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!
But 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! Imagine having the founder of the city welcoming you.
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.