“Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus, Bellum 6.312–313 (Part One)

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175

brill.com/rrj

Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus, Bellum 6.312–313 (Part One)

Roger David Aus Sperberstr. 18, 13505, Berlin, Germany [email protected]

Abstract

One of the most disputed passages in Josephus is found only late in his account of the Jewish war against Rome, 66–70 CE. After relating numerous phenomena he considered portents of the destruction of Jerusalem with the Temple, he notes two oracles. The first, in Bell. 6.311, has never been traced back to a specific scriptural passage or Judaic tradition. The second, in 6.312–13, is the object of this study, in which I argue that Isa. 10:34 is the biblical verse behind the “ambiguous oracle.”

Keywords

Josephus – Jewish War 6.312–313 – ambiguous oracle – Vespasian – Hezekiah – Isaiah

One of the most puzzling and disputed passages in Josephus is now found only late in his account of the Jewish war against Rome, 66–70 CE. After relating numerous phenomena he considered portents of the destruction of Jerusalem with the Temple, he notes two oracles. The first, in Bell. 6.311, has never been traced back to a specific scriptural passage or Judaic tradition.1 The second, in 6.312–13, is the object of this study.

1 Cf., the statement, however, that the ideal future Temple of Ezek. 42:15–20 is a square with 500 cubit long sides. Steve Mason maintains that Bell. 6.311 may be due to Josephus himself. See his “Josephus, Daniel, and the Flavian House,” in Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers, eds., Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (SP-B 41; Leiden: Brill, 1994), p. 186.

A native of Jerusalem, a priest and of noble descent (Vita 1–6), Josephus boasted that when he was about fourteen “the chief priests and the leading men of the city constantly used to come to me for precise information on some particular in our ordinances” (Vita 9).2 He maintained that he was not only an interpreter of dreams but also “skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous [ἀμϕιβόλως] utterances of the Deity,” and “not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books” (Bell. 3.352). This implies that he most probably knew of the scriptural background of the “ambiguous” oracle he relates in 6.312–13. He claims regarding the Jews: “what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous [ἀμϕίβολος] oracle, likewise found in their sacred Scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. 313) This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor on Jewish soil.” It is clear from Josephus’ description that this “oracle” (χρησμός) was definitely considered to be found in the Hebrew Bible.3 It is also called λόγιον in

2 Cf., the haggadic narrative of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple in Luke 2:41–52 and my study of this pericope in Samuel, Saul and Jesus. Three Early Palestinian Jewish Christian Gospel Haggadoth (SFSHJ 105; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), pp. 1–64. I usually employ the English translation by H. St. J. Thackeray in the Loeb Classical Library edition of Josephus. The Jewish War, Books I–III and IV–VII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927–28/1967–68). He, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, and Louis Feldman translated the Jewish Antiquities in the same series. 3 The term χρησμός basically means oracle (LSJ 2006). Josephus employs it seven times, of which four refer to pagan oracles (Ant. 2.241; 9.289; Ap. 1.307, 312). In Bell. 4.386 he reports that the Zealots “scoffed at the oracles [pl.] of the prophets as imposters’ tales.” In 6.109 he also asks: “Who does not know the writings of the ancient prophets and that oracle which threatens this poor city and is even now coming true?” As in 4.386, this oracle appears to be found in Scripture. It may refer to the fratricide of Isa. 9:18 (Eng. 19), “a man against his brother.” It is very probable that Josephus knew of the writings of Philo, whom he labels “no novice in philosophy” (Ant. 18.259). Again and again the Alexandrian employs the term χρησμός in connection with specific passages in Scripture, e.g. in Leg. 3.129, 142, 212 and 245. In Det. 74 it alludes to Gen. 4:10 without quoting it. Most instructive for Bell. 6.312, however, is Praem. 95. There he alludes to LXX Num. 24:7 as an oracle regarding (the Messiah) who will “lead his host to war and subdue great and populous nations.” The term χρησμός can thus be employed in both Josephus and Philo of an oracle/prophecy found in Scripture.

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 153

6.313.4 It was “ambiguous” (ἀμϕίβολος)5 because the terms in it could be interpreted in different ways. It applied to someone from their (the Jews’) “country” (χώρα), who was “of their own race” (οἰκεῖος).6 This figure “at that time”7 should “rule the inhabited world” (ἄρξει τῆς οἰκουμένης). Although he does not admit it, Josephus reinterpreted the biblical oracle to mean a non-Jew or Gentile (Vespasian), since he was proclaimed emperor “on Jewish soil” (ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίας). The Jewish historian concedes, however, that “many of the Sages” (πολλοί τῶν σοϕῶν) interpreted the oracle differently.8 That is, the figure (the Messiah) who for them would then rule the entire world would be a Jew from Judea.

4 The term is elsewhere found only five times in Josephus, three times of the breastplate of the high priest (Ant. 3.163, 217, and 8.93), and once also in Bell. 6.311, where Scripture is most probably meant: The Jews “had it recorded in their oracles [pl.] that the city and the sanctuary would be taken when the Temple should become four-square.” See, however, n. 1. Philo also employs the term extensively of a passage in Scripture. 5 Cf., LSJ 90, III. 6 Cf., LSJ 1202, II. 7 This is the Greek κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον. In regard to Isa. 10:34, proposed below as the background of Bell. 6.312–13, it should be noted that just before this, “on that day” both in vv. 20 –at that ‘time’“ (Stenning, pp. 38“ ,בעידנא ההוא and 27 is translated in Targum Jonathan by 39). If early, this may have influenced Josephus’ Greek phrase here. See Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, p. 1067 on Josephus’ native tongue was Aramaic, in which he claims he wrote the original of . עִ י דָ ָ נ א Bellum (1.3 and 6). 8 There is no reason to consider these σοϕοί to be scribes and not Sages, that is, early “Rabbis.” Against Abraham Schalit, “Die Erhebung Vespasians nach Flavius Josephus, Talmud und Midrasch. Zur Geschichte einer messianischen Prophetie,” in Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase, eds., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Berlin: de Gruyter, 19752), pp. 236 and 255. He thinks they were also apocalypticists. I am grateful to him for the de- tailed discussion of many issues, as well as now to the opus magnum of Steve Mason for some recent bibliography: A History of the Jewish War, A.D. 66–74 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016). Like Josephus, Mason greatly downplays the messianic elements of the Jewish revolt. The Jewish historian’s almost complete avoidance of noting messianic passages (e.g. Ant. 10.210 and Dan 2:34–35 and 44–45), also in his Antiquities, was in part due to the Messiah’s not recently appearing to defend besieged and later destroyed Jerusalem, and to the primarily Roman audience for whom he wrote. They would hardly have been in- terested in understanding more about such Jewish “superstitions.” Tacitus, The Histories 2.4, speaks, for example, of the “obstinate superstitions of the Jews” (trans. Clifford Moore in the Loeb Classical Library, henceforth LCL). Louis Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California, 1998), p. 652, n. 46, aptly states in regard to Bell. 6.313: “it would have been foolhardy or outright dangerous for Josephus to have implied that the reference was to a Jewish messiah; consequently, Josephus suppresses the messianic ideals of the revolutionaries in the war against Rome, so much did he apparently fear Roman wrath.” He says about the content of 6.312 that this was “a strongly and widely held belief” (p. 151).

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 154 Aus

Several scriptural passages have been suggested to be at the base of the ambiguous oracle in Bell. 6.312–13. One is Gen. 49:10, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes.”9 Another is Dan. 7:13–14 regarding the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, whose kingship is eternal.10 Others think of different passages in Daniel.11 The scriptural passage most favored as standing behind Bell. 6.312–13, however, is Num. 24:17, where a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel.12 Up to now only one other scholar has thought of Isa. 10:34, yet he wrote in modern Hebrew and restricted himself to a modest three pages.13 Finally, yet others maintain one cannot ascertain which scriptural

