Jewish Reactions to the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.d. 70: Apocalypses and Related Pseudepigrapha (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Jewish Reactions to the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70

Supplements to the

Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor

Hindy Najman Department and Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto Associate Editors

Florentino García Martínez Qumran Institute, University of Groningen

Benjamin G. Wright, III Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University Advisory Board

g. bohak – j.j. collins – j. duhaime – p.w. van der horst – a.k. petersen – m. popoviĆ – j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten – j. sievers – g. stemberger – e.j.c. tigchelaar – j. magliano-tromp VOLUME 151

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/jsjs.

Jewish Reactions to the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 Apocalypses and Related Pseudepigrapha

By

Kenneth R. Jones

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jones, Kenneth R. Jewish reactions to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 : Apocalypses and related Pseudepigrapha / by Kenneth R. Jones. p. cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ; v. 151) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-21027-1 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Temple of Jerusalem (Jerusalem)—In the Bible. 2. Jerusalem—History—Siege, 70 A.D. 3. Jews—History—To 70 A.D. 4. Apocalyptic literature—History and criticism. 5. Bible. O.T. Ezra IV—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 6. Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 7. Greek Apocalypse of Baruch—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 8. Paralipomena Jeremiae—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 9. Oracula Sibyllina. 10. Oracles, Greek. I. Title. II. Series. BS1199.J38J66 2011 229’.91309500933442—dc23 2011028622

ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 978 90 04 21027 1 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

UXORI CARISSIMAE

CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................................................ Abbreviations .....................................................................................

ix xi

1 Introduction ................................................................................. 1.1 Rome and the Jews after A.D. 70 ....................................

1 18

2 “Are the deeds of Babylon better than those of Zion?” 4 Ezra and the Delayed Punishment of Rome ....................... 2.1 Summary of the Text ........................................................ 2.2 Original Language, Versions, and Composition Date ... 2.3 Analysis ............................................................................... 2.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................

39 41 44 57 75

3 “Why do you look for the decline of your enemies?” 2 Baruch and the Roman Question .......................................... 3.1 Summary of the Text ........................................................ 3.2 Original Language, Versions, and Composition Date ... 3.3 Analysis ............................................................................... 3.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................

79 82 87 89 108

4 “Where is their God?” 3 Baruch and the Divine Government of the Cosmos ......... 4.1 Summary of the Text ........................................................ 4.2 Original Language, Versions, and Composition Date ... 4.3 Analysis ............................................................................... 4.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................

111 114 117 120 141

5 “Let anyone who desires the Lord forsake the works of Babylon” 4 Baruch and Jewish Cooperation with Rome ....................... 5.1 Summary of the Text ........................................................ 5.2 Original Language and Composition Date .................... 5.3 Analysis ................................................................................ 5.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................

143 145 148 157 171

viii

contents

6 “Then the strife of war will come to the West” Sibylline Oracle 4 and the Conflict of East and West ........... 6.1 Summary of the Text ........................................................ 6.2 Composition Date .............................................................. 6.3 Analysis ............................................................................... 6.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................

173 176 178 181 204

7 “Then he will return declaring himself equal to God” Sibylline Oracle 5 and the Return of Nero .............................. 7.1 Summary of the Text ........................................................ 7.2 Composition Date .............................................................. 7.3 Analysis ............................................................................... 7.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................

209 210 213 215 242

8 “And I saw there the likeness of the idol of jealousy” The Apocalypse of Abraham and Jewish Idolatry .................. 8.1 Summary of the Text ........................................................ 8.2 Original Language and Composition Date ................... 8.3 Analysis ............................................................................... 8.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................

245 246 251 256 270

9 Conclusion ....................................................................................

271

Bibliography ........................................................................................ Index ....................................................................................................

281 295

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is a fairly substantial revision and amplification of my dissertation, which was originally submitted in May of 2006 to the Graduate Group in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology at the University of California at Berkeley. The original dissertation did not include the chapters on 3 Baruch, Sibylline Oracle 5, and the Apocalypse of Abraham. I would like to record my gratitude for the guidance and encouragement of the members of my committee, Erich Gruen, Daniel Boyarin, Susanna Elm, and the late Gerard Caspary. I would also like to thank G. W. Bowersock, John Endres, S.J., Matthias Henze, Robert Knapp, Fergus Millar, and George Nickelsburg, who each read and commented on parts of the manuscript at various stages. I am deeply grateful not only for their thoughtful comments on the project, but perhaps even more so for their generosity in devoting their precious time to reading it. I must also thank John Collins, who read parts of the manuscript at an early stage and the completed dissertation in its entirety; he was also the first to suggest publication in this series. Though it is a commonplace to absolve one’s colleagues of responsibility for any remaining errors, in an interdisciplinary work such as mine, which demands that the author pose as an expert in two fields at the same time, one is especially aware of one’s own failings. I would like to thank Hindy Najman for inviting me to publish with this series and for patiently maintaining her initial enthusiasm for the project throughout the years separating her invitation from the final submission of my manuscript. I must also express my gratitude to the two anonymous readers; it is the drawback of anonymity that I cannot thank them by name for the important role they played in the final stages of this book’s development. I am also thankful for the guidance provided by the editorial staff at Brill, especially Mattie Kuiper and Tessel Jonquière. The debt of gratitude that I owe to Erich Gruen merits special mention. Our association began during my undergraduate days, when he assumed the mantle of mentorship as director of an honors thesis on a topic far removed from the present study. The example he set in the lecture hall, seminar room, and his published works has been a constant source of inspiration. His careful and thorough criticism of the

x

acknowledgements

present work at the dissertation stage is largely responsible for anything of merit that it contains. Above all, however, it is his kindness and generosity manifested throughout my career at Berkeley and beyond that earn my warmest thanks. The greatest debt of all is to my wife, Tracey. It is to her that I dedicate this book, though I cannot imagine a more inadequate repayment for her patience, endurance, devotion, sacrifice, and love. Her support has been indispensable not only in the completion of this project, but in sustaining me through graduate school and the beginning years of my career. I must also thank my parents for a lifetime of love and support. I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to the College of Arts and Sciences at Baylor University for a timely Summer Sabbatical which facilitated the final revisions of the manuscript. Finally, I would like to thank my readers for their kind interest in this book. I hope that they find herein some small reward for their attention. Waco, Texas July 27, 2011

K.R.J.

ABBREVIATIONS ANRW

AOT APOT CAH1 CAH2 EncJud FGH IGRR JLBBM1 JLBBM2 JE OGIS OTP PIR2 Schürer

TDNT

Temporini, H. and W. Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Berlin: 1972– Sparks, H. F. D., ed. The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. Charles, R. E., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Bury, J. B., S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth, and N. H. Baynes, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923–1939. The Cambridge Ancient History. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970–. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1972. F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1923–1958. Repr., Leiden: Brill, 1950– 1963. Cagnat, R. Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. 4 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1906–1927. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Singer, I., ed. The Jewish Encyclopedia. 12 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1902. Dittenberger, W. Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae. Supplementum Sylloges inscriptionum graecarum. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903–1905. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Groag, E., A. Stein, and L. Petersen, Prosopographia Imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1933–1966. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). Revised Edition. Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and M. Goodman. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–1987. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION In his father-in-law’s biography Tacitus (Agr. 21) reports that after the campaigning season of A.D. 79 had ended Cn. Julius Agricola, the legate of Britannia, spent the winter fostering the development of civilization among his uncultured subjects. Tacitus records his father-inlaw’s efforts as he encouraged the Britons in the building of temples, fora, and good houses. This new and orderly landscape provided a backdrop to his program for educating the sons of the local chieftains. Soon he had them speaking Latin—better than the Gauls in Agricola’s opinion—and wearing togas. His achievement was crowned by the people’s increasing zeal for arcades, baths, and sumptuous banquets, features of their enslavement which the Britons took for the trappings of civilization. Tacitus describes here the process recently dubbed “becoming Roman”, wherein provincials are gradually assimilated into the Roman imperial structure, taking upon themselves the cultural markers which contribute to Roman identity.1 Agricola was not, however, leading a cultural crusade. He was not bestowing the benefits of Roman civilization as a gift to improve the lives of Rome’s British subjects. Tacitus tells us that he encouraged the British to adopt a more orderly life to pacify them, observing that a lack of culture had made them warlike. Agricola’s aim was to prepare these local elites, or at least their heirs, to take their stand in the traces of empire, to become part of the imperial machinery, for Rome ruled her subjects through middlemen provided by the provincial elites.2

1 G. Woolf, Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); idem, “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East,” PCPhS 40 (1994): 116–43. 2 A convenient overview can be found in A. K. Bowman, “Provincial Administration and Taxation,” CAH2 10.344–70; W. Eck, “Provincial Administration and Finance,” CAH2 11.266–92; H. Galsterer, “Local and Provincial Institutions and Government,” CAH2 11.344–60; F. Millar, ed., The Roman Empire and Its Neighbours (2nd ed.; London: Duckworth, 1981), 52–103; A. W. Lintott, Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration (London: Routledge, 1993).

2

chapter one

We can easily understand what Agricola and, by extension, Rome was doing in this situation, but what were the local elites doing? They were, presumably, laying aside ancestral traditions and customs as they “became Roman” in order to preserve their position at the top of society. As a result of this “Romanization” most of the indigenous languages and cultures of Western Europe disappeared. How did these elites feel about this? Tacitus’ narrative allows us to imagine the very intimate scene of the tribal leader’s household, for the historian tells us that Agricola was educating the sons of the elite. Traditional dress yielded to the toga. The various national tongues, in which were composed and sung the sagas and legends which underpinned British society, were replaced with Latin and the doings of Aeneas. How would the elders feel about this? More broadly, how did provincials feel about the Roman Empire and their place in it? Tacitus neither asks the question nor answers it.3 It is a particularly intriguing question in this age of post-colonial approaches to the study of empire, with its welcome attention to the imperial experience of subjects.4 Students of ancient history were

3 Elsewhere (Agr. 30–2), of course, Tacitus turns to the question in a speech put in the mouth of the Caledonian leader Calgacus. Haranguing his men before the battle of Mons Graupius Calgacus offers his famous summation of Roman imperial aims: “They have pillaged the world: when the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. If an enemy is rich, they are greedy, if he is poor, they crave glory. Neither East nor West can sate their appetite. They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the lying name of ‘empire’ (imperium). They make a desert and call it ‘peace’ ” (trans. from Tacitus, Agricola and Germany [trans. A. R. Birley; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999]). The speech has long been accepted, of course, as a Tacitean composition, with traditional Roman criticisms of imperialism put into the Caledonian’s mouth; see R. M. Ogilvie and I. A. Richardson, eds., Cornelii Taciti: De vita Agricolae (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 253–4. R. Hingley, “Resistance and Domination: Social Change in Roman Britain,” in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire (ed. D. J. Mattingly; JRASup 23; Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997), 81–2, rightly points out that the speech put into Calgacus’ mouth by Tacitus hardly qualifies as an authentic provincial voice as the points of the Caledonian leader largely echo Tacitus’ own reservations about Roman imperialism and the position of his own class under the emperor. 4 On the application of post-colonial theory to the study of Roman imperialism see J. Webster and N. Cooper, eds., Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leicester University in November 1994 (Leicester Archaeology Monographs 3; Leicester: School of Archaeological Studies, University of Leicester, 1996); Mattingly, Dialogues. R. Hingley, Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity, and Empire (London: Routledge, 2005) offers a good example of the theoretical approach to Romanization studies.

introduction

3

already asking these questions long before this approach became fashionable. Theodor Mommsen, recoiling from the prospect of recounting the doings of the Roman emperors, skipped the fourth volume of his Römische Geschichte, and proceeded directly to the fifth wherein he gave an account of the provinces of the Roman Empire.5 In his introduction to the volume he declares: It is in the agricultural towns of Africa, in the homes of the vine-dressers on the Moselle, in the flourishing townships of the Lycian mountains, and on the margin of the Syrian desert that the work of the imperial period is to be sought and to be found.6

When the interested reader, whose curiosity is piqued by Mommsen’s promise to take us into such humble abodes, finally gets to the relevant parts of the study his hopes of viewing the Roman Empire from this novel perspective are dashed. Mommsen’s vine-dressers are reduced to a few lines from the fourth-century poet of the Bordeaux, Ausonius, and a tombstone with a charming depiction of a ship carrying casks and a “merry-looking steersman” who seems to be “rejoicing over the wine which they contain”.7 The Lycian townships are illustrated by a description of the ruins of Cragus-Sidyma.8 Mommsen’s treatment of Syria provides a rich portrait of the province and its Hellenization, but apart from a few words on Iamblichus the reader gets no feel for the mentality of the people who lived there under Roman rule.9 As for the agricultural towns of Africa, we do get a picture of their prosperity, but little about their inhabitants. Mommsen’s discussion of the African character is restricted to some comments on Apuleius and St. Augustine.10 It is not the intention of this brief examination to condemn Mommsen, for his history of the provinces is still as useful as it is monumental. Rather it is to demonstrate the difficulty of finding a vantage point from which to observe the provincial mind at work. Though we can admire the prosperity of the provinces, their inhabitants remain mute, apart from a few who were accepted into the ranks of those

5 Th. Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire from Caesar to Diocletian (2 vols.; trans. W. P. Dickson; rev. F. Haverfield; London: Macmillan, 1909). 6 Mommsen, The Provinces, 5. 7 Mommsen, The Provinces, 1.109 (Ausonius), 116 (merry-looking steersman). 8 Mommsen, The Provinces, 1.355–7. 9 Mommsen, The Provinces, 2.123–4 (Iamblichus). 10 Mommsen, The Provinces, 2.340–2.

4

chapter one

authors deemed Classical.11 We cannot recover the attitudes of the vast bulk of Rome’s subjects, even among the elites who worked with Rome in developing the empire. Nevertheless, many attempts have been made to reconstruct them.12 Such attempts have relied in varying proportion on literary evidence and material remains. A brief review of some representative treatments will give an idea of the methods and drawbacks for our particular point of enquiry. Two English scholars of the early twentieth century present similar appreciations of the Roman Empire. Francis Haverfield claimed that the Romans labored to build an empire for the betterment and happiness of the world.13 The long peace that Roman arms ensured allowed the peoples under Roman control to acquire civilization, which consisted of adopting the Latin tongue, Roman manners, Roman citizenship, and city life. Through the acquisition of these elements the peoples of the provinces were assimilated into an orderly and coherent culture. Resistance was encountered among the Greeks, whose thoughts and traditions had already coalesced into a coherent culture; they did, nevertheless, conform politically and even came to consider

11 For a particularly good illustration of this tendency see the discussion of the Romanization of Spain: Mommsen, The Provinces, 69–77. 12 Many of these works fall into the broad sub-discipline which might be called “Romanization Studies”. While an exhaustive list is neither necessary nor useful in the present context the following works provide a good introduction to the methods and lines of debate: M. Millett, The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); R. MacMullen, “Notes on Romanization,” BASP 21 (1984): 161–77; repr. in Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); G. Woolf, “The Unity and Diversity of Romanization,” JRA 5 (1992): 349–52; P. W. M. Freeman, “ ‘Romanisation’ and Roman Material Culture,” JRA 6 (1993): 438–45; Woolf, Becoming Roman; R. MacMullen, Romanization in the Time of Augustus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000); the latter with G. Woolf, “MacMullen’s Romanization,” JRA 14 (2001): 575–9. The classic treatment remains that of P. A. Brunt, “The Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes in the Roman Empire,” in Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien: travaux du VI e Congrès international d’études classiques (Madrid, septembre 1974) (ed. D. M. Pippidi; Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1976), 161–73. 13 F. Haverfield, The Romanization of Roman Britain (4th ed.; rev. G. MacDonald; Oxford: Clarendon, 1923), 9–22. On Haverfield’s contributions to the study of Romanization see P. W. M. Freeman, “Mommsen through to Haverfield: the Origins of Romanization Studies in Late 19th-c. Britain,” in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire (ed. D. J. Mattingly and S. E. Alcock; JRASup 23; Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997), 27–50.

introduction

5

themselves Roman. In the West Roman statesmen encouraged cultural and political assimilation with a view toward the more effective and easier control of men who are civilized. Yet Roman tolerance offered even greater results. Romans did not thrust their culture upon the uncivilized and this made it all the more attractive. The conformity to Roman ways was, therefore, often voluntary. The persistence of indigenous elements, be they religious or political, is not seen as either unRoman or anti-Roman resistance; rather a process of amalgamation has occurred whereby the empire, while Romanized, is not as a result homogenized. The spread of material culture created a uniform Italian or Roman fashion throughout central and western Europe. If traditional ways remained, they were preserved among the poor. Hugh Last conceived of an empire based on libertas, though a liberty not incompatible with principatus.14 Roman provincial administration was characterized by tolerance for indigenous custom and inclusiveness manifested in the extension of Roman citizenship. Provincials were inspired in their loyalty by the prestige of Rome and their own gratitude for the peace Rome brought. They responded to the Roman rejection of a cultural crusade by voluntarily adopting many aspects of Roman culture. In the East Rome stimulated the Hellenization process begun less successfully by the Seleucids. The adoption of Roman material culture is given very low significance. The profusion of Samian ware, concrete construction, and even the Latin language pales in comparison with the pride that provincials felt in their membership of the Roman Empire. Roman peace brought prosperity, which issued in cultural progress carried out mainly through urbanization. The aim was unity rather than uniformity. The strength of the empire rested on the devotion of its inhabitants, which was based on their gratitude for peace and ordered government and Rome’s liberal attitude to indigenous populations. P. A. Brunt in a classic paper declared that the provincials Romanized themselves.15 Local elites, to whose fortunes Brunt restricted his study, welcomed the benefits that belonging to the Roman Empire brought. Latin culture was appealing only to western provincials, but the gain that accompanied a share in the administration of their home provinces attracted elites of both East and West. The principal benefit

14 15

Last, CAH1 11.435–78. Brunt, “Romanization,” 162.

6

chapter one

of Roman rule was liberty, at least for provincial elites, as Roman conquest threw off the rule of kings and fostered a renaissance of oligarchic rule. The favor that Rome showed to oligarchs was a great boon to the wealthy provincial elites. Rome brought peace and security. Perhaps more importantly Rome protected their property and underwrote their local dominance. The extension of the franchise removed the distinction between ruler and ruled allowing provincial elites to take their place in the administration of empire beyond the boundaries of their home province. Thus Roman citizenship became a tool in forging an empire-wide loyalty at least among aristocrats. By the time provincials were ready to take their place on the imperial stage, they had become thoroughly Roman in outlook and education. Some more recent studies of provincial reactions to empire have focused on Romanization in the western provinces of Britain and Gaul. Martin Millett has further developed one of the themes present in Brunt’s conception.16 Starting from the decentralized nature of Roman administration, Millett argues that British assimilation to Roman ways was undertaken solely with a local audience in mind. British elites adopted Roman cultural norms in order to establish and maintain their social power vis-à-vis their fellow Britons. The competitive use of Roman cultural artifacts, for the study is almost entirely archaeological in nature, provided the means by which British elites vied with each other for prestige and status. The intended audience was other British aristocrats. On this model, the imperial view fades into the distance, as the empire becomes an intensely local affair. Greg Woolf, in his study of the Gauls, has followed Millett in his view of the relationship between the Roman Empire and provincials.17 Again the focus is kept on the change of provincials under the influence of Roman culture, which was internalized to such a high degree that Gauls became Romans. The adoption of Roman culture came as Gauls were subjected to a new order complete with changing systems of social stratification. Roman cultural competence, the product of a classical education, became an avenue into new power relationships with Roman officials. Ultimately, however, the arena of change, its manifestation, and intended audience were again provincial, that is

16 Millett, Romanization of Britain; see also the perceptive review article by Freeman, “Romanisation,” 438–45. 17 Woolf, Becoming Roman.

introduction

7

to say, Gallic attention was trained inwards. Gauls adopted Roman cultural markers in order to advance their prestige and power within their own tribes. Whether Gauls built villas or used terra sigillata they did so to impress other Gauls. Regional variations in style illustrate the cultural competence Gauls acquired, as slavish imitation gave way to feelings of cultural possession, wherein Gauls felt free to elaborate on Roman models in a particularly Gallic way. The lower classes picked up these fashions out of a desire to emulate Gallic nobles rather than Romans. Roman cultural markers ceased to serve to differentiate provincial from Roman and came to serve as status markers within GalloRoman culture distinguishing rich from poor or urban from rustic. The previous models have presupposed a commitment to a laissezfaire attitude on the part of Romans to cultural assimilation on the part of provincials. All imagine that provincials primarily drew on internal motivations to join themselves into the imperial culture that became present in their lands in the person of the governor, Italian emigrants, and the legions. Whether provincials integrated into the imperial system as a means of attaining social prominence or local power, or so that they might ingratiate themselves with the conqueror, or, indeed, because the pull of Roman culture was so strong, the impetus came from the periphery rather than the center. Quite a different model for the relationship between provincials and the imperial center has been recently proposed by Clifford Ando.18 The model presented is one of consensus between imperial center and the provinces. This consensus was focused on the person of the emperor. The image of the emperor was constantly before the eyes of provincials in coin portraits and statues. An ideological basis therefore underlay the relations between provincials and the emperor. Certain ritual expressions of obedience and loyalty were expected of provincials. These included oaths of loyalty administered by imperial officials, who also took them in the presence of provincials thus promoting a feeling of solidarity between provincial and Roman subjects of a common ruler, the emperor. Carefully orchestrated communications announcing imperial victories were sent to the provinces with the expectation that expressions of thanksgiving, often in the form of aurum coronarium, would result. Congratulations in the form of letters or embassies on

18 C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Classics and Contemporary Thought 6; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).

8

chapter one

the annual dies imperii were another regular expression of loyalty and unity. Subjects who internalized the principles of the ruling order thus became participants in their own subjugation. Unity and inclusiveness were the aims and they were largely achieved as the perception of Rome as imperial master shifted to that of communis patria.19 Despite the authoritarian overtones of the last, these models of the Roman Empire are all positive. The Roman Empire relied upon the consent and participation of its subjects. Provincials, led by various motives, came to view themselves as integral parts of the empire. Rome and its emperor were not oppressive overlords, but focal points of provincial loyalty and admiration. In the West Roman culture was adopted; in the East it made more modest, but still important, gains.20 This rosy picture finds literary expression in the few works of ancient authors who record provincial appreciations of the empire under which they lived. They come entirely from the Greek East and provide a framework in which to understand the surviving material evidence, which otherwise is mute as to the intentions and attitudes of its users and creators. The positive picture pervades the ancient evidence to such a degree that those moderns who wish to see a darker side of Roman imperialism are often reduced to assertion, the employment of anachronistic analogy to modern colonial experiences, and cases built on tendentious interpretations of admittedly ambiguous material evidence. The literary evidence underpinning modern perceptions of Roman rule in the provinces is minimal and entirely Greek. Since reviewing every scrap here would be otiose, two will suffice, especially as they loom large in modern reconstructions. The first is the Roman oration of the second-century rhetor from Smyrna, Aelius Aristides. The speech, Εἰς Ῥώμην, was delivered about the middle of the second century during the reign of Antoninus Pius.21 Aristides dwells on the size 19 The words are those of the mid-third-century jurist Herennius Modestinus (Digest 27.1.6.11). 20 The resistance of the Greek East to Romanization has often been urged; see Brunt, “Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes,” 162–3; G. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 71–2; MacMullen, Romanization, 1–29. While the Latin language was rejected in favor of Greek, certain cultural institutions were adopted including Roman law and citizenship, architectural features such as the bath and villa, gladiatorial spectacles, and perhaps most significantly a sense of Roman identity; see Woolf, “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek,” 116–43. 21 For studies of the speech see J. H. Oliver, The Ruling Power: A Study of the Roman Empire in the Second Century after Christ through the Roman Oration of Aelius

introduction

9

of Rome’s territory and compares the administration of the empire to those of Persia, Alexander, his successors, Athens, and Sparta, much to the discredit of the comparison group. Rome, in contrast to Persia, is conspicuous for ruling over men who are free (Aristides 26.36); in contrast to the Greeks, for knowing how to rule at all (26.51). The great gifts of Rome to the world are peace and the Roman citizenship, of which the latter has caused the better sort of men to become kin to the Romans (26.59–60). Such are these gifts that sending tribute to Rome fills her subjects with more joy than they might attain if the tribute were sent to them (26.68). Rome has no need of garrisons, for the men of wealth and standing guard their home cities for Rome (26.64). The flattery is patent. The Roman oration is a product of its age. To debate the truth of the picture or the sincerity of the author is beside the point.22 More important are the assumptions that underlie the speech and the audience before which it was spoken. Any claim to presenting an independent provincial viewpoint is undercut by the fact that Aristides delivered the speech before the emperor and his court. That the speech is full of flattery is thereby to be expected. The form that the flattery took, however, provides a window not into provincial attitudes, but into imperial expectations. Aristides delivered his encomium of the Roman Empire in the presence of its head, the emperor. Surely he appealed to those aspects of Roman rule that would most please his audience. The excellence of Roman rule is the leading theme. The gratitude of Rome’s subjects is played in counterpoint. The gratitude may be sincere, but it is expressed under the assumption that it is expected. It does not stand outside the accepted lines of imperial discourse. It is certainly not an independent provincial voice. The contrast between Aristides’ Roman panegyric and another often cited work is more apparent than real. At the request of Menemachus

Aristides (TAPhS N.S. 43.4; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953); R. Klein, Die Romrede des Aelius Aristides (Texte zur Forschung 45; Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges., 1983); S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50–250 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 274–84; L. Pernot, “Aelius Aristides and Rome,” in Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods (eds. W. V. Harris and B. Holmes; Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 33; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 175–201. 22 See the careful attempt of Oliver, Ruling Power, 886–92, to parse the oration for what can and cannot be used as historical evidence; the approach of Swain, Hellenism and Empire, 274–84, is better.

10

chapter one

of Sardis, Plutarch composed his tract on participation in civic government. The work (Mor. 798a–827c) is generally known under its Latin title, Praecepta gerendae reipublicae.23 The book contains advice, illustrated by copious examples, concerning the possibility of pursuing a political career in the Greek city under Roman rule. Much of Plutarch’s advice is general and makes no mention of Rome, itself suggestive of Plutarch’s and Menemachus’ chief concern. At about the midpoint in the treatise (Mor. 813c–816a) Plutarch discusses the limitations imposed upon the local politician by Rome. Plutarch (813e) advises the would-be politician to keep two thoughts in his mind: first, the words of Pericles to the effect that he is a free man ruling free men and, second, that he is a subject even while he governs, while the city he governs is also subject to the agents of Caesar, the proconsuls. More ominous is his advice (813e) not to have too much pride or confidence in his crown of office, since the governor’s boots are poised above his head.24 The main role of the city politician is to steer a middle course, encouraging the city’s obedience to its masters while preventing its enslavement (814f ). The way to do so is to promote concord among the citizens and refrain from getting Roman officials too often involved in local affairs; indeed, the Romans themselves would prefer not to play the master (814f–815a). Plutarch (814c) does, moreover, stress the importance of Roman patronage, which is indispensable as a support for one’s career and a means for benefiting one’s city. Plutarch was not in this tract addressing the emperor in Rome, but rather a man contemplating a political career in the polis of Sardis. The flattery of Aristides gives way to a more realistic appreciation of the position in which Greeks found themselves as members of the empire. The freedom they cherished is still in their grasp, but it is circumscribed by, in Menemachus’ case, the proconsular governor of Asia. There is still scope for a city politician to do valuable service for his city. Now, however, much of that consists in maintaining harmony among his fellow citizens, a difficult enough task in a Greek polis of any period, and especially at that time in Sardis, as Plutarch’s tract suggests. Keeping Rome and her officials out of the business of one’s community is the goal of civic leadership. This is hardly an expression of anti-Roman

23

For discussion see Swain, Hellenism and Empire, 161–86. See C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), 133, for discussion of this often misinterpreted passage. 24

introduction

11

sentiments, but rather accords well with the Roman desire to allow local leaders autonomy. What strikes the reader is both how Greek Plutarch’s concerns are, with attention centered on the polis, and how Rome can be both an aid and a hindrance in local affairs. The appeal to Roman friends provided the boost a local politician needed, but too frequent intervention vexed Romans and Greeks alike. Plutarch’s concerns were more Greek than imperial, but his concerns are played out, without any noticeable regret or resentment, in the arena marked out by Rome. This is not an uncommon emphasis among Greeks of the Roman Empire. There were Greeks, to be sure, who sought careers in the imperial administration, but there was a sizable number of Greeks, Plutarch included, who were content to restrict their political activities to Greece and their polis. Indeed, the polis could be seen as a sort of preserve for Greeks in the Roman Empire, a place where Greeks could be Greeks, which was entirely to the liking of both Greeks and Romans.25 Roman attitudes about Greeks could be patronizingly dismissive. The Greeks were, of course, scions of a proud people, but the days of Greek glory were long over. The Greeks of the imperial period were held to be much inferior to the men of the classical period, but they were expected to stay charmingly Greek. It must be remembered, however, that the Greeks occupied a privileged position in the East. Their autonomy was respected as was their culture. The eastern empire, moreover, was established and administered largely along Greek lines. Greek remained the linguistic currency for Greeks and non-Greeks alike. Local oligarchs were confirmed in their traditional positions. Greeks could even continue to speak of democracy, though the imperial formulation was far removed from the classical (Aristides 26.60). In short, in many important ways there was a high degree of continuity between the Greeks of the past and those of the imperial period, provided that Rome could be kept out of local affairs. The empire in the East should be seen culturally and even politically as a Greco-Roman Empire. Greeks could be comfortable with their place. Provincials not so highly esteemed by Rome might not find the requirements and restrictions of imperial life as easily acceptable. 25

S. E. Alcock, “Greece: a Landscape of Resistance?” in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire (ed. D. J. Mattingly and S. E. Alcock; JRASup 23; Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997), 103–16.

12

chapter one

The picture of provincial experience under the empire offered by Greek authors fails to provide a true outsider’s view. It has, however, consciously in older works and perhaps subconsciously in more modern works, provided the lens through which to view other more ambiguous evidence and is largely responsible for the positive picture of provincial attitudes to the Roman Empire. Other types of evidence for provincial attitudes are too lacking in psychological depth for our purposes. Inscriptions in the East and West often reflect the acceptance of imperial ideology. The sentiments expressed on stone or bronze are but the individual or communal reflections of imperial ideas. Loyalty and obedience are dominant themes. Where an individual is the subject of an inscription, the point is to advertise his success in fitting into the imperial system even if only at the local level. The medium and the message are united by their reference to and origin in a sense of belonging to the empire. That is to say, those who inscribe have already become Roman in outlook and have, thereby, lost any value as authentically provincial witnesses.26 Material evidence is mute and, therefore, open to subjective interpretation on the part of scholars. Questions as to the usefulness of material evidence have been raised in contexts where it is the sole surviving evidence, as in the western provinces.27 It is impossible to 26 The inscription (CIL XIII 3162) set up in A.D. 238 by order of the Council of the Three Gauls honoring T. Sennius Sollemnis is a good example of this; see Millar, Roman Empire, 155–6; Woolf, Becoming Roman, 24–6. Sollemnis’ career in his hometown and his benefactions are recorded. So are his close relationships with previous Roman governors of Gaul, Ti. Claudius Paulinus and Aedinius Julianus who later became Praetorian Prefect. The former out of gratitude for Sollemnis’ services during his tenure in Gaul offered his friend a post in Britain when he was sent out to govern that province. A further example is provided by another inscription (CIL XIII 1695) set up by order of the Council of the Three Gauls; see Woolf, Becoming Roman, 78–80. The honorand this time is Q. Iulius Severinus. Though the inscription is entirely concerned with local honors there is much that suggests a Gaul thoroughly at home with Roman conventions. The inscription is in Latin and filled with technical abbreviations. The Julian name shows that his family achieved citizenship in the early days of the province. Severinus is being honored on the occasion of his becoming Inquisitor Galliarum, an official of the imperial cult. Although the inscription records the local connections of a man, who is identified by his affiliation with the Sequani, many Roman elements intrude. The inscription was set up by men thoroughly conversant with Latin epigraphic conventions and intended for a similar audience. 27 Freeman, “Romanisation,” asks the fundamental question whether there exists such a thing as Roman material culture, that is a material culture that was viewed by ancients as distinctively Roman, rather than, e.g. Italian or Gallic. He uses the example of amphorae found in pre-conquest Britain. Does the use of wine among British elites

introduction

13

reconstruct the intention with which objects were used. Furthermore, even if we could understand the intention of provincials in their use of Roman goods, what does that tell us about their attitude to the empire? While the models of the Roman Empire cited above have seen Rome’s tolerance of indigenous cultures, which led to a wide diversity of imperial culture, as a strength of Roman imperialism, others have seen the tenacity of certain indigenous traditions as an act of resistance to the empire. Marcel Bénabou in his study of Roman Africa has been a prime champion of cultural resistance to Rome.28 He finds signs of this resistance in the conservatism of African religion and onomastics and the preservation of the Punic language. By maintaining such cultural and religious traditions, and resisting encroaching Romanization, the Africans are seen as pursuing a line of cultural resistance paralleling the overt, military resistance of the first-century rebel Tacfarinas. The theory of cultural resistance as presented by Bénabou and others has proven susceptible to criticism along two lines of attack. The notion of resistance to encroaching assimilation and cultural change falters on the fact that Roman provincial rule and the assimilation of provincial ruling classes were not carried out in the cultural realm.29 Romans, unlike later imperialists, were less concerned with spreading culture than with peacefully ruling the lands they conquered.30 With a few exceptions, such as Druidism and human sacrifice in Africa and elsewhere, the Romans were content to leave indigenous traditions

necessarily suggest that they were trying to project a Roman identity? Might they not have been laying claim to status based on the use of wine by Gallic nobles? Did the ancients recognize as Roman material culture those things that moderns place in that category, e.g. villas? 28 M. Bénabou, La résistance africaine à la romanisation (Paris: Maspero, 1976); idem, “Résistance et Romanisation en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire,” in Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien: travaux du VI e Congrès international d’études classiques (Madrid, septembre 1974) (ed. D. M. Pippidi; Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1976), 367–75. 29 See P. D. A. Garnsey, “Rome’s African Empire under the Principate,” in Imperialism in the Ancient World: The Cambridge University Research Seminar in Ancient History (ed. P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 252–4. 30 This is certainly the implication of Agricola’s importation of Roman cultural institutions into Britain (Tacitus Agr. 21). He hoped that by introducing the finer products of Roman civilization, or fetters as Tacitus prefers to view them, the British nobles would learn to love peace.

