stop calling himself an Alexandrian! How can someone born in the heart of Egypt claim that title if he wants to deny it to others? Especially, Josephus notes, since the Romans, the current rulers, have actually forbidden Egyptians from having the privileges of any city. It's a bit rich for Apion to want those same privileges for himself, while simultaneously trying to strip them from those who rightfully earned them.

The core of Josephus’s defense is that Alexander didn’t just bring the Jews to Alexandria out of necessity. He chose them because they were virtuous and loyal. Josephus then brings in another source, Hecataeus, who said that Alexander honored the Jewish nation so much that he exempted Samaria from tribute because of their equity and fidelity.

Even Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, trusted the Jews, entrusting them with the fortresses of Egypt and sending them to secure Cyrene and other Libyan cities. And his successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus, not only freed Jewish captives but also sought to understand Jewish law, commissioning Demetrius Phalereus, Andreas, and Aristeas to translate the sacred scriptures. Why, Josephus asks, would Ptolemy go to such lengths to learn about Jewish law and philosophy if he despised the people who practiced it?

So, what do we take away from this? It's more than just a historical squabble. It's about belonging, about the right to a place, about the power of historical narratives. Josephus isn't just defending the Jews of Alexandria; he's defending the very idea of a diverse and inclusive society, one where people are judged not by their origins but by their character and contributions. And that's a fight that, sadly, still resonates today.

Full source
Against Apion 2:1Against Apion

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Against Apion, trans. William Whiston · Public Domain

Josephus begins by expressing his astonishment at those who insist on relying solely on Greek sources when seeking information about the most ancient events. Why, he asks, should we prioritize Greek accounts over our own or those of other ancient peoples? To him, it simply doesn't make sense. If we're truly after the truth, shouldn't we be looking at all the evidence, not just what the Greeks have to say?

He argues that, when we examine the facts, we discover that most of what concerns the Greeks is relatively recent. He points out that the construction of their cities, the development of their arts, and the codification of their laws occurred not so long ago. And the practice of recording their histories? Well, that was almost an afterthought.

Who does have a claim to deeper historical roots? Josephus says the Greeks themselves acknowledge that it was the Egyptians, the Chaldeans (ancient Babylonians), and the Phoenicians, and, he pointedly adds, "I will not now reckon ourselves among them", who have preserved the most ancient and enduring traditions of humankind.

Why these civilizations in particular? Well, Josephus observes that these nations inhabit regions less prone to destruction. the fertile crescent, the Nile valley – cradles of civilization, relatively sheltered from the constant upheaval that plagued other areas. These cultures, he says, also took great care to meticulously record their history, regarding it as sacred. These records were then inscribed on public tablets, penned by their wisest scholars.

The contrast with Greece, in Josephus's view, is stark. He paints a picture of a land repeatedly ravaged by countless destructions, each one obliterating the memory of past deeds. As a result, the Greeks were constantly starting anew, each generation believing itself to be the origin of their civilization.

So, what’s the takeaway? Josephus isn't dismissing the Greeks entirely. He's making a crucial argument about perspective and the dangers of historical bias. He urges us to look beyond the dominant narratives, to seek out the voices and the stories of those often overlooked. Because sometimes, the most profound truths are found not in the loudest voices, but in the whispers of those who have quietly preserved the past.

Full source