9 Cf., much earlier scholars cited by Adolf Posnanski, Schiloh. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre. Erster Teil. Die Auslegung von Gen. 49,10 im Altertume bis zum Ende des Mittelalters (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904), pp. 16–17. Moses Aberbach and Bernhard Grossfeld also consider this verse to stand behind Bell. 6.312–13. See their Targum Onkelos to Genesis (KTAV, 1982), pp. 284–285, where they cite all the available targumim, as well as other Judaic sources. 10 Cf., Rudolf Meyer, Der Prophet aus Galiläa (Leipzig: Lunkenbein, 1940), pp. 52–57. It is also one passage considered by Marianus de Jonge in “Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Volkes” in Otto Betz, Klaus Haacker, and Martin Hengel, eds., Josephus-Studien. Festschrift Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), p. 210. See already Eduard Norden’s essay of 1913, “Josephus und Tacitus űber Jesus Christus und seine messianische Prophetie,” available to me in Abraham Schalit, ed., Zur Josephus-Forschung (WdF 84; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973), p. 62 for Dan. 7:13ff. together with 9:26–27. 11 Cf., Per Bilde, “Josephus and Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Steve Mason, ed., Understanding Josephus. Seven Perspectives (JSSuppS 32; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), p. 47, who suggests Dan. 2:44–45 and 7:11–14. Frederico Colautti in Passover in the Works of Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 216, favors Dan. 2:44–45. Steve Mason in Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 20032), p. 50, refers to Dan. 2:31–45 and 9:24–29. N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), p. 314, favors Dan. 2, 7, and 9. 12 Cf., for example Martin Hengel, Die Zeloten (Leiden: Brill, 1961), p. 246: it has “a high de- gree of probability.” See also Helgo Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: Brill, 1972), p. 71, as well as Ulrich Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW 44; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), p. 160, for Num. 24:7 or 17 LXX. 13 Cf., Azriel Shochat, “On the ‘Ambiguous Oracle’ in the Words of Josephus,” in Michael Haendel, ed., Sefer Yosef Shiloh (Tel Aviv, 1960), pp. 163–165, available to me in his Studies, Part 1: Articles on the History of the Jewish People in Antiquity and in the Generations of the Middle Ages (Haifa, 1982—Hebrew), pp. 34–36. I thank Dr. Jonathan Price for obtaining this for me. At the appropriate points below I note Shochat’s brief thesis. My extensive analyses were first developed independently of his. Adolf Posnanski in 1904 in Schiloh 17 also appears to favor Isa. 10:34, yet his interpretation of “Lebanon” as the Temple in B. Git. 56b and parallels is post-70 CE. See section 2.2 below.

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 155 passage Josephus was thinking of,14 or that Josephus actually referred to a non- biblical prophecy reported by Tacitus,15 or that he himself may have invented the passage.16 Two secular writers relate material very similar to that found in Bell. 6.312– 13. The Roman historian Tacitus in The Histories 5.13 notes that the majority of Jews in Judea “firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the East should grow strong and that men starting from Judea should possess the world.” Tacitus continues by remarking: “This mysterious [ambagas] prophecy had in reality pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, as is the way of human am- bition, interpreted these great destinies in their own favor, and could not be turned to the truth even by adversity.”17 Tacitus was born ca. 55–56 CE and was a proconsul in the province of Asia ca. 113–16 CE.18 As one of the relatively few historians in Rome, he certainly was acquainted with and employed Josephus’ earlier work Bellum, published there some time before the death of one of his patrons, Vespasian, in 79 CE.19 That is, Tacitus purposely changed Josephus’ singular “someone” (τις) to the plural in light of both Vespasian’s and Titus’ coming (profecti) from the East to become emperor, one after another, “pos- sessing the [whole] world.” He also correctly rendered ἀμϕίβολος by the term ambages, “ambiguous.” The Roman historian Suetonius in “Vespasian” 4.5 also noted Josephus’ ambiguous oracle, stating: “There had spread over all the Orient an old and es- tablished belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming [profecti] from Judea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves;

14 Cf., John Collins, The Scepter and the Star. Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 20102), p. 221. 15 Cf., Hans Kippenberg, “‘Dann wird der Orient herrschen und der Okzident dienen.’ Zur Begrűndung eines gesamtvorderasiatischen Standpunktes im Kampf gegen Rom,” in Norbert Bolz and Wolfgang Hűbener, eds., Spiegel und Gleichnis: Festschrift Jacob Taubes (Wűrzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1983), pp. 40–48. Josephus ostensibly changed the text of the prophecy found in Tacitus (43). 16 Cf., Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden: Brill, 1990), p. 24, n. 3. In an upcoming article in the Scottish Journal of Theology, Steve Mason also maintains that Josephus “makes up the oracles (as so much else) as he goes along.” 17 Cf., The Histories, Books IV–V, trans. Clifford Moore. 18 Cf., The Histories, Books I–II, vii–viii in the LCL. The last sure reference to him is from 117 CE (x). 19 Cf., H. St. J. Thackeray in The Jewish War, Books I–III, xii.

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 156 Aus accordingly they revolted….”20 Suetonius was probably born in 69 CE, and although he is referred to in 121 CE, it is certain that he continued to live long after this.21 It is not only certain that he knew the passage cited above from his fellow Roman, Tacitus.22 He also was acquainted with Josephus’ account. Thus, even though he retained Tacitus’ plural profecti, he then reverted to Josephus’ singular τις. For the above reasons Tacitus and Suetonius should be viewed as dependent here on Josephus,23 and the thesis of an independent, non-biblical source for the Jewish prophecy Josephus relates in Bell. 6.312–13 is improbable.24 The following study supporting my proposal of Isa. 10:34 in Judaic tradition as the biblical verse behind the “ambiguous oracle” is divided into seven sections. The first five help to understand section six better. They deal, in this installment, with 1. Eschatological Fervor and Messianic Hopes; 2. The King, the Messiah, Is Only to Come from Judea; 3. Isaiah in Judaic Tradition; 4. Hezekiah in Judaic Tradition. Part two of this article then contains: 5. Isaiah, Hezekiah, and the Siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib in Judaic Tradition; 6. Isa. 10:34; and 7. Summary and Conclusions.

1 Eschatological Fervor and Messianic Hopes

In the century before the “ambiguous oracle which especially incited them [the Jews] to war,” eschatological fervor had greatly increased. In addition, as of the Roman general Pompey’s conquering Jerusalem in 63 BCE, messianic hopes had been aroused through various figures. The following sketch briefly describes these phenomena. The first five set the mood for the outbreak in 66 CE.

20 Cf., his The Lives of the Caesars, Book VIII, “The Deified Vespasian, the Deified Titus, Domitian,” in Suetonius II, trans. J.J. Rolfe in the LCL edition. 21 Cf., Suetonius I, ix–x. 22 Cf., e.g. the phrase profecti rerum potirentur in both. 23 Cf., also Tessa Rajak, “Jewish Messianic Expectations,” in Andrea Berlin and J.A. Overbeck, eds., The First Jewish Revolt. Archaeology, History, and Ideology (London/New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 179. Adolf von Harnack and an earlier, German version of Emil Schűrer’s The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, also believed both Tacitus and Suetonius were basically dependent on Josephus. See “Exkursus XV: Der χρησμὸς ἀμϕίβολος und seine Deutung,” in Otto Michel and Otto Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus. De Bello Judaico, Der jűdische Krieg (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969), vol. II, 2, p. 191. 24 This includes a quotation of, or allusion to, an (unknown) Sibylline oracle.

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 157

1.1 The Psalms of Solomon The Psalms of Solomon were originally written in Hebrew between 63 and 30 BCE, probably by a pious group in Jerusalem.25 In light of the Roman general Pompey’s conquering the territory in 63 BCE, chapter 17 implores God in v. 21 to raise up for the Jews “their king, the son of David.” He should purge Jerusalem of Gentiles (v. 22), destroying the unlawful nations “with the word of his mouth” (v. 24). This, along with v. 35, is a clear allusion to the messianic passage Isa. 11:4d.26 Verse 29 states that “He will judge peoples and nations with the wisdom of his righteousness,” another clear allusion to Isa. 11:3b–4a. Verse 37 also describes him with imagery from 11:2. The people’s king shall be “the Lord’s Messiah” (v. 32), yet the point at which he will rule over Israel is a time known (only) to God (v. 21). Here the King, the (Lord’s) Messiah, the son of David, is portrayed as purging Jerusalem from foreign influence. This figure is described in messianic terms from the beginning of Isaiah 11, important in regard to section 6 on Isa. 10:34, the immediately preceding verse, below. The messiah’s coming is prayed for in Jerusalem, yet the pious author(s) still leave the time of his coming up to God.

1.2 Jesus of Nazareth Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, riding upon a donkey, had strong messianic over- tones.27 The fact that the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE), had him crucified as “The [Messianic] King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26) demonstrates how Rome tolerated absolutely no one as a possible messianic pretender and danger to the exclusive rule of the Empire. There was to be only one king, the Emperor/Caesar. At the latest after Jesus’ death, his adherents firmly believed that he was the long-awaited Messiah and founded fellowships of churches furthering this belief.

1.3 The Dead Sea Scrolls The Scrolls attest at least one messiah expected by this Jewish sect. Although the Qumran site was destroyed by the Romans in 68 CE, most writings are much earlier than this. The members believed they were living in “the last days” (see section 6.2 below). In two scrolls, the messiah is described in terms

25 Cf., George Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 20052), p. 247, and R.B. Wright in OTP 2.640–41 (for his translation of chapter 17, see pp. 665–669). 26 Cf., also the term “rod” in v. 24 and Isa. 11:4c. 27 Cf., Mark 11:1–11 par. and Zech. 9:9, specifically cited in Matt 21:5 and John 12:15.