14

chapter one

intact while allowing local elites to absorb as much from the Romans as they wished, more in the West and less in the East. A second objection to the notion of cultural resistance paralleling military resistance is that such overt acts as rebellions were often led by those local elites who were most thoroughly imbued with Roman culture.31 Tacfarinas, who led an African revolt (A.D. 17–24), was a Roman auxiliary. A series of revolts in first-century Gaul were led by men of distinguished Gallo-Roman pedigree: C. Julius Vindex was governor of Gallia Lugdunensis when he led a revolt in A.D. 68; Julius Classicus, scion of the Treveran royal family and Roman auxiliary commander, joined Julius Tutor and Julius Sabinus in the founding of a revolutionary Empire of the Gauls (Imperium Galliarum) in A.D. 70; C. Julius Civilis, a Batavian, led a revolt closely associated with these Gallic Julii. It must again be conceded, however, that the evidence for such cultural resistance is patchy at best, while for most provinces it is nonexistent. Where there is written evidence it comes almost exclusively from Roman sources that report it in the context of provincial unrest. This fact, of course, taints the evidence. Once rebellion has been set afoot, any non-military expression of that rebelliousness, be it religious or cultural, will necessarily present itself as resistance. To use an anachronistic term, one might call it the propaganda that underpins the cause of revolt. The case of the Druids might be examined in this connection. The fullest and most often analyzed evidence for cultural resistance to Rome comes from Gaul and Britain and involves the Druids.32 Caesar (Bell. gall. 6.13–16) records the power and status of the Druids, but assigns them no role in the Gallic resistance during the conquest.33 The 31 Woolf, Becoming Roman, 19–23. For the phenomenon of provincial revolts see S. L. Dyson, “Native Revolts in the Roman Empire,” Historia 20 (1971): 239–74, and idem, “Native Revolt Patterns in the Roman Empire,” ANRW 2.3 (1975), 138–75. 32 See A. D. Momigliano, “Some Preliminary Remarks on the ‘Religious Opposition’ to the Roman Empire,” in Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan (ed. A. Giovannini and K. A. Raaflaub; Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 33; Vandoeuvres-Genève: Foundation Hardt, 1987), 107–10; G. W. Bowersock, “The Mechanics of Subversion in the Roman Provinces,” also in Opposition et résistances, 299–300; Woolf, Becoming Roman, 220–2; and J. Webster, “A Negotiated Syncretism: Readings on the Development of Romano-Celtic Religion,” in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire (ed. D. J. Mattingly and S. E. Alcock; JRASup 23; Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997), 167–9. 33 Cicero Div. 1.41.90 records that the pro-Roman Aeduan noble, Diviciacus, was a Druid.

introduction

15

Druids were the targets of Roman acts of restriction and suppression throughout the Julio-Claudian period, but whether they were targeted for sedition or human sacrifice is unclear.34 They play a shadowy role in some of the disturbances of first-century A.D. Gaul and Britain. The governor of Britain, Suetonius Paullinus, attacked the Druid stronghold on the island of Mona (Angelsey). The only reason given (Tacitus Ann. 14.29–30), however, is that he wished to equal Corbulo’s recent recovery of Armenia. No mention is made of Druidic involvement in the revolt of Boudicca that broke out while Suetonius Paullinus was thus engaged. The Druids were involved in the revolt of Civilis in 69 when they broadcast a prophecy proclaiming the burning of the Capitol in Rome during the civil war as a portent of Rome’s imminent fall and the rise of Gaul to the possession of the world (Tacitus Hist. 4.54). One other item records an act of religious resistance to Rome on the part of the Gauls, though Druidical activity is not specified. In 69 an uprising gathered momentum under the leadership of a certain Boian of low status named Mariccus, who claimed to be a god and styled himself the liberator of the Gauls (Tacitus Hist. 2.61). He succeeded in winning over eight thousand Aeduans to his cause, which failed. The hints of religious resistance to Rome on the part of British and Gallic Druids are tantalizing. Unfortunately, Tacitus’ account is shorn of detail. Perhaps little besides rumor reached him. Even if the Roman evidence were fuller, it would still fail to preserve authentic provincial attitudes. It is rendered even less useful for present purposes by its context, for the Druidical activity recorded by Tacitus is set against the backdrop of rebellion. It should be noted, however, that in the relations between Romans and their subjects, rebellion was the exception rather than the norm. Is it possible to speak of resistance during peacetime? Again material evidence has usually provided the basis for discussions of peacetime resistance and again the results have been disappointing.35 R. Hingley, the author of one such study, has correctly

34

Pliny Nat. 30.4 (Tiberius); Suetonius Claud. 25 (Augustus and Claudius). Two examples will suffice. Webster, “Negotiated Syncretism,” interpreted Celtic representations of divine marriage between Mercury and the indigenous goddess Rosmerta as acts of religious resistance on the basis of the importance that the feminine principle held in Celtic religion. The argument is that Rosmerta would be seen by Gauls as the dominant partner in the marriage and would overshadow or hold the Roman Mercury in thrall. The argument breaks down with the identification of Mercury with the chief god of the Gauls, attested by Caesar Bell. gall. 6.17. This fact aside the argument is not terribly compelling as an example of resistance. R. Hingley, 35

16

chapter one

observed that the lack of indigenous voices causes severe difficulties in the recovery of provincial attitudes to Rome.36 The experience of more recent empires suggests that colonial subjects reacted in a variety of ways to imperial domination. There were positive reactions and negative reactions. Positive reactions tend to be public, negative to be private, or at least concealed from the imperial overlord. Historians of the Roman Empire are restricted to the public record of provincials, both epigraphic and literary. What is not available is a range of voices, or “alternative voices,” that is the voices of those in resistance to Roman imperialism. While we can agree with the sentiments expressed by Hingley, it bears noting that a few texts have been proposed as candidates to fill the void of provincial texts. A study by Arnaldo Momigliano shows both how important literary evidence of resistance can be and how disappointing the meager literary evidence that remains is. A handful of Egyptian and other Near Eastern texts, such as the Oracle of the Lamb, the Oracle of the Potter, the Asclepius in the Hermetic corpus, and the Oracle of Hystaspes (preserved in fragments by Lactantius) offer glimpses of the kind of apocalyptic-style literature outside Judaism that might be construed as hostile to Rome. Most of these, however, seem originally to have been composed with Macedonian rule, rather than Roman, in mind, and are of little use in recapturing provincial resistance to the Roman Empire.37 Only the Asclepius seems to

“Resistance and Domination: Social Change in Roman Britain,” in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire (ed. D. J. Mattingly and S. E. Alcock; JRASup 23; Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997), 81–102, gives another example. He attributes the move away from the civitates and the continued use of pre-conquest roundhouses to resistance in the form of cultural retardation. 36 Hingley, “Resistance and Domination,” 81–2. 37 S. K. Eddy, The King Is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism, 334–31 B.C. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961), 32–41, proposes an early second-century B.C. date for the Oracles of Hystaspes, with a translation from Persian and republication in Greek during the Mithridatic Wars. Much of the material in the oracle is general and could easily be shifted from an anti-Macedonian viewpoint to an anti-Roman one. The use of the oracle is rendered more difficult in that it is only preserved in fragments by Lactantius. The Oracle of the Potter, according to Eddy, The King Is Dead, 292–4, is a late third-century B.C. Egyptian text, extant in three Greek translations, the latest of which comes from the third century A.D. Its continuing popularity suggests that despite its original expression of Egyptian resentment towards the Ptolemies, it was pressed into service as anti-Roman propaganda. As such, it contains no material specifically Roman in orientation.

introduction

17

come from a Roman context, but what that context is remains unclear.38 It might perhaps be directed against the Jewish Revolt under Trajan, and therefore reflect the blend of anti-Semitism and anti-Romanism of the Acta Alexandrinorum.39 The apocalyptic portion is vague and concerned mainly with the cessation of Egyptian religious practice brought about by the advent of a foreign rule that causes the gods to flee the land. These few works afford no clear picture of subject attitudes to Roman rule. The dating of none of the texts is certain. All but the Asclepius seem to deal with Macedonian, that is Seleucid or Ptolemaic, rule. If they were reused as criticisms of the Roman Empire—a proposition by no means certain, they merely show that some subjects did not like Rome, though no specific details are otherwise given. The meaning of the Asclepius is impenetrable. Thus what little evidence that might give insight into the provincial mindset is all but unusable. Provincial literary remains are rather disappointing. They are few and what is extant is generally too closely integrated into the imperial system and too deeply dyed with its ideology to provide an independent outsider’s view of the empire. With the exception of a small handful of pagan apocalyptic texts, Persian and Egyptian, there is very little authentically provincial literature composed by Rome’s subjects in traditional forms. Again apart from the Greeks, who constitute a special class, the pre-conquest cultures of Rome’s subjects are lost to our view. Languages, legal traditions, and architectural features might have persisted into the imperial period, but any literature or sense of national history whether legendary or authentic, any mythological underpinnings of indigenous religious cults, any folktales, songs, poetry, in short any expression of ethnic identity on an intellectual level disappeared from the historical record along with full political freedom. In the West the loss of any sense of integral cultural identity can be chalked up to the fact that the inhabitants of Gaul, Britain, and Spain

38 A Coptic fragment of the Asclepius was found among the texts of the Nag Hammadi Library; M. Krause and P. Labib, eds., Gnostische und hermetische Schriften aus Codex II und Codex VI (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo, Koptische Reihe 2; Glückstadt: Augustin, 1971), 187–206; J. Brashler, P. A. Dirkse, and D. M. Parrott, “Asclepius 21–9 (VI, 8),” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English (ed. J. M. Robinson and R. Smith; 3rd ed.; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 330–8. 39 Momigliano, “Religious Opposition,” 111–2.

18

chapter one

were all but illiterate. Inscriptions might be found in the Gallic tongue inscribed in Greek or Latin letters it is true, but there is no hint of a Gallic literature.40 What existed of Gallic, or Spanish or British, historical memory must have been transmitted orally. In the literate East, however, this cultural amnesia does not yield to easy explanation. The assimilation of the western provinces into an imperial Latin culture was mirrored in the East by the spread of the Greek language and culture. In the Near East, the area of closest concern for the present study, the Semitic languages of Syria and neighboring areas, namely Palmyrene, Nabatean, Phoenician and Aramaic, were gradually replaced over the course of the first few centuries of Roman rule by Greek.41 The first-century hodge-podge of kingdoms, temple cities, and provinces, under procurators and governors, gave way under the Flavians and Trajan to a more organized and thoroughly provincialized arrangement. Greek was the language of administration, public record, and culture. There remains not a trace of any literature composed in the languages Greek supplanted.42 Whether such a literature had ever existed cannot be ascertained, though it seems unlikely that one could have and yet vanished so completely.43 1.1

Rome and the Jews after A.D. 70

In contrast to the absence of sources for the other subject peoples that comprise the Roman Empire, for the Jews an abundant national literature survives. In contrast to the works of Greek authors who lived under the empire, the Jewish authors provide a vantage point removed from the dominant Greek cultural and political orientation of the eastern empire. Jewish reflections on the empire are expressed 40

Woolf, Becoming Roman, 94–6. This is a major theme of the important study of F. Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), which provides the basis for much of the discussion here and played an important role in the genesis of this project. 42 By the end of this period there was a growing body of Syriac literature. Though composed in a Semitic language, a dialect of Aramaic found in Edessa, Syriac literature is largely a derivative of Greek literature in form and content; Millar, Roman Near East, 507. 43 Millar, Roman Near East, 507, dismisses the notion of the survival of any traditionally Syrian culture in Syria that has left no trace in either literary or material evidence. 41

introduction

19

in accordance with their national traditions and literature and directed to internal dialogue about Rome. That is to say, the Jewish authors do not write for Roman audiences or, indeed, declaim in the courts of emperors, as does Aristides. Jewish literature from the imperial period falls into various categories. The first contains the writings of Philo and Josephus, two Hellenized Jews who wrote their works of philosophy and history respectively in Greek. A second category consists of rabbinic literature and includes the Mishnah, Talmudim, and other works. A final category, the one with which the present study is concerned, is the Pseudepigrapha. The texts of the Pseudepigrapha have been underexploited as sources for Roman history, though many, if not most of these texts, were written during the Roman imperial period. It is the particular aim of this study to examine seven works reflecting on the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman legions in A.D. 70. These texts include 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiae), Sibylline Oracles 4 and 5, and the Apocalypse of Abraham. Taken together with the works of Josephus these pseudepigrapha offer a unique vantage point from which to observe the Roman Empire. Perhaps most importantly these seven texts along with Josephus offer a multiplicity of related vantage points. There are very few events in Roman history which can be viewed through the eyes of eight different observers. When we add in rabbinic and New Testament material, not to mention the few Roman and Greek authors who mention the Jewish War, we have one of the most variously documented events in Roman history. Before turning to look more closely at the advantages and problems that come with the Pseudepigrapha we should briefly examine certain points of Josephus’ testimony, which help us to better orient the Pseudepigrapha dealing with Rome’s victory. Scholarly attention has focused primarily on the texts of Josephus to recapture Jewish opinion in the years after the failure and suppression of the first revolt which ended, excepting the reduction of a few fortresses, with the burning of the temple and razing of Jerusalem. Above all the Bellum Judaicum has served as a basis for such discussion. It is not the purpose of this introduction to say anything new on the subject, but merely to examine briefly the historian’s reaction to the revolt and, more importantly, to the power that suppressed it. It is first necessary to set Josephus’ work in the context of the debate that raged in the decades following the failure of the revolt among Jewish

20

chapter one

leaders. For this purpose another Josephan work is essential, namely the historian’s autobiography.44 A charge of warmongering leveled against Josephus compelled him, at least in part, to write the Vita defending his conduct of the war in Galilee. The charge was made by another erstwhile revolutionary turned deserter, Justus of Tiberias, who after the war became Agrippa II’s secretary and also wrote a history of the Jewish Revolt.45 According to Josephus (Vita 340) Justus charged him with furthering the cause of the revolt by inducing the city of Tiberias to rebel. Josephus (Vita 341–4, 349–54), however, turns the charge back onto Justus and his fellow Tiberians, claiming that they had engaged in hostilities before he set foot in Galilee. He contrasts the rebellious Tiberians with the citizens of Sepphoris, who remained loyal to Rome. To demonstrate the validity of his own account—and to bolster his own credentials as a Roman loyalist—Josephus (Vita 342; cf. 358) appeals to Vespasian’s Commentarii on the war for evidence of Justus’ role in fomenting revolt in Tiberias. The controversy surrounding Josephus and Justus offers a view into late first-century debates about the Jewish War. Josephus was eager to rid himself of any suspicion that he had devoted himself to the cause of revolt against Rome. To do so he countered Justus’ accusation with one of his own. Though Justus’ answer, as well as his history, is lost, we can assume that he was equally appalled by Josephus’ countercharge and sought to avoid it. Josephus and Justus might be taken

44 The dating of the Vita is a vexed question. The autobiography was clearly written as a postscript to the Antiquitates Judaicae and has, in conjunction with evidence for the date of the death of Agrippa II—another vexed question—which is alluded to in the Vita, been dated to the early 90’s A.D., ca. 93–94. Other evidence, notably a few ambiguous inscriptions, converge in support of the date given by the ninth-century Byzantine Patriarch Photius (Bibliotheca 33), who assigns the death of Agrippa to 100 on the testimony, he claims, of Justus of Tiberias. For the problem of dating the Vita and the death of Agrippa II see T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (2nd ed.; London: Duckworth, 2002), 237–8; N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society, and Eclipse (JSPSup 30; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 396–9; S. Mason, Life of Josephus (vol. 9 of Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary; ed. S. Mason et al., Leiden: Brill, 2001), xv–xix. Mason, Life of Josephus, 225, provides a translation of Photius’ discussion of the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias. 45 Josephus Vita 336–67. On Justus of Tiberias, see A. Schalit, “Josephus und Justus,” Klio 26 (1933): 67–95; T. Rajak, “Justus of Tiberias,” CQ 23 (1973): 344–68; eadem, Josephus, 149–54; eadem, “Josephus and Justus of Tiberias,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), 81–94; Mason, Life of Josephus, 136–7 n. 1371.

introduction

21

as representatives of one class of survivors of the revolt. Josephus was a protégé of Jerusalem’s destroyer, Titus; Justus of Rome’s Jewish ally in the suppression of the Jewish Revolt, Agrippa II. These men, and others like them, were desperate to avoid the charge of warmongering. Surely this is understandable given their postwar situation. To whom were their apologies directed? A seemingly obvious answer is that Josephus—the loss of Justus’ history prevents our including his aims in our analysis—had a Roman audience in mind. Josephus, now the client of the Flavians, sought to absolve his class from charges of disloyalty. Indeed, Josephus (Vita 361) claims that he presented his Bellum to Vespasian and Titus and was rewarded with testimony to his accuracy. Titus even endorsed it and ordered that it be published (Vita 363). Neither of these statements proves that the emperors were the intended audience, nor does Josephus claim that either Vespasian or Titus even read his history. Had they read it, we can be sure that they would have appreciated the flattering portraits Josephus painted of his patrons, but would they have been won over by Josephus’ defense of Jewish elites? Even if they had been convinced that Josephus and his class were, if not secure in their innocence, at least mitigated in their guilt, what did Josephus expect them to do? There is nothing in his works to suggest that he was looking for a restoration of the temple and reconstitution of the ruling class around the high priesthood. There was no reason to protest his own loyalty or Agrippa’s, both were amply rewarded for their participation (Vita 422–9); even Justus’ life had been spared at Agrippa’s request (Vita 352–3, 356). Though Josephus (B.J. 1.6, 16) twice professes his intended audience to be Greeks and Romans in the preface to the Bellum, and once (B.J. 1.3) claims a more expansive audience, namely all those under Roman control, the more certain audience would have been other Jews.46 While Vespasian and Titus are not claimed as actual readers, Agrippa II is. Josephus sent portions of the work in progress to the king. Not only did Agrippa read them, but he even wrote sixty-two letters attesting to Josephus’ accuracy (Vita 364–7). Members of Agrippa’s family are claimed by Josephus (Vita 362) as additional readers. Justus might also

46 Elsewhere Josephus (C. Ap. 1.50–1) says that he presented copies to the emperors and other Romans who had participated in the war, though without any claim that the latter read or commented upon the volumes.

22

chapter one

have read Josephus’ account, for according to Josephus (Vita 359–60), the Tiberian’s history did not appear until many years after the end of the war and the death of the principals. Josephus (C. Ap. 1.51–2) also says that he sold copies of the work to a certain Herod, whose identity is not known, and to Julius Archelaus, Agrippa’s brother-in-law, both of whom vouched for Josephus’ truthfulness. Josephus’ repeated appeals to Jewish readers, especially Herodians, for testimony to his accuracy probably would have carried more weight with a Jewish than a Roman audience. It is suggestive that Josephus does not name his claimed Roman readers for such testimony, apart from the emperors. The evidence for Josephus’ audience is limited. A case can be made that the historian wrote with a primarily Jewish audience in mind. It is not entirely clear what aim Josephus would have had in mind in writing his account for Roman readers. His tendencies point more clearly to a Jewish audience. Josephus did not produce a defense of Jews for Romans, but rather a defense of the Romans and their empire aimed at Jews. A reader such as Agrippa would find support for his position as a Roman collaborator from the beginning in such a work, a fact which might explain the king’s enthusiastic support for the project. Josephus might also have penned his work with a more critical audience in mind, namely those for whom the contemplation of reconciliation with the destroyers of the temple and Holy City was a less welcome idea.47 Josephus’ histories do not, however, read as an explicit tract for Jewish cooperation with Rome, rather he subtly shapes the narrative, relying especially on certain programmatic speeches, to suggest a modus vivendi for Jewish elites as subjects of an empire that had just violently suppressed a revolt in which many had served as leaders. Josephus makes his case for continued Jewish cooperation with Rome in the speech delivered by Agrippa on the eve of revolt. The argument has both a political and a religious aspect. Agrippa begins by showing the injustice of going to war against Caesar, who is not to blame for the actions of his procurators (B.J. 2.352–4). Nor is it any great dishonor to serve the rulers of the entire world, for

47 Jerusalem, it is true, no longer held the central position in Judean society. There remained, however, many Jews in Judea, Galilee, and the vicinity. There were still Jewish towns in these areas. It seems reasonable to suppose that Jewish elites were still necessary components of the administration of the province of Judea, if not at the provincial level, as seems to be the case before the revolt, at least at the local level in the Jewish towns. It is to these elites that Josephus’ apology for the Roman Empire might have been directed in part.

introduction

23

the Romans rule over many including the Athenians, Lacedaemonians, and Macedonians, all great warriors in past times (2.356–61). Where do the Jews find the confidence to face the might of Rome, which has swept the world and even gone beyond the traditional boundaries of it by conquering Britain (2.362–4)? Agrippa follows this with a list of Rome’s conquests (Greece, Macedonia, Asia, Thrace, Illyria, Dalmatia, Gaul, Spain, Germany, Britain, Carthage, Cyrene, Africa, and Egypt) and notes that it is not the case that these countries willingly surrendered liberty, but rather that they were overawed by Rome’s might (2.365–87). Agrippa continues in a more religious vein, but our rehearsal must pause here to examine the political argument. Josephus, through Agrippa, rests his case for accommodation to Rome on the might of the empire, the Roman genius for command, the consequent justice of their claim for loyalty, and the notion that the emperor rather than his subordinates is the proper focus of that loyalty. The vastness of the Roman Empire was impressive to Josephus. Elsewhere, in a digression on the Roman army, Josephus (B.J. 3.70– 109) attributes Rome’s large empire to her military might.48 They owed their military successes to their attention to detail and their making adequate preparation for all contingencies that might be met on campaign. Rome had earned her empire—it was not the gift of fortune (B.J. 3.71). Because Rome had labored to acquire this empire, her subjects owed their allegiance. The emperor was the paramount focus of provincial loyalty in Agrippa’s speech. That being the case, rebellion was an act of disloyalty to him, not the procurators. This lesson is demonstrated throughout Josephus’ account of the years under procuratorial rule that preceded the revolt. Throughout this history, Josephus is careful to distinguish the points of contact between Jews and Rome. Roman rule is arranged hierarchically with the emperor at the top, the procurators at the bottom, and the legates of Syria, who often had to intervene in procuratorial Judea, occupying a position somewhere in the middle. The emperors are presented in a favorable light. Caligula is a notable exception, though even he was generous to his friend Agrippa I.49 48

See the discussion in B. D. Shaw, “Josephus: Roman Power and Responses to It,” Athenaeum 83 (1995): 357–90. 49 Caligula, Claudius, and Nero were all liberal in their gifts of land and favors to Agrippa I and Agrippa II; see Schürer, 1.444–5 (Agrippa I), 471–3 (Agrippa II); Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 279–84 (Agrippa I), 318–20 (Agrippa II).

24

chapter one

The procurators do not receive the same positive treatment. The best of them, such as Tiberius Julius Alexander and Festus, are praised for vigorously combating brigands and revolutionaries. The worst of them, such as Pontius Pilatus and Felix, connive with the brigands and offend Jewish religious sensibilities—seemingly on purpose—at every turn. Events in Judea, especially when conflicts arose between the Jews and the Roman procurators, often required the intervention of the governors of Syria. These were men of senatorial rank, ex-praetors and occasionally ex-consuls. They possessed a status and refinement far superior to the procurators who were drawn from the equestrian class, though on one notorious occasion a freedman was appointed procurator.50 Agrippa also appeals to the Jews’ religious sentiments in his call for loyalty to Rome. The greatness of Rome’s empire is sure proof that God is on the side of the Romans. The Jews can, therefore, have no hope of divine assistance in fighting the Romans (B.J. 2.390–4). The divine sanctioning of the Roman Empire is more fully developed in another set piece, Josephus’ speech to the rebels in Jerusalem (B.J. 5.362–419). Josephus’ argument here revolves around two main points: God is on the side of the Romans and has now deserted the Jews because of their impiety. God’s favor has come to rest on Rome in the cyclic rise and fall of empires. In Josephus’ day the scepter of empire had come round to Italy. The ancestors of Josephus’ contemporaries had recognized the law of might and had yielded to the Romans. There was no shame in this, for their ancestors, though lovers of freedom, had seen that God was on the side of the Romans (5.367–8). But now the Jews, in fighting against Rome, had unwittingly taken up arms against God (5.378). The conversion of the temple into a fortress had further outraged

50

An excellent example of the high caliber of the Syrian legates is afforded by L. Vitellius (A.D. 35–39?; cos. 34), whose administration of the province is acclaimed by Tacitus Ann. 6.32. Vitellius yielded to Jewish requests that his army bearing standards with images of the emperor not pass through Jewish territory en route to fight Aretas (Josephus A.J. 18.120–123). With this should be contrasted Pilatus’ seemingly deliberate, in Josephus’ (B.J. 2.169–74; A.J. 18.55–9) account, provocation of the Jews when he ordered Roman soldiers to march into Jerusalem with such standards. Vitellius also remitted the market toll introduced in Jerusalem by Herod and returned the high priest’s vestments to Jewish custody (A.J. 18.90). Another remarkable Syrian legate, P. Petronius (39?–41/2) famously risked his life opposing the mad scheme of Caligula to erect a statue in the temple (Josephus B.J. 2.192–203; A.J. 18.261–88, 302–9; cf. Philo Legat. 225–43.

introduction

25

God (5.377–8, 380). Josephus calls to mind the similar occasion of the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem. The Jews whom Josephus addressed were much worse than Zedekiah and the inhabitants at that time, for the latter did not put Jeremiah to death though he loudly proclaimed their sins. Now Josephus’ life was in danger for his doing the same thing (5.391–3). Josephus makes the final point that the Jews deserve their servitude under Rome. The stasis that broke out between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus was responsible for bringing Pompey against Jerusalem. God deprived the Jews of liberty because they were unworthy of it. Even the Jews of those days were less wicked than those listening to Josephus’ speech. Again in Herod’s day the stasis between Antigonus and Herod issued in the sack of Jerusalem by a Roman army (5.395–8). The height of the rebels’ wickedness is the pollution of the temple with bloodshed and sin. In a deft move Josephus contrasts Jewish impiety toward the temple with Roman piety. The Jews have forfeited divine succor through their impiety, while the Romans have shown only reverence to the temple (5.401–2).51 As a result God has abandoned the Jews and gone to fight on the side of the Romans (5.412). Josephus thus falls into a seeming contradiction. On the one hand he claims that God is on the Roman side irrespective of Jewish sin, but on the other he says that God has deserted his temple and taken his stand with Rome because the Jews have polluted the sanctuary. This can be resolved by realizing that Josephus’ conception of Roman power and Jewish subjection need not be a zero-sum game. God can, in a sense, be on both sides at once, provided that the Jews do not alienate him. They must avoid conflict both internecine and against God’s favorite, Rome, in order to do so. The resolution is that reached by the ancestors of Josephus’ audience, who were able to combine piety with subjection to Rome. Josephus takes pains in his history to find a modus vivendi for Jews in the wake of the Roman suppression of the revolt. He sketches out a way for Jews to come to terms with that Roman might so recently turned against them and to reconcile themselves to continued

51 The point is made strikingly when Titus himself calls upon those besieged within the temple to respect its holiness, promising Roman protection to the shrine (B.J. 7.124–8). Josephus (B.J. 1.10) introduces this theme of Roman piety towards the temple, given its highest expression by Titus, in the preface to his work. For this theme see Rajak, Josephus, 206–13.

26

chapter one

domination by Rome. Josephus was himself a collaborator during the revolt and after the war found patronage not from the Jewish king Agrippa but from the Flavians and above all Titus. Relying on both a pragmatic view of the politics of the day and reading the signs on a supernatural, that is to say divine, level, Josephus comes to the conclusion that Rome cannot be resisted. The political argument boils down to a compulsion of might: Rome is strong and must be obeyed. The fact that God had bestowed his favor upon the Romans and their empire might have made subservience a bit more palatable. There was certainly no reason why the Jews might not also be in God’s favor. The temple was destroyed because it had been polluted by the Jews. The Romans were not responsible. This explanation removed an obstacle to the resumption of cooperative relations between Jews and Rome. As Josephus’ Vita makes clear, there was still debate about the revolt years after its suppression. Josephus and Justus trade accusations of furthering the cause of revolt and warmongering. Josephus wrote his history of the revolt probably during the decade that followed it in an attempt to reconcile Jew and Roman. The debate, however, was much wider than Josephus and Justus, nor were all participants so ready to reconcile themselves to the destroyer of Jerusalem and its temple. These other voices have lain silent to this point. They are recoverable in the texts of the Pseudepigrapha, though a thorough attempt to do so has not been mounted. Given the difficulty of this material, it has not been used much in histories of the Jews under Roman rule. E. Mary Smallwood almost completely ignores it, appealing once each to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in her discussion of the cessation of the sacrificial cult following the destruction of the temple.52 The same two apocalypses make a rather longer, but still brief, appearance in the revised edition of Emil Schürer’s history, as well. Here they serve as evidence for the religious mood during the decades after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the initial shock caused by the loss gave way to an exploration of theodicy and final acceptance that the catastrophe was a punishment for Israel’s sins. The overall aim of the texts was the comforting of the distressed people and the encouraging of hopes for a messianic solution. The latter

52 E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 346–7.

introduction

27

notion is then seen as a contributing factor to the Bar Kokhba War.53 In his recent and detailed study of the Jewish War, Martin Goodman makes only a brief appeal to 4 Ezra once again to evoke both the mood of sorrow and the eschatological comfort offered by the text in the wake of the temple’s loss.54 In contrast to the historical studies above is Jacob Neusner’s classic theological study of this material.55 He approaches the topic as a religious and social rather than a political problem and tries to understand how various groups of Jews came to terms with the tragedy. He looks at the apocalyptic response (4 Ezra and 2 Baruch) in addition to those of the Dead Sea Sect at Qumran, the Christian community, and the Pharisees (early rabbinic). After a brief analysis of the two apocalypses he concludes that their message contained four points: God’s punishment of his people was just; Israel’s sins were responsible for the destruction; there will be redemption at the end of time; and in the meantime the Jews must wait patiently. He, also, sees the apocalyptic mindset as a contributing factor to the Bar Kokhba War. Neusner’s study is an important beginning, but he does not delve very deeply into the two texts that he has chosen, while excluding the many others that are relevant to his questions. The other classic study of Jewish responses to the destruction of A.D. 70 was written by Michael Stone.56 For Stone theodicy is the central issue of Jewish reactions to the destruction. There are two ways to approach the question of divine punishment for Jewish sin. One is to look back into the past to find the sinful behavior that provoked God. This way leads through the Deuteronomistic History. Eschatology offers another approach. It posits a predetermined pattern to history in which God’s justice will be vindicated in a new age only after evil has run its course. The task of the seer is to attempt to discern these patterns of history. A second element of the eschatological approach

53

Schürer, 1.527–8. M. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (New York: Knopf, 2007), 425. His omission of this material is underscored by his statement that Josephus is the only author between A.D. 70 and 100 whose works substantially survive. Nevertheless, Goodman’s chapter (pp. 424–87) on reactions to the catastrophe is a masterful summation of Roman attitudes toward the vanquished Jews. 55 J. Neusner, “Judaism in a Time of Crisis: Four Responses to the Destruction of the Second Temple,” Judaism 21 (1972): 312–27. 56 M. E. Stone, “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple,” JSJ 12 (1981): 195–204. 54

28

chapter one

to theodicy is the emphasis it places on the heavenly Jerusalem and the heavenly temple. After briefly looking at 2 Baruch’s acceptance of God’s justice in the catastrophe of A.D. 70, Stone turns to 4 Ezra, whose author was not so easily reconciled. In the latter text God’s justice is questioned and he is indicted for his governance of the cosmos, which allows men to commit evil acts only to punish them for so doing. Dialogues between the seer and an angel are ultimately unable to resolve the seer’s problems. It is only a vision of Jerusalem’s restoration that permits the seer to come to terms with God’s actions. Stone presents the seer’s reaction to this vision as a conversion. As can be seen in the studies of Neusner and Stone, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch loom large in scholarly attempts at recovering Jewish thought during the decades after 70.57 The conclusions of some of these are especially worthy of mention. J. H. Charlesworth in a study of Jewish reactions to the Roman “Other” after the destruction of Jerusalem focuses on these two apocalypses after noting that others are also relevant to the question.58 He observes that the trauma of the events of 70 forced the authors to turn their thoughts inward. Consequently, both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are introspective works. The confrontation with the destructive, Roman “Other”, which caused so much anguish to the author of 4 Ezra, produced in the author of 2 Baruch a certain aloofness regarding Rome. In both texts the primary responsibility for the destruction is found in Israel’s sin which provoked God to punish his people.

57 Exceptions to the rule include J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 194–232, which discusses 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Apocalypse of Abraham; Nickelsburg, JLBBM1, 277–318, which includes 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse of Abraham, 3 Baruch, the Gospel according to Matthew, and the Paraleipomena Jeremiae (4 Baruch); idem, JLBBM2, 263–309, omits 3 Baruch, 4 Baruch, and the Gospel according to Matthew. The material is largely introductory and is generally less concerned with historical questions than theological. 58 J. H. Charlesworth, “The Triumphant Majority as Seen by a Dwindled Minority: The Outsider According to the Insider of the Jewish Apocalypses, 70–130,” in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity (J. Neusner, E. S. Frerichs, and C. McCracken-Flesher, eds.; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 285–315.

introduction

29

F. J. Murphy’s study is one of the few that has explicitly dealt with the question of Jewish reactions to Rome in the post-70 context.59 His study is limited to 2 Baruch and his conclusions parallel those of Charlesworth for this text. Murphy interprets the apocalypse as a call to pacifism in the wake of destruction. Jewish sin is again given primary responsibility for bringing divine destruction on Jerusalem. Rome’s role is very much downplayed. God will punish Rome, to be sure, but the Jews will have no role to play. Jews are called upon to put thoughts of vengeance out of their mind and to focus on the salvation of their own souls. P. F. Esler applies the theoretical insights gained from social-scientific research to the question of 4 Ezra’s social function.60 Esler notes that the relations between an indigenous society and a colonial power are often shaped by a watershed event. In the case of the Jews and Rome this would be the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Relations develop in three stages. Leading up to the watershed event is a period marked by a millenarian outlook, when the indigenous society hopes for the destruction of the invader and the return to a more traditional situation. Following the watershed event comes a period of cognitive dissonance brought on by the discrepancy between the society’s initial hopes and the actual course of events. In the case of first-century Judea there was a stark contrast between Jewish belief in their nation’s election by God and the destruction of their Holy City and God’s temple by the Romans. The third step brings acceptance of the new state of affairs. The response is characterized as one of withdrawal and introversion, which attempts to reduce the dissonance experienced in the aftermath of trauma. According to Esler the aims of 4 Ezra are twofold. First, the text is concerned to persuade the audience that direct Jewish involvement in the messianic punishment of Rome is not necessary. Secondly, 4 Ezra advises its Jewish audience to turn inward and to focus on adherence to the Law as a means to preserve Jewish identity as Jews await the messianic solution to Roman dominance.

59

F. J. Murphy, “2 Baruch and the Romans,” JBL 104 (1985): 663–9; see also J. E. Wright, “The Social Setting of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” JSP 16 (1997): 81–96. 60 P. F. Esler, “The Social Function of 4 Ezra,” JSNT 53 (1994): 99–123; see idem, “God’s Honour and Rome’s Triumph: Responses to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE in Three Jewish Apocalypses,” in Modeling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context (ed. P. F. Esler; London: Routledge, 1995), 239–58.

30

chapter one

B. W. Longenecker has interpreted 4 Ezra in much the same way.61 Again the text has a double purpose. First, it aims to manage the sorrow felt in the wake of the tragedy so that the nation can heal. Second, it seeks to control eschatological fervor in order to preserve the nation from further harm. To achieve the second goal 4 Ezra encourages the Jews to live quietly and to put aside any desire to overthrow Rome or to restore Israel. The audience is instead invited to contemplate the next world and to prepare for citizenship in the heavenly city. This is to be achieved, again, through strict observance of the Law. M. Hadas-Lebel has offered the most comprehensive study of the pseudepigraphic texts written in response to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. The study includes 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Paraleipomena Jeremiae (4 Baruch), the Apocalypse of Abraham, and Sibylline Oracle 4 and 5.62 Hadas-Lebel’s attention is directed to only a few features. First, she notes the tendency, particularly strong in 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch, to deprive Rome of responsibility for the destruction of the temple. The aim in this regard was to underline the superiority of God and to give his chosen people, the Jews, a position from which to maintain their own superiority over their conquerors. Secondly, she traces the theme of Jewish sinfulness as the primary cause which provoked God to punish Jerusalem. She also addresses the corollary that Jews should accept the divine judgement and suppress any desire to revolt from the instrument of God’s justice, namely the Roman Empire. Thirdly, Hadas-Lebel looks at the theme of Nero’s return to punish Rome, found in the Sibylline literature. Two important ideas emerge from these studies that are applicable more broadly to the apocalyptic and related responses contained in the present study. The first is the tendency to direct Jews away from thoughts of armed insurrection or active participation in the chastisement of Rome. Most of the texts studied here are concerned to reemphasize God’s faithfulness by shifting the blame for the destruction onto the faithless community of the Jews. Secondly, like 4 Ezra in

61 B. W. Longenecker, “Locating 4 Ezra: A Consideration of Its Social Setting and Function,” JSJ 28 (1997): 271–93. 62 M. Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem against Rome (trans. R. Fréchet; Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 7; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 111–26; in a later section (pp. 455–87) she offers a more detailed analysis of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. HadasLebel’s treatment of these texts parallels in many ways the observations offered in the present study. The main drawback to her study is its brevity, condensing as it does all of this material into one chapter of a larger work.

introduction

31

Esler’s interpretation, there is a strong tendency to introversion and an emphasis on preserving Jewish identity apart from Rome and the Roman Question. As the rehearsal of the above studies shows, there is a need for a thorough and comprehensive study of the pseudepigraphical evidence for Jewish reactions to the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70.63 Before embarking on the study a few words should be said about the strengths and weaknesses of the material. As noted above, the seven texts of this study taken together offer one of the largest dossiers of provincial literature reflecting on the Roman Empire. Apart from the Greeks, who as we have seen had an ambivalent role as subjects of Rome, there is no other provincial population whose national literature has survived to the modern day. Because these seven texts all reflect on the same event they offer an unparalleled opportunity to discern a range of separate responses to what was a watershed in relations between the Roman Empire and a subject population. It would be as if we had a multitude of Gallic texts reacting to Caesar’s wars in Gaul during the 50s B.C. It is precisely this multiplicity of voices that allows us to look behind the facade of a monolithic “Jewish reaction” to Rome. Each author adds a voice to the choir. We can detect nuances and differences of emphasis, even rejections of positions offered by another participant in the discussion. Josephus’ altercation with Justus proves that there was a post-war discussion going on in the Jewish intellectual world. The authors of the seven texts which comprise this study were contributors to that

63 For the sake of completeness, attention should also be drawn to the more important studies of the rabbinic and Christian responses to the events of A.D. 70. Rabbinic responses have been analyzed by B. Bosker, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity,” PAAJR 50 (1983): 37–61; S. J. D. Cohen, “The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash,” Prooftexts 2 (1982): 18–39; R. Goldenberg, “The Broken Axis: Rabbinic Judaism and the Fall of Jerusalem,” JAAR 45.3 Supplement (1977): 870–81; idem, “Early Rabbinic Explanations of the Destruction of Jerusalem,” JJS 33 (1982): 517–25; A. J. Saldarini, “Varieties of Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of the Temple,” The Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 21; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982), 437–58. The Christian reaction is studied by S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity (London: S.P.C.K., 1957); C. H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation,’” JRS 37 (1947): 47–54; L. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (NovTSup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1970); B. Reicke, “Synoptic Prophesies on the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (ed. D.W. Aune; NovTSup 30; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 121–34.

32

chapter one

conversation as much as Josephus was. They, however, present a unique viewpoint that Josephus does not, for though a Jewish priest, Josephus’ account of the war is firmly located in the Greek historiographical tradition. The apocalypses and related texts of the present study, with the partial exception of the Sibylline Oracles, are rooted in the traditions of the Jews’ sacred history and literature. As such, they offer us an otherwise unattainable vantage point to see Rome as her subjects saw her. This does not, of course, mean that the literature under examination here is devoid of problems. Indeed, far from it. These texts inherit difficulties from both parents, as it were, the pseudepigraphic and apocalyptic. Many of these problems will be dealt with in the chapter proper to each text, but some general notion of them should be stated at the outset. The question of compositional date and provenance can be quite difficult to answer for these texts. Apocalyptic deals with history in a particular way. Events are often veiled. The difficulty in some of these particular texts, namely 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, and 4 Baruch, is the conflating of the first-century A.D. Roman destruction with the sixth-century B.C. Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. How can we be sure that we are dealing with a response to Rome from the late first century A.D.? There is a two part answer to this question. Briefly, there is evidence in some of the texts that we are dealing with the second, i.e. Roman, destruction of the temple. 2 Baruch (32.2–4) mentions explicitly that the temple will be destroyed, rebuilt, and destroyed again, a clear reference to the destruction by Rome. 2 Baruch (8.2) and 4 Baruch (4.1) also preserve a well-known detail of the Roman sack of Jerusalem. According to these texts a voice was heard coming from the temple announcing God’s departure and inviting the Romans (here Chaldeans) to enter. Tacitus (Hist. 5.13) and Josephus (B.J. 6.300) also record this portent. Furthermore, 4 Baruch (3.10, 15; 5.25) contains three references to Agrippa, though which one is not made clear. Although precision is establishing a sure date or even a dating range is not possible in the case of these two texts, we can at least be certain that they are written in the Roman context. The many connections that exist among the Baruchic corpus makes it likely that 3 Baruch should be dated to the same period. Assigning a post-70 date to 4 Ezra relies on the so-called Eagle Vision, wherein the seer observes a monstrous multi-headed and multi-winged eagle, which he learns is the fourth beast from a vision

introduction

33

in the book of Daniel. Josephus’ (A.J. 10.206–10; cf. 276) treatment of the statue that appeared in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in the book of Daniel makes it clear that by the late first century Rome was identified with the fourth kingdom of the book of Daniel. 2 Baruch also has a four-kingdom vision with Rome the most likely candidate for fourth place. This and other connections between 4 Ezra and the more securely dated 2 Baruch, makes it certain that the former is also a Roman-period composition. There is no doubt about the Roman dating of Sibylline Oracles 4 and 5, both of which make explicit reference to the Roman Empire and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. The Apocalypse of Abraham is the only text whose dating remains a matter of pure speculation. Here, however, we might make appeal to the similarities of theme and concern that unite this text to the others of the study and to Josephus. We can be fairly confident of its dating to the post-70 era on the basis of association with the other texts. A second problem arises for those texts, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, and 4 Baruch, which make extensive use of the Babylonian theme. It might with justice be asked: In what way are Babylonian (or Chaldean) references supposed to apply to Rome?64 There are a few possibilities. “Babylon” could be meant as a codename for “Rome” as is the case in the New Testament book of Revelation (14.8; 16.19; 17.5; 18.2, 10, 21) and 1 Peter (5.13). This is certainly the case at times in Sibylline Oracle 5 (143, 159). Elsewhere in the same text (Sib. Or. 5.434–446), however, it would appear that Babylon really is Babylon. At another place (Sib. Or. 5.173) words spoken by Babylon in the book of Isaiah (47.8) are attributed instead to Rome by name. It is this last case that requires more attention. The author here is clearly interpreting the passage in Isaiah to have relevance not just to the Babylonian destruction, but to the Roman, as well. We see something akin to this in Josephus’s (A.J. 10.78–9) treatment of the book of Lamentations, when he says that Jeremiah had announced the destruction that would befall Jerusalem in the historian’s day. Biblical accounts of the Babylonian destruction of

64 On this subject see C.-H. Hunzinger, “Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1. Petrusbriefes,” in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburtstag am 16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern (ed. H. Reventlow; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 67–77; Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem Against Rome, 463–8.

