21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline

Jewishappropriation of pagan traditions took amultitude of forms. The Sibylline constituteaninstance of the first order.Nomore dramatic example of the practice exists than the adaptation and recreation of those texts. Collections of the ’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. (, –)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 .² And third, afirm unanimity among scholars holds that the bulk of Book III derivesfrom the Jewish commun- ity in ,whether in 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 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 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 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 . 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 : .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 the dire fate of Italyasconsequence not of foreign war but of civil bloodshed, and refers also to amurderous man from Italy, the destroyer of Laodicea. Those verses must recall the Roman Social and civil wars, of the earlyfirst century bce and the rav- ages by in the east thatfell in that very period.¹⁰ Yetthe succeeding lines raise the spectre of aprevious time, two generations earlier,thatwitnessed the eradication of Carthageand Corinth.¹¹ And the Sibyl could alsorecall amuch earlier era, when savage Gauls devastated Thraceinthe earlythird century bce.¹² One could proceed to passages of more speculative date. But no need. It seems clear that Book III of the Sibylline Oracles constitutes aconglomerate, agathering of various prophecies that stem from different periods ranging from the second century bce through the earlyRoman empire. To postulate a main corpus or aprimary redaction reflectingspecial circumstances does not getusfar.¹³ The composition has abroader significance. The ostensible historical pointers in the text require reassessment.Corner- stone for the idea of aprincipal edition in the second century rests upon three references to aseventh king of Egypt: verses 193, 318, 608. Since he is explicitly described in two of the three passages as ‘from the race of the Greeks’,the allu- sion is apparentlytoaPtolemaic, monarch. Scholars have wrangled over how to calculate the sequence of kings. Does count as the first or not?Does one include the shortand overlappingreign of PtolemyVII Philopa- tor?The uncertainties have caused some argument over whether ‘the seventh king’ is PtolemyVIPhilometor (180 –145), PtolemyVII Philopator (145 – 144), or PtolemyVIII Euergetes (145 – 116). The first stands as favorite, but near una- nimity,inany case, prevails in identifying the period in question as the mid-sec- ond century.¹⁴ That has engendered the further conclusion thatthis work repre-

Sibyllinische Bücher’, ;A.Peretti La Sibilla babilonese, –;Collins TheSibylline Ora- cles of Egyptian Judaism, –.Onthis, see below.  Sib.Or. . –.  Sib.Or. .–.  Sib.Or. .–.  Sib.Or. .–.  The conglomerate mixtureisreflectedalso in the confused and overlappingmanuscript transmission. The tangled strands permit no neat stemma, suggestinganumber of layers builtovertime by diverse interests and sources. See J. Geffcken Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig, a), xxi—liii; Rzach ‘Sibyllinischer Orakel’, –;Goodman, in Schürer TheHistoryof the JewishPeople, –.  The conclusion is takenfor granted by Lanchester,inCharles TheApocrypha and Pseudepi- grapha, .Afuller discussion by Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –; 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle 455 sents the propaganda of Egyptian Jews to ingratiate themselveswith the Ptole- maic dynasty and to express acommon basisfor relations between Jews and Gentiles in Egypt.¹⁵ How legitimate is thatanalysis? The first mentionofthe ‘seventh king’ causes misgivingsright away.Itfol- lows upon the Sibyl’srecounting of the rise and fall of kingdoms. Among them the Greeks are singled out as arrogant and impious and the Macedonians as bringing afearsome cloud of war upon mortals. The God of Heaven, however, will eradicate them, paving the wayfor Romanrule, the ascendancyofthe many hoary-headed men from the western sea, whose dominion too will proveoppres- sive,whose morals will degenerate, who will provokehatred, and who will en- gage in every form of deceit until the time of the seventh kingdom when an Egyp- tian monarch of Greek lineagewill be sovereign.¹⁶ Do these reallysuit the eraof PtolemyVIorPtolemyVII? No ex eventu forecastcould have set the fall of Roman power to that period, atime when its might was increasing and its reach extend- ing.Nor can one imagine the Sibyl (or her recorder)making such apronounce- ment in the reigns of Philometor or Euergetes themselveswhen its falsity was patent.The idea collides abruptly with reality.¹⁷ The Sibyl must be looking for- ward to ademise of Rome that had not yetoccurred. Hence the ‘seventh king’ can hardly refertoapresent or past scion of the Ptolemaic dynasty.

(b), –.See also Rzach ‘Sibyllinischer Orakel’, –;Fraser (), . ;Goodman, in Schürer TheHistoryofthe JewishPeople, –.The sole dissenter is Nikiprowetzky La Troi- sème Sibylle, –,whose proposal that the seventh kingisCleopatra has rightlyfound no takers.  So Collins,inCharlesworth TheOld Testament Pseudepigrapha,i.;Collins ‘The Develop- ment of the Sibylline Tradition’, .  Sib.Or. .–;see esp. –: μι̑σος δ᾽ἐξεγερει̑ ϰαὶ πα̑ς δόλος ἔσσεται αὐτοι̑ς, ἄχρι πρὸς ἑβδομάτην βασιληίδα, ἡ̑ς βασιλεύσει Αἰγύπτου Βασιλεύς, ὃςαϕ᾽Ελλήνων γένος ἔσται.  Geffcken Die Oracula Sibyllina, ,recognized the problem and simplybracketed lines –,thus removingthe seventh kingdom from the passage.Peretti La Sibilla babilonese, –,took adifferent route, separating out the verses on Roman conquest (lines –), and seeingthe rest of the segment as adenunciation of Macedonian imperialism. Such dissec- tion, however,isunwarranted and implausible. Geffcken’ssolution is arbitrary,and Peretti’sre- construction ignores the problem of the Macedonian realm coming to an end at the time when Egypt was ruled by akingofMacedonian lineage.The unity of the whole passageisablydefend- ed by Nikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle, –.Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Ju- daism, –,argues that an anti-Roman attitude by Egyptian Jews might wellhavebeen promptedbyPtolemyPhilometor whohad reason to feel aggrieved at the Romans.The sugges- tion carries little conviction. No evidenceexists for anyanimosity on Philometor’s part toward Rome, let alone for anyproddingofJews by him for this purpose.Evenifthe conjecturewere right,however,itfails to address the question of how the collapse of Roman powercould be set in Philometor’sreign. 456 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle

The Sibyl’snext referencetoaseventh king comes in the midst of numerous woeful prophecies.She dwells on the grievous fatethat has either overtaken or will eventuallyovertake anumber of nations. Egypt indeed is among them, with amighty blow to come,unanticipated and dreadful, in the seventh generation of kings—and then she will rest.¹⁸ The oracle proceeds to detail the evils thatwill befall numerous other places,reiterating once more that the baleful race of Egypt is approachingits own destruction.¹⁹ In the context of so dire aset of pre- dictions, with the afflictions of Egypt doubly noted, it strains the point to place emphasis upon asingle line alludingtoapause in the seventh generation. Noth- ing in the passagegives anyreason to evoke the eraofPhilometor and Euergetes.²⁰ Indeed, what is predictedfor the seventh generation is dispersal, death, and famine, and onlysubsequentlywill it cease.²¹ The apocalyptic visions predominateinthe long string of verses. Asearch for historical specificity misses the point. The third passageisstill more problematic. It toolies embeddedinanescha- tological prophecy.The oracle foresees calamity,war,and pestilence inflicted by the Immortal upon thosewho fail to acknowledge his existenceand persist in- stead in the worship of idols. Destruction will fall upon Egypt in the time of the young (or new) seventh king reckoned from the rule of the Greeks.And the divine instrument is named:agreat king from Asia whose infantryand cav- alry will despoil the land, spread every evil, overthrow the Egyptian kingdom, and cart off its possessions over the sea. Then they will bow their knees to God, the great king,the immortal one, while all handmade works collapse in aflame of fire.²² Astandard line has it that the Asian invader is Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the youngEgyptian king is PtolemyPhilometor,victim of the Se-

 Sib.Or. . –.See esp. –: ἥξει σοι τληγὴ μεγάλη, Αἴγυπτε, πρὸςοἴκους, δεινή, ἣνοὔπω ποτ᾽ἐξήλπισας ἐρχομένην σοι … θάνατος ϰαὶ λιμὸς ἐϕέξει ἑβδομάτῃ γενεῃ̑βασιλήων, ϰαὶ τότε παύσῃ.  Sib.Or. . –.See : ἲσθι τότ᾽ Αἰγύπτου ὁλοὸνγένος ἐγγὺς ὀλέθρου.  That the allusion in line  to aswordpassingthroughtheir midst refers to civil conflict between Philometorand Euergetes is pure conjecture,made even less substantialbythe fact that the line itself is corrupt.The conjecturewas offered by Lanchester,inCharles The Apocry- pha and Pseudepigrapha, ;endorsed by Fraser Ptolemaic Alexandria, . ; . ;Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, ;rightlydismissed by Nikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle, .The Sibylcould indeed appeal to biblicalauthority for civil strife in Egypt; Isaiah : .  Sib.Or. . ,quoted above, n. .  Sib.Or. .–. 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle 457 leucid’sassault.²³ Again, however,the effort to find direct historical allusions en- counters serious stumbling-blocks. If the Sibyl intended Antiochus IV as the Asian king,her timing would have to be very precise indeed. Seleucid success and deposition of the Ptolemies came as aconsequence of Epiphanes’ first inva- sion in 170; the second, in 168, wasthwarted by Rome and followed by reinstate- ment of Ptolemaic authority.Anex eventu prophecy would make no sense except in thatnarrowcorridor of time—far tootight asqueeze. The idea of adirect al- lusion to Antiochus Epiphanescan be discarded. Threats to Egypt from Asia wereendemic in Egyptian history and lore. The Sibyl simplyfastened upon the traditionalfoe as anticipated ravagerofthe land, not aparticular monarch, nor an identifiable invasion.²⁴ The passagealso provides little comfort to those who arguethat acordial relationship between PtolemyPhilometor and the Jews and the elevation of Jewish leaders under his aegis justify adating of the oracle to his reign. On the contrary,the relevant verses hold no brief, indeed hold no hope, for the seventh king.The invasion will come in his time, bringingwith it not onlydevastation and pestilence but the fall of the Egyptian kingdom that had been founded by Macedonians.²⁵ Farbetter then to divorcethese verses

 See Lanchester,inCharles TheApocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, ;Fraser Ptolemaic Alex- andria, . –;A.Momigliano Sesto contributo alla storia studi classici,ii(Rome, ), . Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –,shrinks from toonarrow or definitea judgment on the Asian king, but adheres to the view that Egypt’smonarch must be Philometor or Euergetes:ifthe term νέος in line  means ‘young’, it could suit the youthful Philometorat the time of Antiochus’ invasion; if the meaningis‘new’,this might be the product of an oracle issued lateineither king’sreign.Collins leavesthe options open. One might even consider the possibilityofanallusion to the title of PtolemyNeos Philopator. Goodman, in Schürer The His- toryofthe JewishPeople, ,declines to takeastand.  This is correctlynotedbyCollins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –, –, whopoints to invasions by Hyksos and Persians and to oracular pronouncements in the Potter’s Oracle and elsewhere. But he still considers Epiphanes’ invasion as aprod for the Sibyl’sfore- cast.OnAntiochus’ two military expeditions into Egypt,see E.S. Gruen TheHellenistic Worldand the Coming of Rome (Berkeley, ), –,with bibliography. Antiochus did, allegedly, ac- knowledge the powerofthe Jewish godatthe end, as recounted by  Macc. : –; cf.  Macc. : –.But this is certainlynot alluded to by Sib.Or. . –,where those whowill bend aknee to God areclearlyrepentant Egyptians.Peretti’snotion La Sibilla babilon- ese, –,that the Asian kingrepresents the coming Messiah, drasticallymisconceives his roleinthe text—which is that of destroyer,not reclaimer.  Sib.Or. . –: ὁππόταν Αἰγύπτου βασιλεὺςνέος ἕβδομος ἄρχῃ τη̑ς ἰδίης γαίης ἀριθμούμενος ἐξ Ἑλλήνων ἀρχη̑ς, ἡ̑ς ἄρξουσι Μακηδόνες ἄσπετοι ἄνδρες. ἔλθῃ δ᾽ἐξ᾿Aσίης βασι- λεὺςμέγας … ῥίψει δ᾽ Αἰγύπτου Βασιλήιον.The opposition here between an Asian ruler and a kingdom founded by Macedonians makesitevenless likelythat the former could be aSeleucid. Collins ‘The Development of the Sibylline Tradition’, –,remarks upon ‘the enthusiasm for the Egyptian kinginSib.Or. III’.Thereiscertainlynosignofithere. If anything, the reverse. 458 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle from the particular events thatmarked the reign of PtolemyVI—or anyone else for that matter.The Sibyl predicts catastrophe for Egyptian idolators, laid low by the hand of God through the agency of an Asian conqueror,and then redeemed when they prostrate themselvesbefore the true Immortal. The model should more properlybesought in something like the thunderingsofIsaiah than in the special circumstances of aPtolemaic reign.²⁶ Once again, the holds central place and drivesthe entire passage. In this context it looks ahead to the smashing of idolatry,totransformation, conversion, and redemp- tion. Anarrow political interpretation would be simplistic and distorting.²⁷ Anoteworthypoint demands attention, one missed by all thosewho have written on the subject. Designations like PtolemyVIorPtolemy VII maybeacon- venience for modem scholars, but they lack ancient authority.The Greek rulersof Egypt nowhereidentified themselvesbynumbers. One will lookinvain for such atitle in official documents, whether on stone, papyri, or coinage.Petitions to the crown do not address the kingsinthis fashion,nor are they so referred to indirectlyintransactions between private persons. The Ptolemies, of course, reg- ularlyappear with cult titles (Soter,Euergetes,Philometor,and the like), other epithets of dignity and honor,and patronymics, but they did not place them- selvesinanumerical sequence.²⁸ Perhaps more striking,our fullest and most re- liable Hellenistic literary source, the historian Polybius,refers to the Ptolemies regularlyand frequently, but never attaches numbers to them.²⁹ One can go fur- ther still. Jewish sources, contemporaryornearlycontemporary with the Ptole- maic monarchy, namely1,2,and 3Maccabees, and the , speak of the Egyptian kings—but not by number.³⁰ The sameindeedholds for ’ Antiquitates which employs cult titles, no numerals.³¹ In aword, nei- ther the technicallanguageindocuments nor the less formal designations by lit- erary sources, whether pagan or Jewish, employ anynumbering system to distin-

 Nikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle, ,rightlypoints to parallels between Isaiah : –, : –,and Sib.Or. . –, –.  Cf. the referencetoacoalition of kings organized for aconcerted assaultonthe Temple; Sib.Or. . –.Nohistorical circumstancehas been suggestedorcan be found for that pur- ported episode. Cf. Psalms : –.  To take onlythe most celebrated examples, see the titulature exhibited in the Canopus de- cree, the Rosetta Stone, and PtolemyEuergetes’ will that bequeathed his kingdom to Rome; OGIS , ; SEG IX. .  See e.g. Plb. . . : Πτολεμαι̑ος ὁ κληθεὶςΦιλοπάτορ; . –, . .  See  Macc. : , : , : ;  Macc. : , : ;  Macc. : , : , : ; Let. Aris. . , .  e.g. Jos. A. J. . –, , , , ; . , –, , , , .Anexception in C. Apion. . : τρίτος Πτολεμαι̑ος—but this is not atechnical designation. Cf. War . . 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle 459 guish the Ptolemies. When the Sibyl makes mention of aseventh king,she could hardlyexpecther readers to recognize aspecific Ptolemy. The number seven pos- sessed highsymbolic import for the Jews.³² It must be understood in that broad and spiritual sense, not as denotation of aroyal tenure. One further passageneedstreatment in this connection. The Sibyl describes adismal period of civil strife, cataclysmicwarfare among kingsand peoples, seizure of territory and riches, foreign rule over the Greek world, the destructive power of greed for wealth that terminates in utter ruin, death, and devastation. But rescue will come when God sends aking from the sun to put an end to war, slaying some and bindingothers with oaths of loyalty—an end achieved not by privatecounsel but by obeying the worthypreceptsofthe great God.³³ Thisimage too has been associated with the Ptolemies,and ‘the king from the sun’ reckoned as identical with the ‘seventh king’.³⁴ Precedents and parallels in the Egyptian material ostensiblylend credence to the association.The nearestanalogy, how- ever,appears in the Potter’sOracle which looks to aking from the sun appointed by the goddess Isis. Andthat is an expression of Egyptian nationalist sentiment, certainlynot advocacy of Ptolemaic rule.³⁵ To be sure, connection of the king with the sun might well be appropriated by the Ptolemies too. But the relation- ship has its roots in Pharaonic imagery and ancient Egyptian religion. These lines in the Third Sibylline Book represent Jewish adaptation of Egyptian lore to forecastaMessiah who will stamp out strife and restoretranquility.The ‘king from the sun’ is an emissary of God,not aPtolemaic monarch. In short, the standard theory of acentral corefor the Third Sibyl in the mid-second cen- tury is aramshackle structure on the most fragile foundations. Similar historical markers have been discerned (or imagined) for the later first century bce—most notablyinalleged allusions to the ‘second triumvirate’ and to CleopatraVII, last of the Ptolemies.They do not easilysurvive scrutiny. Averse in the earlypart of the text furnishesthe sole basis for finding the ‘second triumvirate’—amidst the Sibylline pronouncements. The oracle speaks

 Cf. Gen. ;  Enoch : –, : –;and see Sib.Or. . , . .  Sib.Or. . –.  Astrong argument for this identificationismade by Collins ‘The Provenanceand Dateofthe Third Sibyl’, Bulletin of the Institute of JewishStudies,(b) :–; The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –; Between Athens and Jerusalem (New York, ), –.Accepted by O. Camponovo Königherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjüdischenSchriften (Freiburg, ), –.But Collins’sclaim that ‘the identificationisinevitable’ greatlyoverstates the case. Momigliano Sesto contributo alla storia studi classici, ,rightlyquestions the connec- tion. See also the comments of Nikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle, –.  See the text in L. Koenen ‘Die Prophezeiungendes “Töpfers”’, ZPE (), ,lines – . 460 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibyllineOracle of atime when Rome will rule over Egypt,when the greatest kingdom of the im- mortal king willmaterialize among men, when the holysovereign will take uni- versaldominion. At that time, inexorable anger will fall upon the men of Latium, and threewith woeful destinywill rain destruction upon Rome. Andall willper- ish in their own abodes when acataract of fire rushes from Heaven.³⁶ Scholars regularlyrepeat identification of the cryptic ‘three’—with the triumvirate of Ant- ony, Octavian, and Lepidus.³⁷ But the text itself provides gravedifficulties for that hypothesis. The opening line of the passagehas Rome exercisingdominion over Egypt,anexplicit statement thatmakes sense onlyafter annexation of the land as aRoman provincein30bce.But the triumvirate no longer existed at that time: Lepidus had been dropped, Antonywas dead, and Octavian unopposed. Furthermore, the forecastthat the trio will destroy Rome hardlyapplies to the triumvirate. Rome stood intact,and the empire had expanded. No ex eventu ora- cle could have uttered such patentlyfalse phrases. And agenuine prediction would hardlyhaveconceivedRome’sdestruction at the handsofthe triumvirate after the conquest of Egypt.³⁸ Nor is it likelythat the Sibyl projects,three future rulers of Rome who will cause the destruction of the empire.³⁹ She foresees the destruction of Rome as the deed of the deathless monarch, the holyprince as sovereign over all the earth, doubtless areferencetothe divinity.The three who administerthe mournfulfatetoRome should thereforebeagents of God, not identifiable personages from Roman history.⁴⁰ Does Cleopatraappear in the Third Sibylline Book?Manyhavefound her in lines that describethe world as being in the hands of awoman, aworld governed