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 158 Aus of Isa. 10:34 and the following first verses of chapter 11.28 For the purposes of this study, although they are the oldest attestations, they will be analyzed in section 6.2 below only after other Judaic traditions on Isaiah, Hezekiah, and Sennacherib are investigated. This is because the content of the latter helps to understand the Qumran passages much better.

1.4 Theudas According to Josephus, in 44–45 CE an imposter named Theudas persuaded a large number of people to take their possessions and accompany him down to the Jordan River, which he as a prophet would cause to part, allowing them to walk through it. The Roman prefect of Judea, Cuspius Fadus, had cavalry pur- sue them, killing and imprisoning many. Theudas’ head was then cut off and taken to Jerusalem to be displayed, discouraging similar behavior.29 Theudas’ intended action resembled Moses’ parting of the Re(e)d Sea,30 allowing the Israelites to be delivered from Egyptian bondage. Although not openly labeled messianic by Josephus, it characterized Theudas as a figure in- volved in the final redemption/deliverance.31

1.5 The Egyptian Prophet An Egyptian false prophet also gathered thousands of adherents and led them to the Mount of Olives at the time of Nero and the Roman prefect Felix, i.e., in the mid-fifties CE. He wished to force his way into Jerusalem, overcome the Roman soldiers stationed there, and establish himself as the leader of the people. Although most of his followers were killed or taken prisoner when Felix attacked him with heavy infantry, the Egyptian somehow managed to escape.32 Josephus labels this Egyptian a “tyrant,” yet he was certainly a messianic pretender, active only a decade before the outbreak of the Jewish-Roman War in 66 CE.

28 A fine overview of messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls is given by John Collins, The Scepter and the Star. Cf., n. 14. 29 Cf., Ant. 20.97–99. The remarks attributed to Gamaliel in Acts 5:36 are chronologically incorrect. 30 And not, as could be thought, the miraculous crossing of the Jordan in Joshua 3. Cf., also the often repeated saying: “As the first redeemer [Moses], so the last redeemer [the Messiah] will be” in the passages cited in Str-B 1.69. 31 Cf., Bell. 2.259–60, where “deceivers and imposters” later led many people to the wilder- ness “under the belief that God would there give them tokens of deliverance.” The Roman prefect considered such activity to be the beginning of sedition and had his cavalry and infantry kill many of them. 32 Cf., Bell. 2.261–63 and the parallel narrative in Ant. 20.169–72, as well as the notice in Acts 21:38.

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 159

1.6 Two Figures during the War of 66–70 CE Even when the Jerusalem Temple and other buildings had been set afire by enraged Roman soldiers in August/September of 70 CE, another prophet announced to about 6000 people that God ordered them to go up to the Temple (Court), where they would receive the “signs of deliverance.”33 Not a single person survived the confrontation with the Roman soldiers during this conflagration.34 Finally, after Titus had left Jerusalem for Caesarea on the Mediterranean Sea, the rebel leader Simon ben Giora together with numerous followers sought to escape through underground passageways. Thwarted in his progress, he purposely arose at precisely that place at which the Temple had previously stood before being razed. He put on white tunics and a purple cloak,35 probably hoping to pass himself off as the messianic “king” to his fellow Jews. The summoned Roman general instead put him in chains, in which he was kept until the triumphal procession of Vespasian and Titus in Rome, at the end of which he was executed.36 Josephus in addition reports supernatural phenomena indicating the im- minent destruction of Jerusalem.37 This was supplemented by the behavior of Jesus ben Ananias, who for seven years as of 62 CE stood in the Temple area and announced its impending devastation, as well as that of the entire city.38 Almost directly after this Josephus notes the ambiguous oracle from Scripture that one from Judea at that time would (begin to) rule the inhabited world (Bell. 6.312), the subject of this study. … The above brief sketch indicates how the messianic king was deeply yearned for by Jews already when the Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE. This continued throughout the next century, with eschatological fervor

33 Although Pesiqta Rabbati in its present form is very late, it may retain an early tradition at 36/2: “Our Masters taught: When the King, the Messiah, appears, he will come and stand on the roof of the Temple and make a proclamation to Israel, saying: ‘Meek ones, the day of your redemption has arrived’” (Friedmann, p. 162a; Eng. Braude, p. 682). 34 Cf., Bell. 6.281–85. Josephus at this point adds that the “tyrants” at this time asked numerous prophets to mislead the people by telling them to await God’s aid, retaining hope. This was primarily to prevent them from deserting (6.286). 35 Cf., the apparatus of Bell. 7.29 in the LCL, and LSJ 1993.3. on χλαμύς, 1994.2. on χλανίς, as a cloak worn by kings. 36 Cf., Bell. 7.26–36, 154. 37 Cf., Bell. 6.288–300. 38 Cf., Bell. 6.301–09.

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 160 Aus increasing more and more, culminating in total resistance to the occupying power Rome in 66 CE on the part of the “Zealots.” The outbreak of the ensuing futile war was caused not only by the actions of the rebellious Jewish factions but “especially” by the ambiguous oracle.

2 The King, the Messiah, Is Only to Come from Judea

Before analyzing the three dramatis personae of my proposal for the “ambiguous oracle” noted by Josephus (Isaiah, Hezekiah and the Assyrian King Sennacherib), it is first helpful to note the importance of his assertion that someone “from their own country” (ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας αὐτῶν)39 would rule the inhabited/whole world (Bell. 6.312). The Jewish historian observes that the Jews understood this to mean someone “of their own race.”40 Many Sages of the Jews were ostensibly led astray in this matter (interpreting it so). Josephus then asserts that the oracle instead referred to Vespasian (a Gentile), who was proclaimed emperor in Judea (ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίας; 6.313). This Josephus did to save his own life and to ingratiate himself with the future emperor. He knew very well that the Sages (“many,” or indeed most) interpreted the matter correctly according to the Judaic understanding of the relevant scriptural passage (Isa. 10:34). Two examples of this (messianic) King as only coming from Israel are found in Deut. 17:15 and Jer. 30:21, especially as found in Judaic tradition.

2.1 Deut. 17:15 The Pentateuch itself states that no “foreigner” is allowed to be made king in Israel. Deut. 17:15 reads literally: “From the midst of your brothers you may set who is not of [ ִאֹיש ָנְכִרי] a king over you; you may not put upon you a foreigner your brothers.” The pre-Christian LXX modifies the first line to read “a ruler” (ἄρχοντα) instead of “king,” from the same Greek root found in Bell. 6.312: someone from the Jews’ own country is to “rule” (ἄρχω) the inhabited/whole world (and not just Judea). The Tannaitic midrash Sifre Shofetim 157 on Deut. 17:15 emphasizes regarding “one from among”: “and not from outside the [Holy] Land.” It then adds: “‘your brethren’—and not from among Gentiles.”41 In B.B.B. 3b Herod the Great (reigned 37–4 BCE) is described as asking who taught the rule of Deut. 17:15.

39 Cf., LSJ 2015, II.1 on χώρα: a land, country. 40 Cf., again LSJ 1202 II. on οἰκεῖος: of persons, of the same household, family, or kin, related. -can mean a stranger, and in the plural it frequently signifies as here strang אַ חֵ ר The term 41 ers, Gentiles (Jastrow, p. 41). The passage is found in Finkelstein, pp. 208–209; Eng. in Hammer, p. 192. Another Tannaitic passage emphatically rejecting a Gentile as rul- ing over Israel is found in Mekhilta dR. Ishmael Bahodesh 2 on Exod. 19:6, “a kingdom”

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 161

Informed that it was the Rabbis, he had all of them killed except for Baba b. Buta, whom he wanted as a counselor.42 Before this it is noted that “Herod was the slave of the Hasmonean house,” and in 4a Rome informs him that his gene- alogy is there, and he is “Herod the slave who has made himself a freedman.”43 Deut. 17:15 is part of the “pericope of the king” (17:14–20). M. Sot. 7:8 relates that once King Herod Agrippa I (reigned 37, 40–44 CE) received a scroll of the Torah in the Temple Court to read from it. “His eyes flowed with tears” when he came to Deut. 17:15. Yet those around him then reassured him that he was their “brother.”44 This is because he was of Edomite/Idumean descent.45 The above two passages dealing with Herod the Great and his grandson Herod Agrippa I show the great importance attached to the Jewish belief that their own king must come from inside the Land, from Judea/Israel and by no means be a foreigner (against Josephus’ Vespasian as meant by the “ambiguous oracle”). Another passage from the prophets also maintains this in regard to the King, the Messiah.