34

chapter one

Jerusalem might, therefore, have more than one referent. In cases like this, then, “Babylon” is not a codename for “Rome”; it is not a one-toone exchange. Rather the historical event of the Babylonian destruction is a prototype of the Roman destruction. This should be kept in mind when the reader confronts Babylonians in the opening chapters of 4 Ezra and the Baruchic corpus. Though the inclusion of the voice from the temple in 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch clearly signifies that the author has in mind the events of the Roman period, it is probably better to assume that “Babylonian” is not merely a codename for “Roman”. Rather the authors seem to be retelling the story of the Babylonian assault on Jerusalem in such a way that it will reflect on the more recent catastrophe. That is to say, the lessons learned from Israel’s sacred history can be applied to more recent events, so that the latter might be interpreted through the former.65 This subject will be dealt with again as it arises. It is difficult to lay out a hard and fast rule for how to deal with the appearance of Babylon in these Roman-period texts. Two general rules of thumb might be laid down. When it is clear that “Babylon” is meant to be read as “Rome”, as for example, when Nero is in Babylon, I shall make the substitution. When, however, it appears that an author is talking about the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem, I shall explore the ways in which the narrative of that past event is meant to apply to the author’s present circumstances. In those cases I shall often assume he is talking about the Romans, for the author means to deliver a message concerning them, but he is doing this through the veil of earlier events in the life of Israel.

65 This practice is somewhat similar to the Greek rhetorical feature called figured speech (ἐσχηματισμένος λόγος), which was used by orators when dealing with sensitive subjects. In his discussion of figured speech Demetrius (De elocutione 287–95) suggests its use in dealing with tyrants. For example, if one wanted to give a speech before Dionysius criticizing the tyrant for his cruelty, he might deliver a speech on the cruelty of the tyrant Phalaris. In this way he has not actually said anything about Dionysius, but the audience will know that he means the lessons to be drawn from the case of Phalaris to be applied to Dionysius. On figured speech see F. M. Ahl, “The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome,” AJP 105 (1984): 174–208; P. Chiron, “Le logos eskhèmatisménos ou discours figuré,” in La parole polémique (ed. J. Dangel, G. Declercq, and M. Murat; Paris: Champion, 2003), 223–54; L. Pernot, “Il non-detto della declamazione greco-romana: discorso figurato, sottintesi e allusioni politiche,” in Papers on Rhetoric 8: Declamation; Proceedings of the Seminars Held at the Scuola Superiore di Studi Umanistici Bologna (February–March 2006) (ed. L. Calboli Montefusco; Rome: Herder, 2007), 209–34; on its application to apocalyptic see K. R. Jones, “Persia and Babylon: Understanding Rome in the Greek and Jewish East” (forthcoming).

introduction

35

A second difficulty rears its head. Because the Pseudepigrapha were preserved by Christians rather than Jews, it is hard to know whether one is dealing with an authentically Jewish text or a Christian text. It is not as simple as identifying visibly Christian elements and isolating them as redactional additions, for it is possible that Christian editors of originally Jewish texts might have added material not obviously Christian or omitted material at odds with their reinterpretation of a text. It is also possible that Christians could have been the original authors of some of these texts even if identifiably Christian features are minimal or non-existent. J. R. Davila has approached the question in both theoretical and practical terms.66 In the former case he has attempted to formulate criteria which help to assess the origins of particular texts. In the latter case, he has applied his criteria to selected pseudepigrapha. In doing so he has confirmed the Jewish origins of two of the texts in the present study: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. At the same time he has called into question the Jewish character of Sibylline Oracles 4 and 5. He offers no judgement on 3 Baruch, 4 Baruch, and the Apocalypse of Abraham. It would be useful to review his arguments for the two confirmed and the two questionable texts. 2 Baruch is accepted as an originally Jewish work on the basis of the centrality of the Mosaic Law to the author’s message.67 This is combined with a strong expression of Jewish identity rooted in the divine election of Israel. Furthermore, the details relating to the Messiah contain nothing Christian. The centrality of the Law, temple cult, priesthood, and Zion in 4 Ezra also lead Davila to accept it as originally Jewish.68 Before turning to his assessment of the Sibylline Oracles, a case for the Jewishness of the texts omitted by Davila is in order.

66 J. R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? (JSJSup 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005). These questions had already been raised by R. A. Kraft, “The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity,” in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. C. Reeves; SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 55–86; idem, “The Pseudepigrapha and Christianity Revisited: Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions,” JSJ 32 (2001): 371–95, who argued that since the texts were preserved by Christians, their interpretation as Christian documents should provide the starting place for investigation before proceeding to attempt to recover their Jewish origins. 67 Davila, Provenance, 126–31. Davila also evaluates and finds wanting the recent treatment of R. Nir, The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (SBLEJL 20; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), which proposes Christian origins for 2 Baruch. 68 Davila, Provenance, 137–42.

36

chapter one

D. C. Harlow, also inspired by Kraft’s studies on the origins of the Pseudepigrapha, has examined 3 Baruch as both a Christian and a Jewish text.69 In so doing he has argued persuasively that despite the Christian character of certain parts of the text there is enough Jewish material that would be at odds with a Christian interpretation to suggest that the original text was Jewish. Much of his argument comes from the author’s response to the temple’s destruction, which Harlow compares to extant Christian reactions. The Christian understanding of this event is noticeably different from that of 3 Baruch. 4 Baruch is so closely related to 2 Baruch that one would assume Jewish authorship for it, as well. Many of the themes which led Davila to accept Jewish origins for 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra are present in 4 Baruch. Unique to the latter text is the theme of exile and return, which is closely tied in to Jewish identity based on the rejection of Babylon. Though there are Christian interpolations they come near the end of the text and do not relate back to the ideas of the earlier chapters. The Apocalypse of Abraham is perhaps the hardest to pin down, not least because it is preserved in Old Church Slavonic and is very difficult to interpret in certain places. Some scholars, as we shall see, have detected gnostic ideas in the text, though this line of thought is rejected in the present study. Davila’s analysis of Sibylline Oracle 5 raises an interesting question. He notes many positive references to both the Jews and Jerusalem. The temple is also treated in a favorable manner. There are, however, a few lines which describe a savior figure with his hands stretched out on fruitful wood (Sib. Or. 5.257). This is most likely a reference to Jesus. For some reason, which Davila does not make clear, he objects to omitting the line as a Christian interpolation and instead declares the text questionable in regard to its origin. Harlow’s study of 3 Baruch and his findings that Christian responses to the temple were markedly different from Jewish, above all in never lamenting its loss, can be applied to Sibylline Oracle 5, as well. The author’s anguish at the temple’s destruction seems odd coming from a Christian. Since only one line suggests a Christian theme, it is probably best to consider it an interpolation into an otherwise Jewish work.

69 D. C. Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity (SVTP 12; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 77–205. For a more detailed look at Harlow’s arguments see Chapter 4 below.

introduction

37

Davila, however, proposes that the text could be read as the work of either a Jewish-Christian or a Gentile God-fearer. It is this conjecture that raises an interesting question. The purpose of the present study is to examine Jewish reactions to Rome in the wake of Jerusalem’s destruction. If we accept either of Davila’s proposals can we still use this text to understand the thought-world of post-70 Judaism? How Jewish is a Jewish-Christian or Gentile God-fearer? The hostility toward Egypt in Sibylline Oracle 5 is certainly compatible with Jewish thought. The pointed use of Isaiah is also. The author’s celebration of Judaism and lamentation over the temple’s destruction are very Jewish, as well. In other words, if our author was a Gentile, he had certainly entered deeply into the world of Jewish ideas. If he was a Jew who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, he does not seem to have shed much of his Jewishness. If we are going to accept a continuum with Jew at one end and Christian at the other, then those in between might certainly preserve ideas germinated in Jewish soil. As such the testimony Sibylline Oracle 5 seems to me to be perfectly admissible in this study. Davila does not deal in any great detail with Sibylline Oracle 4, but seems to reject Jewish origins pretty strongly.70 Despite the author’s rejection of temple worship and acceptance of some sort of ritual ablutions, his emphasis on the destruction of the Jewish temple and the annihilation of pious men by the Romans suggests Jewish concern. Perhaps he, too, is a God-fearer or Jewish-Christian, though there are no specifically Christian ideas in the text, but once again, how Jewish does that make him? I suspect that Jewish authors—for I do believe the author of both texts in question was a Jew—who adopt the Sibylline genre for their works, adhered closely to the form in ways that distorted their Jewishness. That is to say, there is a universalizing tendency in the Sibylline Oracles that might be a bit of an awkward fit with what we would like to imagine was first-century Jewish orthodoxy. It bears mention, in this connection, that there is a universalizing tendency in parts of 2 Baruch also. Whatever we might make of the authorship of Sibylline Oracle 5, it seems unlikely that a Gentile author, which is what Davila proposes for Sibylline Oracle 4, would express such concern for the destruction of the temple and the righteous Jews as is found in that text.

70

Davila, Provenance, 188–190 n. 17.

38

chapter one

Even if we accept the Jewish origin of the texts in this study, it must still be acknowledged that they passed out of Jewish hands fairly early and into the hands of Christians, who preserved them and at the very least made interpolations into most of them. If it were merely a matter of interpolations, we might simply ignore them and proceed with analysis. It is quite possible, however, that material was also taken out of the texts or in some way shaped differently from the Jewish original. The best policy in this regard is a frank confession that I am basing my arguments on the texts as they are while excluding any obviously Christian material. There is, however, another problem with the Christian adoption of these texts. It is reasonable to assume that Christians would have chosen texts that were most useful to them, that is, texts containing ideas that Christians felt conformed to their own understanding of the world. There must have been many texts which were not adopted, which means that those which were are not necessarily representative of Jewish thought in all its variety. This is an obvious point, but requires recognition. The present study does not claim to paint a comprehensive picture of Jewish reactions to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. To do so the study would need to be expanded to include a more detailed treatment of Josephus and rabbinic literature from the Mishnah and Talmudim. A case could also be made for including apocalyptic material from the New Testament, both from the Gospels and the book of Revelation. This would be an enormous undertaking. The aims of the present study are more modest. Acknowledging the problems inherent to these works, in regards to their original form, preservation, and integrity, I hope merely to show what some representative Jewish authors thought about Rome in the context of a societal upheaval inflicted on the Jewish people by the Roman Empire.

CHAPTER TWO

“ARE THE DEEDS OF BABYLON BETTER THAN THOSE OF ZION?” 4 EZRA AND THE DELAYED PUNISHMENT OF ROME The punishment which God inflicted upon Judah in 587 B.C. with the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the deportation of the population to Babylon was not to be final. It lasted for a time and the Jews were restored to their land where they rebuilt both Jerusalem and the temple. Nor was the felicity enjoyed by the Babylonians destined to last. Jeremiah (30–31) details how the Lord will act on behalf of Israel when he hears their cries for mercy. Then he will break the bonds of foreign servitude and bring his people back. The book of Isaiah is replete with such assurances. The final third of the book (Isa 40–66) is devoted to the theme of Babylon’s punishment and Israel’s redemption. At one point (Isa 44.21–28), God informs his people that he has swept away Israel’s sins like a cloud, thus opening the way for their return, and promises that Jerusalem will be rebuilt with a new foundation for the temple. Isaiah also lays out the requirements for obtaining the Lord’s forgiveness and his promised aid. Israel must put aside injustice against the hungry and the afflicted. If Israel learns to practice justice, then the Lord will rebuild the ruins of Jerusalem (Isa 58.9–14). Not only would Judah be restored, but it would be exalted above the heads of the nations. Isaiah promises that once Israel returns to its land, the nations will flock to join the house of Jacob. The nations will become slaves of Israel, who will take captive its captors and rule over its oppressors (Isa 14.1–2). The return of Israel’s fortunes is necessarily connected quite closely with the comeuppance of its oppressor. The punishment of Babylon will not be a temporary state of affairs executed with a view toward correction, as it was for Israel. Rather it will be complete and permanent. Jeremiah (25.11–14) records God’s promise that Israel will suffer its oppression for seventy years, after which Babylon will be cast down from its position. The king and his people will be punished for their

40

chapter two

iniquity by entering into servitude for other great kings and nations, just repayment for their treatment of their neighbors. In a long diatribe against Babylon Jeremiah (50–51) declares that Babylon’s chastisement will proceed from its sins against the Lord, who will have vengeance for his temple.1 Isaiah offers many strong denunciations of Babylon threatening it with annihilation. In one prophecy Isaiah (13; cf. 14.22–23) foretells a fate akin to that of Sodom and Gomorrah: Babylon will be desolate, the haunt of wild beasts.2 One of the most pathetic pictures of chastised Babylon portrays the great city in the terrible position of a female war captive, subjected to servitude with her clothes torn off (Isa 47). The instrument of Babylon’s humiliation will be the Persian king Cyrus, the Lord’s anointed (Isa 44.28; 45.1–7). The book of Daniel (5) also offers a view of Babylon’s last days. Once King Belshazzar had a feast for his nobles. When he had drunk too much wine he called for the vessels plundered from the temple by his father to be brought out for service. Suddenly a disembodied hand appeared and wrote on the wall: MENE MENE TEKEL UPARSIN. Belshazzar was forced to call upon Daniel, the exiled Israelite turned courtier, to interpret this sign. Daniel’s answer: God has numbered the days of Belshazzar’s kingdom and brought it to an end. He has been weighed on the scale and found wanting. The kingdom would be divided between the Medes and the Persians. That very night saw the death of Belshazzar and the kingdom fell to Darius the Mede. Daniel (9.2) cited the testimony of Jeremiah that Zion would be desolate for seventy years. The Persian overthrow of Babylon culminated, from the Jewish perspective, in the restoration of the exiles to their land and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple. This restoration was accomplished

1 Jer 51.11: “Sharpen the arrows! Fill the quivers! The Lord has stirred up the spirit of the kings of the Medes, because his purpose concerning Babylon is to destroy it, for that is the vengeance of the Lord, vengeance for his temple” (NRSV: used for biblical quotations throughout the present study unless otherwise noted). 2 Isa 13.19–22: “And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the splendor and pride of the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah when God overthrew them. It will never be inhabited or lived in for all generations; Arabs will not pitch their tents there, shepherds will not make their flocks lie down there. But wild animals will lie down there, and its houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will live, and there goat-demons will dance. Hyenas will cry in its towers, and jackals in the pleasant palaces; its time is close at hand, and its days will not be prolonged.”

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

41

by the Persians and is detailed in the books of Ezra (esp. 1.1–4) and Nehemiah. Thus, in the decades following the Roman sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Jews could turn to their sacred traditions for consolation and hope. Once before God had used a foreign empire to chastise his people. When Israel had learned its lesson, God had restored his people to their former glory. The agent of his wrath, the Babylonian empire, had then been discarded, punished in turn for its arrogance. Jeremiah and Daniel had set a time limit of seventy years for Jerusalem’s deliverance. In fact a mere forty-eight years elapsed between the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. Surely, if God had done this previously he would do so again. And yet, there was very little hint of a coming chastisement for the Romans in the years after 70. It is this problem that the author of 4 Ezra explores. His anguished questioning seeks to understand why the Romans were still enjoying their prosperity while the Jews continued in their suffering. 2.1

Summary of the Text

4 Ezra consists of the central chapters (3–14) of the book otherwise known in the English apocrypha as 2 Esdras.3 The text is divided into a series of seven visions, though properly speaking only Visions 4–6 constitute true visions received by the seer; one is a waking vision and two come in dreams. Visions 1–3 consist of dialogues between Ezra and an angel, while Vision 7 describes Ezra’s inspired dictation of various sacred books.4

3 The books associated with Ezra go under a confusing profusion of names and numbers, complicated by the fact that in the different biblical traditions, viz. Vulgate, Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, English Bible, Russian Bible, the same book might have different titles. For a convenient chart giving the various titles see B. M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1.516; the same chart is available in B. M. Metzger and R. E. Murphy, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), xiii AP. H. A. Attridge, “Historiography,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2:2; ed. M. E. Stone; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 157–8 n. 1, provides another tabulation of the titles. 4 M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 50–1 with tables, and passim, especially in the sections entitled “Form and Structure,” pays careful attention to the structure of the text.

42

chapter two

Vision 1 (3.1–5.20) opens with the seer lying on his bed in Babylon, thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem. He is troubled by the contrast in fortunes between felicitous Babylon and desolate Zion. After recounting the history of the nations and Israel beginning from Adam, he asks whether Babylon is in some way better than Israel. An angel named Uriel appears and answers that Ezra cannot understand the ways of God. The conversation between Ezra and Uriel turns to eschatology. In answer to the seer’s question of how much time remains until the end comes, the angel assures him that the end is hastening. The angel describes to Ezra the signs that will herald the last days. In Vision 2 (5.21–6.34) Ezra meditates on the divine election of Israel, which was chosen from all the peoples to be God’s own. Now, however, this special relationship between God and Israel seems to have been voided by God’s handing over Israel to the nations. Again the angel appears and asks Ezra whether he could love Israel more than God does. Ezra and the angel discuss the timetable of the end of the world, which the angel again assures Ezra is coming. Then a voice with a sound like the roar of many waters details the signs of the eschaton as the ground begins to rock. Vision 3 (6.35–9.25) is by far the longest. After recounting the story of the creation of the world and Adam, Ezra repeats God’s claim that the world was created for his people. Ezra asks why Israel does not possess its inheritance, but is instead subjected to the domination of the nations. The angel answers by telling Ezra that there are two worlds, the present one full of trials and a future world of bliss that is reserved for the just. This opens a new topic of discussion, when Ezra comments on the paucity of those who will actually attain this blissful afterlife. He notes that most are destined for future torments as a result of their wickedness in this life. This leads the seer ultimately to beg God’s mercy for Israel, for not all Israel has sinned, and the whole ought to be saved through the righteousness of the few (8.24–36). The angel advises Ezra to cease to concern himself with the wicked and describes again the signs that will indicate that this world is coming to an end. Vision 4 (9.26–10.59) marks a turning point in the text. The vision begins in much the same way as the preceding three. Ezra addresses a prayer to God in which he rehearses the history of Israel’s sinfulness after receiving the Law. What would surely turn out to be a repetition of the angelic dialogues of the earlier visions is interrupted when Ezra

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

43

catches sight of a woman who is mourning. He finds out that she is grief-stricken over the death of her only son. Ezra remonstrates with her over her self-centered grief in the face of the national grief inspired in all Israel by the humiliation of Zion. As Ezra continues to rebuke the woman she suddenly turns into a city causing the seer in his terror at the transformation to collapse in a swoon. The angel returns and interprets the vision that Ezra has just seen. The woman is Zion. The symbolism of many other details of the woman’s story are then explained, though the exact meaning of the son’s death is never made clear. The angel invites Ezra to enter the city, which he does. In Vision 5 (11.1–12.51), the Eagle Vision, Ezra dreams that he sees an eagle come up from the sea. The eagle has twelve wings, eight smaller wings growing out of and opposing the twelve, and three heads. Gradually the wings disappear one by one. The first head then disappears and the third head devours the second one. A lion comes from the sea and rebukes the eagle for its wickedness. The remaining head vanishes, the last two opposing wings follow it, and the eagle’s body is consumed in flames. The angel interprets the vision. The eagle represents the fourth empire which appeared before to Daniel in a vision. The wings and heads are rulers. The lion is the Messiah. Vision 6 (13.1–58) is another dream. A man emerges from the sea and flies over the earth. The inhabitants are terrified and melt like wax when they hear his voice. Men from all corners of the earth gather together to make war against the man. The man carves a mountain from an unseen place and perches atop it to meet the onrush of those gathered to attack him. He sends a stream of fire from his mouth, which reduces his attackers to ashes. Then the man gathers together a more peaceful multitude. The angel reveals the meaning. The man is the Messiah. The multitudes that gather against him are the nations. The mountain is Zion. The peaceable multitude is the ten tribes that had been taken into captivity by Shalmaneser king of the Assyrians. In Vision 7 (14.1–49) Ezra receives a commission from God to dictate the books of the Law in order to publish them for his people. Before this, however, Ezra addresses the people and tells them that they have been punished because they have wickedly departed from the Law. Mercy will be guaranteed only by disciplining themselves. Ezra then drinks a cup filled with a fiery liquid and dictates ninetyfour books, twenty-four of which are to be published for all to read, while the remaining seventy are to be reserved only for the wise.

44

chapter two 2.2

Original Language, Versions, and Composition Date

4 Ezra exists in many manuscripts and versions.5 Scholarly consensus supports an original text in Hebrew, which is no longer extant.6 The intermediary stage is occupied by a translation into Greek, which is also lost apart from a few fragments.7 It is this lost Greek text, apparently available in two different versions, which served as the basis for many of the translations currently in existence. The most widely used version is the Latin text found as an appendix to the Vulgate.8 The second most important version is the Syriac, which is closely related to the Latin version and probably stems from the same Greek manuscript tradition.9 There is also an Arabic translation dependent directly on the Greek original.10 A second set of translations into Oriental languages arose from a Greek text that differed from the one that provided the basis for the above translations. This Greek tradition is now represented by translations into Ethiopic, Georgian, 5

For an overview see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 1–9, 10–11. For arguments supporting a Hebrew original see B. Violet, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt (GCS 32; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924), xxxi– xxxix; A. F. J. Klijn, Der lateinische Text der Apokalypse des Esra (TU 131; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983), 9–11, suggests that the Hebrew text may have contained Aramaic influences; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 10–11, provides a list of supporters of the Hebrew original. 7 For Greek fragments see A.-M. Denis, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graece: una cum historicorum et auctorum judaeorum Hellenistarum fragmentis (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 130–2; Klijn, Der lateinische Text, 11; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 1; for commentary on the fragments see A.-M. Denis, Introduction aux Pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament (SVTP 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 194–200. Klijn, Der lateinische Text, 11–12, provides a list of conjectured mistranslations in the versions that suggest a Greek text underlying the extant versions. 8 The principal editions are R. Bensly, The Fourth Book of Ezra (TS 3.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895); B. Violet, Die Esra-Apokalypse (IV. Esra), Band 1: Die Überlieferung (GCS 18; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910), who prints translations of the other principal versions into either German or Latin in columns alongside the Latin text; Klijn, Der lateinische Text, based on Violet’s edition. Other editions are L. Gry, Les dires prophétiques d’Esdras (IV Esdras) (2 vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1930); B. Fischer and R. Weber, eds., “Liber Ezrae Quartus,” in Biblia Sacra: iuxta Vulgatam versionem (4th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 1934–67. The Latin version has itself served as the basis for later translation into Arabic, modern Greek, Armenian, Slavonic, Georgian, and Hebrew; for which see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 4–5. 9 For the various editions of the Syriac version see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 6 and nn. 45–7. A German translation appears in Violet, Die Esra-Apokalypse; and an English translation in G. H. Box, The Apocalypse of Ezra (London: SPCK, 1912). The Syriac text served as the basis for a translation into Arabic; for which see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 6 nn. 48–9. 10 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 6. 6

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

45

Coptic, and Arabic.11 A Greek exemplar also served as the basis for an extensively reworked and supplemented Armenian version.12 Earlier scholarship on the apocalypse was devoted to the isolation and identification of the sources from which the current text was cobbled together. As many as five separate sources were thought to make up the text. The boundaries between the sources were drawn on theological and eschatological lines.13 More recent scholarship has opposed this tendency and it is now almost universally accepted that the work is a unified text, though, of course, various traditions and genres might be found in it that predate the final text.14 Acceptance of a unified text has permitted scholars to devote their analysis to the overall meaning of the text.15 There is very little external evidence for the dating of the composition of 4 Ezra. Clement of Alexandria cites a passage from the text providing a terminus ante quem for the Greek translation around the end of the second century A.D.16 Any attempt to date the text more narrowly must rely on internal evidence. Two items have been pressed into service for this question,

11 For these versions see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 6 and nn. 53–7 (Ethiopic), 7 and nn. 58–63 (Georgian), 7 and nn. 64–5 (Coptic), 7–8 and nn. 66–9 (Arabic). 12 For the Armenian version see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 8 and nn. 70–4. 13 For a detailed account of the arguments for both the composite and the unified text see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 11–15; for a concise account see E. McE. Humphrey, The Ladies and the Cities: Transformation and Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Asenath, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse and The Shepherd of Hermas (JSPSup 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 57–8. 14 For a review of the various expressions—not all, of course, in harmony with each other—of the now dominant theory of unity, see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 14–21; more concisely Humphrey, The Ladies and the Cities, 57–8. 15 Among the more important studies are W. Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheissung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse (FRLANT 97; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969); E. Brandenburger, Die Verborgenheit Gottes im Weltgeschehen: Das literarische und theologische Problem des 4. Esrabuches (ATANT 68; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981); E. Breech, “These Fragments I Have Shored Against My Ruins: The Form and Function of 4 Ezra,” JBL 92 (1973): 267–74; and recently K. M. Hogan, Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom, Debate, and Apocalyptic Solution (JSJSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2008). 16 Clement of Alexandria Strom. 3.16 quotes 4 Ezra 5.35. Other quotations and allusions have been posited, e.g. Ep. Barn. 12.1 might quote 4 Ezra 5.5a; Tertullian Praescr. 3.7 might quote 4 Ezra 8.20; Cyprian Demetr. 3 might quote 4 Ezra 5.54–55. These have provoked enough skepticism to render them all suspect. St. Ambrose certainly quotes from the text on more than one occasion. For proposed citations in both the Greek and Latin Fathers see Violet, Die Esra-Apokalypse, 433–8; for the Latin Fathers alone see Klijn, Der lateinische Text, 93–7.

46

chapter two

the opening lines of the apocalypse and the Eagle Vision. In the first line (3.1) of the apocalypse, the seer claims the thirtieth year after the destruction of the city as the time of his visions. If this is taken at face value the composition date can be set at A.D. 100. The author of 4 Ezra might, however, have been influenced by the opening lines of Ezekiel, wherein the prophet finds himself in a similar situation, also in the thirtieth year.17 4 Ezra does not otherwise bear the imprint of Ezekiel, which leads one to wonder what the significance of influence in the opening dating formula would be. A more promising item comes from the Eagle Vision (11.1–12.39). Before dissecting the vision for historical evidence, however, it will be useful to give a detailed summary of the pertinent images and their angelic interpretation. In a dream vision Ezra sees an eagle rise from the sea. It has twelve wings and three heads (11.1), which are at rest (11.4). The middle head is greater than the other two (11.4). From its wings grow eight smaller opposing wings (11.3, 11). A voice comes from the eagle’s body telling the wings and heads that they should not all be awake at the same time, but rather each should be in turn, with the heads coming last (11.7–10). The first wing on the right side rises up and rules before vanishing. The next one rises up and rules for a long time, before it, too, vanishes (11.12–14). Then the voice declares that no other will rule as long as the second wing, or even half as long (11.15–17). Then the third one rises up and disappears in turn. Thus it goes for all the wings, each ruling in its turn before vanishing (11.18–19). The seer summarizes the vision thus far by saying that of the wings that rose up, some ruled and disappeared suddenly and others did not rule at all (11.20–21). By this point all twelve wings and two winglets have disappeared (11.22). There remained only the three heads and six winglets (11.23). Then Ezra sees two winglets separate from the other four and take up position under the head on the right (11.24). The four remaining winglets decide to rise up and rule (11.25). The first does so, but immediately disappears (11.26). The departure of the second is even faster (11.27). As the next two winglets contemplate ruling the middle head awakens

17 Ezek 1.1: “In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the river Chebar, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.”

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

47

and embraces the other two heads (11.28–30). Then the middle head turns with the other two heads and eats the winglets (11.31). After this the middle head rules the earth with great power and oppression until it disappears (11.28–30). The two heads that remain rule over the earth until the head on the right eats the one on the left (11.34–35). Then a lion appears and rebukes the eagle (11.36–46). The final head vanishes and the two remaining winglets rise up to rule over a period of exile and tumult (12.1–2). After their disappearance, the eagle bursts into flames (12.3). The angelic interpretation clarifies certain of the symbols, though many points of the dream’s interpretation remain obscure. The angel explains that the eagle is the fourth beast of the vision that Daniel had received in the book of Daniel (Dan 7). The angel declares (4 Ezra 12.11–12) that his interpretation will differ from that given to Daniel. The eagle represents a kingdom over which twelve kings will rule. The second will rule longer than any of his successors (12.13–16). The voice that issued from the body of the eagle signifies that after the time of a certain reign, there will be disturbances that will almost cause the kingdom to fall (12.17–18). The eight winglets represent eight kings who will rise up and whose times will be short. Two of them will perish as the middle time approaches; four will be saved until the time when the end begins to approach; and two will be saved until the end (12.19–21). The three heads symbolize three kings whom the Most High will cause to rise up in the last times (12.22–25). The disappearance of the large central head shows that one of these rulers will die in bed, though in great agony (12.26). The sword will devour the remaining two. One ruler will kill the other by the sword, and will in turn be dispatched by the sword in the last times (12.27–28). The last two winglets are those rulers whom the Most High has preserved for the very end and whose reigns will be filled with tumult (12.29–30). The lion represents the Messiah, who will deliver his people (12.31–34). The great detail of the vision and its interpretation suggests that the author had in mind a veiled review of the Roman Empire. Two considerations prompt the identification of the eagle with Rome. First, the eagle itself would be a potent symbol of Roman military might calling to mind the legionary standards which consisted of a metallic eagle mounted on a pole. Secondly, we have the angel’s explanation that the Eagle Vision represents the fourth kingdom of Daniel’s vision (Dan 7.7–8), but freshly interpreted. As we have already noted, Josephus’

48

chapter two

treatment (A.J. 10.209–210, cf. 276) of the Danielic prophecies shows that a shift in interpretation had occurred by the late first century A.D. with Rome replacing the Seleucids as the fourth kingdom. The conjunction of this tendency in late first-century Jewish thought and the substitution of the Roman eagle for the unidentifiable fourth beast of Daniel suggests strongly that the Eagle Vision refers to the Roman Empire. The historical interpretation of the eagle is not at all straightforward. No theory suggested is without difficulties.18 All attempts at decoding the vision center on the identification of the three heads. The most likely candidates for identification are the Flavian emperors— Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian—or the Severans—Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta. The Flavian hypothesis has found more adherents and is also adopted here. The Severan hypothesis has recently found a strong defender, who has argued that the details of the vision better fit Septimius Severus and his sons than Vespasian and his.19 It is necessary to review the claims of both hypotheses. First, we shall review the arguments supporting the Severan hypothesis, as recently set forth. The deaths of the three heads accord well with the deaths of the Severans.20 Septimius Severus, who suffered from gout fell victim to illness and died in his bed.21 This matches the death of the ruler signified by the first head, who died in his bed, though in agony (4 Ezra 12.26). That the head on the right devoured the head on the left meant, according to the angelic interpreter (12.27–28), that one of the surviving two rulers would kill the other with a sword and would in turn fall prey to the sword. Caracalla did indeed have his brother Geta killed by a group of centurions and was in turn killed by a group of soldiers put up to the task by the praetorian prefect

18 For a summary of interpretations of the Eagle Vision see L. DiTommaso, “Dating the Eagle Vision of 4 Ezra: A New Look at an Old Theory,” JSP 20 (1999): 3–7, 36–8; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 361–5; Schürer, 3.297–300. 19 DiTommaso, “Eagle Vision,” 3–38. 20 DiTommaso, “Eagle Vision,” 16–17, 21–5. 21 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Sev. 19.1; Herodian 3.15.2; Cassius Dio 77.15.2; Eutropius 8.19; Aurelius Victor De Caes. 20.27. Most sources recall Severus’ illness as prolonged rather than particularly agonizing. DiTommaso, “Eagle Vision,” 23, puts undue emphasis on the grievousness of the disease, an element that all but the author of the Historia Augusta (morbo gravissimo exstinctus iam senex) ignored. It would seem then, that the final illness of Severus was not memorably torturous.

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

49

M. Opellius Macrinus, who became emperor and raised his son, Diadumenianus, to the same dignity.22 The four winglets that precede the heads are taken as references to P. Helvius Pertinax, M. Didius Severus Julianus, C. Pescennius Niger, and D. Clodius Septimius Albinus.23 The first two had very brief reigns, 87 and 66 days respectively, which accord well with the description (11.25–27) of the first pair of winglets before the heads. The second pair of winglets, which immediately preceded the heads, was devoured by the middle head. The vision records (11.28–31) that as the winglets were contemplating the assumption of the rule, the middle head awoke and joined with the other two heads before eating the winglets. Septimius Severus, upon his accession to the throne, had to deal with the two rivals, Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus, both of whom held provincial governorships at the time of Commodus’ death. In possession of sufficient troops to enforce their claim, both sought the throne. Pescennius Niger was defeated and killed first. To avoid fighting both pretenders at the same time, Septimius had granted Clodius Albinus the title of Caesar. After Niger’s death, however, Albinus was also defeated and killed. Thus the Severan hypothesis. There are difficulties that cannot be tidily explained by the Severan hypothesis. If one reckons up just the official emperors from Julius Caesar to Caracalla inclusive the total is twenty-four.24 Adding up the twelve wings, six winglets that precede the heads, and the three heads themselves yields a total of twenty-one. Severus’ rivals for the throne are not included in this reckoning. This difficulty is compounded by the angel’s statement (11.20–21) that not all of the men represented by wings and winglets actually achieved the rule. There is also some indication in the angel’s interpretation that suggests the author did

22 Geta: Cassius Dio epit. 78.2.1–6; Herodian 4.4.3; Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Carac. 2.4–6; Macrinus: Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Carac. 7.1–2; Cassius Dio epit. 79.5; Herodian 4.13. DiTommaso, “Eagle Vision,” 26–8, identifies the final pair of winglets with Macrinus and Diadumenianus. 23 DiTommaso, “Eagle Vision,” 18–21. 24 It would seem that the vision reckons Caesar as a king based on the statement (12.15) that the second wing would rule more than twice as long as any other. Augustus, if his reign is calculated from the death of Caesar (44 B.C.–A.D. 14), would fit this criterion. If calculated from Actium (31 B.C.–A.D. 14) then it falls a little short of doubling the reigns of Tiberius (A.D. 14–37) and Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138–161). On this question see DiTommaso, “Eagle Vision,” 29–31.

50

chapter two

not intend for the wings, winglets, and heads to be understood in a linear fashion.25 A further difficulty arises. It is not at all clear why the Severans would be singled out as targets of Jewish animosity. If the Severan hypothesis were adopted, it would point to an updating of the Eagle Vision, for 4 Ezra must antedate the reign of Septimius Severus, as it was quoted by Clement of Alexandria. What special circumstances would lead a redactor to revive the Eagle Vision in the early third century? The reuse of such an anti-Roman tract as the Eagle Vision, or even 4 Ezra, should arise during a period of anti-Roman sentiment. It is hard to imagine an early third-century context for such a revival. It must be admitted that the Severan hypothesis, especially in its recent formulation, does powerfully account for the evidence of the heads and counter-wings. The recent restatement of it was also accompanied by criticism of the Flavian hypothesis. The argument against the Flavian identification, however, is not as strong as it would seem.26 The angelic interpreter says that the emperor signified by the middle head will die in his bed in agony. Vespasian’s death, however, was peaceful. According to Suetonius (Vesp. 24), he died of an acute case of diarrhea as part of a larger intestinal illness, which left him bedridden. As he was rising from the bed death came upon him. It has been argued that the figure in the Eagle Vision cannot be Vespasian because diarrhea is not painful and the emperor did not die in his bed, but in the act of rising from it.27 This is certainly nitpicking.28 That no source explicitly mentions the agonies of the dying Vespasian need not prevent one from imagining that such a death would be accompanied by torments.29 Another objection arises from the angel’s statement (12.27–28) that the ruler represented by the third head will kill the one represented

25

A point to which we shall return below. Again, I present the arguments advanced by DiTommaso. 27 DiTommaso, “Eagle Vision,” 23. 28 If one wants to apply such rigor, it is worth noting that Caracalla was not killed by a sword, as the Eagle Vision would have it, but by a dagger. In an apocalyptic text one cannot expect that level of specificity. Another point should be noted. The fact that Suetonius, who had access to imperial archives and moved in high circles close to the emperor, knows of something, does not mean that every writer within the bounds of the empire would know it. We must also keep in mind that just because Suetonius published some fact does not ensure that it will become common knowledge. 29 Especially so, if that author was indulging in wishful thinking while contemplating the death of a hated tyrant. 26

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

51

by the second. Titus, however, followed his father in dying peacefully; Domitian did not kill him. Given Titus’ popularity and his brother’s bad reputation, it would not be surprising if rumors that Domitian killed the emperor proliferated. Suetonius (Tit. 9.3) says that Domitian plotted against Titus and ordered that he be left for dead in his final illness, while life yet remained in him. His memory was also assaulted in Domitian’s public utterances (Suetonius Dom. 2.3). This glimpse of fraternal rivalry comes from a particularly well-informed near contemporary, so there is no reason to doubt that rumor was rampant. Cassius Dio (epit. 66.26.2) does record that people commonly suspected Domitian of assassinating his brother. He even preserves a report of the outlandish method of death: Domitian had the ailing Titus packed in a chest full of ice. Of certain relevance to the present question is Sibylline Oracle 12 (122–123), which portrays Titus falling smitten by double-edged bronze, a clear reference to assassination by the sword though not necessarily at the hands of Domitian. It is not improbable that rumors were circulating in the late first century to the effect that Domitian had been responsible for the death of his beloved brother and predecessor.30 Thus the objections to the Flavian hypothesis and their rebuttal. The case for the identification of the three heads with the Flavians is no less plausible than their identification with the Severans. There is, moreover, a further point that favors the Flavian identification. In the vision, the seer observes (11.30) that the middle head takes the other two into alliance with itself before devouring the two winglets. This item surely fits the Flavians better than it does the Severans. Septimius Severus did not raise Geta to the imperial dignity until the closing years of his reign, long after the defeat of Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus. Caracalla was made Caesar only after the defeat of Niger and not made Augustus until 198, nearly a year after the defeat of Albinus. At the time he was made Augustus Caracalla was about nine years old. Titus, on the other hand, was from the beginning of Vespasian’s reign and even before during the Jewish War a full-fledged partner in his father’s rule (Suetonius Tit. 6.1). Domitian, too, had taken part in the events of A.D. 69. He was in Rome when the war between Vespasian

30 In this case, the truth of Titus’ death is entirely beside the point; all that matters is the perception or assumption of Domitian’s involvement in it.

