21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle Jewishappropriation of pagan traditions took amultitude of forms. The Sibylline Oracles constituteaninstance of the first order.Nomore dramatic example of the practice exists than the adaptation and recreation of those texts. Collections of the Sibyl’spronouncements, dulyedited, expanded, or invented, had wide cir- culation in the Graeco-Roman world—long before Jewishwriters exploited them for theirown purposes. But circumstances of transmission, as so often, produce peculiarironies.The pagan originals that served as models have largely been lost,surviving onlyinfragments or reconstructions. The extant corpus of Sibyl- line Books, drawingupon but refashioning those models, derivesfrom Jewish and Christian compilers who had their own agenda to promote. The role of Helle- nized Jews in this development is pivotal. Rehabilitation of the originals mayno longer be possible, but assessment of the means and motivesfor the transforma- tion raises even more significant issuesofJewish self-image. In this quest,the Third Sibylline Oracle possesses special importance. It con- tains the earliest material in the collection and its composition is predominantly Jewish. That much can confidentlybestated. Beyond it lies controversy,dispute, and division. Alarge and burgeoning scholarlyliterature daunts the researcher, with innumerabledisagreements in detail. And ironyenters here as well. Afew issues do command abroad consensus,issues of centrality and importance, thus affordinganostensible reassurance. Yetthe very ground on which that consen- sus restsisshaky,and maywell have clouded rather than clarifiedunderstand- ing.The areas of agreementtouch on fundamental matters that have not been subjectedtoadequate scrutiny. The time is overdue for acloser look. First,the matter of unity or diversityofcomposition. Opinions vary widelyon specifics. But aheavy majorityofscholars have always discerned amain corpus or aprincipal coreproducedorredactedataparticularhistoricaltime.Earlier material might have been incorporated and accretions subsequentlyadded, but the bodyofthe work, so most have claimed,can be tied to identifiable his- torical circumstances that called it forth. The favored times, each boastingnota- ble champions, are the mid-second century bce,the earlyfirst century bce,and the later first century bce.¹ Second, and in close conjunction with the first,var- In the first edition of realimportance and influence, C. Alexandre Oracula Sibyllina, vols. (Paris, –)assigned well over half of the texttoaJewish redactorofc. bce.The notion of aprincipal author datingtothe mid-nd cent.prevailed until the sustained assaultby J. Geffcken Komposition und Entsthungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig, b), –,which 452 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle ious pointers in the text to what appear to be historical episodeshaveregularly been taken as disclosing the Sitz-im-Leben of the text—asign of the author’sat- titude to contemporary leaders, nations, or events. The most common referents identifiedbyinterpreters are Antiochus Epiphanes, the Maccabees, PtolemyVI or VIII, Mithridates, the triumvirs, and Cleopatra.² And third, afirm unanimity among scholars holds that the bulk of Book III derivesfrom the Jewish commun- ity in Egypt,whether in Alexandria or Leontopolis.The Egyptian provenance,so has had wide impact in the scholarship. Geffcken, as acommitted pluralist,dissected the Third Book with scrupulous care but excessive confidence, labelingvarious segments as products of the Babylonian Sibyl, the Persian Sibyl, the Erythraean Sibyl, or the Jewish Sibyl. Even his atomistic structure, however,includes aJewish composer from the Maccabaean period for nearly aquarter of the lines and aJewish revision of the Erythraean Sibyl, constitutingmorethan a thirdofthe Whole, in the early st cent. bce.W.Bousset ‘Sibyllen und Sibyllinische Bücher’,in Real-Encyclopädie fürprotestantische Theologie und Kirsche,(), –,detected divisions in, places other than those notedbyGeffcken, but ascribed morethan half the texttoanauthor livinginthe early st cent.E.Schürer Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,ii (Leipzig, ), –,believed that almost all came from the pen of aJewish writer in the mid-nd cent. Similar judgments wereexpressed by H. Lanchester,inR.H. Charles TheApoc- rypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,ii(Oxford, ), –,and A. Rzach ‘Sib- yllinischer Orakel’, PWRE ()II.A.:–.A.Peretti La Sibilla babilonese nella prop- aganda ellenistica (Florence, ), –, –, –, –, –, –,holds that the coreofthe textwas composed in the early st cent., and certainlyprior to bce,the takingofJerusalem by Pompey,and then subject to subsequent accretions.The strongest ar- gument for unity came from V. Nikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle (Paris, ), –,who set almost the entirework in the time of the later st cent., the period of Cleopatra VII and the triumvirate. That verdicthas not found favoramong morerecent commentators. The current consensus inclines to the compositeinterpretation of Geffcken, but discerns amain corpus, encompassingmorethan two-thirds of the whole, as aproduct of the mid-nd cent.That is the conclusionofJ.J.Collins who has written extensively on the subject (Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (Missoula, a), –;id. in J.H. Charlesworth TheOld Testament Pseudepigrapha,I(Garden City,N.Y., ), –;id. in M.E. Stone JewishWritings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia, ), –;id. ‘The Development of the Sibylline Tradition’, ANRW (), –). Similarly, P.M. Fraser Ptolemaic Alexandria, .Vols.(Oxford, ), . , .The positionhas been endorsed in recent works; e.g. J.D. Newsome Greeks, Romans,Jews (Philadelphia, ); –;L.H. Feldman Jewand Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, ), ;cf. M. Delcor,inDavies and Finkelstein TheCambridge History of Ju- daism,ii(Cambridge, ), –.Amorepluralistic interpretation by M. Goodman, in Schürer TheHistoryofthe JewishPeople in the Age of Jesus Christ,iii. I. rev.G.Vermes, et al. (Edinburgh, ), –.Arguments about the Sibylline Oracles generallybegan already amongRenaissancehumanists;see A. Grafton Defenders of the Text (Cambridge,Mass., ), –. No need to rehearse the bibliography here.Specifics will emerge in subsequent discussions. 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle 453 it is asserted or assumed, accounts for the attitudes expressed and the general thrust of, at least,the main corpus of the work.³ The modern literature,inshort,has sought to locate the ThirdSibyl in time and place. The aim is logical and laudable enough.Yet the search for historical specificitymay miss the essence of the Sibyl’smessage, its apocalyptic character, and its significancefor the interaction of Judaism and Hellenism. Areconsidera- tion of the three propositions outlinedaboveisinorder. Is there, in fact,a‘main corpus’ in Book III, in which earlier oracles were incorporated and later material tacked on?The idea runs into trouble from the start.Chronological indicators are few,scattered, and usually ambiguous. The problem can be readilyillustrated. Verse 46 speaks of atime when Rome ruled Egypt,apassagethatcan hardlybeearlier than the battle of Actium.⁴ Amention of Beliar who comes from the Sebastenoi occurs in verse 63.The Sebastenoi very likelysignify the line of Roman emperors or Augusti, and the arrogant Beliarwho comes to abad end probablydenotes Nero. Hence, this passageevidentlypost- dates 68 ce.⁵ The sequence of kingdoms giveninlines 156–61 places Rome after Egypt,again implying adate after 30 bce,the fall of Egypt into Roman hands.⁶ By contrast,the following oracle, offering yetanother series of kingdoms that will rise and fall, sets the Romans after the Macedonians,gives Macedon as their prime victim, and, in describingthem as ‘white, many-headed, from the western sea’,obviously alludes to the Republic and, presumably,tothe defeat of Macedon in 168 or 148.⁷ The fiercehostility and rage directed against Rome and the vengeance promised from Asia in verses 350 –80 belong more suitably to the late Republic when Roman expansionism and imperial exactions had left deep scars in the east.⁸ Yetthe oracle thatappears next in the text reverts See e.g. Collins The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –. Sib.Or. : αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶῬώμη ϰαὶ Αἰγύπτου βασιλεύσει.The suggestion of Lanchester,in Charles TheApocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, ,that this mayallude to Popillius Laenas’ mis- sion to Egypt in bce,isout of the question. Rome exercised no sovereignty over Egypt at that time. Nor after the bequests of either PtolemyApion or PtolemyAuletes, the other possibil- ities canvassed by Lanchester. So Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –,citing as parallel Ascension of Isaiah : .Beliar,however,can have other connotations;see Nikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle, –. Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, ,implausiblyprefers the nd cent. bce on the grounds that Rome was alreadyaworld empire by that time. That skirts the significanceof the sequenceofempires, each kingdom replacingorsubduingthe previous. Sib.Or. –,esp. : λευϰὴ καὶ πολύκρανος ἀϕ᾽ἑσπερίοιο θαλάσσης. That conclusion is generallyaccepted, although commentators differ as to whether the lines allude to the Mithridatic war or to Cleopatra’sresistancetoRome: cf. W. Bousset ‘Sibyllen und 454 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle to an earlier time, lamentingthe mighty power of Macedon and the sorrows it brings, and looking ahead to its demise.⁹ Later,the Sibyl proclaims