2.2 Jer. 30:21 In chapter 30 of the book of Jeremiah the prophet promises restoration for Israel and Judah (v. 3). “On that day” the Lord will break the yoke of the people’s neck, and “strangers”46 shall no longer make a servant of it (v. 8). Rather, “they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I shall raise up for them” (v. 9). In v. 20 the Lord promises to punish “all who oppress them.” This is followed by the important statement in v. 21, a literal translation of which is:

His [Jacob’s—v. 18] majestic one shall be from among them, and his ruler shall come forth from his midst. I shall bring him near, and he shall approach Me, for who is the one who would give his heart in pledge [= dare] to approach Me? Oracle of the Lord.

(Lauterbach, vol. 2, p. 205): “I will allow only one of your own to be king over you, but not one from the nations of the world.” 42 Cf., Soncino, p. 10. 43 Cf., Soncino, p. 12. 44 Cf., Albeck vol. 3, pp. 251–252; Eng. in Danby, p. 301, and Neusner, p. 459. A parallel is found in the above Sifre passage. 45 Cf., Emil Schűrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), vol. 1, p. 447 and n. 27. .(to be a stranger (BDB, p. 266 ,זּור This is the participle of 46

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 162 Aus

Verse 24 adds: “In the latter days you will understand this.” Israel/Judah’s future king is described as definitely ,( ְנ ֻא ם) ”Here, in an “oracle coming from their own midst. The NRSV imprecisely has “prince” for “the ma- ,ֺ) the LXX reads ὁ ἄρχων αὐτοῦ מֹ שְ ל ֹ ֹו) ”above.47 For “his ruler ( אַ דִ י ר) ”jestic one from the same Greek root as ἄρξει in Bell. 6.312.48 Targum Jonathan interprets Jer. 30:9 messianically: “And they shall worship before the Lord their God, and they shall obey the Anointed One, the son of David, their king whom I shall raise up for them.”49 This is also true for v. 21: “And their king shall be anointed50 from among them, and their Anointed One the , מְ ׂ שִ י חָ א shall be revealed from among them….”51 “The Anointed One here is Messiah.52 It should be noted that the Anointed One/the Messiah is equated here with the king, i.e., he is “the King, the Messiah,” a standard expression very frequently found in rabbinic sources. Not only Israel’s historical kings should thus come from their own midst but also the eschatological king: the King, the Messiah. This particular targumic interpretation could be quite old.53 In a discussion of the name of the Messiah in B. San. 98b, Jer. 30:21 is also quoted,54 and Midr. Pss. 21/5 quotes regarding the King, the Messiah, the son of man of Dan. 7:13 as well as Jer. 30:21.55 Most important for this study, however, is another text that deals with the Jewish-Roman War of 66–70 CE.

47 Cf., BDB, p. 12. Jastrow, p. 16, has “distinguished, glorious, mighty.” Some translators (see below) therefore have “the mighty one.” The “prince” of the NRSV would rather presume .(means glory, magnificence (BDB, p. 12 אַ ֶ דרֶ ת BDB 978). The noun) ַֹ ש ר 48 Cf., also Rev. 1:5, where Jesus Christ is ὁ ἄρχων of the kings of the earth. 49 Cf., Sperber, vol. 3, p. 203, where the resh in “David” is a misprint for daleth; Eng. in Hayward, p. 128. .(to be installed, anointed (Jastrow, p. 1441 :(2 רבי This is the ithpael of 50 51 Cf., Sperber, vol. 3, p. 204; Eng. Hayward, p. 129. See also Samuel Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974), p. 73. 52 Cf., Jastrow, p. 852. 53 The Messiah, the son of David, is also found in Targ. Jon. 23:5 (also as king) and 33:13, 15, 17, and 26. Hayward notes on p. 33: “The general tone of the Messianic hope in this Tg. is simple, straightforward, and uncomplicated; and there is the likelihood that it is of very ancient lineage.” While he thinks of the era of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–35 CE) for Jer. 30:21 (p. 38), the eschatological fervor just before the outbreak of the first Jewish-Roman War in 66 CE was even more intense (see section 1, above). Much of the present Targum Jonathan to Jeremiah is, of course, post-70 CE. 54 Cf., Soncino, p. 668. 55 Cf., Buber, p. 179; Eng. Braude vol. 1, p. 296. The whole section is related to Isa. 11:10’s “root of Jesse,” interpreted as (the King,) the Messiah, the son of David, “who will remain hidden until the time of redemption” (21/1 in Buber, p. 177; Braude, vol. 1, p. 293). Aggadath Bereshit 18 (Buber, p. 37; Eng. Teugels, p. 56) relates Ps. 110:1 to Jer. 30:21, but is probably anti-Christian in its further interpretation (see Teugels, p. 57, n. 229). In section 27 on Ps.

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 163

In B. Git. 56a–b it is related that the Zealots controlled Jerusalem when the Romans under Vespasian stood ready to attack it. The moderate Rabbis tried to persuade the Zealots to make peace with them, but had no success in this, for the Zealots definitely wanted to fight the enemy. When the Rabbis told them they would not succeed in this, the Zealots burned all the food provisions (wheat and barley), leading to a severe famine. Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai then is represented as asking his nephew, the leading Zealot, how long they wanted to continue such behavior, leading to the death of all by starvation. The famous Rabbi then asked his nephew to make a plan for him to escape the city: “Perhaps I shall be able to save a lit- tle.” The scheme consisted of his playing dead and being carried out in a coffin through a city gate, accompanied by his leading disciples, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. When this succeeded, he ostensibly hailed Vespasian outside as a “king.” He replied that he wasn’t one. Yohanan b. Zakkai insisted he was indeed one, “since if you were not a king, Jerusalem would not be delivered into your .(Isa. 10:34) ’[ אַ דִ י ר] hand, as it is written: ‘And Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one ‘Mighty one’ [is an epithet] applied only to a king, as it is written: ‘And their shall be of themselves,’ etc. (Jer. 30:21). And ‘Lebanon’ refers [ אַ דִ י ר] mighty one to the Sanctuary, as it says: ‘This goodly mountain and Lebanon’ (Deut. 3:25).” At this time news came from Rome that the Emperor (Nero) had died, and the notables of Rome had decided to make Vespasian his successor. Due to the fulfillment of Yohanan’s prophecy of his being/becoming a king, according to this tradition Vespasian offered to grant him one request. Yohanan asked to be given Yabneh (Jamnia)56 and its sages, the family chain of Rabban Gamaliel, and doctors to heal R. Zadok.57

110:1, this and v. 2 are said to speak of the Messiah (Buber, p. 55; Teugels, p. 87; on p. 85 the text is definitely anti-Christian). 56 When Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, in his will he bequeathed this city and others to his sister Salome (Ant. 17.189, 321; Bell. 2.98). When she died, she willed it to Julia/Livia, the wife of Augustus (Ant. 18.31; Bell. 2.167). Vespasian later conquered it and garrisoned troops there (Bell. 4.130, 444). 57 Cf., Soncino, pp. 257–259, which includes much haggadic material. The Soncino transla- tor, Maurice Simon, remarks on p. 259, n. 2, regarding the family chain of Gamaliel: “That the R. Gamaliel dynasty be spared. R. Johanan was particularly solicitous for R. Gamaliel and his family, as they were supposed to be of the house of David.” Yohanan is probably pictured here as hoping for the survival of the Davidic dynasty, even if Jerusalem be destroyed, for from it the Messiah was to come. If the account has an historical core (which is doubtful), as a Sage he may have had no compunction in labeling Vespasian an “anointed one,” for the prophet Isaiah had done so centuries beforehand in calling the Gentile Persian emperor the Lord’s “Anointed One” (45:1). This is because he treated the exiled Jews well, allowing them to return home. Azriel Shochat, “On the ‘Ambiguous Oracle,’ ” p. 34, unhistorically cites B. Yoma 39b (Soncino, p. 186) with Yohanan b. Zakkai’s