52

chapter two

and Vitellius ended and after the defeat of Vitellius at Cremona he was hailed as Caesar and made praetor urbanus (Suetonius Dom. 1.3).31 The association of the sons in the father’s rule from the beginning is much more a feature of Vespasian’s reign than Septimius Severus’. As noted above, there is some indication in the text that the wings, winglets, and heads are not to be understood as following each other in succession. The angel’s explanation begins with the statement (12.13–14) that a kingdom will arise and that twelve kings will reign over it one after another. This, according to the angel (12.16), is the interpretation of the twelve wings. Then there is an interruption before the angel discusses the winglets. The angel recalls (12.18, cf. 11.7–10) to Ezra the voice that comes from the midst of the eagle and reveals its meaning. In the middle of the time of this kingdom strife will break out which will threaten the kingdom with destruction. Then the angel explains (12.19–21) the eight winglets. They represent eight kings whose years will be very brief. Two of them will die as the middle of its time draws near. Four will be reserved for the time as the kingdom’s end approaches. Two will be kept until the end. Rather than seeing the various parts of the eagle in a linear fashion where the twelve wings are followed by six winglets, three heads, and two additional winglets in turn, the author may be offering the winglets and heads as a more detailed examination of a part of the whole represented by the twelve wings. A comparison might be made with an inset map that offers the map’s user a more detailed view of a particular part of the whole. The angel’s statement that the eagle represents a kingdom and that the twelve wings represent twelve kings seems definitive. It accords well, obviously, with the Twelve Caesars. The strife that arises in the middle of the kingdom’s time could represent the troubles that broke out during the end of Nero’s reign and the Year of the Four Emperors. Though this is not the mid-point if reckoned by years, it is if the calculation takes into account the number of reigns. Nero was the sixth of the twelve emperors starting from Caesar. The six emperors from Galba through Domitian would reign over the second half of the kingdom’s time. The three Flavian emperors are accounted for by the three heads. It remains to identify the six winglets that precede the heads.

31 Suetonius Tit. 9.3 says that Domitian was also made a partner in the administration of Titus.

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

53

Returning to the angel’s statement (11.20–21) that not all of the wings and winglets need represent official emperors it is possible that some of these winglets should be identified with pretenders to the throne or even leaders of major rebellions. Three of the winglets must, of course, conceal Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. That still leaves three winglets. Two according to the angel (12.21) will perish as the middle time draws near. This suggests that their demise comes during the end of Nero’s reign. This impression is strengthened by the wording of the vision itself. As the vision begins to recount the strife and ultimate, albeit temporary, victory of the three heads, the seer notes (11.22–23) that at that point the twelve wings and two of the winglets had disappeared leaving only six winglets and the three heads. The statement has the effect of clearing the stage of props and scenery that might interfere with the act of the drama about to begin. Before proceeding to the four winglets that precede the heads, we must account for the two that disappear as the kingdom reaches its mid-point (12.21). There is not much detail in either the vision or the angelic interpretation. Perhaps these two winglets are to be identified with the leaders of two abortive uprisings during the final years of Nero’s reign, namely C. Calpurnius Piso and C. Julius Vindex. Piso was the figurehead of the eponymous conspiracy of A.D. 65 which sought to kill Nero and replace him with the popular scion of the Calpurnian family. Though Piso himself had little to recommend him as emperor the detection of the conspiracy and, especially, the punishment of the conspirators was a major event in Nero’s final years.32 Many prominent men met their death due to their complicity, both real and alleged, in the plot. With typical extravagance Nero celebrated his victory over the conspirators.33 Triumphal honors, which included statues in the Forum, were granted to the consular P. Petronius Turpilianus, the praetor designate (and future emperor) M. Cocceius Nerva, and the praetorian prefect C. Ofonius Tigellinus; Nymphidius Sabinus, who became Tigellinus’ colleague as praetorian prefect, was granted consular insignia. Nero also published an edict commemorating the event. Offerings of thanksgiving were voted to various gods; the Circensian Games were celebrated with more than

32

On the conspiracy and its aftermath see Tacitus Ann. 15.48–74. Tacitus Ann. 15.72 says that Nero informed the Senate as though recounting deeds of war (quasi gesta bello expositurus). 33

54

chapter two

the customary magnificence; April was renamed after Nero; and a Temple of Salus (Safety) was to be erected. As with Domitian’s supposed murder of Titus, the historical facts of the Pisonian Conspiracy are less important than Nero’s presentation and the public’s perception of it. Nero presented the conspiracy as a major event. It is plausible that a reasonably well-informed author might have remembered Piso with a winglet.34 The revolt of Vindex also has a claim to merit remembrance in the Eagle Vision.35 The ex-praetor and governor of Gallia Lugdunensis raised the standard of revolt against Nero early in 68 and invited other provincial governors to join. Only Galba accepted, though L. Clodius Macer, legatus in Africa, also revolted against Nero at about the same time. Although Vindex attracted a great deal of support in Gaul, this part of the revolt was suppressed without too much trouble by L. Verginius Rufus, legate of Upper Germany. Once again, however, it is perceptions rather than facts which matter. It was Vindex who set into motion the chain of events that would lead to Nero’s fall, the wars of 69, and the accession of Vespasian. In his propaganda Vindex portrayed himself as the savior of Rome and mankind.36 Though the revolt itself was unsuccessful, its results were of worldwide importance. During the Flavian period Pliny the Elder (Nat. 20.160) praised him as a champion of liberty against Nero (adsertorem illum a Nerone libertatis). It now remains to identify the four winglets that immediately precede the heads. The treatment of the two pairs by the author of 4 Ezra differs. The first pair contemplated arising and holding the rule, and did rise up in turn before vanishing. The second pair contemplated ruling, but were interrupted in their cogitations and swallowed by the head. This should perhaps be taken together with the author’s statement that some of the wings ruled and some did not, to indicate that

34 It should also be noted that an encomium addressed to Piso in his youth, the so-called Laus Pisonis, was moderately influential in poetic circles under Domitian; see E. Champlin, “The Life and Times of Calpurnius Piso,” MH 46 (1989): 101–24. 35 P. A. Brunt, “The Revolt of Vindex and the Fall of Nero,” in Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 9–32; repr. from Latomus 18 (1959): 531–59, remains an excellent treatment of the revolt. 36 For his coins see Brunt, Roman Imperial Themes, 12. The issues stressed Roman themes such as Roma resituta; Salus generis humani; Pax; Libertas; and the Roman senate and people.

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

55

of the four winglets the first two did rule and the second two did not, or, at least, were not recognized as ruling. Might we then be able to identify the first two wings with Galba and Otho and the second two with Vitellius and the Batavian rebel Julius Civilis? From a Flavian point of view this is suitable. Galba and Otho seem to have been recognized as legitimate emperors.37 Vitellius and Civilis were necessarily viewed respectively as usurper and rebel.38 This would mean that the author of the Eagle Vision, writing under the Flavians, would be prompted by the Flavian account of the year 69, which required Vitellius to be viewed as a usurper so as to justify Vespasian’s bid for empire. Civilis, who had started out as a supporter of Vespasian against Vitellius, began a revolt that came to include a

37 There is some evidence that the Flavians capitalized on the overthrow of Galba in their propaganda war against Vitellius, who had raised rebellion against Galba, though Otho was more intimately involved in the killing of the emperor and his heir L. Calpurnius Piso Licinianus. According to Tacitus (Hist. 3.7), the commander of Legio VII Galbiana, who supported Vespasian, restored the images of Galba that had been cast down in the Italian municipalities. Again according to Tacitus (Hist. 4.40), on the first day that Domitian presided in the Senate after the Flavian victory he brought up the question of honors for Galba. Vespasian, however, declined to follow through with a senatorial decree authorizing the erection of a statue to Galba on the site of his death, as Suetonius (Galba 23) records. Titus also paid tribute to select predecessors though the reissue of certain coin types. Galba was among those so honored. On this point see Ando, Imperial Ideology, 36. Flavian recognition of Galba is demonstrated by the dispatch of Titus by Vespasian, in order that he might travel to Rome and congratulate Galba on his accession. When Titus heard the report that Galba was dead, he returned to Judea (Tacitus Hist. 2.1; Suetonius Tit. 5.1). Flavian recognition of Otho is demonstrated by the oath of loyalty to the new emperor that Vespasian administered to the legions in Judea and that Mucianus administered to his army in Syria (Tacitus Hist. 1.76, but cf. 2.6; Plutarch Otho 4.2). DiTommaso, “Eagle Vision,” 18, rejects the identification of the heads with the Flavians on the grounds that the middle head is depicted as devouring two winglets, when in fact there should be three, viz. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. This was not, however, how the situation appeared to contemporaries, for Vespasian did not in any sense come out the winner in a four-way contest, having defeated the three other claimants. Only Vitellius was seen as an opponent and usurper. 38 Especially eloquent is the erasure not only of Vitellius’ name, but also his brother’s, from the Acts of the Arval Brethren; CIL 6.2051 = ILS 241 = M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead, eds., Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors Including the Year of Revolution A.D. 68–69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), nos. 2–3. The names of Galba, Piso, and Otho are untouched. DiTommaso, “Eagle Vision,” 20, rejects the identification with Vitellius on the grounds that he was dead (20 December 69) before Vespasian took the throne. Vespasian, however, considered 1 July 69, the day on which the Egyptian legions under Tiberius Julius Alexander declared for him, his dies imperii, rather than 21 December, the date the Senate recognized his claim (Suetonius Vesp. 6.3; Tacitus Hist. 2.79; P. Fouad I 8 = McCrum and Woodhead, Select Documents, 41).

56

chapter two

Gallic component as well under Julius Classicus, Julius Tutor, Julius Sabinus, and Julius Valentinus. The revolt was suppressed by Q. Petillius Cerialis.39 Here, as with the other points, perception and the Flavian presentation of the revolt are more important than the reality. On the basis of the arguments above, it seems reasonable to date the Eagle Vision broadly to the Flavian era. The three heads fit very well the perceptions entertained by contemporaries of the Flavians, though not always the historical facts, for example with the rumored murder of Titus by Domitian. The symbolical setting of the three heads in the midst of the winglets can also be explained with what small degree of plausibility the chaos of the years 69 and 70 permit. Is a narrower dating possible? The evidence of the vision suggests a date during the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96). According to the vision (11.36–37), the leonine Messiah would arise during the time of the last head. While the lion was rebuking the eagle, the third head disappeared before the remaining two wings began their brief and tumultuous reign (12.1–2). The implication is that the Messiah would arise during the reign of Domitian. The vision would then present the reigns of Nerva and Trajan as the final act of the Roman Empire, though it is unlikely that the author had these emperors in mind. The notion that this is an ex eventu prophecy falls flat, for the Messiah did not, in fact, arise during the reign of Domitian. This has, rather, to be wishful thinking on the part of our author, who hoped for the coming of the Messiah during the reign of Domitian. The two surviving winglets should not on this reckoning represent Nerva and Trajan, whose accession could not have been predicted during Domitian’s reign. When specifically in Domitian’s reign the Eagle Vision and 4 Ezra were composed is impossible to establish. If one wishes to credit the figure of thirty years at the beginning of the text, then a date near the end seems probable. On balance, a date earlier in the reign seems slightly more favorable, because it is closer to the disaster of A.D. 70.40

39 For the revolt see the sources in PIR2 nos. 264 (Civilis), 267 (Classicus), 535 (Sabinus), 607 (Tutor), and 611 (Valentinus). For a good overview of the revolt and Tacitus’ treatment of it see P. A. Brunt, “Tacitus on the Batavian Revolt,” in Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 33–52; repr. from Latomus 19 (1960): 494–517. 40 Another consideration that might point to a date earlier in Domitian’s reign is the dating of Sibylline Oracle 4 close to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 during Titus’ brief reign. If the texts in this study are to be seen in dialogue with each other,

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

57

2.3 Analysis 4 Ezra offers an extremely rich field for enquiry. The complicated psychological and theological development of the character of Ezra has been subjected to minute and indeed ingenious study for well over a century. Less attention has been paid to the historical value of the text as an expression of Jewish sentiments in the wake of the suppressed revolt of 66–70 and the ways in which at least one segment of the people tried to cope with the destruction of Jerusalem. This historical question will guide the present treatment. Probably the most surprising feature of the text is the limited concern that the author shows for the actual destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. To the modern observer this would seem to be the central religious and social problem of late first-century Judaism. For the author of 4 Ezra, however, this is not the case. To be sure, the loss of the city and temple are important. Vision 4, the central vision of the apocalypse, includes a bitter lament over the destruction of the city, the temple, the cult, the priesthood and other cultic personnel, but this is not a dominant theme of the text as a whole.41 The central concern of the author throughout most of the book is the meaning of Israel’s subordination to Rome particularly and the nations generally. The chief difficulty the author faces is the reconciliation of this reality with the special relationship that Israel shares with God. In other words, the author’s distress is caused by Rome’s continued domination of Israel, of which the destruction of Jerusalem and the suppression of the revolt is only one part. This orientation of the text is made clear in the opening lines of the text and throughout the first vision. The text opens (3.1–2) in the thirtieth year since the destruction of Jerusalem with Ezra lying on his bed in Babylon, where his mind is disturbed by the desolation of Zion and the felicity of those who inhabit Babylon. In contrast to the authors of 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch the author of 4 Ezra does not provide a description of the actual destruction of Jerusalem. Rather he sets his story of Ezra’s visions outside Palestine and thirty years after the event. One effect of the choice of setting is to draw the reader’s as seems called for by the similarity of their content, then a briefer compass for their composition would be likely. 41 The central importance of Vision 4 as a conversion experience of the seer has been explored by Stone, “Reactions,” 195–204; idem, Fourth Ezra, 29–33, 304–42.

58

chapter two

attention away from the contemplation of the shocking act of destruction itself. Instead the author concentrates on the fact of Israel’s continued domination by the Babylonian conqueror. As noted above, references to Babylon in the texts currently under study are not as simple as a mere case of substitution, where the author uses “Babylon” when he means “Rome”.42 Rather the author of 4 Ezra, like the authors of 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch, has chosen to set his account of apocalyptic visions in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. In the years after A.D. 70, and in a text that deals more directly with Rome in the Eagle Vision, it is hard to imagine that the author did not intend for his audience to see the Romans in the author’s complaints against the Babylonians. By shifting the setting forward in time three decades after the destruction, the author is able to concentrate his attention on the post-destruction situation of Judea.43 It is the fact of Israel’s subjection to the Romans that provides the central issue of 4 Ezra. The problem is viewed from various angles through the first three visions.44 The author labors to construct a solution relevant to his own time and in the context of the late first-century debate over Roman-Jewish relations after 70. The revelations of the fifth and sixth vision also directly concern themselves with Rome, for it becomes clear in the dialogic visions in the first part of the text that the only true solution is an eschatological one. The final vision, concerning the republishing of the Law, lays the groundwork for salvation at the end of the present world.45 The text opens with the seer lying on his bed in Babylon. He is stirred to distress by the contemplation of Rome’s present felicity in contrast

42

See Introduction, above. 4 Baruch will do the same thing by allowing sixty-six years to elapse during a supernaturally prolonged siesta for one of the text’s characters. 44 It is interesting to note that the author avoids reference to Babylon after the first vision. In the dialogues of Visions 2 and 3 the author contrasts Zion with the nations. He did this, perhaps, to avoid the distancing caused by dealing with Rome through historical allusions to Babylon. 45 4 Ezra is an extremely rich text. The present discussion cannot address all questions raised by it. An attempt is made here to trace out a neglected aspect of the author’s presentation, one important for grounding both author and work in their historical context. The following exposition will proceed along thematic lines, rather than analyzing each vision in turn. 43

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

59

to the desolation of Zion (3.2).46 The thirty-year interval between the fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of Ezra’s visions allows the author to concentrate his attention on the fact of Rome’s continued prosperity as opposed to the unhappiness of the Jews. Later in the first vision, the angel attempts through a parable (4.13–21) to explain to Ezra that he cannot hope to understand the things of heaven.47 Ezra, however, declares (4.23) that he does not seek to understand heavenly things, but the things that are part of the everyday experience of his people, namely that the Jews have been given over to the nations. This last statement demonstrates that the problem is not with the one-time destruction of Jerusalem by either Babylon or Rome, but that the situation that the Jews find themselves in, day in and day out, rankles the author. This point is made more elaborately in the second vision. Ezra is again moved in his distress to lift up his voice to God seeking an answer for Israel’s present state. He contemplates the election of Israel and the contradiction he sees between the special place of Israel before God and its current status in the world. Babylon has now been replaced in the author’s discussion by the nations. Ezra recalls a catalogue (5.23–27) of symbols for Israel’s election: out of the forests of the earth, God has chosen one vine; from the lands of the world, he has chosen one region; from all the world’s flowers, he has picked one lily; from the depths of the sea, he has filled one river; from the cities, he has consecrated to himself Zion; from the birds, he has taken one dove; from the flocks, he has selected one sheep; from the multitude of the peoples, he has chosen one and bestowed upon it the Law.48 If Israel was specially chosen by God, it seems inconceivable that the one people should be handed over to the many. Again the point is that the Jews have a status inferior to the nations, or to Rome. The author raises questions based on the traditional understanding of the special relationship between God and Israel, for

46 On the fairly secure supposition that the author intends his readers to reflect on their current Roman situation through the lens of Babylon, “Rome” will be generally be substituted for “Babylon” in the present discussion. 47 The parable tells of a war waged by the trees of the forest against the sea in an attempt to gain more land on which to expand. The waves of the sea also launched a war against the forest in order to expand their own territory. Both sides were stopped: the trees by fire and the waves by the immovable sand of the shore. 48 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 126–32, provides examples demonstrating the familiarity of these symbols for Israel in both the biblical and extra-biblical Jewish literature.

60

chapter two

from the election of Abraham his descendants have been considered a chosen people. It is the current domination of the Jews by Rome, not the destruction of Jerusalem itself, though this event cast the fact of Jewish subjugation into high relief, that upsets the author. This is the crux of the issue facing Jews in the late first century. The author treats the same question again in the beginning of the third vision. After recounting the traditional story of creation, Ezra states that God declared that all had been created for his people, whereas the nations are to be reckoned as nothing. This is in conflict with the current situation, wherein God’s people have been given into the hands of the nations and therefore have been dispossessed of their inheritance (6.38–59; cf. 7.10). Here the author goes far beyond his earlier formulations. Not only is Israel’s subjection to Rome a problem, but even more so, Roman domination is preventing Israel from assuming its proper place as master of the world. In other words, the Roman Empire ought to be instead an empire ruled over by the Jews. Underlying Ezra’s prayer in Vision 3 is the same issue of the Jews’ current situation as a subject of Rome, which is incompatible with the special promises that God made. The seriousness of the author’s concern with the imperial domination of the Jews is strikingly illustrated in the fourth vision. This vision stands at the center of the text and it is the first true vision that comes to Ezra. Reflection on the destruction of Jerusalem leads Ezra to utter a moving lament documenting the many aspects of that catastrophe which befell the Jews. The seer enumerates (10.19–24) the elements of the tragedy: the sanctuary was laid waste, the altar thrown down, the temple destroyed, the holy things have been polluted, the priests have been burned to death, the Levites led into captivity, the virgins defiled, the righteous carried off, and the young men enslaved. The crowning sorrow, however, which moves Ezra most of all, is that Zion has been given over into the hands of those that hate the Jews (10.23; cf. 3.7). As great a loss as the temple, its cult, and its priesthood were, it is the possession of Zion by the Romans that causes the greatest distress to the author. Thus it becomes clear that whatever trauma was caused by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70, the author of 4 Ezra tries to put that pain aside in order to draw his readers’ attention to the ongoing problem of the Roman presence in Judea. Of course, Rome had been in Judea before 70. During that period, however, the Jews had possessed their own local leaders, the chief priests and their asso-

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

61

ciates. So long as the Roman governors were in Caesarea, Jerusalem was free from overt Roman imperial oversight except on special occasions such as festivals. After the suppression of the revolt the situation changed. With the temple gone the main component of the ruling class, the priests, had been deprived of their position. Jerusalem was, of course, no more and a legion was stationed almost atop its ruins. The Jews left in the land were faced with the need to make a great readjustment in religious as well as in political and social terms. Ezra, the great restorer after the return from Babylon in the sixth century B.C., was a fitting figure to stand at the center of a new apocalyptic text written in an attempt to sort out the conflicting viewpoints of late first-century Jews. We have already seen Josephus’ take on the events of 70.49 It will be recalled that in his speech to the rebels besieged inside Jerusalem Josephus (B.J. 5.368; cf. 363, 378) said that God was on the Roman side. Josephus specifically acquitted the Romans of wickedness by contrasting God’s treatment of Rome with his treatment of Assyria. Had the Romans been judged to be deserving of punishment, then God could certainly have inflicted it upon them on any number of occasions, whether during Pompey’s campaigns in Judea, or during the war under Vespasian and Titus (Josephus B.J. 5.407–408). The besieged could not expect that God would treat in the same way the just Romans and the unjust Assyrians, and perhaps by implication, the Jews in Jerusalem. The notion that Jews were being punished for their sins through the destruction of Jerusalem would not be a radical idea. Indeed, it was a widely held belief both before and after the earlier destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians. The Josephan notion that Rome was favored by God, making resistance to Rome tantamount to fighting against God, was an innovation. It would be easy to arrive at such an idea. Not only was the success of Roman arms an argument in itself for divine favor, but also the traditional Jewish view of Rome was favorable. The book of Daniel and 1 Maccabees enshrined a positive view of the Roman Empire as the friend and ally of the Jews in their struggles against Seleucid domination. A brief review will make this clear.

49

See above, Introduction.

62

chapter two

Rome became the object of Jewish observation during an earlier period of national tragedy, the persecution of the Jews under the Seleucid king Antiochus IV. A Roman delegation halted Antiochus’ successful invasion of Egypt during the Sixth Syrian War against King Ptolemy VI (171/0–168).50 The Seleucid monarch’s embarrassment is recorded in the book of Daniel.51 When Antiochus entered Egypt it was the Kittim who force him to turn back.52 The act is recorded without further comment or detail. The Romans appear under their proper name in another book originating in Antiochus’ persecution of the Jews. 1 Maccabees (8) records that Judas Maccabee sent an embassy to Rome to form an alliance in 161 B.C.53 Apart from the text of the treaty itself, the account goes into great detail about Judas’ impression of Rome and his motivation in seeking Rome’s friendship. The description offers a detailed picture, if not of Judas’ true sentiments, then at least of the author’s. The primary observation is of Roman strength (1 Macc 8.1).54 The strength is manifested in Rome’s many military victories over the Gauls; Spain; the Macedonian kings Philip and Perseus and, more significantly to the Jews, Antiochus III; and many more islands and kingdoms besides. Roman might, moreover, is offset by their humility and loyalty to friends. There are no crowned heads in Rome, but rather a council directs their affairs. The council, obviously the senate, consists of 320 men who meet everyday to discuss how best to govern the people. They entrust supreme power every year to one man—in reality two— and thus avoid jealousy and envy.55

50 The embassy was headed by C. Popillius Laenas; see Polybius 29.2.1–4, 27; Livy 44.19.13, 29.1–5; 45.10–12.8, 13.1. 51 Dan. 11.29–30: “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south, but this time it shall not be as it was before. For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall lose heart and withdraw.” 52 The Kittim are strictly speaking the Cypriotes as the adjective derives from the city of Citium on Cyprus. It came to be applied to those coming from the West as though from the islands. Josephus A.J. 1.128, says that the Jews use the term for all islands and many maritime countries. 1 Macc 1.1 says that Alexander came from the land of Kittim and later, 8.5, styles Perseus the king of Kittim. The book of Daniel extends the term further west to describe Rome. The Vulgate and some manuscripts of the Septuagint supply Romans for Kittim. For the term see J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 384. 53 Renewals of the treaty are recorded under Jonathan in 144 (12.1–18) and Simon ca. 142 (14.16–19, 24; cf. 15.15–24). 54 The author was so taken with Roman might that he mentions it twice in the same line. 55 The limits of Jewish observation show themselves here.

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

63

The Jews gained very little from their alliance, but they may not have expected much.56 For our purposes it is enough to recognize the positive appreciation of Roman might twinned with humility. The concern for good government accords well with the panegyric of Aelius Aristides cited above. The Jews were, at the time of the writing of 1 Maccabees, still far outside Rome’s imperial orbit. Even as Rome came closer, and the Jews could sharpen their focus, Roman imperialism might still be seen as beneficial. The annexation of Judea as a Roman province was welcomed in some quarters. Though no contemporary source exists, Josephus recalls the event in both the Bellum Judaicum and the Antiquitates Judaicae. Upon the death of Herod, according to Josephus (B.J. 2.80–92; A.J. 17.299–314), a deputation of Jews sought from Augustus autonomy for their people. This liberation from the Herodian dynasty could be accomplished, they said, by incorporating Judea into the province of Syria. Roman suzerainty would guaranty freedom. The Josephan notion that Rome was divinely favored failed to persuade the author of 4 Ezra. Josephus’ understanding of the situation had a satisfying simplicity all the same. The Jews have displeased God and have been subjected to imperial Rome. The corollary that Rome is mistress of the world and must therefore be pleasing in God’s sight would be an inevitable view for some. Perceptions of the divine favor enjoyed by Cyrus and the Persians were so great that Isaiah went so far as to call Cyrus the Lord’s anointed (Messiah).57 The author of 4 Ezra challenges this view through a reassessment of Rome’s place in God’s relationship with Israel.

56 See E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 748–51. 57 Isa 44.28: “(I am the Lord) who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose’ ”; 45.1–7: “Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him—and the gates shall not be closed . . . For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I surname you, though you do not know me” (1, 4). The biblical book of Ezra also presented Cyrus in a flattering light; Ezra 1.1–4: “In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom, and also in a written edict declared: ‘Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah’” (1–2); cf. 1.7–8; 3.7; 4.3; 5.13–14, 17; 6.3.

64

chapter two

The author sets out his solution in the first vision and expands on it in the third. When the contrast between the present state of Babylon and Zion fills the author with distress, his prayer (3.4–27) to God includes a brief history of mankind and Israel from Adam’s day to the handing over of Zion. It is the story of God’s attempts through various means to correct the sinfulness of men. Adam sinned and was punished with death, but from him sprang the numberless peoples and nations (3.7). These, too, went their own way and scorned God until the Flood destroyed them. Thus they followed their father Adam in death. Only Noah was saved, from whom come the righteous (3.8–11). Once the remnant had begun to multiply, the peoples and nations became even more wicked than their ancestors. This prompted God to choose Abraham and to set apart Jacob. To Jacob’s descendants was given the Law (3.12–19). This also failed to curb acts of impiety even among the people of Israel. God commanded David to build a city in which sacrifices might be offered. The inhabitants of this city sinned, doing just as Adam and his descendants had done. Finally, God handed the city over to his enemies (3.20–27). The justice of God’s punishment of the Jews is not questioned. The people did sin and God handed over Jerusalem to the enemy. What does provoke complaint on the author’s part is the favor shown to Rome. The seer goes on to ask God whether the deeds of Babylon (Rome) are any better than Zion’s. He answers his own question by recalling the sinfulness of Rome that he has himself witnessed. God has destroyed his own people and spared his enemies who act wickedly. Ezra challenges God to weigh on a balance the iniquities of the Jews and the nations to see which way the scale inclines (3.28–34). The undermining of the Josephan interpretation, which must have been shared by others, proceeds by tracing both the nations and Israel back to Adam. The overview in Vision 1 is not of Jewish history alone, but of all the descendants of Adam. Sin is rooted in the father of all men and can be traced through the generations to which he gave rise. The problem that confronted God, in our author’s presentation, was human sin. Adam was the first to disobey the divine commandments. What followed then was a series of attempts to root out this sin. Adam was condemned to death and so were his descendants. Noah served as a new departure. When all the wicked were killed, he and his household, righteous men, offered a fresh starting point. When Noah’s descendants went bad, yet another attempt was made to start with Abraham, though this time the other sinners were allowed to live.

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

65

The posterity of Abraham through Jacob fared no better because it had inherited the propensity to sin from Adam (3.20–22). Ezra describes Israel’s sin as doing as Adam and his descendants had done. In other words, the Jews had behaved just as had the nations. The Law had no effect because of the propensity to sin handed down by Adam. In this context, Ezra’s complaint at the end of his prayer can be understood. If the Jews were to be punished for behaving like the nations, was it not eminently suitable that the nations including Rome should be punished for behaving according to their proper nature? If any people had at least some claim to God’s favor it was the Jews, for they knew God and had trusted in his covenants, even though they did sin (3.32). This then is one simple refutation of the Josephan claim that God had punished Israel for its unrighteousness, but was pleased with Rome and had therefore shown favor to the imperial people. The author also develops a more complicated response to the issue of Roman prosperity and Jewish misfortune, one that calls into question the notion of righteousness and wickedness at the national level, by placing it in tension with a more individualistic approach to righteousness. At the end of Ezra’s dialogues (Visions 1–3) with the angel the seer will attempt upon this fresh basis to reassert the traditional notion of national salvation. After Ezra’s questions as to the relative merits of Babylon and Zion he casts doubt upon any national capacity for goodness. To sum up his prayer to God Ezra asks when those who inhabit the earth have not sinned before God, or which nation has observed the commandments. He declares that, while it is possible for individuals to do so, nations cannot be found who can follow God’s commandments.58 If

58 4 Ezra 3.35–36: “When have the inhabitants of the earth not sinned in thy sight? Or what nation has kept thy commandments so well? Thou mayest indeed find individual men who have kept thy commandments, but nations thou wilt not find” (trans. Stone, Fourth Ezra, used throughout unless otherwise noted). Stone, Fourth Ezra, 77, reads the first verse as applying only to the Gentiles; the statement then means that not only has Israel done better than Babylon (Rome), but better than all the nations. A. L. Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra (SBLDS 29; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 171–6, understands the statement as a broader reference to all the peoples of the world, Gentiles and Jews. This sentiment is expressed at another place by the author (4 Ezra 7.46). There is a textual difficulty with this interpretation, namely the precise significance of the word sic in the Latin text. It would seem to suggest a comparison if this part of the verse were translated: “Or what nation has kept thy commandments so well (aut quae gens sic observavit mandata tua)”. Does

66

chapter two

this is the case, it obviates the Josephan claim that the Roman Empire is now favored by God, while the Jewish people is being punished for sin, because it is not possible to classify nations as good or bad. The author develops this notion at length in Vision 3. The sinfulness that the author traced from Adam through his descendants in Vision 1 has rendered it such that no man among the living has not sinned or transgressed the divine covenants (7.46–48; cf. 7.65–69, 138–140). The breadth of the statement is demonstrated by the inclusion of Ezra himself, on his own admission, among the sinners (8.47–49; cf. 7.76). The author must, therefore, intend to indicate Jews and Gentiles. Adam is the coupling that joins Jews and Gentiles together, for it was his sin that has doomed his descendants.59 For much of his dialogue with the angel in the third vision Ezra dispenses with the dichotomy between Israel and the nations in favor of one between the few and the many, wherein the few are the righteous who will be saved and the many are the wicked who will be punished. At many places in Ezra’s conversation with the angel the author sets the parameters for salvation and damnation in the world to come. A general catalogue (7.22–24, 79–81) of the sins meriting damnation includes disobedience to the Law, denial of the covenant, and denial of God’s existence. The angel tells (7.37–38) Ezra that on the day of judgement the nations will be judged and condemned according to these criteria. The same criteria seem to apply to the Jews as well, in so far as they apply to all men indiscriminately and regardless of national origin (7.78–79; 8.55–60).60 The key factor in this explanation of righteousness and wickedness is the individual responsibility for choosing between good and evil. The angel tells (7.71–73) Ezra that the punishment is justified because men had understanding. They had received the commandments and the Law and yet had willingly transgressed them, thus opening the the author mean to ask what nation has kept the commandments so well as Israel, as Stone suggests? The author said above that Israel did not keep the commandments, but rather followed the behavior of Adam and the nations. Of the other versions, the Syriac and Ethiopic preserve the same text as the Latin, while the Arabic (Arab. Ew. and Arab. Gild.) and the Armenian do not have the sense conveyed by the Latin sic. It is worth noting that the author never again in the text suggests the possibility of a Gentile being saved. 59 4 Ezra 7.118: “O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the misfortune was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants.” 60 4 Ezra 8.15–19a, makes it clear that there are sinners among the Jews for whom the author is concerned; cf. 8.24–31.

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

67

door for future torments. The angel speaks again (7.127–131) in even clearer terms of justification. He says that every man born into the world must participate in this contest between good and evil. Moses himself had advised the people to choose life, but he and the prophets were ignored. It will be immediately clear that the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the Jews. For the commandments of God and his Law have been set as the criteria for salvation. The world was given due warning through Moses and the prophets, but how likely was it that this message could have reached the nations? The author has also provided the remedy whereby men might escape sin and the punishments attendant on it. Men need only return to the Law (7.133). Observance of the Law gives salvation, just as its neglect ensures punishment (7.88–89, 94). This is not a universal message of salvation. Whereas sinfulness and the propensity to sin do not distinguish according to nationality, but are both present in all Adam’s descendants, the Law is only available in any effective sense to the Jews. The author makes no mention of proselytes in 4 Ezra, whether he envisioned the possibility of salvation for the Gentiles or not. If salvation were open to them it would only be through the Law. It becomes clear in Vision 3 that the author’s primary concern is for the Jews. He advances the individualistic responsibility for good and evil, for salvation and damnation, which might seem a universalizing tendency, but he brings the discussion at the end back to the nation of Israel, turning again to national salvation. Once the author has hammered out the case for universal susceptibility to sin and the appearance of a universal means to overcome sin, the author builds a case for the saving of Israel, while the nations receive no mention. Ezra professes (8.15–19a) his disinterest in mankind in general and restricts the discussion to God’s chosen people, whose situation causes him grief. He pleads (8.20–36) with God that he turn his attention to the righteousness practiced by some Jews rather than the wickedness of the rest. Indeed, Ezra admits (8.31–36, 45) that Israel is dependant on God’s mercy, as it has no store of good works that would justify God’s benevolence. Thus, the author is advancing the notion that Israel as Israel is a candidate for national salvation based on the good works of a few of its members, or even on the basis of God’s mercy alone. It remains only to ask whether the author of 4 Ezra expects the Jews to be saved as a nation. Three times (9.7–8; 12.34; 13.47b-49) the

68

chapter two

angel promises the salvation of those within the borders of God’s land, which must mean Judea. God summarizes (9.18–22) his dealings with the world by saying that he created the world for those who now exist, but when he found them to be corrupted by sin, he spared some with great difficulty, picking one grape from the cluster and one tree from the forest, which he then perfected for salvation. It would, therefore, appear that the author does, in fact, expect an eschatological judgement wherein the nations will be punished and Israel will be saved. If this interpretation is correct, it must be observed that the author of 4 Ezra has taken a rather roundabout approach to the problem. He has expended great energy in laying the basis for an individualistic ethic of salvation, yet he has ended by reaffirming what is a traditional Jewish view, namely that Israel will be saved as a result of the special relationship that exists between the people and God. He was forced to do so by the sort of consideration shown to Rome in arguments such as that of Josephus. The problem confronting the author of 4 Ezra in the latter part of the first century A.D. after the victory of Roman arms over Jewish and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple was one of continuity with the past. The Jews’ understanding of their nation was founded upon the election of their father Abraham and the covenant between his descendants and their God. The events of 70 were traumatic, but they could be understood in the light of tradition, for the Holy City and its temple had also been destroyed by the Babylonians centuries before. The Babylonians had in turn been overthrown by the Persians. 4 Ezra—and indeed most of the texts treated in the present study— shows scant concern for the loss of the temple and Jerusalem. What throws the author into despair is that Rome does not seem immediately bound to share the fate of Babylon. It might be argued that the author’s ancestors in the sixth century B.C. had to wait quite some time to be vindicated. This is true, but the vantage point of tradition, presented in the sacred books of the Jews, obscures the decades that passed between destruction and vindication. Rome, by the late first century, was still going strong. In the East Roman power was waxing. Some contemporaries were evidently impressed by the image of Roman might. The growth of Roman prosperity and authority led some to the opinion, derived from observation, that Rome was divinely favored. Josephus is a representative of this view. The author of 4 Ezra takes aim that this sort of thinking and delivers a carefully constructed rebuttal. In the apocalypse he must confront the unhappy situation

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

69

of the Jewish people in his own day, oppressed by Rome and with no real hope of earthly deliverance in the shape of a modern-day Cyrus. The author had to explain how the Jews could be punished for their sins, while the Romans were not. Of course the simplest explanation is that the Romans would be punished for their sins, but were not now for some hidden reason. The dialogic visions lay the groundwork for justifying Rome’s coming punishment by demonstrating that it is merited and justified by analogy to the Jews’ experience as chastised sinners. It is the point of the eschatological visions to show how this punishment will be worked out. The arguments advanced in the dialogic sections of 4 Ezra offer no lasting solution to the present situation experienced by the Jews under Roman domination in their land. The angel refers Ezra’s hopes for resolution to the eschaton. Each of the first three visions ends with a revelation of the signs that will accompany the end of time and the day of judgement.61 These prefigure the text’s revelatory visions (4–6) that present in symbols the eschatological overthrow of Rome and the nations that will guarantee the restoration of Israel in the coming world, a theme that is also present occasionally in the dialogic visions. The seventh and final vision deals with the reestablishment of the Law and of the scriptures more generally into the life of the Jews as the central mechanism to bring about the resolution of their present difficulties. The angel’s response to Ezra’s questions and complaints in the first visions is two-fold. The angel points out (4.1–25; 5.34–40) Ezra’s incapacity to understand the things of the Most High. When Ezra continues to protest, the angel turns the discussion to the end time and reveals to the seer the signs that will herald it. Much of what the angel reveals is very general: wars, the increase of unrighteousness, marvelous and monstrous portents, and cosmological and geological events. There are also embedded in the revelations items specific to the Jews’ present difficulties occasioned by the collapse of the revolt and the continued subjection to Rome. 61 4 Ezra 5.1–13 (Vision 1); 6.11–29 (Vision 2); 9.1–22 (Vision 3). The third vision also incorporates an eschatological section within the vision; 7.26–44. It should also be noted that before the revelatory sections of each of the first three visions there occurs a conversation between Ezra and the angel that turns on eschatological points; 4.26–52 (Vision 1); 5.41–6.10 (Vision 2); 7.75–115 (Vision 3). For an outline and overview of the book’s fairly uniform structure, see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 50–51, where he describes the different sections that occur in each vision.