 Sib.Or. . –: αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶῬώμη καὶ Αἰγύπτου βασιλευ̑σει… τρει̑ς Ῥὠμην οἰκτρῃ̑μοίρῃ καταδηλήσονταί.  So e.g. Geffcken Kompositionund Entsthungszeit, –;A.Kurfess Sibyllinische Weissagun- gen (Berlin, ), ;Peretti La Sibilla babilonese, –.Doubts expressed by M. Simon, in D. Hellholm in the Mediterranean Worldand the Near East (Tübingen, ), .  The remark of W.W. Tarn ‘Alexander and the ’, JRS (), ,that once Roman rule was established over Egypt,itcould itself be used as adate, is unfathomable. Col- lins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, ,rightlysees that the oracle must have been composed after Actium but fails to recognize the implications for anyreference to the triumvi- rate.  So Nikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle, –,who usefullypoints to the motif of three Roman kings in Jewish apocalyptic.  Note Sib.Or. . –,which refers to ‘five’ whowill arouse amighty wrath and whowill shamelessly engageone another in frightful and tumultuous war,bringingjoy to their enemies but woe to the Greeks. The author evidentlyblended an echo of Isaiah :  with an allusion to Roman civil wars. The number ‘five’,itisclear,lacks anyspecific denotation here. And thereis no morereason to assign specificity to the number ‘three’ in Sib.Or. . . 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibyllineOracle 461 and obedientinevery regard. The Sibyl goes on to characterize the woman as a widow,reigning over all the universe, hurling gold and silverinto the deep, as well as the brass and iron of ephemeral men. Then all parts of the cosmos will be bereft when God rolls up the sky like ascroll and the heavens themselves fall upon the earth, followed by acataract of fire to burnearth and sea, eradicat- ing daylightand nightfall, as well as all the seasons, aterrible divine judgement.⁴¹ Onlyguesswork can offer an identity for the ‘woman’ and the ‘widow’.And therehas been plenty of that. Manyscholars, both earlyand re- cent,favor Cleopatra.⁴² The reasons fall well short of compelling. Cleopatra, to be sure, wasawidow after the death of her brother-husband PtolemyXIII. But her widowhood was hardlyconspicuous at atime when she ruled much of the east togetherwith and largely as aconsequenceofher consort Mark Antony. Nor is it likelythatthe widow allusion refers to Cleopatra’sassociation with Isis, on the grounds that Isis lost her husband Osirisevery year (onlytoregain him again) and that Cleopatrawas twice widowed. That is far-fetched, and out of tune with the context of the passage. The widow in question rules the world—not simplythe lands of the east on the sufferance of aRoman dynast.⁴³ Onlyone power fits that description: Rome itself.Characterization of the great city as a widow has parallels in biblical prophecies about Babylon.⁴⁴ The metaphorical bereavement of the super-power maysignify the loss of divine support,presag- ing an imminent demise, which indeed follows shortlythereafter in the passage. That sense is reinforced by repetition of the widow metaphor in connection with the divine judgment:all elements of the universe will be bereft when God rolls up the heavens.⁴⁵ The oracle, likesomuch else in the Third Book, directs itself against Rome, not Cleopatra.⁴⁶

 Sib.Or. .–.  e.g. Tarn ‘Alexander Helios and the Golden Age’, : ‘That the widow is Cleopatra … seems certain’;Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –;Goodman, in Schürer The His- toryofthe JewishPeople, .  Sib.Or. . –: καὶ τότε δὴ κόσμος ὑπὸ ται̑ς παλάμῃσι γυωαικός … ἔνθ᾽ὁπόταν κόσμου παν- τὸςχήρη βασιλεύσῃ.Indeed κόσμος appears yetathirdtime in line .  Isaiah : –; of John –.This was acutely notedbyNikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle, –.  Sib.Or. . –: τότε δὴ στοιχει̑α πρόπαντα χηρεύσει κόσμου, ὁπόταν θεὸςαἰθέρι ναίων οὐρανὸνεἱλίξῃ.  The idea of Rome as the referent herewas suggestedlong agobut has found little favorinthe last century.See Alexandre Excursus ad Sibyllina (Paris, ), ;Lanchester,inCharles The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, .Rzach ‘Sibyllinischer Orakel’, ,rules out Cleopatra and reckons the widow as an apocalyptic figure.The argument of Nikiprowetzky La Troisème 462 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibyllineOracle

Another oracle involves an explicit attack on Rome. This too has been iden- tified with Cleopatra, onlyhere she takes the positive role as the avenger of Roman misdeeds. Such at least is the theory.⁴⁷ The passageitself makes thatcon- clusion less than obvious. In the Sibylline pronouncement,vengeance will fall upon Rome, athreefold exaction taken by Asia, previouslyits victim, now its conqueror,and atwentyfold return in Italian slavesfor the Asians once enslaved by Rome, adown payment on adebt of myriads. Rome, the virgin, often intoxi- cated with numerous suitors, will be wedunceremoniouslyasaslave.The mis- tress willfrequentlysnip her locks and, passing judgment,will cast her from heaventoearth and then again from earth to heaven. After destruction, however, will come reconciliation, peace, and prosperity,atime of concord and the flight of all evils.⁴⁸ Is Cleopatrathe despoina, the mistress?Does this represent aJewish reflection of the Ptolemaic queen’spropaganda against Rome? Not alikelyinfer- ence. The oracle pits Asia against Rome, unambiguouslyfavoring the former and projectinganeventual eraofharmony. Depiction of the struggle between Cleo- patraand Octavian as one between east and west was, of course, the product of propagandafrom Rome, ablackeningofthe shameless and power-mad woman who leads barbaric hordes against the valiant Italians.⁴⁹ It is quite un- thinkable thatCleopatraherself would embrace that distorted portrait.Egypt had suffered no depradation from Rome, Cleopatrahad no reason to seek repar- ations or exact revenge for past iniquities. Thenotion that she looked toward conquest of Rome itself rests on ahostileand thoroughlyunreliable tradition.