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 164 Aus

The above narrative was very popular and evolved with many variants, as seen in Avot dR. Natan A 4;58 B 6;59 Lam. Rabbah 1:5 § 31;60 and Midrash Prov. 15.61 It presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, when the Temple soon afterwards began to be labeled “Lebanon” as in Isa. 10:34.62 It was In all these variants, the term ʾadîr of Isa. 10:34 .( אַ דִ י ר) ”to “fall” by “a mighty one is interpreted as “king” (melekh). In B. Git. 56b it is stated that the term ʾadîr of this verse can only be applied to a “king,” as in Jer. 30:21: “And their ‘mighty one’ [ʾadîr] shall be of themselves,” etc. As noted above, Targum Jonathan renders this verse: “And their ‘king’ shall be anointed from them, and their ‘Anointed One/Messiah’ shall be revealed from among them….” The term ʾadîr is also interpreted elsewhere of the King, the Messiah. This point is very important to consider in regard to my suggestion below that Isa. 10:34 is the verse from Scripture that was the “ambiguous oracle” Josephus notes in Bell. 6.312, which especially incited the Jews to war with the Romans. The Jewish historian states that it “in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed

prophesying some decades before 70 CE that the “Lebanon” of Zech. 11:1 as the Temple was to be destroyed. Nor does he note on p. 35 the important association of Jer. 30:21 with Isa. 10:34 in B. Git. 56b. 58 Cf., Schechter, pp. 22–24; Becker, pp. 70–72; Eng. in Goldin, pp. 35–37. It includes Yohanan’s statement to Vespasian: “This has been handed down to us, that the Temple will not be delivered to a commoner, but to a king, as it is said: Isa. 10:34.” 59 Cf., Schechter, p. 19; Becker, pp. 329–330; Eng. Saldarini, pp. 60–64. Saldarini’s notes are very helpful, showing how irreconcilable the various accounts are. He states, p. 61, n. 8: “The exact history of the escape is obscure and cannot be related accurately to events recounted in Josephus.” And on p. 62, n. 8: “Since Johanan had done all that he could to rectify the situation before leaving Jerusalem, later Rabbis did not blush to connect this incident with the founding of the first post-destruction academy.” In his extensive study A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. Ca. 1–80 C.E. (SP-B 6; Leiden: Brill, 19702), p. 164, Jacob Neusner states regarding Yohanan’s request of Vespasian: “This considerable request represented a statement of the Pharisaic loyalists’ policy. If Rome would grant inner autonomy, the Pharisaic loyalists would willingly counsel political submission to Rome.” Later accounts attributed Vespasian’s granting the request to Yohanan’s “wonderful fore- knowledge” (p. 165). Neusner thinks Yohanan left Jerusalem in the spring or summer of 68 CE (p. 166). 60 Cf., Vilna 28; Soncino, vol. 7, pp. 100–105. 61 Cf., Visotzky, p. 126; Eng. Visotzky, pp. 78–80. On p. 143, n. 6, he speaks of “this fictional account of Vespasian’s siege….” 62 Cf., the eleven passages noted by Horovitz in Sifre Pinhas 134 on Num. 27:12, dealing with Deut. 3:25 (Horovitz, p. 181, n. 6). See also the essay by Geza Vermes, “The Symbolic Interpretation of ‘Lebanon’ in the Targums. The Origin and Development of an Exegetical Tradition,” in JThS 9 (1958), pp. 1–12, now found as “Lebanon. The Historical Development of an Exegetical Tradition,” in his Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (SP-B 4; Leiden: Brill, 19732), pp. 26–39.

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 165

Emperor on Jewish soil” (6.313). This fits the basic content of the narrative recounted in B. Git. 56a–b above, with its variant traditions.63 It should be noted at this point that Yohanan b. Zakkai’s predicting that Vespasian would become “king” on the basis of Isa. 10:34 and Jer. 30:21, and its fulfillment, is strangely similar in its main thrust to Josephus’ doing the same, yet according to him based on his own prophetic powers. When the Jewish forces he commanded were defeated by the Romans in Jotapata in Galilee, Josephus hid in a cave but was discovered. His readiness to surrender was ostensibly aided by his recalling his previous “nightly dreams, in which God had foretold to him the impending fate of the Jews and the destinies of the Roman kings. He was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ‘ambiguous’ utterances of the deity. A priest himself and of priestly descent, he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books” (Bell. 3.351–52). I suggest that with the term ἀμϕιβόλως, “ambiguously,”64 Josephus indirectly refers here to the “ambiguous oracle” of Bell. 6.312 found in Scripture. The root occurs only three other times in his entire writings, and not in connection with the interpretation of a different scriptural passage. Josephus continues by praying to God, including the statement: “You have chosen my spirit to an- nounce the things to come” (3.354). Captured, Josephus was brought by the Roman general Nicanor to Vespasian, who “ordered him to be guarded with every precaution, intending shortly to send him to Nero” (3.398). At this point he maintained that he was “sent on this errand by God.” The Roman commander should not send him to Nero, for “You will be Emperor/Caesar, Vespasian, you and your son [Titus] here. Bind me more securely in chains and keep me for yourself, for you, Caesar, are master not of me only, but of land and sea and the whole human race.” These are considered “divine intentions” (3.400–02). The Jewish military commander then offered as proof of his prophetic powers an example dealing with the town of Jotapata. Assured of the veracity of Josephus’ statements, Vespasian also began to believe in those dealing with him. Although he left Josephus in chains, the prisoner was very well treated (3.405–408).65 After Vespasian was declared emperor by his troops and others in the eastern Mediterranean, Josephus writes that he “was led to think that divine

63 It is hardly credible that a Roman general in the field would have been able or willing to follow Yohanan’s interpretation of Isa. 10:34 together with Jer. 30:21. This rather appears to be the work of early Rabbis soon after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, primarily to explain how Yohanan could establish a rabbinic academy so early. Cf., nn. 57 and 59 above. 64 Cf., LSJ 90, III., adverb of ἀμϕίβολος. 65 Josephus also refers to his capture, imprisonment and later liberation in Vita 412.

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 166 Aus providence had assisted him to grasp the empire [ἀρχή—rule] and that some just destiny had placed the sovereignty of the world within his hands. Among many other omens, which had foreshadowed his imperial honors,66 he recalled the words of Josephus, who had ventured, even in Nero’s lifetime, to address him as emperor” (Bell. 4.622–23). Vespasian now believed that Josephus was “a minister of the voice of God” and ordered his release (4.626). Unchained, Josephus “won his enfranchisement as the reward of his divination, and his power of insight into the future was no longer discredited” (4.629). It is clear that Josephus composed the above account in his own favor to a great extent. Like many others, he saw that his fellow Jews with their capital Jerusalem were no match for the military might of the Romans, who ruled the then-known world. It is thus understandable that when captured, he attempted to save his own life by not being shipped off to Rome, tried, and executed by Emperor Nero, or saved for Vespasian and Titus’ triumph, to be killed then. As proposed above, on the basis of the content of the “ambiguous oracle,” Isa. 10:34 connected directly with Jer. 30:21 as in B. Git. 56b, which he reinterpreted, he predicted to Vespasian that he would soon become emperor. Fortunately for him, things turned out exactly this way, and Vespasian and Titus later gener- ously rewarded him with the opportunity to write the history of the Jewish- Roman War, the Biblical Antiquities, and other treatises in Rome. The important scriptural verse, Isa. 10:34, followed by the well-known messianic passage 11:1–10, will now be analyzed in regard to how Judaic tradition interpreted the interaction of the prophet Isaiah and Hezekiah, King of Judah, at the time the Assyrian King Sennacherib attempted to conquer Jerusalem, which was miraculously saved. To better understand this, it is helpful first to briefly sketch the prophet Isaiah in Judaic tradition.

66 Josephus intentionally omits Vespasian’s going to Mount Carmel, where the pagan priest Basilides told him in oracular fashion (ambages) that in “whatever you are planning,” the god “grants you a mighty home, limitless bounds, and a multitude of men.” See Tacitus, The Histories 2.78, as well as a shorter form in Suetonius, “Vespasian” 5.6. Tacitus notes that this was then spoken of by all (2.74–75), i.e., also by the common people. Abraham Schalit, “Die Erhebung,” pp. 293–294, thinks the oracle took place in the second half of May, 69 CE. Vespasian’s soldiers then extended it to include the entire world. Mucianus, the governor of Syria, also greatly encouraged Vespasian to become emperor (Bell. 4.605). The above incident at Carmel was therefore before Josephus’ predicting that the Roman general would become king/emperor. The Jerusalemite certainly knew of this “ambiguous” (ambages) oracle. He intentionally did not record it in his own work, for it would have made his own “prophecy” look much less significant than it was and only secondary.