70

chapter two

In the eschatological section of Vision 1 the angel foretells (5.3) the destruction that will befall the current world power, Rome. Amidst terror and unrighteousness the nation which now rules will be laid waste and made desolate. This prophecy regarding the downfall of Rome touches precisely on the point of contention that began the seer’s prayer earlier in Vision 1 (3.2), namely the contrast between Zion’s desolation and Babylon’s (Rome’s) prosperity. The future will reverse the situation for Rome, exchanging desolation for abundance. The future devastation of the Roman Empire is treated at length in Vision 5. The future punishment of the nations is again promised in one of the eschatological sections of Vision 3 (7.37–38). The day of judgement will see the rising up of the dead to appear before the throne of the Most High. Then God will reveal himself to the nations and level a three-part charge against them, namely that they denied him, refused to serve him, and despised his commandments. He will then show them the place of rest set aside for the righteous and the torments reserved for sinners. Another item that is included in the eschatological predictions is the restoration of Zion, though this event is presented as a sign of the times, rather than an end in itself. In Vision 2 (6.18–20) the angel tells Ezra that God will visit the earth’s inhabitants to punish the wicked when the humiliation of Zion is complete. Elsewhere the angel says (7.26) that the day is coming when the signs of the end will appear, among which is the appearance of the city that is not presently seen and the land that is now hidden. Here, too, the appearance of the hidden city, most likely Jerusalem, is not an end in itself, but instead serves to herald the coming of the judgement.62 This restoration of Jerusalem is developed at length in Vision 4 (9.26–10–59), wherein Ezra comes across a mourning woman in a field. As she is mourning her deceased son, Ezra rebukes her for indulging in private grief, while everyone else is mourning for Zion. The woman

62 It is not at all clear what the hidden land is. Usually the land is Israel, but that is not hidden. For discussion of the land and the city, see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 213–214. For the purpose of the present study, it is enough to notice that the restoration of Jerusalem does not appear as a goal of the eschaton, but as a sign. This downplaying of the Holy City is fully compatible with the author’s preoccupation with Rome’s dominance over the Jewish people almost to the exclusion of concern with the destruction of the temple and city.

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

71

turns out to be Zion, a fact that is revealed to Ezra when she takes on the appearance of an immense city. The angel explains the symbolism to Ezra, who is invited to enter and explore the city. This is the first of the true visions, as opposed to the dialogues of the first three visions. It is of central importance for many reasons. It is located physically at the center of the work, as the fourth of seven visions. In the course of the vision Ezra undergoes a dramatic development, when he is confronted with the mourning of personified Zion, which he shares, though at first he fails to recognize the identity of the woman.63 The importance for the eschatological visions to follow is that it lays the basis for them. As was already noted, the restoration of Zion was named as a sign of the end time. This is signified by the transfiguration of the woman into a city. The author can build from this to begin the investigation of themes that are more central to his concerns, namely the vindication of the Jews against the Romans (Vision 5) and the nations more generally (Vision 6). Ezra’s interaction with the woman is also intended to deflect the charge of insufficient concern for the loss of Jerusalem and the temple. It is easy to imagine that in the years following 70 Jewish bitterness and sadness would center on the loss of their sanctuary and Holy City, but this focus could become a handicap.64 The author of 4 Ezra goes to greater lengths than the other authors treated in the present study to avoid reflection on the loss of the Holy City. His concern is with the continued presence of the Romans in Judea and their domination of the Jews. The lament that Ezra delivers in Vision 4 establishes his credentials as one who mourns over Jerusalem, lest he seem to be 63 The vision begins as the first three do with Ezra offering up a prayer that questions some aspect of the Jews’ present circumstances, in this case he muses on the indestructibility of the Law though the vessel that contains it, namely Israel, has been destroyed. The angel does not, as in the former visions, rise to the bait this time. Instead the mourning woman confronts the seer and drives his thoughts out of his head, as he himself declares (9.39; 10.5). 64 This very problem is dealt with in the rabbinic literature. The story of R. Joshua and the ascetics recounted in b. Baba Bathra 60b is instructive. The loss of the temple drove many in Israel to renounce the consumption of meat and wine. They explain to R. Joshua that they refrain from the two items because of their importance to the now discontinued sacrificial cult. R. Joshua then points out that they must also refrain from bread, fruit, and water for the same reason. Though they are prepared to do without the first two items, they cannot give up the use of water. R. Joshua then tells them that they must find a middle ground between insufficient and excessive mourning.

72

chapter two

blinded to the tragedy of 70 by his present antipathy to Rome, which— it should be emphasized—need not stem entirely from the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus the angel declares (10.39, 50) that God has recognized the depth and sincerity of Ezra’s sorrow for his people and Zion.65 Vision 4 (10.19–23) also provides the opportunity for a lament over the far-reaching effects of the catastrophe of 70. Not only were the temple and its cult destroyed, but the entire national life of the Jews suffered, for the priests and Levites, the leaders of the people, were killed or otherwise removed. Likewise the men, women, virgins, and young were enslaved or outraged. As noted before, however, the capstone on the tragedy was the subjugation of Zion to those that hate the Jews. To be sure the events of 70 were a calamity of the first order, but the sack of Jerusalem merely set the seal on the humiliation of the Jews. So long as the hated Romans continued to oppress the Jews and the entire world this humiliation would continue to rankle. The author turned to this, his main concern, in two dream visions that appeared to Ezra. The Eagle Vision (Vision 5) has been discussed at great length above, where it was argued that the vision was most likely a product of the Flavian years, probably composed during the reign of Domitian. It represents an updating of the vision of four beasts that appeared to Daniel in the days of the Babylonian captivity.66 As has already been noted, the notion that Daniel’s prophetic insights extended to include the Roman Empire and the destruction of the Second Temple by Roman legions was current in the late first century A.D. The author of 4 Ezra, in order to make it relevant to his audience, has exchanged

65 This completes a theme raised earlier when the angel asked Ezra whether he was upset over Israel. It is not clear whether the angel is asking ironically or not, for the question is coupled with another: Does Ezra love Israel more than the One who created it does? The answer to this question is obviously negative. Is the answer to the first one assumed by the angel to be negative as well? In other words does the angel ask the question as a challenge to the seer? Ezra does repeatedly declare (e.g. 8.15–16) his sorrow for Israel. Whether the seer grieves or not for Israel, however, is not exactly the question. It is clear that Ezra—and the author—is concerned with the present situation of the Jews, but where does the loss of Jerusalem fit into his grief ? Vision 4 demonstrates that Ezra is grief-stricken over the catastrophe that befell Zion in 70, a point that has not found clear expression up until the angel’s statement. 66 The standard identification of the fourth beast with the Seleucid monarchy with a particular relevance to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes has a history stretching back at least to St. Jerome.

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

73

the horned monster of Daniel’s vision for the immediately recognizable Roman eagle, albeit with more wings and heads than the standard eagle has. The author’s treatment of the eagle and the Roman Empire through its symbolism is perhaps surprising. It might shock some observers that the vision takes no account of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.67 Given the author’s tendency as described in the present work this is understandable. The heads of the eagle, the Flavian emperors, are not themselves the main subject of the author’s ire, as the vision makes clear, rather it is the eagle itself and the eagle’s body that draw his fire. The eagle appears from the sea. He spreads his wings and flies over the earth ruling it and striking terror into the earth’s inhabitants (11.1–6). The wings are, at most, the agents of the eagle itself, as is made clear when the eagle addresses commands to the wings (11.7–10). The wings and winglets come in for no criticism at all. The middle head is the only appendage that is singled out for a negative description. Ezra sees (11.32–33) it gain control over the whole earth and oppress the inhabitants, wielding more power than any of the wings had done. It nevertheless disappears. When the Messiah appears, in leonine form, it addresses the eagle itself, not the remaining head (11.37). The lion foretells (11.45) the disappearance of the entire eagle: wings, winglets, heads, talons, and all. After a brief and tumultuous period under the authority of the two remaining winglets, the body of the eagle bursts into flames and is consumed (12.3a). The target of the author’s hostility is no particular emperor. It is neither Vespasian nor Titus, though these suppressed the Jewish revolt and destroyed Jerusalem. It is the Roman Empire itself—the eagle— that excites the author’s animosity. Nor does the author betray any particularist orientation in his abhorrence of the empire, for it is not any narrow Jewish complaint, though sufficient grounds existed, that motivates his portrayal of the empire’s demise. 4 Ezra takes a broad view of the wickedness of the Roman Empire. Ezra witnesses the terror inspired by the eagle’s flight, when its wings encompass the entire world. All are subject to the eagle and none dares speak against it (11.5–6). The middle head merely exercised more power than his predecessors. This might reflect the perspective

67 DiTommaso, “Eagle Vision,” 22, finds the author’s silence on this point difficult to reconcile with a Flavian composition date.

74

chapter two

of a Judean who witnessed the revolt and its aftermath and who had seen up close the crushing strength of Roman imperial arms. From the perspective of Judea Vespasian did exercise more power than any other emperor. He was also the first to have visited this corner of the world since Augustus. It is in the leonine Messiah’s words (11.38–44) to the eagle that we find the case against Rome most neatly stated. The fourth beast of Daniel’s vision had conquered all that came before. It held sway over the world through terror, oppression, and deceit. It judged the world, but not according to truth. Rome has afflicted the meek, harmed the peaceful, hated those who told the truth, loved liars, and overturned the walls of those who bore fruit and caused no harm to Rome.68 The principle sins of Rome are insolence and pride. The problem with Roman imperialism as formulated in 4 Ezra was not that it had inflicted any particular injustice on the Jews. Rather the problem was with Rome’s sinfulness, which was incompatible with its success. For Josephus imperial might was a demonstration of Rome’s possession of divine favor. It was precisely Roman success in war and the expansiveness of its conquests that impressed the author of 1 Maccabees (8.1–16). He records in obvious admiration the power of Rome that allowed it to enslave so many peoples and kingdoms. It was just this power coupled with the Roman contempt for kings that would make Rome such a useful ally against the Seleucid monarchs. What most impresses him is that despite all of this they are free from pride, placing their trust in a senate rather than a king (1 Macc 8.14–16). Perspective is everything. For Judas Maccabee and the author of 1 Maccabees Rome was far away. The author of 4 Ezra, on the other hand, had experienced the suffering that Roman imperial might brought with it.69 This experience allows our author to empathize with his fellow subjects. The problem of Roman sinfulness and Roman prosperity contrasted with Jewish sinfulness and Jewish misery led the author of 4 Ezra to have recourse to the promise of a better tomorrow. Rome would be punished and the Jews would be vindicated. It is worth asking whether

68 Perhaps this verse is drawn from the Jews’ own experience, for the words used (11.42), fructificabant and humiliasti, recall the fruit produced by the Law and the humiliation of Zion. 69 This recalls the wisdom of the Greek proverb recorded by Einhard in his life of Charlemagne (Vita Karoli Magni 2.16): τὸν Φράνκον φίλον ἔχεις, γείτονα οὐκ ἔχεις.

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

75

the punishment of Rome was anticipated with hopes of revenge or the knowledge that only in this way could the rewards promised for righteousness be guaranteed. If sin was not punished, would righteousness be rewarded? If the latter is the case, then Rome served as an object lesson: let the people of Israel return to the Law lest the disaster impending for Rome befall them as well. The main political point of 4 Ezra is to controvert the positive portrait of Rome that finds expression in the works of Josephus. This is not to say that the author had the Jewish historian’s writings specifically in mind, though this is by no means outside the realm of possibility. Rather he sought to combat the notion that Roman prosperity was divinely granted.70 2.4

Conclusion

The upheaval caused by the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. leaves a heavy imprint on the Hebrew Bible, as many of its books were written in response to this watershed event in the history of Israel and the history of Judaism.71 It is fitting that Jews of the late first century A.D. would turn back to these traditions when confronted with a similar catastrophe, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. From this late first-century A.D. vantage point two things emerge with clarity from the experience of the sixth century B.C., namely that Judah was then punished for its sins and that the Babylonians were punished for their pride. Jewish observers after A.D. 70 could readily understand

70 Vision 6 expands the view to encompass all the nations, which will fight against the Messiah in the last days. In this context, the people of Israel will be led to salvation by the victorious Messiah. Vision 7 provides a plan of action for the author’s late first-century audience: they must return to the Law and Israel’s sacred scriptures, for only in these writings will the antidote to wickedness be found. 71 Books that are immediately concerned with or touch upon the Babylonian action or its aftermath include 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, some of the Psalms, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Obadiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. For a study of the literature on this theme see P. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (Philadelphia, 1968); for the history of the period see now O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005). See also the essays in J. M. Scott, ed., Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997); and J. M. Scott, ed., Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001).

76

chapter two

and assimilate the first item. Nearly all the authors treated in this study including Josephus attribute the loss of Jerusalem to Jewish sin. The other foot had yet to fall. Rome appeared to be going strong. Flavian management of the Jewish War catapulted Vespasian and his sons onto the throne. The years after 70 saw the consolidation of Roman power in the East. The provincial status of Judea itself was raised, as it became home to a legion and its equestrian procurator was replaced with a senatorial governor. A scant forty-eight years had elapsed between the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar and the fall of Babylon to Cyrus.72 There was no Cyrus on the horizon in the late first century A.D.73 Roman power and Roman oppression were facts of life that showed no signs of disappearing. We might imagine that every subject of the empire was confronted with the need to determine his attitude to his subject status. This is, of course, the type of thing that an academic would imagine. In fact, as will become clear in the present study, many subjects, or at least Jewish subjects, were little concerned with questions of imperial oppression and more anxious about their own everyday problems. The author of 4 Ezra, however, is not one of these subjects. His mind was consumed with the Roman Question. It is not an exaggeration to say that this question permeates the apocalypse from the beginning of the text which finds Ezra lying on his bed agonizing over Roman prosperity all the way through the dialogues with the angel and the visions of the eschaton. The author builds a case against the notion that Rome was a privileged nation, favored by God, and exemplary among empires for justice and fairness. In his assault he tears down both the contemporary notion promoted by Josephus and the traditional appreciation of Rome found in 1 Maccabees. The author uses everything at hand to advance his case including speculations about the fate of the just and the wicked, which seem on the face of it to have little to do with the response to imperial oppression. It is important to note that the author’s solution is out of the hands of mortals. The author announces an eschatological resolution in the hands of God and his Messiah. Nor is the Messiah a mortal king such 72

Forty-eight years is a lifetime for those who live through it, but at a remove of six or seven hundred years it seems remarkably short. 73 Sibylline Oracle 4 preserves evidence that at least some Jews did look to the Iranian kingdom of the Parthians for a savior in the mould of Cyrus.

4 ezra and the delayed punishment of rome

77

as Cyrus. The tract is therefore not a plan for active resistance against Rome, nor even for passive resistance. The author’s purpose is to change attitudes towards Rome. He detects in the Josephan hypothesis a weakening of appreciation for the special relationship that exists between God and his chosen people. The consequence of such thinking is the erosion of a healthy devotion to the Law and divine commandments. In the final analysis, then, even 4 Ezra, despite the perhaps excessive attention paid to Rome, is really a tract about Jews who happen to be Roman subjects.

CHAPTER THREE

“WHY DO YOU LOOK FOR THE DECLINE OF YOUR ENEMIES?” 2 BARUCH AND THE ROMAN QUESTION The author’s choice of Ezra as the central figure of 4 Ezra deliberately shifted the focus of that work to the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem. The biblical Ezra was not, unlike figures such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, a member of the generation that lived through the loss of the Holy City. The city of David and the temple of Solomon were known to him only through hearsay and the sacred texts that he reportedly restored to the rebuilt metropolis of the Jews. 4 Ezra preserves the distance from the catastrophes of 587 B.C. and A.D. 70 as Ezra lies on his bed in Babylon reflecting on the continued might and wickedness of Babylon rather than reliving and remembering the horrific scenes of the destruction itself. The lament in the fourth vision almost seems to arise from the need of the author to establish his credentials as a true mourner for the lost city. The pain in some sense seems dulled by the passage of years. The next three texts that we shall examine in this study, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, and 4 Baruch (also known as the Paraleipomena Jeremiae or Continuation of Jeremiah) reject the path taken by the author of 4 Ezra. The authors of these three works do not feature a figure from the period of the restoration. Rather they draw on the circle around the Prophet Jeremiah to find the characters through which they meditate on the events of 70. This allows them to deal in a more immediate way with the sufferings of the generation that experienced the loss of the Holy City to the Romans. While 3 Baruch only reflects briefly on the destruction of Jerusalem before the seer is whisked off on a heavenly journey to discover the secrets of the cosmos, both 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch are firmly anchored in the historical reality of the events that precede, accompany, and follow the catastrophic events that engulfed Jerusalem in A.D. 70.1 The latter pair of texts begins at the scene of the crime in the moments before the destruction, providing the seers,

1 Though all three Baruchic texts are related, the bond between 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch is much closer. As will be argued below in Chapter Four, 3 Baruch represents

80

chapter three

and the audience of the texts, a front row seat from which they might observe the unfolding events. Afterwards, as their fellow countrymen are dragged off to exile in Babylonia, the seers are left behind to pick up the shattered pieces. 2 Baruch maintains the setting throughout the text with Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, left behind to try to gather together the remnant community and forge a plan for continued existence. The author of 4 Baruch, by contrast, transcends the anguish that accompanies the loss of the Holy City as he melds the generation of the destruction with that of the restoration in a text that sweeps across the intervening years, which pass literally like a dream. Before entering into a discussion of these three texts in this chapter and the ones that follow, it would be useful to review the salient points of the ministry of Jeremiah and his helper, Baruch. Jeremiah son of Hilkiah was born into a priestly family in Anathoth not far from Jerusalem. His prophetic career spanned the reigns of Josiah and his successors Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah up until the fall of Jerusalem in 587 (Jer 1.1–3). These years witnessed a titanic struggle for power in the Near East between the empires of Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon, with Judah in the middle. Judah found itself on the wrong side of the struggle twice. In 597 Jerusalem was besieged and captured by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. On that occasion the king of Judah was deposed and a number of the nation’s leaders were dragged off to Babylon where they laid the foundations of an exilic community. Zedekiah, who was left behind as the new king of Judah, did not maintain his allegiance to the Babylonian overlord, prompting Nebuchadnezzar to return to Judah in 587. This time he destroyed Jerusalem and carted the remainder of the Jerusalem elite off to join the exilic community in Babylon. Throughout these decades of vacillation, as the allegiance of Judah’s kings swung back and forth from Egypt to Babylon, Jeremiah’s view of the regional situation remained constant. From the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of Egypt at Carchemish in 605 the prophet of Anathoth had advocated an unwaveringly pro-Babylonian policy (Jer 27, 29). This policy did not spring from any lack of patriotism, but rather from the prophet’s understanding that God’s support of Babylon was intended as a chastisement for the idolatry rampant in Judah at that

the development of the central message of 2 Baruch, though the author employs very different means to do so.

2 baruch and the roman question

81

time (Jer 25.1–7; 26). Even during the final siege of Jerusalem Jeremiah maintained his position, prophesying the ultimate victory of Nebuchadnezzar and calling on the inhabitants of Jerusalem to reconcile with the Babylonian king (Jer 32). Needless to say, Jeremiah’s adherence to a pro-Babylonian line in the midst of conflict earned him many enemies, who denounced him as a traitor and nearly succeeded in getting him killed on one occasion (Jer 37–38). After the Babylonian victory Nebuchadnezzar commanded his general to let Jeremiah determine his own fate. The prophet opted to remain in Judah (Jer 39–40). After the assassination of the governor Gedaliah Jeremiah was forced to abandon Judah and to sojourn in Egypt despite his protests that God would only favor the remnant if it remained in Judah (Jer 42–43). On this occasion Jeremiah’s continued adherence to a pro-Babylonian line was attributed to the influence of his secretary Baruch, who was suspected of plotting to betray Gedaliah’s assassins to the Babylonians (Jer 43.3). This is one of four occasions on which Baruch is mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.2 In his first appearance Baruch plays a scribal role in a property transaction conducted by Jeremiah (32.9–16). Elsewhere his participation in Jeremiah’s ministry is more significant. At one point the prophet delegates to his scribal associate the task of publicly reading a scroll containing a condemnation of Judah. Sympathetic priests in the temple recommend that Jeremiah and Baruch go into hiding to escape the wrath of the king (Jer 36). For his trouble in the affair of the scroll Baruch receives a promise from God that he will be saved when Jerusalem is destroyed (Jer 45). The picture that emerges illustrates the close association that existed between the scribe and the prophet, especially in regard to Jeremiah’s Babylonian policy. The suspicions that surround Baruch after Gedaliah’s assassination suggest that the scribe played a major role in helping to the prophet to formulate his answer to the “Babylonian Question.” Outside the Hebrew Bible Baruch’s star continued to rise. His name came to be associated with a collection of writings put together as

2 On the development of Baruch in the biblical and post-biblical texts see J. E. Wright, “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer,” in Figures Outside the Bible (ed. M. E. Stone and Th. A. Bergren; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 1998), 264–89; idem, Baruch ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2003).

82

chapter three

the book of Baruch and found in the Greek Bible. In this text Baruch emerges as a leader in the exilic community in Babylon. Baruch calls the people together and reads a book that provokes in them a feeling of repentance. The crowd breaks into tears, begins a fast, and undertakes to collect money for remission to Jerusalem to support the high priest. Accompanying the money is the commission to pray for the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar, under whose protection the exilic community lives. Baruch says that by serving the kings loyally, the Jews will find favor. The letter also asks the Jews in Jerusalem to pray to God for the exilic community, for they recognize that their exile is a just punishment for their sinning against God. The book of Baruch is a recapitulation of the teachings of Jeremiah and of the Deuteronomistic History. Jerusalem sinned and deserved its punishment. The way forward lies in accepting the yoke of Babylon and being loyal subjects. The book of Baruch was just the starting point for Baruch’s rise to fame and indeed the very stars themselves as the three texts discussed in the present study will show. In them Jeremiah’s scribal associate and successor becomes himself the recipient of divine communications and ultimately, in 3 Baruch, will be found worthy of a tour of heaven. The choice of Baruch as seer in the three apocalypses to which we now turn is an interesting choice, perhaps even a bold choice given the sixth-century scribe’s pro-Babylonian stance. In comparison with 4 Ezra we shall find that the Baruchic apocalypses take a much less contentious approach to the “Roman Question.” 3.1

Summary of the Text

Before beginning our discussion of 2 Baruch is would be useful to look over a summary of the book.3 The word of the Lord came to Baruch and announced the imminent disaster to come upon Jerusalem in punishment for the sins of its inhabitants. Baruch in his distress questioned the divine plan but God was unmoved in his resolve to destroy the city for a time. The seer then gathered Jeremiah and other leaders of the people to inform them of what he had heard. The next day an army 3 For a brief introduction to the text, see Denis, Introduction, 182–6; Schürer, 3/2.750–6; Nickelsburg, JLBBM2, 277–85; M. E. Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2:2; ed. M. E. Stone; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 408–10; Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 212–25.

2 baruch and the roman question

83

of Chaldeans surrounded the city, prompting Baruch to abandon it. While he sat under an oak tree grieving over Zion, a strong wind lifted him above the city wall. He saw angels holding burning torches posted at the four corners of the city, while another angel removed the vessels from the holy of holies and commended them to the earth’s keeping. Then at this angel’s command the others overthrew the walls. A voice came from the temple inviting the enemy to enter the city. Baruch left as the Chaldeans entered the city, carried away the people, and sent King Zedekiah away to Babylon in chains. Baruch and Jeremiah, who were spared because of the purity of their hearts, lamented the fall of the city. God then announced to Jeremiah that he must accompany the captives to Babylon, whereas Baruch was to stay in Zion, so that he might be shown what would happen at the end of days. As Jeremiah went into captivity with the people Baruch delivered a long lament for Jerusalem. Baruch then turned his attention to the victor and foretold Babylon’s future sorrow (2 Bar. 1–12). Sometime later Baruch found himself on Mount Zion, where the Lord spoke to him again. God told him that he would live until the end of times to serve as a witness when the Lord would bring retribution on the nations. Baruch took the opportunity to interrogate God on the value of righteousness. The seer confessed that the recent tragic experience of Zion, which had been righteous in comparison with the nations, made the answer to his question difficult to find. The divine answer advanced along two lines. First, the Law has made man culpable for his offenses, for since he knows the Law, when he transgresses, he does so wittingly. He must, therefore, be punished. Secondly, God told Baruch that the righteous would find their reward in the coming world, having shown themselves worthy in the test of the present world. Baruch rejoined that man’s life was too short to prepare him for his inheritance in the next world. God countered that the length of Adam’s life had not kept him from transgression, while the relative shortness of Moses’ life had not proven a like hindrance. Baruch observed that more men had followed Adam’s way than the light of Moses. God acknowledged the truth of this, but the Law existed to show men the right path. If they fail to follow it, then they must face divine judgement. Baruch was then told to go away and fast in preparation for further revelations (13–20). After fasting in a cave in the valley of Kidron, Baruch returned to the place of the first meeting with God. There he lifted his voice in prayer asking God how long corruption would remain. Would God now show that the destruction of Jerusalem was in agreement with his

84

chapter three

power? Would he now reprove the angel of death and seal his kingdom? Finally, Baruch asked that God show his glory soon and fulfill the promises he had made to his people. God answered and reassured Baruch that he would continue on with his plan until the end. For men had been numbered ere the day that Adam sinned and that number must be reached before the dead might live again. That day, however, was not far off. It would come and the long-suffering of the Most High would be made manifest. Again God informed Baruch that he would be preserved until the end. God then revealed to the seer the tribulations that would presage the end and the division of the times of the age. The coming of the Messiah would accompany the resurrection of the righteous dead (21–30). Baruch then called together the elders for the first of three speeches delivered to some segment of the people who remained in the land. He told them that the temple would be rebuilt, but that it would be destroyed yet again, only to be renewed finally for eternity. When he prepared to depart, the people complained that he was leaving them as orphans in disobedience to Jeremiah’s command that he watch over the people. Baruch assured them that he would not abandon them. He was only going to consult God on their behalf and for the sake of Zion (31–34). Baruch went again to the ruins of the holy place and lamented the loss of Jerusalem. He fell asleep there and received an apocalyptic vision of a forest. A vine arose against the forest. Then a fountain sent out waves that engulfed the entire forest and the mountains that had surrounded it. One cedar alone remained, but even it eventually fell. The cedar was brought to the vine, which rebuked the tree for its wickedness. The vine promised that the tree would be tormented even more at the end of time. The cedar then burst into flames, while the vine grew. Around it the valley filled with unfading flowers. God then interpreted the vision to Baruch. The forest represented the kingdom that once overthrew Zion, but was in turn overthrown. Three kingdoms then succeeded the first, of which the last was the harshest. The cedar represents the last ruler of that last kingdom. The fountain and the vine represent the Messiah, who will punish the wicked ruler and protect God’s people. His dominion will last forever (35–40). The vision and its interpretation prompted Baruch to ask God about those of God’s people who had separated themselves from the Law. He also asked about those who had left behind their vanity and fled under God’s wings. God told him that the earlier states of both would be

2 baruch and the roman question

85

forgotten, but they would be rewarded or punished according to their later choices. Then God commanded Baruch to address the people and afterwards to return to this same place and fast, so that he might again speak with him (41–43). Baruch summoned a select group of leaders from the people and enjoined them to admonish the people to adhere to the Law. He revealed to his listeners that Zion had to be destroyed and that the world would be as well. The coming world would be given to those who were obedient to the Law. When he announced that he would soon die, his listeners bewailed the loss. Were they to be left in darkness? Baruch assured them that the Lord would raise up a leader for them. He then went to Hebron, where he fasted (44–47). Baruch lifted up his voice in prayer again, this time beseeching God to protect his elected people. God acknowledged that he had heard Baruch’s sincere prayer, but declared that his judgement stood. Only that which was evil would be destroyed. Then he described the confusion that would accompany the end time. Baruch, after lamenting the inheritance of Adam’s sin, announced that he would no longer enquire about the wicked, but only about the righteous. In answer to a further query by Baruch, God revealed to him the glories and the torments that awaited those who followed the Law and those who ignored it respectively (48–52). When Baruch, exhausted from this interview, fell asleep, he had a vision of a great cloud arising from the sea until it covered the earth. A succession of showers fell from the cloud with alternating dark and bright waters. A final dark shower, blacker than those that went before, rained down on the earth bringing destruction and devastation. Then lightning pressed the cloud down against the earth and its flashes healed the world. As the lightning began to rule over the earth, twelve rivers flowed from the sea and surrounded the lightning, becoming its subjects. Baruch awoke in fear (53). Acceding once again to Baruch’s request for enlightenment, God sent the angel Ramael to interpret the cloud vision.4 The vision concerned the history of the world from the creation until the end of time. The first black waters recalled the transgression of Adam and the

4 The cloud vision and its interpretation are analyzed at length by A. C. B. Kolenkow, “An Introduction to II Bar. 53, 56–74: Structure and Substance” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1971).

86

chapter three

wickedness of the angels who mingled with mortal women; the first bright waters were the fountain of Abraham which flowed through his progeny and brought the promise of renewal and the life to come. The succeeding dark and bright waters continue to illustrate the triumphs and failures of Israel. The eleventh black waters represent the sufferings that Israel was experiencing in the destruction of the temple and city by the Babylonians. The twelfth bright waters foretell a future period of great distress to come upon Israel, but their enemies would fall before them and Zion would be rebuilt. The last, blackest, waters contain a message of significance to the entire world, rather than just to Israel. These refer to the confusion to come over the world at the end of time. A last shower of bright waters presage a Messianic age of deliverance for the righteous who survive the time of confusion.5 In conclusion Baruch offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God for the interpretation and received the command to instruct the people so that they might not die in the last times. Baruch’s imminent departure was also announced to him (54–76). Baruch’s final speech to the entire people that remained in the land exhorted them to make straight their ways to avoid the punishment that had befallen their brothers and Zion. The people implored Baruch to write a letter to inform the exiles in Babylon of the message delivered to him by God. Baruch wrote that letter and sent another to the exiles of the northern kingdom previously taken into captivity by the Assyrians (77). There is no further mention of the letter to the Babylonian exiles, but the work ends with the text of the letter sent to the nine and a half tribes of the Assyrian exile. In this letter Baruch informed the exiles of the disaster that had befallen Zion. He then briefly recounted the consolation offered to him by the divine revelations regarding the future time. In order to console the addressees of the letter Baruch promised that they would have vengeance on both the nations and their own brothers who had acted wickedly. Baruch exhorted the exiles to preserve the traditions of the Law and to hand them down to their children, for in this would they find mercy on the last day. He closed with the warning and the

5 The interpretation does not quite jibe with the vision, for the final act of the vision was the lightning bolt, which in the interpretation has become another shower of bright waters.

2 baruch and the roman question

87

promise that the end was not far from them. The letter was tied to the neck of an eagle to be carried to the nine and a half tribes (78–87). 3.2

Original Language, Versions, and Composition Date

2 Baruch is known from one Syriac and one Arabic manuscript, which is translated from a Syriac original that differs only slightly from the surviving Syriac text.6 According to the title given by the Syriac manuscript, the text was translated from Greek.7 Many scholars have argued for a Hebrew original behind the Greek.8 The dating of 2 Baruch is uncertain. There are some items in the text that have been taken as evidence in computing a date.9 Some scholars have interpreted the opening line which dates Baruch’s first vision of God to the twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) to suggest that the work was composed twenty-five years after the fall of Jerusalem, thus yielding a date of 95.10 This is not a very secure basis. Jehoiachin, king of Judah, succeeded his father in 598 B.C. and was taken into exile by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in 597, when he was only eighteen years old. Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 587.11 Jerusalem

6 The Syriac manuscript is in the Ambrosian Library in Milan and dates from the sixth or seventh century. The principal edition is S. Dedering, ed., Apocalypsis Baruch (vol. 4.3 of The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version; Leiden: Brill, 1973). The book has been translated into English by R. H. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch (London: A. and C. Black, 1896); idem, “II Baruch,” APOT 2.470–526; A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of ) Baruch,” OTP 1.615–52. For commentary see P. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch (SC 144 and 145; Paris: Cerf, 1969). Translations in the present work are those of Klijn, “2 Baruch,” OTP. 7 Papyrus fragments (P. Oxy. III 403) of the Greek containing 12.1–13.2 and 13.11–14.3 have been found; see Denis, Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum, 118–20. 8 Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, xliv–liii, provides the first argument for a Hebrew original; F. Zimmermann, “Textual Observations on the Apocalypse of Baruch,” JTS 40 (1939): 151–6; idem, “Translation and Mistranslation in the Apocalypse of Baruch,” in Studies and Essays in Honour of Abraham A. Neuman (ed. M. Ben-Horin, B. D. Weinryb, and S. Zeitlin; Leiden: Brill, 1962), 580–7; Klijn, “2 Baruch,” OTP 1.616. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1.353–80, has questioned this conclusion and suggested that a Greek author familiar with Hebrew may be responsible for Hebraisms. 9 Violet, Die Apokalypsen, lxxvii–lxxxi, interprets the mention (70.8) of an earthquake as referring to the earthquake that struck Antioch in 115; L. Gry, “La date de la fin des temps selon les révélations ou les calculs du Pseudo-Philon et de Baruch (Apocalypse syriaque),” RB 48 (1939): 337–56, also argues for composition in 115. 10 Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1.291–5. 11 2 Kgs 24.6–17; 2 Chr 36.8–10.

88

chapter three

did not fall to the Babylonians in the twenty-fifth year of Jehoiachin’s reign. Why does the author of 2 Baruch say that it did? This cannot be answered. Even if we accept the author’s claim, it is by no means the next logical step to take his dating of the destruction of Jerusalem in the twenty-fifth year of Jehoiachin as masking the date of composition twenty-five years after the destruction of A.D. 70. For the purposes of the present study it is necessary only to show that the text was written in the Roman period after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Three statements in the text show that this is the case. When Baruch speaks to the people he mentions that Zion will be destroyed twice. The author is careful to preserve the dramatic date of his narrative and therefore speaks of the rebuilding of the temple under the Persians as still in the future. After that rebuilding, Jerusalem will be destroyed again, to be restored one final time for eternity.12 This must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem carried out by the Romans under Titus during the Jewish Revolt. A second prophetic item suggests a Roman date. In the interpretation of the vision of the forest and the cedar God tells Baruch that the forest represents the kingdom that destroyed Zion once and that will be destroyed itself in turn. This must be Babylon. The author mentions a succession of three kingdoms after Babylon, clearly drawing on the vision of four kingdoms beginning with Babylon found in the book of Daniel (2; 7). The fourth kingdom will be overthrown by the Messiah. It is probable that this kingdom is Rome. The author of 4 Ezra (12.11–12) identified the fourth beast of the Danielic vision with Rome, as did Josephus (A.J. 10.209–210). A third item comes from the inclusion of a well-known and widely reported portent of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans. In the days before the temple was captured, a voice was heard from within declaring that God was abandoning it and inviting the Romans to enter. 2 Baruch (8.2) mentions this, as does 4 Baruch (4.1), Josephus (B.J. 6.300), and Tacitus (Hist. 5.13). On the basis of these three items a composition date in the Roman period after 70 can be assumed with security. There is no suggestion

12 2 Bar. 32.2–4: “For after a short time, the building of Zion will be shaken in order that it will be rebuilt. That building will not remain; but it will again be uprooted after some time and will remain desolate for a time. And after that it is necessary that it will be renewed in glory and that it will be perfected into eternity” (trans. Klijn, OTP, is used throughout unless otherwise noted).

2 baruch and the roman question

89

of the Hadrianic foundation of Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem. It is, therefore, safe to posit a terminus ante quem of 135. The text is to be dated sometime in the half-century following the end of the Jewish Revolt. In so far as Josephus and the authors of 4 Ezra and Sibylline Oracle 4 were composing their works before 100, a late firstcentury date for 2 Baruch seems most likely. 3.3 Analysis As with 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch explores the Roman destruction of Jerusalem through reflection on the Babylonian destruction. The sixth century B.C. provides the setting and the dramatis personae, but the author’s concern is Rome, as is made clear by the chastisement of the fourth kingdom in the Cedar Vision. Again, as with 4 Ezra, it is not a matter of simply substituting “Rome” every time we read “Babylon” in the text. Rather, in our interpretation, we should understand the author’s retelling of the events of 587 B.C. as containing a message which can be applied to the situation after A.D. 70. The relevance of the Babylonian destruction could hardly be missed in the Roman context, as Josephus made clear. We must also pay attention to the ways in which the author’s account of the Babylonian destruction differs from the traditional account, for this should help to clarify the author’s distinct late first-century viewpoint. The most striking of such differences between the version of events as recounted in 2 Baruch and the traditional biblical account is the perspective from which the aftermath is viewed. After the fall of Jerusalem in 587 little is known about the situation in Palestine. There are a few remarks in the book of Jeremiah, but following the murder of the Babylonian installed governor, Gedaliah (Jer 40.7–41.3), and the departure of Jeremiah into Egypt (42.1–43.7), nothing is known.13 Though some portion of Israel, perhaps the larger part of the people, continued on in their homeland, the captives taken to Babylonia became the standard bearers of Israel’s history, culture, and religion. The narrative that ends in 2 Kings with the fall of Jerusalem is picked up again with the return of the exiles under Zerubbabel recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The restoration of the city and temple and the reordering of 13 See for this period M. Noth, The History of Israel (2nd ed.; trans. P. R. Ackroyd; New York, Harper & Row, 1960), 289–99; and now Lipschits, Fall and Rise.