Sibylle, –,that the widow represents the Messiah or the coming of , confus- ingly amalgamates both the world-ruler and the dominion which follows,the divine destruction.  So Tarn ‘Alexander Helios and the Golden Age’, –;H.Jeanmaire La Sibylle et la retour de l’âge d’Or (Paris, ), –.Collins The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –, questions manyofTarn’sarguments,but adopts his conclusion.  Sib.Or. . –.See esp. –: ὠ̑χλιδανὴ ζάχρυσε Λατινίδος ἔκγονε Ῥώμη, παρθένε, πολλάκι σοι̑σι πολυμνήστοισι γάμοισιν οἰνωθει̑σα, λάτρις νυμϕεύσεαι οὐκ ἐνὶ κόσμῳ, πολλάκι δ᾽ ἁβρὴνσει̑ο κόμην δέσποινά τε κείρει ἠδὲ δίκην διέπουσα ἀπ᾽ οὐρανόθεν ποτὶ γαι̑αν ῾ρἰψει, ἐκδἐ γαίης πάλιν ορανὸνεἲςἀνεγείρει.  Cf. Hor. Epod. ; Carm. . ;Verg. Aen. . –;Prop. . , . .Tobesure, the war of Actium is portrayedasaclash of Europe against Asiaalso by Philo, Leg. ,apoint stressed by Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, .But Philo, whose objective in this section of his work was to contrast the virtues of Caligula’spredecessors with his own megalomania, clear- ly took up the Augustan line and represents no independent Jewish viewpoint—let alone are- flection of Cleopatra’sattitude. His account, in fact,omits anyallusion to the Ptolemaic queen, depictingthe contest as one headed by rivalRomans: ἡγεμόνας ἔχουσι καὶ προαγωνιστὰς Ῥωμαίων τοὺς ἐντέλεσι δοκιμωτάτους.Moreover, appears not as leader of Rome against aGreek ruler but as champion of Hellenism and civilizer of the barbarians; Philo, Leg. . 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle 463

The queen’sambitions in fact directed themselvestoward revival of the Ptolema- ic empire—with the assistance of Rome. Once again, the Sibyl’smeaning tran- scends aspecific historical circumstance. The mistress who shears the head of Roma, the newlyenslavedservant,may wellbeAsia itself, abroad and vague allusion to the sufferingsofthe east at Romanhands, now to be reversed and compensated for manytimes over.⁵⁰ The forecast, plainlyawishful hope for a future that never came to pass, expresses fierceeastern resentment against Roman exploitation and looks ahead to ahappier time when the empire will be crushed, its reparations plenteous,and the outcome one of concord. Cleopa- trahas no place here. Similar doubts need to be applied to other inferences about historicalevents or personages lurkingbehind the Sibyl’sdark pronouncements. The very passage just discussed has been ascribed to the time of the Mithridatic wars, an anticipat- ed vengeful retaliation by Mithridates against Romans who had despoiled the east.⁵¹ But Mithridates would hardlyqualifyasa‘mistress’.And his fearsome war against Romansand Italians would certainlynot suit aprediction of subse- quent peace and harmony. Elsewhere, acryptic oracle regardingMacedonian terrors unleashed upon Asia has stimulated awealth of scholarlyspeculation. The Sibyl bewails afflic- tions imposed upon Asia, and even upon Europe, by the horrific Macedon be- comingmistress of all lands under the sun, climaxed by the conquest of Baby- lon. The evils wrought upon Asia are ascribed to an untrustworthyman, clad in purple cloak, characterized as barbaric and fiery,who came to place Asia under awicked yoke.Ultimately, however,sothe Sibyl forecast,the very race he soughttodestroy will bring,about the destruction of his ownrace. Astill more cryptic pronouncement follows: the destroyer provides asingle root which he willcut off from ten horns and will leave another side-shoot; then, after slaying the warrior progenitor of apurple race, he will perish at the hands of his sons, and the side-horn will rule.⁵² Opinions divide on the identity of the malignant Macedonian conqueror whose race will perish by the hand of those whom he oppressed. Some opt for Alexander the Great,some for Antio-

 So Peretti La Sibilla babilonese, –.  So Bousset ‘Sibyllen und Sibyllinische Bücher’, ;Lanchester,inCharles TheApocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, ;Peretti La Sibilla babilonese, –;Geffcken Komposition und En- tsthungszeit, –.Goodman, in Schürer TheHistoryofthe JewishPeople, ,declines to choose between Mithridates and Cleopatra.  Sib. Or. . –.The oracle is often divided intotwo,with abreakafter line .But even if the division is justified, the forecasts arecloselyrelated and belongtogether. 464 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibyllineOracle chus IV Epiphanes.⁵³ Or,asalmostall commentators now seem to concur,the original oracle had Alexander as its villain but was then reworked by aJewish Sibyllist who directed its fire against Antiochus Epiphanes, archenemyofthe Jews, and sawthe collapse of Macedonian power in the internecine warfare of the Seleucid house.⁵⁴ Again, however,focus upon historical personages and their actions veers away from the central significance. The purple-clad invader of Asia maywell be Alexander the Great,but he is cited as emblematicofMace- donianpower and ruthlessness, not with regardtospecific deeds of the individ- ual. The one explicitreference to conquest of Babylon should have made that clear to commentators: Alexander did gain control of Babylon, but postured as its liberator,respectedits religion and traditions, and treated it with generosity.⁵⁵ The Sibyl is concerned with the broader consequences of Macedonian domi- nance, not with historical particulars.Bythe sametoken, the narrow interpreta- tion of the oracle’sconclusion by seeking to identify individuals in the house of Antiochus Epiphaneshas little point.Tobesure, the Sibyl here has adopted the imageofthe ten horns and theiroffshoot thatcan be found in Daniel 7: 7– 8, but it does not follow thatthe imagecarriesthe same significance—even if we knew for certain to what Danieldoes refer.What matters here is the sharp hostility to Hellenic overlordship in the east,atleast as exercised by savage rulers, and the prediction of its violent demise.The thrust of the oracle is out of tune with much else in the Third Book. Knowledge of Daniel implies aJewish hand at work. But the messagecontains no hint of divineretribution or intervention. And this is the one segmentinthe Third Book in which Macedonians, rather than the more usual Romans, are the targets of oracularvenom. In so far as Jewishauthorship is involved, whether in origin or as redaction, it is best seen as expressingresent-