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 167

3 Isaiah in Judaic Tradition

The following shows how important Isaiah67 was for the prophetic tradition in early Judaism, including 10:34, which is analyzed in section 6. below. Prophesying at the end of the eighth century BCE, Isaiah was the son of Amoz (Is. 1:1). Amoz and the King of Judah, Amaziah, were brothers.68 As the nephew of a king, Isaiah could reprimand Israel sharply.69 Born circumcised,70 he was the “holy one” of Isa. 10:17.71 Along with Hezekiah, he was a man of “upright heart.”72 Moses and he were the two greatest prophets.73 He was one of “four men referred to in Scripture as supremely perfect creatures whom God himself had formed” (Is. 49:5).74 In contrast to other prophets, Isaiah prophesied directly from the mouth of the Divine Power (Isa. 61:1). In addition, he prophesied in double terms (thus with double power), as in “Comfort, O comfort My people” (Is. 40:1) and elsewhere.75 If one sees Isaiah in a dream, one can look forward to comfort.76 He came not to comfort one generation alone, but “all the generations.”77 Isaiah suggested to King Hezekiah that he should marry and have children. The king replied that he feared an evil son would arise from him. Therefore the prophet offered him his own daughter, hoping to avert this through a double portion of goodness.78 Yet the son, Manasseh, turned out

67 On the historical Isaiah as the author of Isa. 1–39, see C.R. North, “Isaiah,” in IDB (1962), vol. 2, pp. 731–744, as well as the commentaries. Chapters 40–66 derive from later authors. Early Judaism, however, viewed the entire book as deriving from Isaiah. Only a few refer- ences to Isaiah in early Judaism are given by Elimelech Halevy, “Isaiah,” “In the Aggadah,” in EJ (2007), vol. 10, p. 73. See rather Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913/1968), vol. 4, pp. 262–263, with the relevant notes, as well as the section on Hezekiah, pp. 266–277. 68 Cf., B. Meg. 10b (Soncino, p. 57), with a parallel in B. Sot. 10b (Soncino, p. 48). 69 Cf., Pesiqta dRav Kahana 14/3 (Mandelbaum, p. 242; Eng. Braude and Kapstein, p. 269). 70 Cf., Midrash Pss. 9/7 (Buber, p. 84; Eng. Braude, vol. 1, p. 139). 71 Cf., Midrash Pss. 22/2 (Buber 180; Braude 1.298). 72 Cf., Lev. Rabbah Vayyiqra 5/5 (Mirkin, vol. 7, p. 60; Soncino, vol. 4, p. 71). 73 Cf., Deut. Rabbah Vaethanan 2/4 (Mirkin 11.31; Soncino 7.32). 74 Cf., Pesiqta Rabbati 26/1.2 (Friedmann, p. 129a; Eng. Braude, p. 525). 75 Cf., Pesiqta dRav Kahana 16/4 on this verse (Mandelbaum, p. 270; Eng. Braude and Kapstein, pp. 292–293). See also Pesiqta Rabbati 29/30 A 5 in the Parma MS (Braude, p. 577; see p. 570, note). 76 Cf., B. Ber. 57b (Soncino, p. 355), and Avot dR. Natan A 40 (Schechter, p. 128; Becker, p. 282; Eng. Goldin, p. 167). A parallel is found in B 46 (Schechter, p. 128; Becker, p. 404; Eng. Saldarini, p. 289); it has “salvation,” a play on the Hebrew of “Isaiah.” 77 Cf., Pesiqta dRav Kahana 16/10 on Isa. 40:1 (Mandelbaum, p. 278; Eng. Braude and Kapstein, p. 299). 78 Cf., Y. San. 10:2, 28c (Eng. Neusner, vol. 31, p. 332).

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 168 Aus to be extremely evil and had Isaiah killed by being sawed in two.79 Isaiah was then buried within the city of Jerusalem, from where he came, an honor other- wise accorded only to members of the house of David and to Huldah.80 While a number of the above statements regarding Isaiah are later, i.e., from the Amoraic period, they nevertheless most probably present a general view of how positively Isaiah was perceived in early Judaism. Three definitely early writers on the prophet, however, are the following. Originally written in Hebrew between 196–175 BCE in Jerusalem, the “Wisdom of Sirach” states in 48:22 that Isaiah was “great and trustworthy in his visions.” It continues in vv. 24–25: “Through a great spirit he saw the last things [τὰ ἔσχατα] and comforted the mourners in Zion. 25) He revealed what was to occur [τὰ ἐσόμενα] to the end of time [ἕως τοῦ αἰώνος] and the hidden things before they happened.” I suggest that this Hebrew writing, also available in the Greek translation by Ben Sira’s grandson in the LXX,81 was also well-known in the first century CE in Jerusalem where it was originally composed. Isa. 10:34, to be analyzed below in section 6. as the verse from Scripture that especially incited the Jews to wage war against the Romans in 66 CE, may have been influenced in a major way by this apparently common belief in Isaiah’s ability to foresee the things to come “to the end of time.” The Apostle Paul, the converted Jew Saul, in his letters written shortly before 66 CE, quotes or alludes to Isaiah very frequently, forty-two times in Romans alone.82 This too shows how influential this prophet was at the time. Josephus himself attached great importance to the verisimilitude of Isaiah’s prophecies. He had foretold Onias’ temple in Egypt 600 years before it was erected by a Jew.83 In addition, Cyrus learned that he should restore Jews to their own land, where they could rebuild the Temple, by reading Isaiah’s book

79 Cf., “The Martyrdom of Isaiah,” which belongs to the oldest part of the “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” originally written in Hebrew, very probably in Palestine, already from 167–164 BCE (Michael Knibb in OTP, vol. 1, pp. 143–150). See chapter 5 (vol. 1, pp. 163–164). This ancient tradition is found in many other sources, e.g., B. Yeb. 49b (Soncino, p. 324) and B. San. 103b (Soncino, p. 702). The event is probably also alluded to in Heb. 11:37. 80 Cf., Avot dR. Natan B 39 (Schechter, p. 107; Becker, pp. 379–380; Eng. Saldarini, p. 236). In “The Lives of the Prophets,” probably Palestinian and originally Semitic, and from the first quarter of the first century CE (D. Hare in OTP, vol. 2, pp. 380–381), 1:9 states that Isaiah’s tomb “is near the tombs of the kings, west of the tomb of the priests in the southern part of the city” (2.386). It had already been noted in 1:1 that the prophet was from Jerusalem, was sawed in two by Manasseh, “and was buried beneath the Oak of Rogel …” (2.385). 81 Cf., the Prologue. 82 Cf., the table of “Verses Cited or Alluded to” in the Nestle-Aland edition of Novum Testamentum Graece 28, pp. 857–861. 83 Cf., Bell. 7.431–32 and Ant. 13.64.

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 169 of prophecy.84 Josephus also relates that Hezekiah had confidence in “the prophet Isaiah, by whom he was accurately informed of all things about to happen.”85 At Hezekiah’s request, Isaiah “received an oracle” from God and then foretold that the enemy (the Assyrian King Sennacherib) would be defeated without a battle and retire ignominiously, a reference to Isa. 10:24–34 and 37:21–38.86 This includes 10:34, which I propose is alluded to in the ambiguous “oracle” of Bell. 6.312. This will be the subject of section 6, in Part 2 of this study. God also “commands” Isaiah to inform King Hezekiah that though he was now unmarried, the (Davidic) line would continue when sons would be born to him.87 Nevertheless, the prophet foretold that Hezekiah’s wealth would soon (after his death) be taken away to Babylon, where his sons, made eunuchs, would become servants to the king of Babylon.88 Josephus states succinctly: Isaiah “was acknowledged to be a man of God and marvelously possessed of truth and, as he was confident of never having spoken what was false, he wrote down in books all that he had prophesied and left them to be recognized as true from the event by men of future ages.” Josephus continues by saying that in regard to Isaiah and other biblical prophets, “whatever happens to us wheth- er for good or ill comes about in accordance with their prophecies.”89 The above short survey of Isaiah’s very positive reputation in early Judaism, including during the middle of the first century CE, just before the outbreak of the war in 66 CE, is helpful in understanding Judaic interpretation of Hezekiah’s confrontation with the Assyrian King Sennacherib. This, in turn, forms the background to Isa. 10:34, as will be shown in section 6. below. First, however, Hezekiah’s relationship to the Messiah in Judaic tradition should be considered.

84 Cf., Ant. 11.1–7 and Isa. 45:1, the only place in the Hebrew Bible where a non-Israelite is ”LXX χριστός). Josephus renders it with “king ; ָ מ ִ ש י חַ ) ”labeled the Lord’s “Anointed One (Ant. 11.5), probably due to his familiarity with the expression “the King, the Messiah,” and his aversion to the term “messiah.” 85 Cf., Ant. 9.276. 86 Cf., Ant. 10.12–14, as well as 16. The term “to receive an oracle” here is χρηματίζω (LSJ 2005, 4.; BAGD 885). 87 Cf., Ant. 10.28. 88 Cf., Ant. 10.33. 89 Cf., Ant. 10.35.