90

chapter three

religious life are in these books accomplished not in conjunction with those who remained in the land, but despite them. The perspective of 2 Baruch is that of those who remained in the land with Baruch.14 Baruch’s actions are centered around Jerusalem (Mount Zion: 2 Bar. 10.3, 5; 13.1; 21.3; 34; 35.1–3; 43.3; Valley of Kidron: 21.1; 31.2), for it is there that he consults with God and receives some of his visions. In the course of the text he goes no further than Hebron (47). The collection of people that remain with Baruch is quite broad as is shown by his speeches. The addressees include the elders (31.1); Baruch’s firstborn son, the Gedaliahs, seven of the elders of the people (44.1); and, for his final speech, the whole of the people from greatest to least (77.1). This point of perspective is of the highest significance. The speeches of 2 Baruch serve as an important vehicle for the teaching of the author, though they are not the only point of instruction in the work.15 The Palestinian setting and Baruch’s addresses to the remnant left in the land position the work to serve as a tract aimed at those Jews remaining in Judea in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The teaching of the book, as argued here, is directed at Jewish concerns over the continuation of Roman rule after the suppression of the Great Revolt. The author’s message to his people is conflicted. Denunciations of Rome expressed vividly in the eschatological visions and passionate laments of the seer are mitigated, or even undercut, by a remarkable sense of solidarity with men of all nations who struggle to live a good life in a world hostile to justice and righteousness since the days of Adam. While the pathos of the laments and the splendor of the apocalypses make a deep impression on the reader, it is ultimately the author’s repeated harking back to the failings of our common humanity that seeks to draw the reader from his desire for vengeance and to redirect his attention to the care of his own soul in the hope of the salvation promised to all who subject themselves to the Law, be they Jew or pagan.

14 Baruch’s continued presence in Palestine in the apocalypse is at odds with the tradition recorded in the deuterocanonical book of Baruch (1.1), where he resides in Babylon. 15 A. F. J. Klijn, “The Sources and Redaction of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” JSJ 1 (1979): 65–76, notices the central place of the speeches, but overstates in this regard their importance to the neglect of other elements of the work.

2 baruch and the roman question

91

Before the author could proceed to his program, however, he first had to strip away any feelings of awe that might have adhered to the conqueror who had boldly and successfully undertaken to throw down the Holy City and the dwelling place of the Most High located therein. The apocalypse opens with a divine announcement of impending punishment for the sins of Israel. After asking many questions regarding the future of Israel, Baruch laments the coming of those who hate God, for they will pollute the sanctuary, carry off God’s heritage into captivity, and rule over those whom God loves. Furthermore they will return to their land and their idols and boast before them (5.1). A divine reassurance, however, erases Baruch’s worries on this count: Baruch will see that the enemy will not destroy Zion and burn Jerusalem (5.2–3). The promise is made good the following day. Baruch is whisked above the walls of the city and beholds four angels preparing to cast down the city walls at the command of a fifth (6.3–5). When the fifth angel issues the command to overthrow the walls, he does so explicitly to forestall the boasts of the enemy that they had overthrown the wall of Zion and burned the place of the mighty God (7). When the angelic destruction has been wreaked, a voice is heard from the temple inviting the enemy to enter the city, for the one who guarded the house had left (8.1–2). In other accounts (Tacitus Hist. 5.13; Josephus B.J. 6.300) the voice from the temple does not come on the eve of conquest and is instead a portent of the coming disaster. The author of 2 Baruch, however, has the voice extend an invitation to the enemy army to enter into the city and the temple. This suggests that they would otherwise have been unable to do so had the guardian still resided therein. Josephus also tried to shift the blame for the destruction of the temple from the Romans. In his account (B.J. 6.252) of the temple’s burning, a Roman soldier is prompted by a divine impulse to cast a torch into the sanctuary. The aim of Josephus, however, was quite different from that of the author of 2 Baruch, for the historian was interested in exculpating the Romans and especially Titus from the heinous deed of destroying the temple of God. This is one enormous obstacle that the historian had to overcome in order to present the conqueror of Jerusalem in a positive light to his Jewish audience. The author of 2 Baruch, in contrast, did not seek to relieve the Romans of blame, but to rob them of the power and ability of harming the dwelling place of God without the permission of the divine occupant and protector of Jerusalem. The conquerors of Jerusalem are thus weakened in his presentation. They were not sufficient in themselves to

92

chapter three

overcome God and to burn his temple and city in defiance of his own wishes. In this way efficacy is restored to God. The Romans merely served the judge in his judgement, as such they were not a force to be feared in their own right, rather fear was to be reserved to God.16 Indeed, 2 Baruch does not even contain a description of the destruction of the city. The Chaldeans merely enter the city and seize the temple (8.4). Much like 4 Ezra, what galls Baruch is the felicity of Rome at a time when Jerusalem has been destroyed. According to the seer (11.1–2), it would have been bad enough if Rome were happy and Zion were in its glory. Baruch’s anguish prompts him to play the prophet and foretell Rome’s doom. The seer declares that the city that is now happy would not always be so, for one day it, too, will taste the wrath of God, whose long-suffering now holds vengeance back.17 But it is precisely this withholding of divine retribution that troubles Baruch when, later in the text (21.20–25), he raises his voice in prayer and calls upon God to visit the world with the judgement that he has promised.18 He is to do this in order, thereby, to demonstrate his power to those who equate his long-suffering with weakness. The intended audience of this demonstration is not named, though two parties can be imagined. The author may be concerned that the Romans were led by the absence of any divine retribution stemming from the destruction of the Jerusalem temple to believe that the God of the Jews was too weak to protect his people and avenge the outrage against his dwelling place. The desperation in Baruch’s prayer, however, suggests that it is Baruch himself that is beginning to doubt the fulfillment of the prophecy he so rashly declaimed against Rome. Baruch’s badgering provokes God to rebuke him (23.2) for worrying about things that are beyond his ability to know. It is clear from the

16 2 Bar. 5.2–3: “And you shall see with your eyes that the enemy shall not destroy Zion and burn Jerusalem, but that they shall serve the Judge for a time.” 17 2 Bar. 12.1–4: “But I shall say as I think and I shall speak to you, O land, that which is happy. The afternoon will not always burn nor will the rays of the sun always give light. Do not think and do not expect that you will always have happiness and joy, and do not raise yourself too much and do not oppress. For surely wrath will arise against you in its own time, because long-suffering is now held back, as it were, by reins.” 18 God promised (20.1–2) that the times would hasten and the years would pass more quickly until the time when he would visit the world. This must be the promise recalled in Baruch’s prayer.

2 baruch and the roman question

93

divine response that it is Baruch himself who is troubled by the perceived failure of God to act. Baruch’s frustration would surely have resonated with many Jews in Palestine in the years following the loss of their Holy City. The prosperity of Rome jarred with the humiliation voiced by Baruch when he declared that even equality between Rome and Jerusalem would be scarcely bearable. But when would the longed-for vengeance fall upon the conqueror? The decades following the suppression of the Great Revolt saw a consolidation of Roman power in the East. Judea was put on firmer footing as a praetorian province complete with its own legion. The kingdom of Commagene was reduced to provincial status very soon after the revolt. Following the death of Agrippa II in the early nineties, his kingdom was split up and parceled out to neighboring provinces. The year 106, perhaps still in the future when 2 Baruch was composed, would see the annexation of the Nabatean kingdom as the province of Arabia. The thirty to forty years after 70 witnessed a vigorous expansion of Roman control over Judea and its neighbors.19 In the face of this vigorous imperial expansion, it is understandable that some would begin to wonder when God would avenge himself on the destroyers of Jerusalem. Baruch vents the frustration that must have accompanied this delay. The complaints of Baruch, however, are not the last word on this subject, for the author proposes a solution to this difficulty and proffers a piece of advice to Baruch and to his late first-century audience. The solution consists of a reorientation in the understanding of the catastrophe that had befallen the Jews, while the advice involves a change of perspective. The two are interrelated. The author draws a comparison between the punishment that is to come upon the Romans and that which had already fallen upon the Jews. On the basis of the parallel treatment of the chosen people and the nations, a sign of God’s impartiality as judge, the author shifts the audience’s attention to the individual nature of sin and away from the concept of national sin. The criterion of guilt is the Law, even, it appears, for the nations. Finally, the author calls on his readers to ignore the might of Rome and to focus instead on the state of their own souls. The last section, in the form of a letter to exiles, extends the author’s message to Jews in the Diaspora. This group might not have felt the destruction of Jerusalem with the keenness of their brethren

19

This may lie behind the charges leveled against Rome in the Cedar Vision (36).

94

chapter three

in Judea. Let us now turn to the text to see how the author constructs his message. After Baruch addressed the dire prophecy to Rome mentioned above, he fasted seven days before God answered him (12). Baruch is told (13.3) that he will be preserved as a witness to the punishment that will come upon the happy cities in the end of times. When the cities are puzzled by the divine retribution brought upon them, Baruch is to explain it based on the retribution that came upon his own nation, Israel (13.4–5). Just as the Jews, though God’s own sons, were punished, so too would the nations be punished (13.9). The balance of ideas is suggestive, underlined by striking parallels in language. The translator has used the same word for retribution and punishment for both the nations and the Jews.20 The author of 2 Baruch thus sets the Jews on par with the Romans at least in regard to their deserving of judgement. It should be noted that the end of the punishment inflicted on the Jews is forgiveness, a notion not expressed in the case of Rome. The impartiality of God’s judgement is an important message of 2 Baruch. It comes up again when Baruch addresses the elders of the people gathered around him. To this group which includes his first born son, the Gedaliahs, his friends, and seven of the elders, he announces that God is both just and impartial. The destruction that befell Zion served to publicize this aspect of the judgement of God (44.1–6). By afflicting the Jews first, divine impartiality was guaranteed (13.8–9). Just as the author of 4 Ezra had done, the author of 2 Baruch sought to undermine the notion of national salvation by replacing it with a sense of individual responsibility. He takes aim at another notion present in 4 Ezra, namely that the Jews should be spared on the grounds that at least some of them are righteous, as opposed to the entirely corrupt nations. The author of 2 Baruch does credit the notion that a leaven of righteousness can

20 2 Bar. 13.4–5, 9–10: “This means that if these happy cities will ever say, ‘Why has the mighty God brought upon us this retribution (PWR‘N’)?’, you and those who are like you, those who have seen this evil and retribution (PWR‘N’) coming over you and your nation in their own time, may say to them that the nations will be thoroughly punished (NTRDWN).’ . . . Therefore, he did not spare his own sons first, but he afflicted them as his enemies because they sinned. Therefore, they were once punished (’TRDYW), that they might be forgiven.” It is worth noting that the translator uses the same word for enemy to describe the Jews here and the Romans elsewhere (3.5; 5.1).

2 baruch and the roman question

95

justify saving the whole.21 In the opening narrative of the text God declares that Jerusalem cannot be handed over to the Babylonians if Jeremiah, Baruch, and their like remain in the city, for their prayers and good works are like fortifications. God does not, however, spare Jerusalem on their account. Rather he demands that they leave the city so as not to hinder his plans (2). The author raises the question explicitly in the conversation (14.2–8) with God following God’s declaration of parity of the punishments meted out to the Jews and the nations. Baruch asks what profit Israel’s fidelity to God has brought. It has not, after all, walked in the ways of the nations. Surely there were many among the Jews who were wicked, but the works of the righteous among them should have sufficed to obtain mercy for Zion. This line of reasoning is cut off by God’s response. God declares that the existence of the Law serves to convict those who do not follow it. Because men have understanding they must adhere to the Law (15.2–6). A little later (17.4) the author seems to limit the effectiveness of the Law to the Jews, for God declares that Moses brought the Law to the descendants of Jacob and the generation of Israel. Further on in the text, however, a more expansive view is presented, whereby all men are subject to the Law, irrespective of their inability, in the case of the nations, to know it. Indeed, ignorance of the Law is a sign of invincible pride on the part of the unknowing.22 God makes this point in response to a prayer of Baruch in which the seer pleads for mercy on Israel as God’s chosen people. According to Baruch, God’s election of Israel requires that he show mercy to his chosen one. Baruch continues, because the Law is with Israel and because the Jews have put their trust in God, they should be saved. Furthermore, since Israel did not mingle with the nations it should always be blessed.23

21

Indeed, this message is derived from the biblical account (Gen 18.16–33) of Abraham’s pleas that God spare Sodom if a righteous minority be found. 22 2 Bar. 48.38–40: “And it will happen in that time that a change of times will reveal itself openly for the eyes of everyone because they polluted themselves in all those times and caused oppression, and each one walked in his own works and did not remember the Law of the Mighty One. Therefore, a fire will consume their thoughts, and with a flame the meditations of their kidneys will be examined. For the Judge will come and will not hesitate. For each of the inhabitants of the earth knew when he acted unrighteously, and they did not know my Law because of their pride.” 23 2 Bar. 48.18–24: “For these are the people whom you have elected, and this is the nation of which you found no equal. But I shall speak to you now, and I shall say as my heart thinks. In you we have put our trust, because, behold, your Law is with

96

chapter three

Two important lessons arise from this discussion of divine judgement. The first is that the Jews have no privileged position as a people. This is made clear from Baruch’s prayer and God’s answer. We are told that Baruch’s heartfelt prayer leaves the seer weak when he has finished. God acknowledges the honesty of Baruch’s prayer, but he cannot disregard the Law’s requirements which demand judgement. Nothing will be destroyed unless it was found to have acted wickedly, which is defined as acting without remembering God’s goodness or accepting his long-suffering.24 Thus does 2 Baruch dispense with the notion of national salvation. Each individual must work out his salvation through adherence to the Law. Though by no means as pervasive as in 4 Ezra, the tracing of human sin back to Adam is also present in 2 Baruch. The author pithily summarizes his teaching of personal responsibility when he declares (54.15, 19) that each of us is his own Adam. The author applies this idea to the current situation of the Jews in the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt. Sin is defined by 2 Baruch as neglect of the Law and, more generally, as acting without acknowledging God’s goodness or long-suffering. The notion of individual responsibility for sin has an effect on the way that the Roman Empire is to be viewed according to the author. It is necessary to return to the prophecy that Baruch directed against the land that is happy (12). In it the seer foretold that wrath would come upon Rome. Though Baruch is not explicit, it is reasonable to assume, given the context of the prophecy, that the seer expects the punishment to be one of vengeance for the injury done to Jerusalem by Rome. God makes clear that the basis will be something different. He tells (13.11–12) Baruch that the punishment to befall the nations will come as the result of their unrighteous use of creation and their denial of God’s beneficence. The nations and Rome in particular are not to be punished because of their maltreatment of Israel, but rather because they have contravened the laws set by God. Taking this together with

us, and we know that we do not fall as long as we keep your statutes. We shall always be blessed; at least, we did not mingle with the nations. For we are all a people of the Name; we, who received one Law from the One. And that Law that is among us will help us, and that excellent wisdom which is in us will support us” (20–24). 24 2 Bar. 48.26–29: “But my judgement asks for its own, and my Law demands its right . . . Because it is as follows: There is nothing that will be destroyed unless it acted wickedly, if it had been able to do something without remembering my goodness and accepting my long-suffering” (27, 29).

2 baruch and the roman question

97

the notion that the Law applies to all men, we might conclude that it is on this basis that the nations will be punished. Nor is the individuality of adherence to the Law neglected, for 2 Baruch leaves open the possibility that certain Gentiles will dedicate themselves to the Law and become proselytes. At one point Baruch asks God what will become of Jewish apostates.25 Coupled with this enquiry is his question as to the fate of proselytes.26 The number of such proselytes cannot have been large, but it is noteworthy that the author of 2 Baruch allows for them in his vision of individual responsibility for sin and righteousness. The author of 4 Ezra, by contrast, does not mention the possibility of the conversion of Gentiles. Though the author concedes the possibility of proselytism, the great majority of Gentiles were unlikely to adopt the Law granted to Israel by God. The author of 2 Baruch, therefore, does envision the ultimate judgement and punishment of the nations as involving large numbers of sinners. Among those to be punished the author singles out Rome. This is understandable given the imperial domination that Rome exercised over the Jews and over all nations. The future humbling of Rome is tackled explicitly in one of the few apocalyptic visions included in 2 Baruch, a dream vision of a forest. The dream came to Baruch in Jerusalem while he was sitting among the ruins of the temple. His heart was moved to a teary lament (35) in which he recalled the sacrifices that were once offered on that spot, but were no longer. Sleep came upon Baruch and he dreamed of a forested valley. A vine arose with a fountain flowing from underneath it. The waters of the fountain increased until the waves covered the trees of the forest. One cedar alone remained, but even it was cast down and the entire forest was uprooted and destroyed. The cedar was brought to the vine, which rebuked it for its wickedness. The cedar had possessed power over things that did not belong to it, nor did it 25 Apostates are described by Baruch as those of God’s people “who separated themselves from [God’s] statutes and who have cast away from them the yoke of [God’s] Law” (41.3). In God’s response to Baruch apostates are those who have “first subjected themselves and have withdrawn later and who mingled themselves with the seed of the mingled nations” (42.4). 26 Baruch describes this group as those “who left behind their vanity and have fled under [God’s] wings (41.4).” God calls proselytes “those who first did not know life and who later knew it exactly and who mingled with the seed of the people who have separated themselves” (42.5). Vanity (SRYQWT’) is elsewhere (14.5) associated with the nations. For the image of proselytism as fleeing under the Lord’s wings, see Ruth 2.12; Ps 36.7.

98

chapter three

have compassion on those things that did belong to it. Its power had extended over those living far from it, and had enmeshed in nets of wickedness those who lived close. The cedar then burst into flames as the vine grew and flowers sprung up throughout the valley (36). God reveals the meaning of the symbols in the vision. The forest represents Babylon and the three kingdoms that succeed it and each other. The fourth kingdom, though not named specifically, must be Rome. The cedar is the last ruler of Rome who will be left alive when the Messiah has overcome the Roman host. The ruler will be taken to Mount Zion, where the Messiah will convict him of his wicked deeds and those of his hosts. He will then be killed. The Messiah will protect the people in the land of Israel until the times have been fulfilled (39–40). It has been suggested that this vision was not composed by the author of 2 Baruch, but rather had an independent origin and was incorporated by the author into his work.27 This conclusion rests on the fact that there is no mention in the vision of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Rome is punished in the vision for general wickedness, rather than the specific action against the Jews and their Holy City. This should come as no surprise given the tendency of the work already discussed above. Though certainty in the matter is impossible, at least on this score, there is no reason to doubt the integrity of the Cedar Vision or its composition by our author.28 The cedar and the forest offer the only picture of Rome unmediated through the trope of Babylon in 2 Baruch. This fourth kingdom is described as harsher and more evil than all that went before it. It is not only wicked in itself, but it also provides a haven for all who are polluted with unrighteousness. Like the evil beasts that creep in the forest, the wicked will flee to Rome. The grasping nature of Roman imperialism is dealt with in the vision proper. Here is an inversion of the argument put into Agrippa II’s mouth by Josephus. There, Roman might and the breadth of Rome’s imperial possessions formed the basis of Josephus’ call for obedience to Rome. Indeed, the same principle can be seen at work in 1 Maccabees (8.1–16). It was Rome’s many conquests that excited Judas Maccabee’s admiration and fired his eagerness for military alliance. The 27

Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch, 61, labels it a Messiah Apocalypse written prior to 70. 28 If it was not composed by our author, it nevertheless fit well into the author’s tendency regarding Roman wickedness.

2 baruch and the roman question

99

Romans had conquered the Gauls and forced them to pay tribute. They had, through their planning and patience, gotten control of Spain and its rich gold and silver mines, a feat accomplished despite the distance that separated Spain from Italy. Greece as well was conquered and enslaved, as were the remaining kingdoms and islands. Most pertinent to Judas was the Roman humbling of the Seleucid Antiochus III, who was only one of the many Macedonian kings defeated by Rome. Judas was also enticed by the loyalty that the Romans showed their friends. The Attalid King Eumenes serves the author as an example. After the Romans defeated Antiochus III, they stripped him of his best provinces: India, Media, and Lydia, and made them over to Eumenes. To crown all, despite their world domination, the Romans remained humble. This positive appreciation of Rome’s might and empire that inspired Judas Maccabee and Josephus gives way in 2 Baruch to horror at Rome’s arrogance and avarice. Judas Maccabee was impressed that Rome could conquer Spain so far from Italy, whereas the author of 2 Baruch thinks that Rome should refrain from meddling in far-off lands. It is an example of Roman wickedness that power was extended over those who did not live close to Rome. Rome’s arrogance is recalled in the image (2 Bar. 36.8) of the cedar lifting up its soul as one who could not be uprooted. The vision of the cedar and the vine, taken on its own, provides a voice of opposition to those, such as Josephus, who saw in the irresistible imperial might of Rome a sign of God’s favor and a compelling argument for Jewish obedience even after 70. The vision in 2 Baruch turns this argument on its head showing rather that Rome’s might has led to arrogance and that grasping imperialism will bring God’s wrath upon the empire. Through the inclusion of this vision the author is able to display in very vivid detail his understanding of Roman imperial sin. The sins of Rome are not its actions against the Jews, but the oppressiveness with which it dominates all peoples. The argument should be reviewed. A reasonable reaction to the events of 70 and the continued presence of Rome in Judea would be to hope for divine vengeance. Indeed, the wicked Babylonians, who had also sacked Jerusalem and destroyed its temple, were ultimately chastised by God through the Persians and their exemplary king Cyrus. The Romans, as the Cedar Vision makes clear, were even wickeder than Babylon. The corollary to this argument is that the Jews as Israel are a privileged people in respect to their election by God. Any insult

100

chapter three

to them will bring down divine wrath on the offender. A certain complacency could develop as late first-century Jews waited expectantly for God to vindicate them. This attitude in itself is dangerous in our author’s eyes. 2 Baruch undermines this attitude by demonstrating the parity between Jews and their conquerors at least in regard to sinfulness. To be sure, the Romans were wicked, but so were the Jews. The destruction of Jerusalem made this latter fact clear. This is not, of course, a novel idea in Jewish historical thought. The Romans, however, were not going to be punished merely to satisfy Jewish desires for revenge. They had offended God in their own right through their refusal to acknowledge his beneficence.29 All of this shows God’s impartiality. The impartiality of God is worth examining briefly. The author of 2 Baruch says that God does not respect persons in judgement.30 This idea can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures applied generally to human judges.31 The notion is picked up in the New Testament, especially by St. Paul.32 The most pertinent passage for our purposes is in Romans (2.9–16; cf. Acts 10.34–35), where St. Paul says that the reward for good and the punishment for evil will fall on all alike, be they Jew or Greek. Those who do not have the Law and sin will perish, while those

29 In marked contrast to Cyrus; Ezra 1.2: “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah.” 30 This is clearer in the rendering of Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch: 13.8: “Thou wilt say to them: ‘Ye who have drunk the strained wine, drink ye also of its dregs, the judgment of the Lofty One who has no respect of persons (DL’ MSB B’P’ HW)’ ”; 44.4: “For ye see that he whom we serve is just, and our Creator is no respecter of persons (WB’P’ L’ NSB).” 31 The greatest clarity of expression is found in the King James Version; Deut 1.17: “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment”; Deut 16.19: “Thou shalt not respect persons”; Prov 24.23: “It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment”; Prov 28.21: “To have respect of persons is not good.” All passages are variations on ‫נכר פנים‬. The Peshitta version of the Deuteronomy passages uses the same expression as the translator of 2 Baruch, namely variations on NSB B’P’. The notion is applied to God in 2 Chron 19.7: “For there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.” Here the expression is ‫םינפ אשמ‬. It is nevertheless in the context of instructions given to human judges by King Jehoshaphat. The point in the biblical passages is that human judges in Israel, when deciding cases between sons of Israel, ought not to have regard for the wealth or status of the plaintiffs. 32 Acts 10.34; Rom 2.11; Eph 6.9; Col 3.25; Jas 2.1, 9; 1 Pet 1.17. The passages in Ephesians and Colossians deal with the impartiality of God regarding slaves and masters. James enjoins Christians to have no regard for wealth or poverty in their congregations. The passages in Acts and Romans have to do with God’s impartiality vis-à-vis Israel and the nations. The passage in 1 Peter is more general.

2 baruch and the roman question

101

who have sinned under the Law will be judged in accordance with the Law. Righteousness in God’s sight consists of doing what the Law requires. This applies to the nations as well, even though they do not know the Law but act instinctively. The message of St. Paul in Romans and that of 2 Baruch deal with the same situation, namely God’s impartiality of judgement regarding the nations and the Jews. Both hold the Law to be the criterion by which righteousness is measured. Paul, however, does not require explicit knowledge of the Law among the nations, since Gentiles can be saved irrespective of their knowing the Law, so long as they act in accordance with its requirements. The author of 2 Baruch posits knowledge of the Law as the prerequisite for acting righteously. For this reason proselytism, which he describes as mingling with the seed of the people who have separated, is necessary. The failure to comprehend the Law is not an accident of birth, but a sign of pride (48.40). The necessity of explicit knowledge of the Law and formal adherence to the people of Israel places the Jews at the center of salvation. In other words, salvation comes through them as mediators of the Law. This powerful message would surely have been welcomed in the wake of the tragedy of 70 when Jewish morale must have reached a low. Roman arms may have triumphed over Jewish and Jews may have been subjects of the Roman Empire, but as a source of salvation, even to the nations, the Jews were unique. A final point must be made regarding the Romans. The tendency of 2 Baruch is to undercut Roman imperial pretensions. They are shorn of the responsibility or the capacity to have conquered the Holy City relying on their own power. In view of future happiness, they are dependant upon the Law, which was given to the Jews. Due to their lack of knowledge of this Law they are destined for perdition. To be sure, Roman might in the world is without rival, but that power is abused. What then is the attitude to be adopted by the late fist-century Jew toward this destroyer of Jerusalem? At one point Baruch desires knowledge about the fate of the Romans. Baruch confesses that he knows what has befallen the Jews, but does not know what will happen to their enemies. God does not answer him.33 Later in the text it is made clear that concern for the fate of the

33 2 Bar. 24.4: “For behold, I also know what has befallen us [the ms. reads “me,” but most editors change it to the homophonic form “us”]; but that which will happen

102

chapter three

enemy is not desirable. Baruch’s final response in his last conversation with God contains this advice.34 When he reflects on the suffering to come at the end of time on the day of judgement, Baruch realizes that the present suffering is very little by comparison.35 He indulges slightly in hyperbole when he enjoins his audience to enjoy themselves in their current suffering. In view of the horrors to come, he asks them why they are looking for the decline of their enemies when they should instead be preparing their souls for the reward that might be theirs.36 Rome is to be ignored. This is a fitting culmination for the author’s tendency regarding Rome. The individual’s responsibility for sin and righteousness combined with the ultimate powerlessness of Rome and God’s refusal to exact vengeance for the empire’s treatment of the Jews lead the author to counsel introspection on the part of his readers. They should not concern themselves with the imperial pride of Rome by constantly bemoaning the continued glory of the empire. Nor should they doubt God’s power when their expectations for vindication are not met. Rome will be punished, but only because most Romans refuse to acknowledge God, not because God wants to avenge his people. The call of 2 Baruch for introspection is understandable in the context of late first-century Jewish anxieties. They are variously expressed by

with our enemies, I do not know, or when you will command your works.” The divine response to Baruch’s statement does not include an answer. It is not immediately clear where the answer to Baruch’s profession of ignorance is. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch, 47, assumed that the question as to the enemies’ fate was answered in 13.3b–12; if this is so, it is unclear why Baruch would say that he does not know their fate. If any passage answers Baruch’s query it is the Cedar Vision. 34 The position of the declaration gives it a sense of finality. 35 This notion is also contained in Baruch’s speech (32.5–6) to the people about the two destructions that will come upon Jerusalem: “We should not, therefore, be so sad regarding the evil which has come now, but much more (distressed) regarding that which is in the future. For greater than the two evils will be the trial when the Mighty One will renew his creation.” The two evils refer to the twin destructions of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the Romans; the Babylonian setting is here maintained. 36 2 Bar. 52.3–7a: “The lamentations should be kept for the beginning of that coming torment; let the tears be laid down for the coming of that destruction which will then come. But with a view of these things, I shall also speak. And concerning the righteous ones, what will they do now? Enjoy yourselves in the suffering which you suffer now. For why do you look for the decline of your enemies? Prepare your souls for that which is kept for you, and make ready your souls for the reward which is preserved for you.” The sentiment finds an echo in the letter of Baruch to the dispersed tribes appended to the end of the apocalypse; 2 Bar. 83.5: “And we should not look upon the delights of the present nations, but let us think about that which has been promised to us regarding the end.”

2 baruch and the roman question

103

4 Ezra and Josephus, as we have seen. The latter penned an apology for Roman power in the hope of reconciling his wounded co-religionists not only to the reality of Roman imperial might, but even to the justness of that power, which was held from God himself. The author of 4 Ezra portrays his hero tossing and turning in bed, tormented by the happiness enjoyed by Rome at a time when Jerusalem lay in ruins. We shall also see how Rome consumed the thoughts of the author of 4 Baruch closely related to 2 Baruch in presentation, but poles apart in its solution to present problems. The author of 2 Baruch was not content to reserve his precepts for the local audience represented by the remnant left in the land under his guidance. The message needed to be spread to all Jews throughout the Roman Empire. To achieve this purpose the author appended a letter to the end of his text tailoring his message to the particular circumstances of the Diaspora community of Jews living in the midst of Romans and the nations, far from the scene of national tragedy. While the capture of Jerusalem provides the setting of 2 Baruch, little is made of the destruction itself.37 The bulk of the attention paid to the destruction of the city comes in the opening narrative and in a recapitulation in the closing letter. Explicit reference to the destruction as a punishment is extremely rare.38 More common is the notion that exile and captivity are the punishment inflicted for the sins of Israel.39 The preoccupation with exile, while congruous to the early sixth-century B.C. setting, does not fit well with the circumstances of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Many Jews, to be sure, were taken prisoner in the capture of the city, but they were mostly disposed of in the spectacles presented by Titus in his tour of the cities of Syria to celebrate his 37 This has been observed by A. F. J. Klijn, “Recent Developments in the Study of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” JSP 4 (1989): 3–17, esp. 8–10. The importance placed on the temple by F. J. Murphy, The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch (SBLDS 78; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 71–117; idem, “The Temple in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” JBL 106 (1987): 671–83, is entirely out of keeping with the limited role that it plays in the text. 38 2 Bar. 77.9–10; 80.1–3. Even the implied suggestion that the destruction of the city is intended as punishment for Israel’s sin is uncommon and almost entirely restricted to the opening narrative of the destruction and its later recapitulation; 1.4; 3.2–5; 4.1; 5.1, 3; 6.9; 8.4; 85.3. One exception comes in Baruch’s final address to the people before the text of the closing epistle is given; 77.8–10. More often the punishment of Zion is only vaguely alluded to without mention of destruction; 6.2; 10.7; 13.3, 9–10; 14.6–7; 31.4; 35.3; 39.3; 44.5–6; 64.4; 79; 81.2–4. 39 2 Bar. 1.4; 5.1; 6.2; 8.5; 10.16; 33.2; 62.5–6; 64.5; 67; 77.4; 78.4–6; 79.4; 80.4, 7; 83.8; 84.2–5. See Klijn, “Recent Developments,” 9–10.

104

chapter three

victory.40 Seven hundred Jews were taken to Rome to appear in the Flavian triumph, though what became of these Jews, with the exception of Simon b. Giora and John of Gischala, is not recorded. Despite the prevalence of the idea of exile and captivity as punishment for Israel’s sins, it must be noted that the exile to which the author of 2 Baruch pays attention is not the Babylonian captivity, as we would expect from his choice of setting. Following from the dramatic date of this text in the aftermath of the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem, we would expect to find the Babylonian captivity as the exile in question. To be sure, the exile resulting from the Chaldean capture of Jerusalem is mentioned (6.2; 8.5; 10.2, 5; 33.1–2), but once Jeremiah and the exiles are taken off to Babylon they play no further role in the text. At the end of 2 Baruch (77.12, 17, 19), the people request that Baruch send a letter to the exiles in Babylon. Baruch complies, but the text of the letter is not included. In contrast, a great deal of attention is paid to the exiles of the earlier Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722/1 B.C. Acceding to the people’s request that a letter be sent to the Jews in Babylon, Baruch decides also to send one to the nine and a half tribes across the Euphrates (77.17, 19–26). The text of this letter is appended to the end of the apocalypse (78–86).41 The letter is immediately preceded by Baruch’s last address to the people (77), assembled from the greatest to the smallest, which provides the context for the letter. In this address the identification of Baruch’s audience with the remnant left in Israel is strongest. Baruch first lays the blame for the disaster that has befallen them on the sins of their brothers.42 The fact that they were left in the land seems at first to 40

See Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, 327. Unlike the text of the apocalypse (1–77), the letter to the Assyrian exiles is extant in many manuscripts including that which contains the apocalypse. Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, provided an edition based on the Ambrosian and ten other manuscripts. Dedering did not include the text of the letter in his edition of 2 Baruch and was prevented by his death from ever producing one. The letter is the subject of study by M. F. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch: A Study in Form and Message (JSPSup 42; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003). Most scholars have accepted the letter as an integral part of 2 Baruch; see especially, Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1.67–78; Murphy, Structure and Meaning, 25, 62, 114, 120–4; Whitters, 35–65. The arguments for the letter’s independence proposed by G. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch (SBLDS 72, Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984), 98–101, have been effectively met by Murphy and Whitters. 42 2 Bar. 77.4–5: “And because your brothers have transgressed the commandments of the Most High, he brought vengeance upon you and upon them and did not spare 41

2 baruch and the roman question

105

be a sign that others had been guilty of sin, while they were innocent. Yet Baruch does apportion some of the guilt to their lot. He tells them (77.6) that if they were to make their ways straight they would not go away as their brothers had, presumably into exile. Furthermore, he says that Zion was not itself guilty of evil, but rather those who had sinned were.43 If it was meant to resonate with a known and real audience of the first century, the letter addressed to the nine and a half tribes must have been directed to the Jews of the Diaspora.44 That it should not be read to refer to any group associated with the Great Revolt is suggested by the care with which the author distinguished the nine and a half tribes from the two and a half that were left in Palestine.45

the ancestors, but he also gave the descendants into captivity and did not leave a remnant of them. And, behold, you are here, with me”; cf. 82.2. 43 2 Bar. 77.9–10: “Or do you think that the place has sinned and that is has been destroyed for this reason, or that the country has done some crime and that it is delivered up for that reason? And do you not know that because of you who sinned the one who did not sin was destroyed, and that because of those who acted unrighteously, the one who has not gone astray has been delivered up to the enemies?” 44 Jas 1.1 is addressed to the twelve tribes of the Diaspora (ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ). There the identification of the twelve tribes with the Diaspora communities is made explicit. Historically, the Jews of the dispersion came from the tribes of the southern kingdom: Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The author of 2 Baruch, by adopting the fancy of writing to the exiles of the northern kingdom, is able to draw attention to the chronological priority of the dispersion to the revolt and to the nonparticipation of the Diasporan Jewish communities in the revolt. Whitters, Epistle of Baruch, 66–112, finds the model for the Epistle of Baruch in two different genres: the festal letter (Esth 9.20–32; 2 Macc 1.1–9; 1.10–2.18) and the Diaspora letter (Bar 6; 2 Macc 1.1–9; 1.10–2.18; 4 Baruch 6.17–23; and James). The former group is concerned above all with promoting non-Pentateuchal holy days, e.g. Purim and Hanukkah, and also with calling readers to regulate their lives according to the traditional understanding of the covenant. The latter group is directed at reinforcing Jewish identity in foreign, and perhaps hostile, surroundings. Klijn, “Recent Developments,” 9–10, sees the relationship between Palestine and the Diaspora as a central theme of the text. 45 2 Bar. 1.2, speaks of two and ten tribes. For discussion see Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1.339–52, who provides (347) a chart tabulating the frequency of the two tribal enumerations (10 + 2; 9 ½ + 2 ½) in various pseudepigraphical texts and the rabbinic tradition. Only 2 Baruch combines the two counts. It should be noted that there were two methods of counting the twelve. Both ways agree on the ten tribes of Reuben, Gad, Dan, Judah, Naphtali, Asher, Zebulun, Issachar, Simeon, and Benjamin. The remaining two might then be reckoned as Joseph and Levi (Gen 35.22–26) or Joseph might be divided into Manasseh and Ephraim with Levi removed from the reckoning. On this point see Noth, History of Israel, 85–6. The exile of the northern kingdom according to the second reckoning would have encompassed ten tribes, with only Judah and Benjamin left in the southern kingdom; Levi having been removed entirely from the enumeration. According to the first method, however, the northern kingdom consisted of nine and a half tribes: Reuben, Gad, Dan, Naphtali, Asher,

106

chapter three

The letter is written with three aims in mind. The author wished to convey to Diaspora Jews that the catastrophe that befell their coreligionists in Judea in A.D. 70 also applied to them, though in a different way. It was their life in the Diaspora that was their punishment. The author seeks to impress upon them that such an existence was tantamount to exile, albeit a voluntary one. The third point the author makes is that their sojourning among the nations required increased vigilance on their part to live in accordance with the traditions of their fathers and the divine Law. The most important point is to convince the Diaspora Jews that they are indeed in a grievous situation.46 It would be hard to swallow, for the Jews who lived among the nations had for the most part willingly emigrated from Palestine. The author attacks the problem from various angles. Most compelling is his appeal to Scripture. He recalls the testimony of Moses who threatened the twelve tribes while they were in the desert that if they trespassed the Law they would be dispersed, whereas if they kept it they would be planted.47 The fact that this Mosaic threat finds no exact parallel in Scripture highlights the tendency of 2 Baruch regarding the exilic punishment to befall those who do not observe the Law.48 Now, the author of 2 Baruch

Zebulun, Issachar, Simeon, Joseph, and half the tribe of Levi. The southern kingdom would then consist of Judah, Benjamin, and the other half of Levi. It is possible that the author of 2 Baruch preserves both traditions. The precise enumeration is not necessary for the analysis presented here, where the Assyrian exiles are understood as those Jews living in the Diaspora irrespective of tribal affiliation. 46 The notion that the Jews of the Diaspora lived in a perpetual state of thwarted and deferred hope of return to the homeland has been compellingly refuted by E. S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002), esp. 232–52. 47 2 Bar. 84.2: “Remember that once Moses called heaven and earth to witness against you and said, ‘If you trespass the Law, you shall be dispersed. And if you shall keep it, you shall be planted.’ ” 48 Two biblical passages come close to the sentiment of the present passage. Deut 4.25–27: “When you have had children and children’s children, and become complacent in the land, if you act corruptly by making an idol in the form of anything, thus doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, and provoking him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that you will soon utterly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to occupy; you will not live long on it, but will be utterly destroyed. The Lord will scatter you among the peoples; only a few of you will be left among the nations where the Lord will lead you”; and 30.19–20: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to

2 baruch and the roman question

107

(84.6) proclaims that the prophesy of Moses had been fulfilled, for the addressees of the letter were living in the dispersion. Lest Diaspora Jews feel complacent in their living situation, the author employs language designed to make their sojourn among the nations seem like an anomaly or worse. He compares the disaster that befell the Jews in the land through the loss of Jerusalem to the loss of their brothers. It was the latter which caused greater suffering to the community around Baruch.49 The travails of the Jews in the dispersion can be meretricious, helping them to avoid condemnation on the last day. This will be especially true if they remove that error that caused them to go away in the first place.50 The Jews of the dispersion are imagined (80.6–8) to derive some happiness from the knowledge that their brethren are still happily ensconced in Palestine, though this has now changed because of the affliction that has come upon the Jews in the land. This suggests that dwelling in Judea is the norm, a fact recognized, in the author’s conception, by those in the dispersion. This last point is further developed by the author. The exile must end and the émigrés must return home. The dispersed are exhorted (83.8) to prepare their hearts so that their current earthly exile is not commuted into an eternity of torments in the next world. The Diaspora audience is assured (78.7) that God in his mercy will not forget them, but will again assemble all the dispersed.51 The message to Diaspora Jews echoes that delivered in the main body of the apocalypse: return to the Law. For the communities of the

give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” There is no notion in the biblical passages, or in 2 Baruch’s paraphrase, that the Jews must be taken into exile by a foreign power. 49 2 Bar. 79.1–4: “For what befell you, we suffered even more, for it befell us also” (4). 50 2 Bar. 78.6: “Therefore, if you think about the things you have suffered now for your good so that you may not be condemned at the end and be tormented, you shall receive hope which lasts forever and ever, particularly if you remove from your hearts the idle error [Charles: ‘vain error’] for which you went away from here.” The vanity of the error (T‘YQT’ SRYQT’; root SRQ) recalls to mind the vanity of the nations; 2 Bar. 14.5; 41.4. The use of the term, if the translation into Syriac reflects faithfully the underlying Greek, might suggest that the author was deliberately likening the Jews of the dispersion to their Gentile neighbors. 51 The similar notion that salvation will only come to those in the land is twice (40.2; 71.1) expressed in the apocalypse proper. On this theme see D. J. Harrington, “The ‘Holy Land’ in Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch,” in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (VTSup 94; ed. S. M. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 661–72.

