The writer Josephus, in his work Against Apion, deals with just such an argument. He's responding to the claims of a fellow named Apion, who’s taking potshots at the Jewish people. Apion, according to Josephus, says, "Look, you Jews are clearly not favored by the divine. You don't have just laws, and you don't worship God correctly. How else do you explain the fact that you're often under the rule of others? Your city has suffered calamities, unlike Alexandria which has always been an imperial city."

Ouch.

But Josephus isn't having it. He cleverly turns Apion's argument right back on him. "Hold on a minute," he says, in effect. "Are you seriously suggesting that only nations who’ve never been conquered are righteous or have just laws? If that’s your standard, pretty much everyone fails! Very few nations have been consistently in power without facing subjugation at some point. History is full of empires rising and falling."

Then, Josephus really gets going. He zeroes in on Apion's own people, the Egyptians. And this is where it gets interesting. Josephus points out a rather uncomfortable truth: The Egyptians, despite Apion's boasting, have a pretty consistent track record of being… well, ruled by others. He says they “appear to have never, in all the past ages, had one day of freedom, no, not so much as from their own lords.”

He even references the Persians, who, as Josephus reminds us, repeatedly laid waste to Egyptian cities, demolished their temples, and even killed the animals they considered gods. Awkward!

Josephus isn't trying to revel in anyone's misfortune. His point is much bigger than that. He's saying, "Bad things happen. Calamities strike. It's part of the human experience. To single out one group and say their suffering is proof of some inherent flaw is not only unfair, it's ridiculous." He mentions the Athenians and Lacedaemonians (Spartans), respected for their courage and piety, yet they too faced misfortunes. What about King Croesus, known for his piety, who also suffered greatly? Were they all somehow deserving of their fates?

He then calls out Apion for conveniently forgetting the long history of Egyptian subjugation. Josephus emphasizes that the Egyptians were servants to the Persians and later to the Macedonians. Meanwhile, the Jewish people, he reminds us, "enjoyed liberty formerly; nay, more than that, have had the dominion of the cities that lie round about us, and this nearly for a hundred and twenty years together." He even mentions that when all the other kings were conquered by the Romans, the Jewish people were considered their confederates and friends because of their fidelity.

Josephus isn't just engaging in historical point-scoring. He’s challenging a dangerous line of thinking. The idea that suffering equals guilt. The notion that power equals righteousness. He's reminding us that history is complex, that fortunes rise and fall, and that judging an entire people based on their current circumstances is not only inaccurate but deeply unjust.

It is worth noting the historical commentary on this section of Josephus's work. As one note observes, the Egyptians "had never, in all the past ages since Sesostris, had one day of liberty, no, not so much as to have been free from despotic power under any of the monarchies to that day." And, the commentary continues, this remained "equally true in the latter ages, under the Romans, Saracens, Mamelukes, and Turks, from the days of Josephus till the present ago also." (Against Apion, 11, note 16). As Ezekiel prophesied, Egypt was destined to be a "base kingdom" (Ezekiel 29:14, 15).

So, the next time you hear someone trying to connect a group's struggles to some supposed inherent failing, remember Josephus. Remember Apion. And remember that history is rarely as simple as it seems. Perhaps, instead of judging, we should be asking ourselves, what can we learn from each other’s experiences?