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 170 Aus

4 Hezekiah in Judaic Tradition

Hezekiah90 was King of Judah from ca. 715 to 687 BCE. He began to reign when he was twenty-five years old and reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 18:1–2; 2 Chron. 29:1). The author of Kings states tersely regarding him: “He did what was right in the sight of the Lord just as his ancestor David had done” (2 Kgs. 18:3). In addition, “He trusted in the Lord the God of Israel; so that there was no one like him among all the kings of Judah after him, or among those who were before him. For he held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following Him but kept the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses. The Lord was with him; wherever he went, he prospered” (vv. 5–7). He not only removed the worship of foreign gods outside Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 18:4; 2 Chron. 31:1); he also reformed worship in the Temple and emphasized the celebration of Passover in Jerusalem for all of Israel (2 Chron. 30). He also had a tunnel constructed which brought the water of the Gihon Spring into Jerusalem. One can still walk through it today.91 At the end of his life Hezekiah “had very great riches and honor” (2 Chron. 32:27). Josephus summed up his character as “that of a kindly, upright and pious man.”92 Before an analysis of the greatest challenge to his reign, the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib in 701 BCE, Judaic lore concerning him helps to better understand how he was perceived at the time the Jewish-Roman War broke out in 66 CE. Certainly in part because of the biblical statements regarding him cited above, haggadic sources idealize Hezekiah greatly. “2 (Syriac) Baruch” was originally in Hebrew, from Palestine, and apparently written at the beginning of the second century CE, although probably incorporating earlier materials.93 In chapter 63 the author emphasizes Hezekiah’s “righteousness” in vv. 1, 3 and 5, his “integrity” and “grace” in v. 1, and his “wisdom” in v. 5.94 Elsewhere Hezekiah is also considered to be meant by Eccl. 2:26, “For to the man that is good in His sight.” The Lord gave him “wisdom, knowledge and joy.”95 His humility is also

90 Cf. H. MacLean, “Hezekiah,” in IDB (1962), vol. 2, pp. 598–560; Yehoshua Grintz, “Hezekiah, In the Aggadah,” in EJ (2007), vol. 9, p. 89; and above all Louis Ginzberg, The Legends, vol. 4, pp. 266–277 with its notes. On Hezekiah in Scripture, see above all 2 Kgs. 18–20; 2 Chron. 29–32; and Isa. 36–37, together with 10:5–34. 91 Cf., 2 Kgs. 20:20; 2 Chron. 32:30; and the inside picture of the Siloam tunnel in the IDB entry “Hezekiah” (vol. 2, p. 599). Sir. 48:17 also refers to this rock tunnel. 92 Cf., Ant. 9.260. 93 Cf., A. Klijn in OTP, vol. 1, pp. 616–617. George Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 283, favors the end of the first century CE. 94 Cf., OTP, vol. 1, pp. 642–643. 95 Cf., Eccl. Rabbah 2:26 § 1 (Vilna, p. 17; Soncino, vol. 8, p. 73).

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 171 stressed.96 The merit of the three Patriarchs is said to have ended with him.97 He once addressed God as follows: “Master of the universe, I have looked into the 248 bones of my body and have not found even one with which I angered you.”98 Although a king, he subsisted the entire day on a very modest diet and “instituted the practice of immersion after a [woman’s] menstrual period in a pool of forty seah,” bringing “sexual purity and restraint to the people of Israel.”99 Hezekiah was especially remembered for his love of Torah. Aqiba notes that the Judean king “taught Torah to all Israel,” yet “all his instruction and all his toil” did not bear fruit in regard to his evil son Manasseh.100 The “oil” of Isa. 10:27 is interpreted as that of Hezekiah, “which burned in the synagogues and schools.” Under the threat of death he forced all Israel to study Torah.101 He himself expounded it before 11,000 people.102 At Hezekiah’s burial, a Torah scroll was placed over his grave and the mourners, including those seeking instruction from him there, said: “He who lies in this coffin fulfilled what is written herein.”103 All of the above made him very popular with later Rabbis, who, of course, tended to further embellish this motif in the Judean king. It is also significant that Hezekiah is described in messianic terms in Judaic tradition. Many thought he should have become the Messiah. Commenting on Isa. 10:16, which contains the root shmn,104 B. San. 94a notes that God said: “Let Hezekiah, who has eight [shemōneh] names, come and mete out punishment

96 Cf., Eccl. Rabbah 5:6 § 1 (Vilna 29; Soncino, vol. 8, p. 136). 97 Cf., B. Shab. 55a (Soncino, p. 255 with n. 4). See also Lev. Rabbah, Behukkothai 36/6 (Mirkin, vol. 8, p. 194; Soncino, vol. 4, pp. 463–464). 98 Cf., Y. Ber. 4:4, 8b (Eng. Zahavy, in Neusner, vol. 1, p. 181). 99 Cf., Pesiqta Rabbati 16/6 on Prov. 13:25 (Friedmann 82b; Eng. Braude, pp. 351–352). A parallel is found in Pesiqta dRav Kahana 6/2 (Mandelbaum, p. 116; Eng. Braude and Kapstein, pp. 130–131). 100 Cf., Sifre Vaethanan 32 on Deut. 6:5 (Finkelstein, p. 59; Eng. Hammer, pp. 61–62). Parallels are found in Mekhilta dR. Ishmael Bahodesh 10 on Exod. 20:20 (Lauterbach, vol. 2, pp. 281– 282) and B. San. 101b (Soncino, p. 687). 101 Cf., B. San. 94b (Soncino, p. 637). See also Song Rabbah 1:3 § 2 (Dunski, p. 22; Soncino, vol. 9, p. 37). 102 Cf., B. San. 26a (Soncino, p. 153). Midrash Pss. 87/5 (Buber, p. 378; Eng. Braude, vol. 2, pp. 76–77) notes that Hezekiah “brought system to the Torah,” bringing men “skilled in the systematic arrangement of traditions” to Jerusalem. A late development of this is found in Eliyyahu Rabbah 17 (Friedmann, p. 88; Eng. Braude and Kapstein, pp. 234–235). 103 Cf., Lam. Rabbah, proem 25 (Vilna 14; Soncino, vol. 7, pp. 49–50). In B.B.Q. 17a (Soncino, p. 75) this is said in the name of Nehemiah, a third generation Tanna (see Hermann Strack and Gűnter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992], p. 85) (hereafter: Introduction). Judah maintains just before this that 36,000 persons marched with bare shoulders (a sign of mourning) at his funeral. was employed to anoint the king, and the Messiah is the “One Anointed” with ( שֶ מֶ ן) ”Oil“ 104 oil.

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 172 Aus to Sennacherib, who [also] has eight. Hezekiah, as it is written, ‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called 1) Wonderful, 2) Counselor, 3) Mighty, 4) Judge, 5) Everlasting, 6) Father, 7) Prince, and 8) Peace’ (Is. 9:5, Eng. 6).”105 This passage is generally recognized as messianic.106 The parallel tradition in Gen. Rabbah Vayechi 97 on Gen. 49:8 also notes this of Hezekiah, and it goes on to list the six virtues of Isa. 11:2 for the King, the Messiah.107 In connection with the beginning of Isa. 9:5 it is also significant that Justin Martyr’s debate partner, the Jew Trypho, maintains that, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son” (Is. 7:14) refers not to Jesus, but to Hezekiah.108 Justin wrote in Greek. In addition, Justin notes that Trypho interprets Psalm 110 (v. 1: “Sit at My right hand”) of Hezekiah.109 The Latin church father Tertullian, who knew Greek and died ca. 222–25 in Rome, also knew of this tradition. He wrote in Adversus Marcionem 5.9, 6–7 regarding Ps. 110:1–2:

But it is necessary for me to claim for the support of my point of view those scriptures of which even the Jews attempt to deprive us. These say that he [David] composed this psalm in reference to Hezekiah, because it was he who set his throne at the right side of the temple and because God turned back his enemies and consumed them; and therefore again what follows, “Before the dawn out of the womb have I begotten you” (v. 3), also applies to Hezekiah, and to Hezekiah’s nativity.110

Tertullian’s reference to God’s turning back Hezekiah’s enemies and “consum- ing” them clearly refers to the angel of the Lord’s killing in one night 185,000 of Sennacherib’s soldiers encamped before Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 19:35; Isa. 37:36;

105 Cf., Soncino, p. 632, with nn. 11–12. Hezekiah and Sennacherib form the content of much of the following material. 106 Cf., Targum Jonathan ad loc. (Stenning, pp. 32–33); Deut. Rabbah Debarim 1/20 on Deut. 2:4 (Mirkin, vol. 11, p. 23; Soncino, vol. 8, p. 22); and Pesiqta Rabbati 46/3 (Friedmann 188a; Eng. Braude, p. 793, with n. 23). 107 Cf., Theodor and Albeck, p. 1213; Soncino, vol. 2, p. 902. The text deals with six righteous men, each blessed with six virtues, all of them descended from Nahshon of Judah. 108 Cf., the “Dialogue with Trypho” 43.8 (Bobichon, vol. 1, p. 292; Eng. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 216), as well as 67:1; 68:7–8; 71:3; and 77:1. Justin was born in Flavia Neapolis and was martyred in Rome when Marcus Aurelius reigned (161–80 CE). See L. Barnard, Justin Martyr (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 5. 109 Cf., the “Dialogue” 33.1 (Bobichon, vol. 1, p. 264; Eng. Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1, p. 211), as well as 83.1, 3. 110 Cf., Adversus Marcionem, Books IV–V, trans. Ernest Evans (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), pp. 564–565.