108

chapter three

dispersion, however, the author puts the call (84.7–8) in more complete detail. The dispersed must remember the commandments, Zion, the Law, the Holy Land, their brothers, the covenant, their fathers, the festivals, and the Sabbath. In other words, the Jews of the Diaspora are called upon to keep close to the ancestral traditions that define Jewish life and belief. They must not, in their sojourn among the nations, neglect to keep their customs and observe the Law.52 The author also includes in the letter the strongest condemnation of the nations to appear in 2 Baruch. He recites (82.3–9) a highly metaphorical litany of the ultimate ruin that will come upon the nations. The vehemence of this denunciation perhaps indicates the susceptibility of the Jews who live outside of Judea to an exaggerated admiration of the power of the nations in whose midst they find themselves. The message of both apocalypse and letter are largely in agreement. The letter is specifically geared toward the particular problems that were sure to confront Jews living among Gentiles. They would most likely have lived in Greek- or Italian-style cities around the Mediterranean and might be more easily overawed by the imperial might and majesty of their Roman overlords. The distance from Judea and its concerns might also, at least from the vantage point of an observer in the Holy Land, loosen the grip of the traditional religious customs and practices of their fathers. Indeed, Baruch’s letter contains a command (84.9) to his audience to hand down both the letter itself and the traditions of their fathers to their own children. The Jews of the Diaspora may not have witnessed in person the destruction of Jerusalem and did not feel its loss in their daily life, but the necessity of keeping the Law was every bit as vital. 3.4

Conclusion

The decades after A.D. 70 were a time of imperial consolidation in the East under a new dynasty. Flavian propaganda, if the term may be used, depicted the defeat of the rebellious Jews as a major foundation of Flavian and Roman power, which were now linked. The triumphal procession upon the return of Titus to Rome was lavish. It has left its impress on the account of Josephus, who wrote a Greek history that

52

This will be an especially important theme in 4 Baruch.

2 baruch and the roman question

109

surely found a wide audience among his co-religionists. While Flavian coin issues advertised Judaea capta, the triumphal procession adorned by the venerable vessels and sacred furniture of the temple cult seemed to boast of victory over God himself. The Holy Land, though it had long been under Roman supervision, was now more obviously subject, especially with the loss of the Jewish metropolis and its ruling class, which had often served as a mediator and a buffer between Jews in Judea and their imperial masters. Many reactions are imaginable. Josephus counseled accommodation based on the recognition that Roman success indicated divine favor. As we shall see, the author of 4 Baruch advocated strict separation from all things Roman, a radical turning away from the empire, though not through rebellion. The author of 4 Ezra constructed a complex response tracing Jewish and Gentile sin back to their common origin in Adam. Out of sinful humanity God had chosen a people, the rest were destined for perdition. Even among this people there were sinners. The true solution was eschatological as was shown by the vision of the eagle. All three solutions betray a mode of thinking dominated by the Roman Question. The author of 2 Baruch was a participant in this late first-century debate, as can be seen from the similarity of themes and even specific details shared by many of the other works under discussion. 2 Baruch attempts to set aside the all-consuming interest in Rome. He does so by drawing Jewish attention back to Jewish concerns. Rome is sinful, to be sure, but this sinfulness makes the conqueror more closely akin to the Jews than comfort might allow. It is a classic case of discovering the mote in a neighbor’s eye, while ignoring the plank in one’s own. Accounts would be settled at the end of time when Rome would be duly punished, though not for destroying Jerusalem. The sobering thought of judgement day ought to occupy Jewish minds rather than the present felicity of their enemies. The Law is the key to future happiness and it was held by the Jews, through whom alone the nations, or at least individual Gentiles, might escape the wrath to come. This would surely have boosted Jewish morale at a time when their earthly power and fortunes were at low ebb.

CHAPTER FOUR

“WHERE IS THEIR GOD?” 3 BARUCH AND THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE COSMOS Psalm 79 attests to the depth of despair into which Israel was plunged by the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. The Psalmist records the outrageous acts of the nations. They have defiled the temple and laid Jerusalem in ruins. Many of God’s people had been slaughtered, their blood poured out like water around Jerusalem. The survivors find themselves an object of contempt in the eyes of the conquerors. How long before the Lord rises up to avenge the blood of His servants? How long must Israel hear the taunting question: “Where is their God?”1 The provocative question has a long pedigree in Scripture. The question is not, of course, a straightforward inquiry after God’s whereabouts. Rather the point is to question the efficacy, if not the very existence, of the deity that serves as its subject. The question makes its debut toward the end of the book of Deuteronomy in the Song of Moses. Prior to his death, Moses recapitulates in verse the importance of Israel’s obedience to God for its national survival. Moses reminds Israel of all the good it had received from the God who chose it for his own people. He warns that when Israel provokes God’s anger with its idolatry, the Lord will turn his people over to the nations for chastisement. Vindication, however, will come. Moses has a triumphant God taunt the oppressors of his people, asking them where their gods are now, those idols who ate the fat of sacrifices.2 The same question is on the lips of the Assyrian official, the Rabshakeh, when he comes to try to force King Hezekiah of Judah to

1 Ps 79.10: “Why should the nations say, ‘Where is their God?’ Let the avenging of the outpoured blood of your servants be known among the nations before our eyes.” For the same sentiment see Joel 2.17: “Spare your people, O Lord, and do not make your heritage a mockery, a byword among the nations. Why should it be said among the peoples, ‘Where is their God?’ ” 2 Deut 32.37: “Then he will say: Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge, who ate the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their libations? Let them rise up and help you, let them be your protection!”

112

chapter four

capitulate before the Assyrian king Sennacherib’s ill-fated attack on Jerusalem. The Rabshakeh urges the people of Jerusalem not to trust in their God, for what other nation found divine aid in resisting the onslaught of Assyria? He asks where the gods of Hamath and Arpad, of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah were, when those cities tried to resist Assyria.3 God was even driven to ask the question of Judah, when his people put their trust in idols instead of their divine champion. In the book of Jeremiah, the prophet rebukes his fellow countrymen for their apostasy and warns of the retribution to come.4 These examples suffice to show that the question was meant to be provocative. It implies that the god in question is either powerless to help the people that appeal to him, or else that trust has been placed in that which is not a god, a mere idol. One can easily understand the dismay of the Jews when the question was applied to their own God. For the victorious nations to ask where the God of Israel was when Jerusalem was humiliated was to ask whether the God of Israel was willing or even able to safeguard his chosen people. If the very house of God was left open to the conquerors, was Israel’s divine protector powerless to help his people? This question was as relevant in the first century A.D. as it had been in the sixth century B.C. Psalm 115 provides an answer to the question. The psalm contrasts the power of the God of Israel with the impotence of the supposed gods of the nations. The Psalmist puts the familiar question once again in the mouths of the nations, “Where is their God?” He then returns with the triumphant answer (115.3): “Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.” The fate of the earthly temple does not touch the omnipotence of God. If his house on earth and the Holy City are destroyed, God is secure in heaven, whence he continues to direct the course of human events. It is precisely this answer which the author of 3 Baruch proposes to his coreligionists in the wake of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. In this text Baruch recalls the taunting question of the nations: “Where is their God?” Immediately an angel appears and whisks the

3

2 Kings 18.31–35; cf. Isa 36.16–20. Jer 2.28: “But where are your gods that you made for yourself? Let them come, if they can save you, in your time of trouble; for you have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah.” 4

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

113

seer off to heaven in search of an answer. 3 Baruch and the Apocalypse of Abraham, which will be examined later, are classified as “Otherworldly Journeys” within the apocalyptic taxonomy.5 The earliest example of the genre is 1 Enoch in which Enoch is taken on a tour of the earth, Sheol, and heaven. In heaven he enters a great hall where he sees a crystal throne mounted on wheels that shine like the sun. Seated upon the throne Enoch sees the Great Glory wearing a gown shining more brightly than the sun and whiter than snow. God and his throne are surrounded by fire (1 En. 14.8–25).6 On a subsequent visit Enoch sees a structure built of crystals with tongues of fire in between. The structure is encircled by a ring of fire as well as four rivers of fire that flow around it. Countless angels—seraphim, cherubim, and ophanim—are in attendance. In their midst is the Antecedent of Time. His head is white and pure like wool, while his robe defies description (1 En. 71).7 Though 3 Baruch sits squarely in this genre, any reader hoping for the expected vision of God on his throne as the climactic answer to the question “Where is their God?” is in for a surprise. After wending his way upwards through the various heavens the seer and, with him, the reader are disappointed to find themselves back on earth without a glimpse of God. Thus the author gives a paradoxical answer to a provocative question by finding God without seeing him.

5 On the genre see J. J. Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” in idem (ed.), Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14 (1979), 14–15; see also idem, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” in the same collection, 23; A. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity, and Their Environment,” ANRW 2.23.2: 1333–94; M. Dean-Otting, Heavenly Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature (Judentum und Umwelt 8; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984); M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); L. Carlsson, Round Trips to Heaven: Otherworldly Travelers in Early Judaism and Christianity (Lund Studies in History of Religions 19; Lund: Department of History and Anthropology, Lund University, 2004). 6 The vision is clearly connected with the vision of God’s throne (Merkabah) in Ezek 1. The passage in Ezekiel inspired an entire genre of mystical writing, for which see I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU 14; Leiden: Brill, 1980). 7 Here the author of 1 Enoch was inspired by the description of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7.9–10.

114

chapter four 4.1

Summary of the Text

The text begins with Baruch weeping over the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.8 In tears, he asks God why Israel has been handed over to the nations. An angel appears to comfort Baruch. The angel brings cold comfort, telling Baruch to stop annoying God with his questions. Baruch swears that he will utter no further complaints and keeps his word throughout the text. The angel then whisks Baruch off to heaven to see the mysteries of God (3 Bar. 1).9 Baruch’s heavenly journey passes through five heavens where he sees wonders related to the natural order of the world and to the rewards and punishments to come upon men after death. In the first heaven Baruch is taken to a plain filled with men who have been disfigured with the faces of cattle, the horns of deer, the feet of goats, and the loins of sheep. The angel explains that Baruch is looking upon the men who built the tower to launch war against God, a reference to the Tower of Babel (2). The second heaven is also peopled with men who have been punished with a deformation of their features. This time they have acquired the appearance of dogs with the feet of deer. The angel identifies them as the ones who planned the tower and oversaw its building, not as a platform for warring against God, but in order to discover the material from which heaven is made (3). Baruch and his guide now enter the third heaven.10 Like the first and second heavens, the third is also a plain, in which Baruch sees a serpent and a monster seemingly identified as hades, though a bit further on we learn that hades is the serpent’s belly (4).11 The serpent/

8 This summary is based on the Greek version with more important variants from the Slavonic tradition relegated to the footnotes. 9 The Slavonic version locates Baruch on Mount Zion beside the river, where he is weeping over the captivity of Jerusalem. The Greek version seems to have borrowed certain details from 4 Baruch, notably that Baruch was lamenting the captivity of Jerusalem while Abimelech was in the estate of Agrippa. The Slavonic version presents a less testy angel, for he does not rebuke Baruch for his complaints, nor does he refer to divine annoyance. 10 Not explicitly named as third. The next heaven is named as the third in the Greek text (10.1), but this seems to be an error, for the heaven following that is identified as the fifth (11.1). 11 The text gets confusing here. This confusion is compounded by the fact that the Greek and Slavonic versions of the text are quite different. In the Slavonic version the serpent is alone in the plain. In the next chapter (5) we learn that hades is the serpent’s belly. In the Slavonic version, the serpent’s belly is as large as hades, but not identified with hades.

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

115

hades is responsible not only for devouring the bodies of the wicked, but he also drinks a cubit of the sea, thereby preventing it from flooding as it receives the waters of the world’s 360 rivers. In the middle of this description, Baruch asks the angel about the tree that caused Adam’s fall. The angel tells him that the tree was the vine planted by the angel Samael, known from other writings as the evil angel. Noah found a sprig of this vine after the Flood and planted it. God had told Noah to plant the sprig that good may come from it, namely the blood of God.12 The angel also issues a warning: just as the vine led to Adam’s fall, so will it cause those who insatiably drink its fruit to transgress worse than Adam (4–5). Next Baruch is taken to see the sun, which consists of a chariot and four horses. Upon the chariot rides a man wearing a fiery crown. The chariot is pulled by forty angels and accompanied by a great bird, the phoenix, whose wings absorb the rays of the sun, lest they be too strong and burn up the creatures of the earth.13 Baruch watches the sun-chariot drive across the sky and is frightened. The angel then takes him to the West to watch the sun set. The charioteer removes the crown and it is taken to heaven in order to cleanse it, for its rays have been defiled by the sight of men’s sins upon the earth. The phoenix also needs to rest from the day’s exertions (6–8). Then Baruch sees the moon, a woman riding a chariot pulled by angels in the form of oxen and lambs. Baruch asks the angel why the moon waxes and wanes. The angel explains that the diminishing of the moon is a divine punishment meted out to the moon for the aid that she gave Samael, when in the form of a serpent he caused Adam to transgress (9). Baruch and his angel guide then enter the fourth heaven.14 There Baruch sees a vast plain with a lake in the middle. The plain is populated by singing birds as large as oxen. The angel tells Baruch that 12 3 Bar. 4.15 is clearly a Christian interpolation, which is absent in the Slavonic version, though the latter preserves a bit fuller account of the planting of the tree by the angel who is called in this version Satanael. 13 3 Bar. 6.12 provides an odd—and presumably amusing—detail, when in answer to Baruch’s question about the bird’s excretions, the angel informs him that the bird excretes a worm and from this worm comes the cinnamon which kings and princes use. 14 3 Bar. 10.1 records that the angel took Baruch to the third heaven; this seems to be a mistake. It is generally assumed that the two entered the third heaven in chapter 4. Indeed, according to 3 Bar. 7.2, the movement of the sun was observed in the third heaven. In chapter 11 Baruch and the angel finally arrive at the fifth heaven.

116

chapter four

the souls of the righteous come to this place.15 It would seem that the souls are the birds, for they sing songs of praise to God. Again demonstrating his interest in things of the natural world, Baruch asks about the lake and learns that the clouds gather from it the water which they send down on the earth to nourish plants. Baruch objects that he thought rain came from the sea. The angel informs him that he is in general correct, but that the particular rain that nourishes plants comes from this heavenly lake (10). Finally, Baruch and his guide arrive at the fifth and last heaven. They are confronted by a closed gate which can only be opened by Michael who possesses the keys of the kingdom of heaven. A loud noise like thunder heralds the arrival of Michael. Then a voice commands the gate to be opened followed by another clap of thunder. The angel guide and Baruch prostrate themselves before Michael.16 The archangel then takes up a large bowl which is used to carry the virtues and good works of the righteous to God.17 A host of angels then arrives bringing baskets full of flowers, which they empty into Michael’s bowl. These, Baruch is told, are the virtues and deeds of the righteous. Some angels have only partially filled baskets and are hesitant to approach Michael. Despite their paltry offerings, Michael bids them to bring their baskets and is distressed to find that his bowl is not yet full. A last group of angels arrives crying and trembling with fear. They apparently have empty baskets as they have been assigned to wicked men.18 They ask Michael whether they might be reassigned and Michael promises to find out what the Lord answers. At this point, the doors close to the sound of thunder. In answer to Baruch’s question about the noise, the angel tells him that Michael is now bringing the contents of his bowl to God (11–14).

15

This detail is absent from the Slavonic version, in which the birds seem to be just birds. It is noteworthy that in the third and fourth heavens the Slavonic version omits mention of the punishment of sinners and reward of the righteous. These activities are located elsewhere for the Slavonic translator. 16 It is not clear from the text whether Baruch and his angel guide actually enter the fifth heaven or remain standing outside. 17 In the Slavonic version (11.9[S]), the bowl contains only the prayers of men. 18 3 Bar. 13.4 contains another Christian interpolation in both the Greek and Slavonic versions. Among the sins committed by the wicked men assigned to the angels with empty baskets is the fact that they to not go to church (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ) nor to the spiritual fathers (εἰς πνευματικοὺς πατέρας). The latter allusion to men of monastic life is not mentioned in the Slavonic.

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

117

Michael returns bearing oil.19 He pours out the oil into the angels’ baskets in proportion to the amount of flowers they each brought. He bids those angels with full baskets to give a hundredfold reward to those who have done good works. Those with half-full baskets are also urged to give the oil to their men. All the angels that brought flowers are sent to bless their charges. Those angels whose baskets were empty Michael tries to encourage, telling them not to be sad. He tells them to punish the men who have provoked him by their misdeeds. The angels are told to provoke them to anger and jealousy and to embitter them against those who are no nation, against a people with no understanding. Finally, they are urged to visit upon their charges locusts and other torments.20 Upon this scene the door closes, while Baruch and his angelic guide depart. Baruch comes to his senses and finds himself where he began on earth.21 He praises God. At the end, speaking in his own voice, Baruch urges his readers to glorify God so that God might glorify them (15–17). 4.2

Original Language, Versions, and Composition Date

There are two manuscript traditions for 3 Baruch, Greek and Old Church Slavonic.22 There exists no critical edition founded on both the

19

In the Slavonic version (15.1[S]), Michael brings mercy rather than oil. At this point, the Slavonic version (16.4–8[S]), supplies a vision of the rewards and punishments that come after death, thereby making good on their omission in the third and fourth heavens. The angel promises Baruch that he will see the resting place of the righteous and the torments of the impious. The angel informs Baruch that his tears for the sinners might persuade God to have mercy on them. 21 In the Slavonic version, Baruch is not seen returning to earth. Rather the text (17.1[S]), ends with a voice from heaven commanding that Baruch be returned to the earth that he might report the divine mysteries he has seen to the sons of men. 22 For a discussion of the Greek manuscript tradition see J.-C. Picard, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece (PVTG 2; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 65–9; H. E. Gaylord, “3 (Greek Apocalypse of ) Baruch,” OTP 1.653; Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 8–9. An edition of the Greek text based on one manuscript can be found in M. R. James, “Apocalypsis Baruchi Tertia Graece,” in Apocrypha Anecdota II, TS 5, (ed. J. A. Robinson; TS 5/1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897), 83–94; an edition based on this manuscript and a second from the same original is provided by Picard, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece; Carlsson, Round Trips to Heaven, 356–72, also includes Picard’s text. For a discussion of the manuscripts comprising the Slavonic tradition see E. Turdeanu, “L’Apocalypse de Baruch en Slave,” Revue des études slaves 48 (1969): 23–48; H. E. Gaylord, “The Slavonic Version of III Baruch” (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983), xxi–xxxiv; idem, OTP 1.654–5; Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 5–8. For the publication history of the Slavonic manuscripts see Harlow, The 20

118

chapter four

Greek and Slavonic manuscript traditions. Indeed, the two traditions represent parallel, but separate development. It seems likely that the original text of 3 Baruch was written in Greek, as there are no errors that suggest a Semitic original.23 The Slavonic version was translated sometime before the thirteenth century from a Greek exemplar now lost. This Greek exemplar itself seems to have preserved a different textual tradition from the extant Greek manuscripts which date upwards of five hundred years after the split in the Greek tradition that produced the Greek and Slavonic versions.24 Though earlier it was thought that the Slavonic was merely a rewritten version of the Greek, recent work on the Slavonic manuscripts has made it clear that the Slavonic is not derived from the current Greek version. The Slavonic is often similar to the Greek version, but at times adds material and at other times omits material.25 In certain ways, the Slavonic seems closer to the original. It omits, for example, many of the clearly Christian phrases of the Greek version. This fact weighs heavily in the recent tendency to see the work as fundamentally Jewish with later Christian reworking in the form of interpolations in the text. The question of Jewish or Christian authorship in the pseudepigrapha of the first few centuries is always fraught with difficulties. Are we to assume Christian authorship only when explicitly Christian themes are present?26 Would the earliest Christians immersed as they were in the Jewish matrix perhaps have written things that relied more on Jewish traditions than Christian ones? There are a few obviously Christian phrases in 3 Baruch. Inserted into the middle of a discussion of the evils of wine (4.15) is the jarring statement that its fruit will become the blood of God so that through Jesus Christ the race of men will be called into paradise. Among the sins of men catalogued by the angels is the statement (13.4) that they go neither to church nor to the spiritual fathers. Finally, there is one

Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 5–6; Gaylord, “The Slavonic Version,” presents two parallel texts, an eclectic text based on the lesser family of manuscripts and a diplomatic text based on the best manuscript of the better family along with an apparatus; idem, “The Slavonic Version of 3 Baruch,” Polata Knigopisnaia 7 (1983): 49–56 (Slavonic). 23 Gaylord, OTP 1.655; Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 10. 24 Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 10. 25 Gaylord, OTP 1.656–7. 26 For example references to Jesus Christ, Christian sacramental language, quotations of and allusions to the New Testament. On the Christian elements of 3 Baruch see Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 77–85.

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

119

direct quotation from the Gospel of Matthew in addition to a handful of allusions to other New Testament passages.27 Of the three explicitly Christian elements in 3 Baruch, all but the reference to church attendance are contained only in the Greek version. Nevertheless, the Slavonic version preserves other Christian elements independent of the Greek which tell against its being closer to the original.28 The fact that both versions contain Christian references independently of each other suggests strongly that these elements are later interpolations. The question of the original Jewish or Christian authorship of 3 Baruch cannot be solved using a text critical approach.29 The content provides better insight into the author’s religious connections. Harlow has recently made a compelling argument for Jewish authorship based on the attitude of the author towards Jerusalem and the loss of the temple.30 He first observes that the reader must look not just for literary parallels between 3 Baruch and other Jewish literature, whether pseudepigraphic or rabbinic, but for distinctively Jewish elements that would be out of place in a Christian composition.31 The only such element that fits this criterion is the work’s prologue. The work opens with Baruch lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. While Christians might and, indeed, did treat this theme, they did so in a different way. The question as it is presented in 3 Baruch addresses the problems that arise from the loss of the 27 3 Bar. 15.4 = Matt 25.21b and 23b. Other allusions include 3 Bar. 4.17 (Mark 13.12/ Matt 10.21); 12.6 (1 Cor 9.24 or Phil 3.14); 13.2 (Matt 13.37–40); 15.2 (Mark 10.30/Matt 19.29; 2 Cor 9.6); 16.2 (Rom 10.19); 16.3 (Matt 24.51/Luke 12.46). 28 Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 83–5. 29 Most students of the text have assumed a Jewish original often without making a case for it. James, “Apocalypse of Baruch,” li–lxxi, argued for a Christian original; Gaylord, OTP 1.655–6, does not come down on one side or the other and suggests that the text might stem from a time before any clear separation; Turdeanu, “L’Apocalypse de Baruch,” 23–31, and idem, “Les apocryphes slaves et romains: leur apport à la connaissance des apocryphes grecs,” Studi bizantini e neoellenici 8 (1953): 47–52 (50–2), has assigned Judeo-Christian authorship. L. Ginzburg, “Baruch, Apocalypse of (Greek),” JE 2.549–51, argued for Jewish authorship on the grounds of parallels in rabbinic literature. Other proponents of a Jewish original include Schürer, 3.313; H. M. Hughes, “III Baruch,” APOT 2.527; J.-C. Picard, “Observations sur l’Apocalypse grecque de Baruch I: Cadre historique fictif et efficacité symbolique,” Sem 20 (1970): 77–103; idem, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece, 75–6. 30 Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 86–108. 31 This is not to say that 3 Baruch is not, at least in its present form, a Christian text. As with all of the Pseudepigrapha, 3 Baruch was copied by Christians, adapted by them, and handed down by them. Harlow’s argument rests on the point that certain distinctively Jewish elements might remain in the text, but would be unlikely to have originated with a Christian author.

120

chapter four

temple. There are numerous parallels, as we shall see, with the other works of this period, including 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. Christian reflection on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple never took the form of lamentation.32 Ordinarily the event is seen as proof of divine displeasure and a sign of God’s condemnation of the Jewish people.33 3 Baruch is thus anchored in the Jewish tradition of reflection on the catastrophe of 70.34 Unlike most of the other texts dealt with in this study, there is no evidence in the text that can be pressed into service either for dating or locating the composition of 3 Baruch. Similarities to both 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch might point to a second-century date. The text is concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem, though the wound does not seem as fresh and the emotions as raw as in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. This need not, of course, mean that 3 Baruch was written appreciably after these others. There is no doubt that the text was composed sometime in the wake of the catastrophe of 70. It shares many of the same concerns as the other texts in this study, especially 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and Sibylline Oracle 4. It would seem a safe conclusion to date the composition to the late first through early second century. As for provenance, there is no evidence at all for making a case. We can, therefore, move on to our analysis of the text and its message. 4.3 Analysis The key to 3 Baruch lies in its omissions as compared to the other texts examined in the present study. The author was writing in response to the same event as the authors of these other texts. All the same, he seems to have avoided direct reference to every one of the problems that we would expect him to address. This does not mean that he does not set out to solve the same problems as the authors of 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Sibylline Oracles, and the other texts. Indeed, there are 32 Only one exception exists, namely the Didascalia Apostolorum, a third-century text preserved in Syriac. For a discussion of Christian reactions to the destruction of Jerusalem including modern bibliography, see Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 96–108. 33 For patristic discussions of the event see Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 107 nn. 105–9. 34 Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 163–205, nevertheless, offers a potential Christian reading of the theme of destruction in 3 Baruch that moves it away from lamentation and directs it more into condemnation.

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

121

striking parallels of thought between 3 Baruch and some of these writings. 3 Baruch seems in many ways to have received the teachings of these other texts, brought them together and refined them, before presenting them afresh in a most economical way, offering a distillation of their message, while also pruning away much that the author found unrealistic or unhelpful. What then are these striking omissions? The author narrates a heavenly journey, but we do not see God. The author writes in response to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, but we see neither hide nor hair of the Romans. The author does not openly concern himself with their fate. Missing is the relish with which the authors of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch told of the end-time comeuppance of the proud conquerors. No Messiah is waiting in the wings. The text opens with Baruch weeping in Jerusalem beside the ruins of the temple, but he is immediately whisked away and never looks back. He does not endorse the hope of national restoration. He does not downplay the earthly temple by comparison with the heavenly one. The author is certainly a Jew, but we see nothing particularly Jewish: no Israel, no Law, no temple, and no Jews. In short, the author pointedly fails to meet every expectation that we have of the text. Through this masterful example of studied indifference the author nevertheless delivers a message for his people in the aftermath of the great national catastrophe of 70 worthy of the grander apocalypses attributed to Ezra and Baruch. God never appears in 3 Baruch. The seer travels through many heavens, but is not rewarded for his efforts with a glimpse of God on His heavenly throne. Where is God? This very question is actually posed in the text. It is put into the mouths of the nations. In his lamentation over the punishment of Israel at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, Baruch recalls (1.2) the reproach cast in the teeth of the Jews by the nations, who ask “Where is their God?” As we have seen, the question has a good pedigree in the Hebrew scriptures, where it serves to illustrate the arrogance of the conqueror of God’s chosen people. The author of 3 Baruch, however, is not interested in the arrogance of the nations. He is not interested, really, in the nations at all. It is highly unlikely that the author intended for a Gentile audience to read his apocalypse in order to receive an answer to their question and some helpful advice on toning down their arrogance. 3 Baruch is rather aimed at a Jewish audience. The question it seeks to answer is: “Where is our God?” Baruch poses the question indirectly, putting it in the mouth of the nations. The answer, however,

122

chapter four

was of importance to the Jews after 70. God had neither protected Jerusalem nor restored it yet. God had neither punished the Romans nor rehabilitated the Jews. Why had he not intervened in the history of Israel at this point, as he had in the sixth century after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians? Where was he? The painful question was the subject of much debate in the decades after the catastrophe. We have already examined some of the contributions to this debate. None stands out more than 4 Ezra, in which the seer’s probing questions of God illustrate the bewilderment and desperation of a religious mind tormented by God’s apparent unwillingness, or perhaps inability, to fulfill his promises to Israel. The first four sections of 4 Ezra begin with complaints and questions. Has not Israel been more attentive to God’s commandments than the nations? Why is Babylon rewarded, while Israel suffers? If Israel is God’s one, chosen people, why have they been given up to the many? If all creation was made for Israel, why do the nations, who are like a drop from a bucket, lord their dominion over the dispossessed heir? For a while God’s angelic spokesman fields these questions of Joblike intensity. When the angel’s answers fail to satisfy Ezra, God turns to visions instead. He shows Ezra the eschatological solution that he has planned. The Messiah will come to punish Rome and the nations. Jerusalem will be restored. In the meantime, the Jews must recommit themselves to the observance of the Law. The author of 3 Baruch rejects the solutions, as we shall see, but he also refuses the method of 4 Ezra, the pathos and the histrionics. 3 Baruch begins (1.2) with the seer sitting by the ruined temple and weeping over the captivity of Jerusalem. In full lamentation mode Baruch bemoans the destruction at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. The questions pour forth: Lord, why have you laid your vineyard waste? Why did you hand us over to the nations instead of punishing us yourself?35 The text gets off to a very promising start for those who were moved by 4 Ezra. Baruch, however, is stopped in his tracks before he really gets going. The angel appears immediately in response to Baruch’s complaints and tells the seer not to worry so much about Jerusalem, for God has heard Baruch’s prayers and has sent his mes-

35 The divine choice of agent for the chastisement of the Jews also troubled Ezra; see 4 Ezra 4.23–35; 5.23–30; 6.56–58.

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

123

senger to reveal everything to the seer (1.3–5). The angel’s assurances suffice to cow Baruch, who becomes calm at once. The angelic intervention in the first lines of the text prevents the escalation of the seer’s initial lament. Baruch never returns to the theme, but is content to make his heavenly journey and learn the lessons presented during it. It is true that 3 Baruch is a short text and must therefore be economical. The truncated lamentation at the beginning, however, seems to be making a point. Even after Baruch has calmed down, the angel rebukes the seer for his initial complaints. He tells Baruch (1.6) to cease annoying God (παῦσον τὸν θεὸν παροξύνειν), if the seer wishes the angel to reveal the divine mysteries. The quick silencing of Baruch’s probing questions directed at God’s handling of Israel’s chastisement is not just a device for moving the text along. Rather the angel’s testy reply to Baruch appears as a criticism of the grander tragic tone of a text such as 4 Ezra. This is not the approach of 3 Baruch. Why would the author of 3 Baruch wish to move away from the tone of 4 Ezra? Like the biblical book of Job, 4 Ezra is a troubling text. The sense of confusion and betrayal displayed in Ezra’s questions uncover a raw nerve. The angel’s answers that men cannot understand the mind of God and that everything will be righted at the end of time do not ease the pain of the questions, which are finally drowned out in the grandiose visions of the later part of the apocalypse. The text is troubling because there are no good answers for Ezra’s questions. One might be tempted to doubt the justice of God. The author of 3 Baruch chose not to enter onto this thorny ground. The reader is given just enough lament and complaint to know that Baruch’s concern is real, but is cut off before the questioning causes discomfort. The avoidance of this drama of theodicy is in perfect keeping with the simple and hopeful message of 3 Baruch. Instead of pinning hopes on the eschatological righting of wrongs, the cold comfort of 4 Ezra, 3 Baruch has a more comforting and timely message: God is in control and is already at work on rewards and punishments. 3 Baruch does not raise the question of God’s whereabouts in order to agonize over it. The question is not rhetorical—he asks it in order to answer it. A heavenly journey appears to be just the thing to show where God is. Embarking on the trip with Baruch, the reader expects to find the answer to his question when the text ends in the throne room of the Most High. Though it is shocking that the text’s climax comes before this, nevertheless, Baruch’s journey gives a definite answer to the question: Where is God?

124

chapter four

In contrast to the Apocalypse of Abraham and other ascent apocalypses, God never appears in 3 Baruch, though evidence of God’s activity abounds. Although the reader might find his expectations for the journey disappointed, the angelic guide never promises Baruch that his trip will culminate in a vision of God. Rather the angel repeatedly tells Baruch that he will see various divine mysteries. The first promise comes in the opening chapter, as the angel seeks to calm Baruch before the seer hits full stride in his lamentation. The angel tells Baruch that if he ceases irritating God, he will get to see greater mysteries (1.6); it is for just such a revelation of the things of God that the angel has been sent (1.4). Just as the seer embarks on his journey to the heavens, the angel again announces his intention of revealing the divine mysteries (τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ θεοῦ) to the seer (1.8). If not a vision of God himself in glory, what are these mysteries? The text and the journey it narrates are frequently punctuated by the angelic promise to show the seer greater mysteries sweeping the seer and the reader higher and higher through the heavens. After the first heaven, wherein Baruch sees the souls of the tower builders punished, the angel urges Baruch (2.6) to come with him and he will show the seer greater mysteries (μείζονα μυστήρια). Once Baruch has seen the punishment of the tower planners in the second heaven, he assures the angel (4.1) that he has indeed seen great and wondrous things (μεγάλα καὶ θαυμαστὰ), but begs the angel to reveal all things to him.36 The angel obliges and takes Baruch to the third heaven, wherein he sees the impressive scene of the dragon drinking from a vast lake. As wondrous as all these scenes have been, the angel still assures Baruch (5.3) that he will see greater works than these (μείζονα τούτων ἔργα). The sequel proves the angel right. Before moving on to the next scenes, however, it would be worthwhile to examine the things Baruch has seen so far. In the first two heavens he saw the punishment of those who built and planned the Tower of Babel. In the third heaven he saw the serpent who is in some way identified with hades. The contents of the first three heavens are similar in that they deal with sinners, but different in that the third heaven is also concerned with the natural phenomenon of the world’s water system. God’s hand is seen in all of this. He is the one who

36 Baruch’s request that the angel reveal all things to him recalls the angel’s words in the first chapter (1.4).

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

125

punished the men associated with the Tower of Babel and he has also made the world’s rivers so that the sea is not diminished by the dragon who is constantly drinking it.37 The things described variously as mysteries or works fall into two categories: God’s oversight of the punishment of sinners and his care for the natural world, in the latter case, the world’s water system. Impressive things to be sure, but not the greatest things we shall see according to the angel. The language of the angel in the first heavens has been drawing us on with promises of ever greater wonders. There is a sense of rushing, for the angel does not devote a great deal of time to the description of the scenes before Baruch’s eyes and the seer tends to limit his questions. In the next two heavens we are introduced to even more amazing things and the register of the language used to describe them changes. The next scene presented to Baruch for observation is the chariot of the sun and the phoenix. After the angel has answered Baruch’s enquiries regarding the things before him, the angel tells him (6.12) to wait and he will see the glory of God (δόξαν θεοῦ). Before the angel even finishes his words, Baruch hears a clap of thunder and the ground begins to quake (6.13). The noise comes from the angels who are opening the 365 gates of heaven. There follows a voice, apparently coming from the phoenix, calling on the light giver to give light to the world—this is a signal to the roosters of the world to wake up and awaken everyone else. The angel again tells Baruch (7.2) to wait and see the glory of God (δόξαν θεοῦ). Now the sun and phoenix begin to appear as they make their way across the face of the earth. The brilliance of the sun and the spreading of the phoenix’s wings are too much glory for Baruch, who is overcome with fear and cowers behind the angel (7.5). The register has changed in this new scene. No longer does the angel speak of mysteries or works, but now of God’s glory. The angel’s announcement is accompanied by thunderclaps, earthquakes, and booming voices. Twice the angel announces the advent of God’s glory, which appears to be the arrival of the sun and phoenix, for Baruch tells the reader that such glory (τὴν τοιαύτην δόξαν) was too much for him. The sun and accompanying phoenix are also cosmological phenomena,

37

4.7.