 ForAntiochus, see e.g. Lanchester,inCharles The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, ; H.H. Rowley ‘The Interpretation and Dateofthe Sibylline Oracles III –’, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,(), –;Fraser Ptolemaic Alexandria, . –. The argument for Alexander,atleast as the initial figure in lines –,was forcefully made by Bousset ‘Die Beziehungender ältesten jüdischen Sibylle zur chaldäischen Sibyll’, Zeits- chrift fürdie Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,(), :–,followed by manyinsubse- quent years.  Peretti La Sibilla babilonese, –;S.K.Eddy TheKingisDead (Lincoln, ), –; Collins The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, ;Goodman, in Schürer TheHistoryofthe JewishPeople, .The disputeoverwhether the first part of the forecast,inlines –,de- rivesfroma‘Persian Sibyl’,a‘Babylonian Sibyl’,orneither one need not be exploited here. See the valuable discussion, with bibliography, by Nikiprowetzky ‘La Sibylle juive depuis Charles Alexandre’, ANRW (), –; –.  Arrian . . –-, . . –.See also Ps.Hecataeus in Joseph. C. Apion. . ,for afa- vorableJewish view of Alexander at Babylon; cf. . . 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibyllineOracle 465 ment against foreign oppression, wherever it manifests itself in the east.The quest for historical specificity has led researchers astray.⁵⁶ Acomparable quest for geographical specificity maybeequallydelusive.The favored provenance is Egypt,with the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria or Leontop- olis as principal sites for authors.⁵⁷ The theory connects closelywith the idea that acozyrelationship between Jews and the Ptolemies of mid-second-centuryEgypt finds voice in the utterances of the Third Sibyl. The weakness of that reconstruc- tion has alreadybeen indicatedabove. And the corollary correspondingly falls. Since no unequivocal reference to the relevant Ptolemies exists in the text,fur- ther speculation about the significanceofanalleged Jewish—Egyptian prove- nance lacks warrant. In fact,manyofthe Sibyl’spronouncements would dishearten the devotees of Ptolemaic Egypt.Almost the very opening lines of the Third Book denounce Egyptians for their idolatry thatincludes not onlythe erection of stone statues to people, but the worship of snakes,and the rendering of sacrifice to cats.⁵⁸ The earlyverses, to be sure, mayactuallybelong to Book II, and hence have no bearing on the-attitude of the authors of the Third Sibyl.⁵⁹ But it is perhaps not irrelevant that those who ordered the extant edition found ostensible congru- ence. In anyevent,later passages are comparably uncomplimentary to Egyp- tians. When God’swrath falls upon the nations, Egypt will suffer together with others, indeed doubly so.⁶⁰ The Egyptians are characterized as adestructive race.⁶¹ The Sibyl brackets them, together with Phoenicians,Romans, and others, as moral transgressors, indulging in homosexual vice.⁶² And it is noteworthythat

 See the sensible general remarksofSimon, in Hellholm Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World, –.  The case is made most fullybyCollins ‘The Provenanceand Dateofthe Third Sibyl’, –; TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –.Collins’sargument for Leontopolis as the prin- cipal siteofcomposition, however,has little force.The absenceofany allusion to Leontopolis in the text fatallyweakens the idea, forcingCollins to postulateavery narrow corridor of time for the composition: after Onias’sarrival in Egypt but beforehebuilt the temple at Leontopolis. However,the recent immigration of Onias and his followers from Judaea and their relatively con- servative ideology,which Collins himself acknowledges, makethem the least likelypersons to embrace the quintessentiallyHellenic form of Sibylline prophecytoconveytheir message.  Sib.Or. . –.  See Geffcken Komposition und Entsthungszeit, –;Bousset ‘Sibyllen und Sibyllinische Bücher’, –;Rzach ‘Sibyllinischer Orakel’, , .  Sib.Or. . –, –.  Sib.Or. .–: Αἰγύπτου ὀλοὸνγένος.  Sib.Or. .–. 466 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle the projected time of peace and prosperity will come after the collapse of Egypt, destroyed by an Asian king.⁶³ That some verses in the collection stemfrom Hellenized Jews in Egypt can be readilyacknowledged. The denunciations of Egypt noted abovebelong in that category.Sodothe lines that give Egypt prominenceinthe sequence of empires, singlingout its royal rule twice.⁶⁴ And one mayplausiblyinfer Egyptian prove- nance for the passageonthe ‘king from the sun’,aJewish reworking of material rooted in theiradopted land.⁶⁵ All of this, however,amountstonomore than a fraction of the 829 verses in Book III. Much of the remainder could just as readily derive from Palestinian Jews.⁶⁶ Andparts indeedneed not even be Jewishin origin.⁶⁷ In short, it is hazardous to see the centrality of Egypt in the work, let alone Jewishfavor towardPtolemy VI or PtolemyVIII as stimulus for its composition.⁶⁸ The Sibyl has awider canvas.Her realmofconcern stretches to the world at large,atleast the wordasshe knew it,the landsofthe Mediterranean. And there the dominant power wasRome,ruthless, tyrannical,and appalling.Rome is the prime villain of the verses, overwhelmingly so. Onlymisguided scholarlyingen- uity has obscured thatotherwise conspicuous fact. The evils of Rome, Romans, and the Roman empire recur repeatedly. Afore- cast nearthe outset of Book III issues asevere condemnation. When the imperial power stretches over Egypt,its days become numbered. Despite all the splendid cities with their temples,stadia, fora, and statuary,the empire stands doomed, to be destroyed by the fiery cataract of the Supreme Being who will reign over the earth.⁶⁹ The very next oracle directs itself against Beliarfrom the Sebastenoi, the latter probablysignifyingthe line of Roman emperors and the formerperhaps Nero, who will lead men away from God but will perish by divine fire,aswill those who put trust in him.⁷⁰ There follows the passageinwhich ‘the widow’, quite probablyRome, who rules the entire world, will herself be swept away