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 173

2 Chron. 32:21). It is significant that Tertullian in the diaspora, in Rome, was acquainted with a Judaic tradition that was more explicit than that attested somewhat earlier in Justin (martyred there). According to it, the author of Psalm 110, David, composed it foreseeing that his descendent Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 18:3; 2 Chron. 29:2) in a later generation would set his throne at the right side of the Temple111 and that God would turn back his Assyrian enemies and con- sume/defeat them. These are here the main reasons Hezekiah was considered to be the Messiah and for the application of Ps. 110:1 to him, just as the same verse was applied to the Christian Messiah Jesus.112 The fifth generation Tanna Bar Qappara113 also interpreted the closed Hebrew letter mem within the word for “increase” in Isa. 9:6 (Eng. 7) in B. San. 94a to mean that God first desired to appoint Hezekiah as the Messiah and Sennacherib as Gog and Magog (the eschatological opponent of Ezek. 38–39).114 The earth was also in favor of “this righteous man’s” (Hezekiah’s) becoming the Messiah, yet the Attribute of Justice persuaded God to revoke His intention, and the mem was closed.115 Bar Qappara’s pupil, Joshua b. Levi,116 relates that when Yohanan b. Zakkai lay dying, he said to his assembled disciples: “Clear out the house of [objects that will receive] uncleanness [when I die, leaving my corpse under the roof of this house] and prepare a throne for Hezekiah, King of Judah.” Some say Eliezer’s master (Yohanan) had seen him (Hezekiah) in a vision, and R. Eliezer also saw him.117 In the parallel tradition in B. Ber. 28b, Yohanan says: “Remove the vessels so that they shall not become unclean, 118”.[ֹשבא] ’and prepare a throne for Hezekiah the King of Judah ‘who is coming

111 This appears to be an interpretation of Isa. 37:14 (cf., 2 Kgs. 19:1). 112 Cf., the debate in Mark 12:35–37, as well as 14:62; Acts 2:34–36; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; and Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12. 113 Cf., Introduction, p. 90. 114 Cf., “Gog and Magog,” in EJ (2007), vol. 7, pp. 683–684. See also Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Jérusalem contre Rome (Paris: du Cerf, 1990), pp. 395–399 on “III. Gog et Magog (Ézékiel 38 et 39) et le Thème de la Guerre eschatologique.” She mentions the Qumran pesher on Isa. 10:33–11:4 on p. 399 and considers the Kittim to be the Romans there (p. 33). 115 Cf., Soncino, pp. 630–631. See also Song Rabbah 4:8 § 3 (Dunski, p. 117; Soncino, vol. 9, p. 211). See also B. San. 95b (Soncino, p. 643), which states that a force like Sennacherib’s will accompany Gog and Magog (in the future). 116 He was a first generation Palestinian Amora (Introduction, p. 92). 117 Cf., Y.A.Z. 3:1, 42c (Eng. Neusner, vol. 33, p. 114). A parallel is found in Y. Sotah 9:16, 24c (Eng. Neusner, vol. 27, p. 269: “The one whom his master [Yohanan] envisioned is the one whom he envisioned”). See also Avot dR. Natan A 25 (Schechter, pp. 79–80; Becker, p. 202; Eng. Goldin, p. 107). R. Eliezer (b. Hyrcanus) was a second generation Tanna (Introduction, p. 77). 118 Cf., Soncino, pp. 173–174. In addition, R. Hillel (II, a fourth generation Palestinian Amora: Introduction, p. 104) stated flatly in B. San. 98b (Soncino, p. 667) that “there will be no

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access 174 Aus

I suggest that Yohanan b. Zakkai, even though he basically favored appease- ment with the Romans, was in fact disappointed when the King, the Messiah, did not suddenly appear and aid the Jews in driving the occupational power out of Jerusalem and their land. Yet he nevertheless held fast to his belief that the Messiah would “come” very soon, now in the person of Hezekiah redivivus.119 The latter king was thought to have spread knowledge of the Torah throughout all Israel, just as Yohanan had previously done and now did through his academy at Yabneh after the end of the hostilities in 70 CE. Hezekiah appears in another context in connection with the Messiah. In a discussion of what the name of the Messiah is, B. San. 98b states that some Sages say: “His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written: ‘Because Menahem [the Comforter] is far from me, one to revive my soul’ (Lam. 1:16).”120 Lam. Rabbah 1:16 § 51 repeats the question of what the name of the King, the Messiah, will be. Aibu, a fourth generation Palestinian Amora,121 then relates the charming narrative in Aramaic of an Arab telling a Jew who is plowing that “the deliverer of the Jews is born.” Asked his name, he replies “Comforter.” Then asked his father’s name, the Arab answers “Hezekiah,” and that they live in Bethlehem.122 At this point the Jew sold his oxen and plow and began (as a peddler) to sell “felt clothes” for infants.123 When he came to Bethlehem, all the women bought his wares except (the Messiah’s) mother, explaining that when he was born, the Temple was destroyed. The peddler assured her that when the boy returned, it would be rebuilt. Thus she took some of the felt clothes without being able to pay for them. When the peddler later returned to Bethlehem, (the Messiah’s) mother informed him that a whirlwind had come and carried off the infant. Thus he said to her: “Did I not tell you that at his coming it [the Temple] was destroyed, and at his coming [again] it will be rebuilt?” Then

Messiah for Israel, since they have already enjoyed him during the reign of Hezekiah.” A parallel is found in 99a (Soncino, p. 669). 119 On Hezekiah as the Messiah, cf., also George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927/1962), pp. 347–348. In n. 4 he states: “What put them on this king in particular was presumably the miraculous destruction of Sennacherib’s hosts beneath the walls of Jerusalem as nar- rated in 2 Kings 18, 13–19, 36.” 120 Cf., Soncino, p. 667. 121 Cf., Introduction, p. 103, with Abin I, also called Abun and Bun. One of his disciples was Yudan, who quotes him here. The spelling Aibu appears to be defective. 122 The Messiah was expected to come from here according to Mic. 5:1 (Eng. 2). Cf., also Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4, and John 7:42 for the Messiah Jesus’ birthplace, historically probably Nazareth. 123 Cf., the “swaddling clothes” used for the newborn Jesus in Luke 2:7 and 12 (NRSV: “bands of cloth”).

The Review of Rabbinic JudaismDownloaded from21 (2018)Brill.com09/24/2021 151–175 01:36:08AM via free access Isaiah 10:34 and the “Ambiguous Oracle” in Josephus 175

R. Abun commented: “Why should I learn this from an Arab and not from an explicit text in Scripture: ‘And Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one’ (Is. 10:34)? And it is written just afterwards: ‘And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots’ (Is. 11:1).”124 While this fascinating narrative is definitely later than 70 CE, when “Lebanon” as here began to be interpreted of the destruction of the “Temple,”125 it is important to note that the “mighty one” (ʾadîr) of Isa. 10:34 is interpreted here of the Messiah, which is corroborated by the biblical verse which immediately follows, 11:1. I shall propose below, however, that “Lebanon” was originally used to describe Sennacherib, and centuries later at Qumran the leader of the Kittim/the Romans, also in connection with Isa. 11:1.126

(A continuation of this article will appear in The Review of Rabbinic Judaism Vol. 22)

124 Cf., Vilna 36; Soncino, vol. 7, pp. 136–137. Before this narrative it is pointed out that “Comforter” and “Shoot” have the same numerical value. A parallel tradition is found in Y. Ber. 2:3, 5a (Eng. Zahavy, in Neusner, vol. 1, pp. 88–89). Zahavy remarks at the end of this account: “Right after an allusion to the destruction of the Temple, the prophet speaks of the Messiah.” 125 Cf., n. 62 above. 126 I thank Thomas Day, Steve Mason, and Gűnter Stemberger for reading the manuscript and kindly making helpful suggestions.

The Review of Rabbinic Judaism 21 (2018) 151–175 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 01:36:08AM via free access