 Sib.Or. .–.  Sib.Or. .–.  Sib.Or. .–.  e.g. Sib.Or. . –, –, –, –, –, –.  –, –.  Asimilar criticism with regardtoreductive interpretations of the Oracula Sibyllina, Book  was deliveredbyJ.G.Gager ‘Some attempts to label the Oracula Sibylla, Book ’, HTR (), –.  Sib.Or. . –.  –.OnBeliar as Nero, see Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –. Con- tra: Nikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle, –;cf. Goodman, in Schürer TheHistory of the Jew- ishPeople, –. 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibyllineOracle 467 by the mighty wrath of adivine judgement.⁷¹ Not long thereafter in the text,alist of kingdoms culminating in Rome provokes aprophecywhereby the imperial forces of the Roman Republic will wreak widespread destruction onlytofall foul of their own arrogance, impiety,and moral corruption.⁷² Aharsher fate for Rome is proclaimed later in the text:retribution threefold for exactions made from Asia, twentyfold for the numbers enslaved, and tenthousand fold for debts imposed; vengeance will reduce Rome to amere street.⁷³ Yetanother oracle bewails the devastation and destruction to be wroughtbyRomans upon the east but alsoforetells civil war that will tear Italyapart,the land descri- bed not as mother of good menbut as nurse of wildbeasts.⁷⁴ Finally, the large barbarian horde, which will devastatethe Greeks, rampage, laywaste the earth, enslave and rape the conquered, and place aheavy yoke upon the Hellenes until God unleashes his deadlyfire,unquestionablyrefers to the Romans.⁷⁵ The divine judgment that will eventuallyblast the Romans to perdition is, of course, atriumphantvindication of Jewishfaith. Ultimateglory for the Jews is a repeated refrain of the Third Sibyl.⁷⁶ Anoteworthyfeature, however,needsem- phasis here. Whereas the oracle mounts aheavy assault upon Roman wicked- ness, no comparable attacks are leveled at the Greeks.Tothe contrary.The Sibyl reaches out to the Hellenic world, exhorting its people to repentance, urg- ing acknowledgmentofthe true God,and offering hope of salvation. Oracular verses expose the follyoftrust in mortal leaders and resort to idolatry,proclaim- ing instead the need to recognize the great God, thereby to escape the woes that will fall upon Hellas.⁷⁷ Afurther call to repentance comes several lines later,pre- scribing sacrifices,prayers,and righteous behavior to earn divine favor.⁷⁸ The disasters to befall Greecewill eventuallybeliftedbyGod through the agency of aking from the sun.⁷⁹ And the Sibyl subsequentlyrepeats her appeal to un- happy Hellas to abandon haughtiness and embrace the true God—which will

 Sib.Or. . –.See above.  Sib.Or. .–.  Sib.Or. .–.  Sib.Or. .–;see : ἔσσῃ δ᾽ οὐκ ἀγαθω̑ν μήτηρ, θηρω̑ν δὲ τιθήνη.  Sib.Or. .–.The suggestion that this mayallude to the Gallic invasion of Greece is ruled out by line  which states that the Greeks will have no one to give them alittle aid in war and to preservetheir lives.  Cf. Sib.Or. , –, –, –, –, –.  Sib.Or. .–.  Sib.Or. .–.Sincethese lines follow,directlyupon apassage that speaks of Graeco- Macedonians bendingaknee to God whothen, brings about peace and prosperity, –,the exhortation must be directed to Greeks.  Sib.Or. . –. 468 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibyllineOracle bring ashare in the blissful peace to come.⁸⁰ In so far as the Third Book contains negative aspersions upon Greeks,itincludes them among wayward peoples whose failuretosee the truth has led them into arrogance, impiety,and immor- ality,thus provoking divine vengeance.⁸¹ But Greeks alone are singled out for en- couragementtoenter the fold of the true believers.⁸² The gesture of the Sibyl is noble and magnanimous. It should not,however, be mistakenfor aconscious campaign of proselytism. Readership of the Books would consist largely of Hellenized Jews, with but asprinkling of Gentiles. The messagehad symbolicimport,not amanifesto for missionary activity.Itasserted common cultural bondsthat could encompass both communities. The appeal to the Greeks constitutes astriking feature of the text.Itmay also help to solve apeculiar puzzle.The Sibyl directs her fire against Rome, against the terror,destructiveness, and corruption of the Roman empire. Her verses, of course, are no political clarion call. Efforts to locate the messageinprecise time and place, with concrete intent and expectation, lead to blind-alleys. The fall of Rome will come onlythrough acataclysmic divine intervention. But the vitriol against Rome itself demands explanation. Jews did not suffer at Roman hands in the Hellenistic period prior to the advent of Pompey,and rarelythere- after before the time of Caligula. Indeed, they generallyenjoyed tolerance, alli- ance, and signal favor. Whythen should aJewish Sibyl of this erablast the Ro- mans?The question, adifficult and troublingone, seldom even arisesinthe scholarship. Apossible, at least partial, answer maylurkinthe features outlined above. Oracular forebodingsofdoomdelivered by aJewish voice through aGreek medium signaled asolidarity between the two cultures. The verbal assault on

 Sib.Or. .–.  Sib.Or. .–, –, –.Onlythe anti-Macedonian prophecy of lines – ,with its parallel to the forecast of Daniel, givesnoostensible hope for reconciliation. But the reference is to the aggressions of royal imperialists, not to the Hellenistic people as such. The thesis of Ε.Kocsis ‘Ost-West Gegensatz in den jüdischen Sibyllinen’, Novum Testamentum (), –,that the oracles drew asharp contrast between the favoredeast and the savage west, is simplistic:One needs onlytocite the destructive kingfromAsia in Sib.Or. . –.  The Sibyl’shostile comments about Egyptian practices might be thought to reflect ill upon the Hellenic masters of that land. Not so. The openingverses unambiguouslycondemn the idola- try of native Egyptians,worship of snakes and reverencefor cats; Sib.Or. . –.Later,the baleful race of Egypt whose doom is nighisevidentlycontrasted with the Alexandrians who seem to be put in adifferent category; Sib.Or. –: ἴσθι τότ᾽ Αἰγύπτου ὀλοὸνγένος ἐγγὺς ὀλέθρου, καί τότ᾽᾿Aλεξανδρευ̑σιν ἔτος τὸ παρελθὸν ἅμεινον.That the Sibyldid not subsume Greeks under Egypt is plain from lines –.The cryptic allusions to the seventh kingof Egypt remain elusive,but clearlyimplynoreproach of the Hellenic dwellers in that land; Sib. Or. . –, –, .See above. 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibylline Oracle 469

Rome would suitablyfit that context.The Greeks had indeed been victimizedby the western power,especiallyinthe later Hellenistic era. Greek resentment bursts out with pointed forceinlines preserved by the Third Sibyl herself and plainlyderiving from Hellenic circles.⁸³ Adoption of the anti-Roman line by Hel- lenized Jews who helped to shape this compilation symbolized the conjoiningof Greek experience and Jewishaspirations. Eschatology is the central ingredient throughout.Referenceboth to past dis- asters and to ills still to come issue in forecasts of terrifying divine judgments and usually the glorious elevation of the Jewish faithful. That is surelythe signif- icance of the ‘king from the sun’,not ahistorical personagebut aMessianic figure.⁸⁴ And eschatological overtones maybecaughtalsoinlines that allude to construction of the Second Temple but also carry deeper meaningembodied in aking sent by the Lordtodeliverjudgment in blood and fire.⁸⁵ The messageofthe Third Sibyl transcends the political realm. Itsresonance is religious and cultural. The roots of the Sibyl’sutterances reside in biblical prophecy, not the official functionaries who advised kingsorparticipated in cult,but the powerful voices who denounced contemporaries and heralded de- struction from the skies: an Amos, aHosea, or an Isaiah. No less potent in inspi- ration for the Sibyl was the of : Daniel, 1Enoch, Jubilees, 4Ezra, and avariety of othertexts,now further illuminated by the Qumrandocuments. The Sibylline pronouncementsfit snuglywithin that set- ting,acomplex of thoroughlyJewishtraditions.⁸⁶ At the sametime, of course,

 The bitterness is unmistakable in Sib.Or. . –, –,which aresurelyofGreek ori- gin.  Sib.Or. . –;see above.  Sib.Or. .–,esp. –: ϰαὶ τότε δὴ θεὸςοὐράνιος πέμψει βασιλη̑α, κρινει̑ δ᾽ἄνδρα ἕκαστον ἐναἵματι καὶ πυρὸςαυ̑γῃ.Cf. Peretti La Sibilla babilonese, –,whose speculations about the influenceofIranian eschatology,however,need to be takenwith caution. The Mes- sianic interpretation of these lines is not in fashion; cf. Nikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle, –;Collins TheSibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, –.J.Nolland ‘Sib.Or. III. – ,AnEarlyMaccabean Messianic Oracle’, JTS (), –,with valuablebibliography, rightlyendeavored to revive it.But his effort to pinpoint it to the earlyMaccabaean period, de- spitethe absenceofany Maccabaean allusion, is unpersuasive.Cf. Collins Between Athens and Jerusalem, –.Nothinginthe Third Book givesany hint of Jewish resistancetothe Seleucid persecutions.That resoundingsilencealso undermines the thesis of Momigliano, Sesto contrib- uto alla storia studi classici, –,that lines –,predicting the future strength of the Jews, refertothe success of the Maccabaean uprising.  This emergesforcefullyinNikiprowetzky’sdiscussion La Troisème Sibylle, –, –, –, –.The lengthyand repetitious treatment by Peretti La Sibilla babilonese, – ,tracingthe apocalyptic statements to Iranian eschatology,asexemplified by the Oracle of Hystaspes,isaltogether speculative. 470 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibyllineOracle the authors or compilers of this collection, whether from Palestine or the Dia- spora, purposefully and pointedlydonned the cloak of the pagan Sibyl. Declara- tions issuing forth from oracular shrines, subsequentlyassimilated, expanded, or fabricated in written form, had long been afeature of Hellenic religious cul- ture. They could even take shape as afull-scale piece of literature, as in the case of Lycophron’s Alexandra. Sibylline prophecies constituted an important part of this development,widelycirculated in privatehands, available for consultation by public authorities, and the basisfor literary invention.The authority of the spread through much of the Greek world, most especiallythe prophetess at , but also anumber of others located at various Mediterranean sites.⁸⁷ Jewishintellectuals tapped into the tradition and embraced the Hellenic oracular form. AHebrew Sibyl eventuallytook her place among the venerable female seers acknowledgedbypagan writers. Verses in the extant Third Book that con- cern the , the reign of the , and the of Chronos and his sons are attributed to the Sibyl by alreadyinthe first cen- tury bce.⁸⁸ By the second century ce Pausaniascould make specific reference to aSibyl of the Hebrews in Palestine alongside the Erythraean, Libyan, and Cu- maean Sibyls.⁸⁹ The Jews successfullyappropriated the Hellenic medium.The JewishSibyl speaksinproper Homeric hexameters. She pronounces her prophecies under di- vine prodding, amouthpiece, even asomewhat reluctantone, of the greater power who speaksthrough her.⁹⁰ She has agrasp of Greek mythologyand the epic tradition.⁹¹ Indeedshe forecasts both the fall of and the Exodus from Egypt.⁹² Employment of Hellenic forms, language, and themesinthe serv- ice of advancingJudaic ideas enlivened the intellectual circles of Hellenistic Ju- daism. The composers of the Third Sibylline Oracle stand shoulder to shoulder with Ezekiel the tragedian, the historians Demetrius and Eupolemus, and the imaginative reinventors of aHebraic—Hellenic past likeArtapanus,Aristobulus, and Pseudo-Eupolemus.

 On the Sibyls and Sibylline oracles, see Alexandre Oracula Sibyllina, . –;Rzach ‘Sib- yllinischer Orakel’, –;H.W. Parke Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in ClassicalAntiquity (London, ), –;D.Potter Prophets and Emperors (Cambridge,Mass., ), –.  See Euseb. Chron. .  (Schoene).  Paus. . ;cf. Schol. Pl. Phdr. .See Nikiprowetzky La Troisème Sibylle, –;Peretti La Sibilla babilonese, –.  See Sib.Or. .  – , –, –, –, –, –.  Sib.Or. .–, –.  Sib.Or. .–, –. 21. Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the ThirdSibyllineOracle 471

Preparation for the Eschaton marks ablendingofHebrew and Hellene. The Sibylline declarations extend ahand to Greeks and apromise of divine deliver- ance—an invitation to link the two heritages. The Jewish authors express acul- tural solidarity with Greeks,but one in which the precedence of their own tradi- tions is clear.Greeks who show themselvesworthyare invited to partake of the values of the Jews. The provenance of the Third Sibyl makes the point unambig- uously. She presents herself as daughter-in-lawofNoah, hence aclaim on the most distant antiquity and the hoariest biblical and Near-Eastern legacies. The Hellenic connection is asecondary one. The Sibyl movedfrom Babylon to Greece, there to be associated with Erythrae. But her memory stretches backto the Flood, adivine prescience, infallible as the gift of God.⁹³ Hereisappropria- tion indeed. The Sibyl’sorigins precede even Babel. She thus asserts auniversal heritage, embodying Hebrew traditions and later subsuming the authority of the Erythraean Sibyl, most venerated of the Hellenic prophetesses. Jewishidentity stands in the forefront here. The keepers of the faith who had also absorbed pagan learning,literature, and legends claimed aplace in bothworlds but held firm to their core. The oracular voice promises ahappy fate for the Chosen People—and also extends acompassionate embrace to thoseGreeks touched by their values and ideals.

 Sib.Or. .–.