God’s direct actions in these things is explicitly mentioned at 3 Bar. 2.7; 3.6, 8;

126

chapter four

just as the lake and serpent were in the previous heaven. The change from talk of mysteries to talk of glory elevates the sun above the level of the lake. We are no longer dealing with the world’s water system, but with the light-giver. The phoenix is another manifestation of God’s providence. As the angel explains (6.3–8), if it were not for the phoenix spreading his wings to offer some shade to the earth, the rays of the sun would burn it up with all its inhabitants. Thus, again, we see that God benevolently watches over men to protect them from the nature that he has created. The sun, as is easily understandable, is the highpoint of the natural order. God’s glory is revealed in its working. This is not the end, however, of God’s glory. After Baruch has learned all about the sun and moon, the angel prepares him (11.2) for the next scene with the same admonition to wait so that he will see the glory of God (τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ). Once again the angel’s words are followed by the sound of thunder and a voice that is itself followed by more peals of thunder. The voice calls (11.3) for the gate leading to the fifth heaven to be opened. The final scene is the climax of Baruch’s heavenly journey. It does not end with a view of the Most High sitting in glory upon his throne. Rather the seer and angel are able to watch the ministrations of the archangel Michael. They see him receive from a host of other angels the virtues and good deeds of the men to whom they are assigned. They watch as Michael disappears to bring his bowl into the presence of God. This act, too, is accompanied by a peal of thunder (14.1). Finally, they see Michael return from the divine presence bringing oil for distribution among those men whose angels have offered their good works to God. Michael also brings back an answer to the angels whose charges have been wicked. They are to be tormented. This is the last stop on Baruch’s tour. After watching the actions of Michael, the seer finds himself back on earth. Reflecting on the wondrous things he has seen, Baruch begins to praise God. This last scene does not concern God’s rule over the phenomena of nature. It rather concerns God’s governance of men. Through the mediation of the archangel Michael God distributes both rewards and punishment to men. The angels who brought the virtues and good works of their charges are given oil with which to bless the men entrusted to their care. The angels whose charges had no good works are ordered to torment their charges. The message is clear. God does not miss the actions of men on the earth. Not only does he see and respond to the goodness and wickedness of men, he even does so in

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

127

proportion as they merit it. God’s attentiveness to the actions of men is total. The fate of humanity is securely in the hands of God. To those who might wonder where God is, 3 Baruch gives a clear answer. He is in heaven dispensing rewards and punishments to men. In addition to this, he is also looking after the world and keeps it running smoothly. Such quotidian events as the rising and setting of the sun proceed according to the ordinances of God’s foresight. We do not get a direct vision of God in heaven. 3 Baruch does not culminate in a theophany. We merely see the effects of his providential oversight of the cosmos and humanity. The answer is much simpler than that offered by the author of 4 Ezra. Where is God? Look around you. Is the sun rising and setting? Are the crops growing, nourished by the dew sent from heaven? The last point of 3 Baruch, namely that the just are rewarded and the wicked punished even during their life on earth, is not so clearly observed. Indeed, given the popularity of explorations of theodicy it is not observable at all. Here perhaps the author is hoping to make the leap from God’s providential care of the cosmos to his oversight of men’s activity. The author proposes that as surely as the sun rises and sets, so, too, does God notice and fittingly recompense men for their deeds, both good and evil. God’s judgement of humanity is envisioned in 3 Baruch as an ongoing and immediate act. The souls of the righteous and sinners will be judged at death and assigned rewards and punishments in the various heavens. In the first two heavens Baruch sees the souls of those who built and planned the Tower of Babel being punished. Their punishment consists of a transformation of their features, so that they have taken on the forms of animals. The builders have been given the faces of cattle, the horns of deer, the feet of goats, and the loins of sheep (2.3). The planners had the form of dogs with the feet of deer (3.3). The first two heavens consisted of vast plains, wherein the deformed souls could roam about, presumably forever. The third heaven is also a scene of punishment in the form of another plain, this one dominated by a dragon. The bodies of the wicked are consumed by the dragon, providing him nourishment (4.5). Later the angel indicates that his belly is hades (5.3). Thus the souls and bodies of the dead are punished in three of the heavens after leaving their life on earth behind. The punishments come immediately after death, they do not await some future judgement. The righteous, too, seem to receive their reward without waiting. The fourth heaven is again a plain with a lake in the middle. Around the

128

chapter four

lake Baruch sees all species of birds as large as oxen. The angel explains to the seer (10.3–5) that the souls of the righteous gather together in choirs beside the lake. It is implied that the birds are perhaps the very souls under discussion. Rewards and punishments are not just a feature of the afterlife in the author’s conception. The good receive consolation and the wicked punishment during their earthly life. In the fifth heaven the archangel Michael receives the angels into whose care men have been committed. The angels that bring back the good deeds of their charges receive oil from Michael and the command to bestow blessings on the good men of the earth (15.2–4). Just as the angels are instructed to shower good men with God’s blessings, so, too, are the other angels commanded to visit wicked men with various torments, including locusts, hail, the sword, death, and demons (16.2–3). 3 Baruch does not advocate the deferment of hope for his audience. They need not await judgement at the end of time. Indeed, in the author’s conception there is no end time, for he never suggests a cataclysmic end to the earth and the race of men on display in Sibylline Oracle 4. There will be no Messianic intervention to overthrow the wicked and rescue the oppressed righteous. The eschatology of 3 Baruch is a personal or individualized one. 3 Baruch does not promise national salvation to the Jews, nor punishment for the Gentiles. Rather each man will be judged on the basis of his own actions. He need not wait until death to reap the fruits of his acts, for even during his life on earth he will enjoy the rewards for good deeds and punishments for wicked deeds. Who then are the righteous and the wicked for the author of 3 Baruch? The author certainly rejects any notion of national salvation for the Jewish people as a whole. Furthermore, there is no conception of the world in terms of Jews versus the nations. Indeed, there is scarcely anything in the text that even notices the existence of Jews or Gentiles. In a text written in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and penned in response to that great disaster, it is interesting that, in contrast with all of the other works examined in the present study, the author pays no attention to the Roman Empire. 3 Baruch begins (1.1) like the other texts in the Baruchic tradition with the seer’s meditation on the recent destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. As in 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch we are probably justified in seeing here an allusion to Rome. Unlike 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch, 3 Baruch does not dwell on

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

129

the destruction. The Babylonian attack on Jerusalem is not described. Truth be told, the text does not even mention the Babylonians by name at all, focusing the briefest of attention only on the Babylonian king. Baruch’s rather feeble lamentation and quick consolation by the angel suggests that the author does not wish to bring too much attention to Rome. This does not mean that the author does not see the events of 70 as a problem. Baruch’s brief lamentation and the questions he asks of God suffice to raise the issue of God’s governance of the world without undercutting divine authority as much as 4 Ezra does. 3 Baruch leaves us with a question; 4 Ezra invites doubts. The rest of the text seeks to answer the questions posed in the preface. The angel promises an explanation through the revelation of divine mysteries in order to calm Baruch. The heavenly journey fulfills this promise. The revelations of the journey are to be taken as the grounds for Baruch’s consolation, and for the reader’s. The author does not want to distract the reader’s attention from the message of the text. He does not want to get bogged down in the particular question of Roman guilt. It is for this reason that he glosses so quickly over the Babylonians never to return to the question. There have been a few suggestions that the punishment of the tower builders and planners in the first and second heavens offer an indictment of Rome.38 In the first heaven (2.7) Baruch sees the builders of the tower punished for attempting to make war on God. In the third heaven (3.7) the planners are punished for desiring to pierce heaven in order to find out the material of which it is made.39 No motives are given in the biblical account (Gen 11.1–4) except that the builders wished to make a name for themselves and avoid being scattered. Nor

38 Nickelsburg, JLBBM1, 299–300, 302–303, implies that the author is here talking about Rome, as Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 250, and idem, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 258 n. 194, makes clear. 39 The author (3.5) also dwells on the men and women forced into labor in order to build the tower. A division among the tower builders according to motive and the punishment they received is recorded in b. Sanh. 109a, where one group wished to ascend the tower and live there, a second group wanted to worship idols, and the third group desired to make war on God. Another tradition preserved in the same tractate records that the builders planned to ascend the tower and cleave heaven with axes, in order that the waters of heaven might pour forth.

130

chapter four

is any division made between the builders and the planners.40 The case offered for reading the account of the Tower of Babel in 3 Baruch as an indictment of Rome rests on three items. First, the story in 3 Baruch is thought to share points with another version of the Tower of Babel story in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (L.A.B.) wrongly attributed to Philo (Ps.-Philo). Building upon the biblical story L.A.B. adds a fanciful element by including Abram (Abraham) in the events leading up to the building of the tower. The author of L.A.B. (6.1) makes clearer the location of the Tower of Babel, substituting Babylon for the biblical Shinar.41 The men propose to build a tower to prevent their dispersion around the world. In order to accomplish this, they decide to make bricks and to carve their names on them before firing them in the furnace. A group of twelve men including Abram and Lot refuse to participate. It is decided that they will be thrown in the furnace along with the bricks. An opportunity for escape presents itself to the men while in prison awaiting their fate, but Abram refuses to join his eleven companions in flight. Abram is duly cast into the furnace. Instead of burning Abram, the fire rushes out of the furnace, propelled by an earthquake sent from heaven. The flames belching forth burn 83,500 bystanders and cause the furnace to collapse (L.A.B. 6). Uninspired by this show of divine disapproval, the survivors carry on with the building until God confuses their languages and scatters them abroad (L.A.B. 7). The story of the furnace is almost certainly taken from the biblical book of Daniel (3). When Nebuchadnezzar ordered that all the inhabitants of his kingdom worship the statue he had built on a Babylonian plain, three Jewish men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refuse to do so. They are thrown into a fiery furnace, but emerge unscathed, convincing the king to alter his policy. The author of L.A.B. has conflated the stories of two presumptuous Babylonian building plans and tossed in Abraham to boot. The conflation binds more closely the Tower of Babel with the Babylonian Empire. Perhaps the author of 3 Baruch had in mind the same tradition that informs L.A.B. In the opening chapter of 3 Baruch the author mentions Nebuchadnezzar. The recalling of the

40 Nickelsburg, JLBBM1, 299, suggests that the distinction between the two groups derives from the two introductions to the biblical account (Gen 11.3 and 4). 41 This point is already made clear in the biblical text, Gen 11.9a: “Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the earth.”

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

131

Tower of Babel tradition featured in L.A.B. might lead the reader to carry over from the beginning of 3 Baruch the reference to Nebuchadnezzar so that he would read the punishments in the first two heavens as an indictment of Rome. The theory is a bit tenuous. Parallels between 3 Baruch and L.A.B. do indeed exist, but they are minor. In contrast to the biblical account, where God punishes the builders with the confusion of their languages and scattering across the earth, 3 Baruch and L.A.B. add that God changed their forms.42 The author of L.A.B., however, does not indulge himself with describing the monstrous forms found in 3 Baruch. The building of the tower is treated in two stages in L.A.B., just as in 3 Baruch, but it is not clear that the participants are to be divided into builders and planners as in the latter text.43 Both versions focus on bricks, but in this they take their cue from the biblical account. 3 Baruch’s (3.5) connection of brickwork with childbearing finds no parallel in L.A.B., but rather in the exodus (1.11–22) account of Israel’s servitude in Egypt.44 Missing in 3 Baruch is the crucial use of the story of the fiery furnace from Daniel. 3 Baruch does nothing to provide a Babylonian link for the tower. It seems unlikely that the author of 3 Baruch wanted readers to understand the punishments in the first two heavens as a reference to Babylon or Rome.45 There is another passage from the last chapter of 3 Baruch that might also contain a reference to Rome. The angels who fail to bring any good deeds from the men assigned to them ask Michael whether they might be transferred to better charges. Michael promises to ask God and upon his return he delivers the divine answer. The angels are told that they cannot be removed from their charges, but that they should torment them. Just as these wicked men provoked God to anger, so should their angels provoke them to jealousy and anger

42 3 Bar. 2.3; 3.3; L.A.B. 7.5; cf. 7.3, where God says that they will live in caves like the beasts of the field. It should be noted that L.A.B. does not claim that the men actually were changed into beasts. 43 In L.A.B. the men begin by making bricks for the tower and, following their punishment by God, resume building though with reduced numbers. 44 This tradition also finds expression in Pirqe R. El. 48; Tg. Ps.-J. to Exod 24.10. Gaylord, OTP, 1.659, focuses much more on the parallels between 3 Baruch and Exodus. 45 Nor is it at all clear why the Romans would be building a tower in order to investigate heaven.

132

chapter four

and bitterness against a nation that is no nation and a foolish people.46 The angel’s message is a very close paraphrase of a passage from the book of Deuteronomy. The text in question is the Song of Moses in the thirty-second chapter of Deuteronomy. When Israel’s time in the wilderness was coming to an end Moses called the people together in assembly and recited his song to them. Not long afterward Moses died and Israel finally entered Canaan. The song encapsulates in poetic form the Deuteronomistic view of Israel’s history and relationship with God. Moses indicts Israel with ingratitude toward the God who had created the world and chosen Jacob as his own people. Despite the care that he took bringing them through the wilderness and establishing them in a new land, Israel made God jealous with idols and new, unknown gods. Spurred by his jealousy God will turn away from his people and send against them disasters, hunger, pestilence, beasts, and human enemies to blot out even the memory of Israel from men. The nations that will be sent against Israel will boast in their triumph, failing to recognize that Israel’s defeat stemmed from God’s abandoning his people. Then God will vindicate his chastened people and punish their enemies, thereby proving the emptiness of their boasting and the non-existence of their gods. In the midst of this song comes the passage used by the author of 3 Baruch. In a succinct parallelism, God expresses the charge against Israel and the fitting punishment. Since Israel made him jealous with what is no god and provoked him with their idols, so he shall make them jealous with what is no people and provoke them with a foolish nation.47 Before looking at reuse of the passage in 3 Baruch, it would be useful to analyze it in its original context. The Song of Moses is a rather difficult text to nail down. There is no scholarly consensus about the dating or authorship of the poem.48 46 3 Bar. 16.2: ἀλλ᾿ ἐπειδὴ παρώργισάν με ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτῶν, πορευθέντες, παραζηλώσατε αὐτοὺς καὶ παροργίσατε, καὶ παραπικράνατε ἐπ᾿ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἐπὶ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ. 47 Deut. 32.21 (LXX): αὐτοὶ παρεζήλωσάν με ἐπ᾿ οὐ θεῷ, παρώργισάν με ἐν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν· κἀγὼ παραζηλώσω αὐτοὺς ἐπ᾿ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἐπ᾿ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ παροργιῶ αὐτούς. The Septuagint Greek translation of this passage is an almost perfect verbal

match for the passage in 3 Baruch, leading Nickelsburg, JLBBM1, 302, to describe it as a “paraphrase verging on a quotation.” 48 P. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OtSt 37; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1–98, offers a detailed overview of scholarly approaches to the dating and context of the song with comprehensive bibliography in the notes. Sanders, 433–6, himself

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

133

Some champion authentic Mosaic authorship, while others situate it in the post-exilic period, with champions for nearly every possibility in between. Of interest for present purposes is the identification of the “non-nation” who will excite Israel’s jealousy. Here again no consensus has emerged. Candidates for the dubious honor include: the Sea Peoples of the early twelfth century (J. C. de Moor), the Canaanites during the period of the Judges (U. Cassuto), the Philistines from the period of the Judges (O. Eissfeldt, W. F. Albright), the Aramaeans of the ninth through eighth centuries (A. Knobel, A. Dillmann, S. Oettli, E. Sellin, Y. Kaufmann, G. E. Wright), the Assyrians of the eighth century (H. Ewald, A. H. H. Kamphausen), the Babylonians or Chaldeans of the exilic or post-exilic period (A. Kuenen, C. Steuernagel, C. H. Cornill, K. Budde, R. Tournay, G. Fohrer, S. Carillo Alday), the Scythians of the exilic or late pre-exilic period (S. R. Driver, A. J. Levy), or the mixed population of post-exilic northern Israel (E. Sellin, S. Hidal).49 Fortunately for our purpose we need not solve this problem, for it matters very little what the text of Deuteronomy 32 originally meant. Rather the concern is what it might have meant in the first or second century A.D. to the author of 3 Baruch. It seems likely that the enemies featured in the Song of Moses would have been identified as the Babylonians, thus making the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 the punishment foreseen by Moses. Three items lead to this conclusion, one in which the interpretation is explicit and two in which it is strongly implied. The first item comes from the Targum Yerušalmi (Targum Ps.-Jonathan). The Targum Yerušalmi, or Palestinian Targum, is an Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch incorrectly attributed to Jonathan ben Uzziel a pupil of the Rabbi Hillel.50 In the translation of the Song of

favors a dating range of some five centuries between the settlement of Canaan and the Babylonian captivity. 49 Sanders, Provenance, 7–39, with references. 50 Targumic literature can be confusing, not least because of the names assigned to the various texts. There is the Targum Onqelos on the books of the Pentateuch and a Targum of the Prophets, which includes the historical books. The latter is attributed to Jonathan ben Uzziel. Though the purported translators of both texts lived during the first and second centuries A.D., they seem to have been composed in the third or fourth using earlier material. The Targum Yerušalmi exists in two versions. One (Targum Ps.-Jonathan) is also wrongly attributed to Jonathan ben Uzziel; the other, the so-called Fragmentary Targum, now exists in a integral text. We are concerned with Targum Ps.-Jonathan; Aramaic text: E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance, (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984); English translation:

134

chapter four

Moses the translator has expanded the text to identify the foolish people as the Babylonians.51 The second item comes from the book of Sirach, which alludes to this passage. Jesus ben Sira recalls the sins of the kings of Judah, with the exception of David, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Having forsaken the law of the Most High, the kings of Judah ceded their power and glory to a foreign nation that burned Jerusalem. All of this happened according to the word of Jeremiah.52 Here again it is the Babylonians who benefit at Israel’s expense. Josephus also seems to understand Moses’ warnings to relate to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. When narrating the final words and days of Moses, Josephus (A.J. 4.312–314) has the leader prophesy that if Israel should transgress the divine law they would find their land filled with enemy armies, their cities destroyed, and the temple burned. Josephus does not, however, limit Moses’ words to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, for he says that this will happen many times with God restoring the temple each time. Josephus thus implies the Roman assault on Jerusalem as a subsequent chastisement of the Jews, while understanding Moses’ warning to refer primarily to the Babylonians. These three texts, Targum Yerušalmi, Sirach, and Josephus’ Antiquitates, suggest that Jewish readers of the Hellenistic and Roman periods might read the prophecy in the Song of Moses as a reference to the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, irrespective of the original meaning and dating of the Deuteronomistic text. The author’s use of Deuteronomy 32 has been seen as a key to understanding 3 Baruch.53 Michael’s words about punishment inflicted J. W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee (2 vols.; London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, 1862–1865). For a brief overview of the Targums see Schürer, 1.99–114. 51 Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 32.21: “They have made Me jealous by that which is not God, they have angered Me by their vanities: I also will provoke them to jealousy by a people which hath not been a people, by the foolish Babylonian people will I provoke them” (trans. Etheridge, 2.665). 52 Sir 49.4–7. The connection is a bit stronger in the Hebrew version of the text, which says that God gave Judah’s glory to a foreign nation. On this passage and its connection with Deut 32.21 see R. H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11 (WUNT 2/63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 221–2. 53 Nickelsburg, JLBBM1, 302–3, has advanced the argument summarized above in the text.

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

135

upon the men with no good deeds to offer their angels gives an answer to Baruch’s questions in the first chapter (1.2), specifically to his question: “Why did you deliver us to nations such as these?”54 The reference to the foolish nation and the non-nation in Michael’s words is taken as an allusion to the seer’s question. The passage is understood to provide an explanation for the divine punishment of the Jews at the hands of the Romans. The destruction of Jerusalem comes as a chastisement for the sins of the Jews.55 One major concern of the Song of Moses is to demonstrate what will happen when Israel turns its back on the God who chose it out as his own special people. On the basis of the theory outlined in the previous paragraph, this point is made in 3 Baruch. The Song of Moses does not, however, stop with the punishment of Israel; it proceeds, rather, to Israel’s vindication. The nations used by God as the rod of chastisement for wayward Israel will grow arrogant in their victory, according to the song. Then God will round on them and destroy them, not only vindicating Israel, but more importantly demonstrating his own might for all to see. This second, and perhaps more important, message of Moses’ song is entirely absent from 3 Baruch. The author makes nothing of the threat that hangs over Rome. Indeed, apart from this one passage, the author says nothing that might be taken to refer to Rome. 54 Nickelsburg, JLBBM1, 302, has discovered other parallels between 3 Baruch and the Song of Moses, as well. The two verbs in 3 Bar. 1.2, ἀποδιδόναι and παραδιδόναι, are found together in another passage in Deuteronomy that deals with God’s deliverance of his people to the nations for punishment; see Deut 32.30 (LXX): πῶς διώξεται

εἷς χιλίους καὶ δύο μετακινήσουσιν μυριάδας, εἰ μὴ ὁ θέος ἀπέδοτο αὐτοὺς καὶ κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτούς. Another parallel exists with the question put into the mouth of

the victorious nations by the seer: “Where is their God?” (3 Bar. 1.2). In 3 Baruch the question serves to illustrate the arrogance of the nations who foolishly think that their victory over the Jews is proof that the Jewish God is either weak or non-existent. In Deuteronomy it is God himself who asks this question ironically of the gods of the victorious nations as they fall subject to divine chastisement for their arrogance; Deut 32.37–38: “Then he will say: Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge, who ate the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their libations?” Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 155–6, adds a few more similarities between 3 Baruch and the Song of Moses, though he ultimately rejects the originality of the passage in 3 Baruch for reasons that will be outlined, and accepted, below. Harlow points out the repetition of παροργίζειν (16.2, twice) found also at Deut 32.16, 19 (LXX). Also some of the punishments listed at 3 Bar. 16.3 recall those from the Song of Moses (Deut 32.25, 41). 55 Thus far Nickelsburg, who then uses the (unstated) Babylonian connection of Deut 32.21 to identify the Tower builders and planners with the Babylonians and by implication the Romans.

136

chapter four

It could be that the author’s use of the passage from the Song of Moses was meant to imply the ultimate punishment of the Romans. Jewish readers would be familiar with the text and would supply the consoling message themselves. But, why should the author be so coy? It is unlikely in the extreme that 3 Baruch would have found Roman readers. If the author had meant for his text to uplift the hopes of his shattered compatriots, surely an explicit invocation of God’s promised vindication of his people would be in order. Here as elsewhere the author’s message comes through omission. Where readers would expect consolation, the author gives them none. By disappointing hopes and withholding the hope of national vindication, the author forces his readers to look elsewhere. Even if one were to accept the originality of this passage, and serious doubts arise in this regard, the focus is on Jewish sin rather than Roman arrogance. It is this focus on Jewish sin that raises suspicions about the authenticity of the Deuteronomistic passage. The reuse of this one particular passage of the song would underline a point made often enough in the literature under examination in the present study, namely that Jewish sin is responsible for chastisement at the hands of the Romans. This is not, however, a concern of the author of 3 Baruch apart from this passage.56 Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find anything terribly Jewish in the text of 3 Baruch. In contrast with many of the other texts studied so far, 3 Baruch has very little that is specifically Jewish. The author shows little regard for Jerusalem or its temple. There is no hope or expectation of a Messianic solution to the situation of the Jews after 70. Unlike 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch there is no call to return to observance of the Law. The author’s attitude to Jerusalem and its temple has been characterized as ranging from ambivalence to outright hostility.57 For the author’s statements on Jerusalem we must again return to the beginning of 3 Baruch. The preface sets the scene, locating Baruch among the ruins of Jerusalem. The Greek and Slavonic versions present us

56 One would expect in the very first chapter, when Baruch’s questions come spilling out of is heart, that this solution would have been proposed, but it was not. Rather Baruch is told to stop his lamentation and enquiries so that he might see greater mysteries. It seems rather unlikely that now, as the text reaches its climax, the author will introduce this important message. 57 Picard, “Observations,” 101–2, sees the author as rejecting Jerusalem entirely; Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 71–5, characterizes the author’s attitude toward the temple as one of ambivalence.

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

137

with differing descriptions of Baruch’s location. The Greek (praef. 2), which seems to display some contamination from 4 Baruch, has Baruch weeping by the Gel River and seated by the beautiful gates where the holy of holies once stood.58 The Slavonic (praef [S]) places the seer on the holy mountain Zion beside the river. Both texts introduce Baruch lamenting the captivity of Jerusalem. His words of complaint and inquiry follow. As stated previously, the text starts off in a manner familiar from 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. The seer’s probing of God ends abruptly, however, with the arrival of the angelic messenger, who tells Baruch (1.3) not to concern himself with the salvation of Jerusalem. The angel’s advice could be taken in two very different ways. Baruch should not worry about Jerusalem’s salvation either because it is assured or because it is impossible. It seems unlikely that the former case is true, for nowhere else in 3 Baruch does the salvation of Jerusalem appear as part of the author’s eschatology. Rather it seems that the angel is telling Baruch that Jerusalem will not be saved. The first conversation between Baruch and the angel concludes with the angel warning the seer against irritating God, presumably with his questions and complaints about Jerusalem. In exchange for Baruch’s silence, which the seer duly pledges, the angel promises (1.6) to reveal other mysteries greater than these things (ἄλλα μυστήρια τούτων μείζονα). The author makes two points which are prejudicial to Jerusalem. First, the angel’s sharp rebuke about annoying God sets 3 Baruch against such related texts as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, in which the respective authors freely indulge their sadness over Jerusalem’s demise. In contrast, the author of 3 Baruch has no time for an extended period of mourning. Secondly, the angel’s promise of greater mysteries to be revealed provokes the question: greater than what? The only possible referent is Baruch’s concerns over Jerusalem’s fate. In effect, the angel is telling Baruch that there are bigger things to worry about than the destruction of Jerusalem. Nowhere in 3 Baruch is there any fuel given to the hope for the restoration of the Holy City and temple. Jerusalem’s fate was sealed in 70 for good, apparently. The finality of Jerusalem’s fall runs counter to the very old presumption, going back to the first destruction of the city, that the necessity of the city and its temple ensured the Holy City’s

58 No “Gel” River is known. James, in his edition emended the text to refer to the Kidron River.

138

chapter four

restoration.59 The hope for an earthly restoration is found among the texts that make up the present study. The author of Sibylline Oracle 5 (414–433) looked forward to a day when a restored Jerusalem, more beautiful than the sun and stars, would be ornamented with a new temple. The Apocalypse of Abraham (29.17–18) also seems to look forward to a restored temple on earth. Not all could entertain the hope for an earthly restoration in the wake of a catastrophe of such magnitude. The author of 2 Baruch directs his attention heavenward to contemplate the heavenly Jerusalem. When Baruch learns to his horror that Jerusalem will be handed over to the Babylonians, God attempts to quiet his concerns by telling him (4.2–6) that the new Jerusalem described by Isaiah was not to be found on earth but in heaven.60 Even this was too much for the author of 3 Baruch, who preferred to have done with the temple once and for all. It would have been quite simple for the author to have included the heavenly temple in Baruch’s journey through the heavens. Indeed, the fifth heaven scene contains some elements that liken it to a temple. Michael appears in some sort of ministerial role with a vessel to receive the offerings from the other angels. He then goes into an inner chamber to bring the offerings to God and receive blessings, which he then distributes to the lesser angels. When one considers, however, what might have been done to make the fifth heaven serve as a heavenly temple, it is clear that the author did not wish to make such a statement. There is nothing obviously liturgical or cultic about the fifth heaven or Michael’s actions. The archangel appears rather as a heavenly middleman conducting a transaction between God and men through the agency of a lower rank of angelic go-betweens. If anything the fifth heaven seems more reminiscent of an exchange house than the heavenly temple. If readers expected to find consolation for the loss of the earthly temple in the assurance that it was the heavenly prototype that really mattered, then the author of 3 Baruch again has foiled expectations with a pointed omission. This is not to say that the author is hostile to 59 Old Testament texts include Isa 2.1–4; 49.14–26; 54.11–14; 60.10–11; Ezek 40–48; Mic 4.1–5; Tob 13.16–17; 14.5. Among the pseudepigrapha see T. Dan 5.12–13; 1 En. 90.28–29. At Qumran a text describing the new Jerusalem and drawing on the long passage in Ezekiel can be partially reconstructed from 1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q232, 4Q554– 555, and 11Q18. 60 The location of the new Jerusalem discussed in 4 Ezra 7.26; 8.52; 10.25–28, 42, 44, 54; 13.36, is not as clear.

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

139

Jerusalem and the temple as at least one scholar has argued.61 His attitude should rather be classed in the category of ambivalence. The loss of the temple was a tragic event, as Baruch’s reaction at the opening of the text makes clear. Excessive lamentation will not, however, help the situation. It could, in fact, prove to be paralyzing, as the opening of 4 Ezra illustrates. That text begins with Ezra lying in his bed tormenting himself—and God as 3 Baruch makes clear—with questions about Israel and Rome. It takes Ezra’s confrontation with the personification of Jerusalem in the form of a woman lamenting the loss of her son to lead Ezra to a conversion that frees him for action. In 3 Baruch the seer is ready to shake the dust of pointlessly excessive mourning from his feet and set off in search of God and a solution to the problem faced by the Jews after 70. Just as the author of 3 Baruch eschews restoration, so too does he reject the Messianic solution. There is, to be sure, an eschatology in 3 Baruch, but it is not dependant on the arrival of a Messiah at some point in the ever near-distant future. Nor does the author envision an end-time solution that will reward the righteous Jews en masse while consigning the Romans and all the nations to eternal punishment. The eschatology is to be individual and immediate, with judgement and reward or punishment following right on death. As is shown in Michael’s orders to the angels at the end of text, where he hands out oil to the angels with good charges and tells the angels with bad charges to torment the men assigned to them, the eschatology of 3 Baruch seeps even into the present life. It remains only to see under what criteria the men of the earth are to be judged. Here again the author neglects what would seem the most obvious solution for a Jewish audience, namely the Law of Moses. Both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch look to the Law as the rallying point for Jewish identity following the loss of those other institutions of Judaism including the city of Jerusalem, the temple, the priesthood, the sacrificial cult, and pilgrimages to the Holy City. 4 Ezra restricts the Law to the Jews, who alone can benefit from it. 2 Baruch, on the other hand, shows a more liberal tendency. Though the Jews would be the primary observers of the Law, this author leaves open the possibility, while also stressing the necessity, of the nations adhering to the Law and thus meriting salvation for themselves. 2 Baruch moves away from the notion of national

61

Picard, “Observations,” 101–2.

140

chapter four

salvation to an individual one, but the author is not ready to concede everything and retains the Jewish Law as the criterion for judgement. The author of 3 Baruch follows the trajectory of 2 Baruch further than the latter work is willing to go. In 3 Baruch there is no mention of the Law. Our author strips the Jews even of their privilege of laying down the terms under which men are to be saved. Instead, following in the line of Sibylline Oracle 4, the author offers a universal code of ethics. There are three catalogues of sin in 3 Baruch. The first comes in the digression on the vine. During the seer’s visit to the third heaven, while he was looking at the serpent drinking the sea, Baruch asks the angel to show him the tree that caused Adam to sin. The angel tells him that the tree was the vine, which was planted by the evil angel Samael. The vine rode out the Flood and was planted again by Noah after much fasting and deliberation to determine the will of God regarding the sinful plant.62 The angel goes on to tell Baruch that those who insatiably drink wine will sin far worse than Adam did and will ensure for themselves a fiery punishment for all eternity. Finally, the angel lists (4.17) the sins that excessive drinking brings: murder, adultery, fornication, perjury, theft, and like things. While these acts are indeed condemned by the Jewish Law, there is no appeal made to it. Nor need such an appeal be made for such things that stand condemned in many ethical systems beside that of the Jews. A similar list is given by the angel later in Baruch’s tour. When the sun sets, Baruch watches the angels remove the fiery crown from the sun’s head; the crown is then taken up to heaven so that it might be renewed. The reason this is necessary, as the angelic guide tells Baruch, is because the rays of the sun become defiled by shining upon the earth. In answer to another question from Baruch the angel tells him that the sun is defiled by the sight of human sinfulness as it traverses the world. The catalogue of sins (8.5) includes fornication, adultery, theft, robbery, idol-worship, drunkenness, murder, discord, jealousy, slander, murmuring, gossip, divination, and other things that are unacceptable to God. The final catalogue of sins is given at the end of 3 Baruch (13.4). The angels who have no good deeds to bring to Michael complain 62

3 Bar. 4.15 intrudes at this point rather jarringly. Into the midst of a discussion of the negative aspects of the vine and its fruit comes God’s promise to Noah that he will change the plant’s curse into a blessing and that it will become the blood of God. After this obviously Christian interpolation the text carries on with the problems wrought by the vine.

3 baruch and the divine government of the cosmos

141

about the wickedness of the men assigned to them. They bemoan their charges’ participation in murder, fornication, adultery, theft, slander, perjury, envy, drunkenness, strife, jealousy, grumbling, gossip, idolworship, divination, and the like.63 The second and third lists are much expanded in comparison with the first, but they still mostly reflect a general ethical code, applicable to Jew and Gentile alike, with the exception of idol-worship and divination. We should not let the inclusion of idol-worship and divination on the list of forbidden things lead us to think that these lists are not intended for universal application. The very fact that the lists are restricted to ethical concerns means that the many laws related to purity, diet, circumcision, and ritual that make up the full Mosaic code are ignored by the author of 3 Baruch.64 What remains is a guide for right behavior, which, if men follow its injunctions, will ensure reward after death. What leads to punishment is not being a Gentile, but living badly.65 The author replaces the dichotomy of Jew versus Gentile with one of good versus wicked, much in the same way that the author of Sibylline Oracle 4 does. 3 Baruch differs from that latter work, however, in eschewing an end-time eschatology. 4.4 Conclusion 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch arise from the same concerns over the continued prominence of Rome after the act of imperial brutality against Jerusalem. Ezra lies on his bed weeping and calling on God to provide an explanation for the prosperity of Rome. Baruch weeps at the site of the temple, now in ruins, and wonders what has become of God’s special relationship with his chosen people. Ezra’s complaints are only really quieted by the series of visions foretelling Rome’s fiery destruction at the hands of the Messiah. Baruch also receives such visions, but finds the cure for his spiritual ailment in letting go of his resentment and bitterness. Rather than allowing his rage against Rome to consume him, Baruch interprets the divine message as a call to turn his thoughts inward. The text of 2 Baruch shows signs of the struggle as the author

63

The passage begins with another Christian interpolation charging the wicked men with avoiding church and the spiritual fathers, a reference to Christian leaders. 64 In a similar way the Council of Jerusalem reduced to only a handful the requirements of the Law to be laid on Gentiles as binding (Acts 15.6–35). 65 As is made clear by he author at 3 Bar. 4.5.

142

chapter four

tries to lead Baruch and his audience, and perhaps himself, out of the paralyzing hatred for the imperial master. The text still provides many hair-raising examples of the divine punishment that will befall Rome for its effronteries against God and Israel. Baruch’s call to stop worrying about Rome seems to be a case of protesting too much. Or rather, it seems that the author was trying desperately to convince himself and his audience that when it came to Rome, where there was no solution, there was no problem. The author of 3 Baruch follows the advice offered in 2 Baruch and disregards Rome from the opening lines of the text. In 3 Baruch the title character is saddened by the fate of Jerusalem, but he is intent on finding a practical solution to his worries. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch promised the coming chastisement that would befall Rome soon. It never materialized. 3 Baruch, like 4 Baruch, pragmatically sets such pie in the sky hopes aside in favor of solutions in the here and now. For the author of 4 Baruch the solution is for the Jews to separate from all things Roman. This is all that is needed to recover Jewish identity and all of the benefits that come with it. The author of 3 Baruch does not share the concerns even of 4 Baruch. 3 Baruch does not seem to be worried about Jewish identity. The text is cast in much more general terms. The question posed by the author is: Where is God? The answer, briefly, is that God’s activity and wise governance of the cosmos can be seen all around us, in the rising of the sun and the coming of the rain. This governance extends beyond the natural world into the affairs of men. Just as God protects men from excessive exposure to the sun, so too does he keep track of human sins and righteousness. These are punished and rewarded respectively not only in the next life, but already here on earth. The consolation offered by 3 Baruch is simpler than that of all the other texts that make up the current study. As in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, the effects of God’s activity are clear to anyone who cares to look around himself. The author of 3 Baruch is impatient with the complicated theories of 4 Ezra or 2 Baruch. He does not want to become bogged down in hand-wringing explorations of theodicy. Rather he seeks to apply the lessons gleaned from observing the natural world, the evidence of God’s guiding hand, and apply them by analogy to God’s rule over men. The moral code he offers is compatible with Jewish Law, but not explicitly tied to it. It is the sort of code that any man could fulfill, though it would be easier for the Jews with their rejection of idolatry.

CHAPTER FIVE

“LET ANYONE WHO DESIRES THE LORD FORSAKE THE WORKS OF BABYLON” 4 BARUCH AND JEWISH COOPERATION WITH ROME Roman provincial administration relied on a symbiosis of Roman officials and local elites. The relationship was mutually beneficial. Rome made use of the talents of local elites who were well-ensconced in the social and political circles of the province. Roman governors could rely on the knowledge and local contacts of these middlemen. Provincial leaders, on the other hand, found their position placed on a secure footing by the presence of Roman officials in the province, not so much because they could appeal to Roman arms to defend their interests, as because Roman interaction with the provincial population as a whole was filtered through the screen of the elites who were close to Roman officials, and perhaps even the emperor himself. Thus we see Jerusalem’s priestly elite trying to stave off war during the troubled governorship of Gessius Florus (Josephus B.J. 2.320–325). When Eleazar decides to discontinue the daily sacrifice for Rome, they plead with him not to take this provocative step (Josephus B.J. 2.408–417). When they fail in this they entreat Florus and Agrippa II to stamp out the incipient revolt with force (Josephus B.J. 2.418–432). Not long after this the high priest Ananias and his brother, who had taken refuge in the palace with a detachment of Roman soldiers are struck down by assassins (Josephus B.J. 2.441). Following the surprise defeat of Cestius Gallus many members of the elite, tainted with Roman connections, abandon Jerusalem (Josephus B.J. 2.556; cf. 562). Once the revolt is well under way John of Gischala can still resurrect memories of elite coziness with the enemy in order to goad the Idumaeans into killing the high priest Ananus, whom he accuses of sending treasonous correspondence to the Romans (Josephus B.J. 4.224–232). Josephus and Agrippa II are the supreme examples of post-war support for the conqueror. The Herodian Agrippa II continued his family’s tradition of support for Rome. On inscriptions (OGIS 419 = IGRR 3.1244) he was styled “Caesar-loving” (Φιλοκαίσαρος) and “Rome-loving” (Φιλορωμαίου).

144

chapter five

Before the Jewish Revolt he made himself useful as a client king in the East, whether aiding in the interrogation of St. Paul (Acts 25.13, 23) or providing soldiers to fight the Parthians (Tacitus Ann. 13.7). He also put his friendship with the emperor Claudius at the service of his co-religionists, blocking Cuspius Fadus’ attempt to return the high priestly vestments to Roman custody (Josephus A.J. 20.9–14) and influencing the emperor to give a favorable hearing to the Jews in a dispute with the Samaritans (Josephus A.J. 20.134–136). In the latter case the emperor overturned the decisions of his own procurator and the governor of Syria. The threat of war between the Jews and Rome jeopardized Agrippa’s relationship with the Romans. His strenuous attempts to avert war inspired Josephus to include a speech (Josephus B.J. 2.344–407) of the king urging the Jews to be reconciled with Rome; he was nearly stoned for his trouble. When peace became unobtainable, Agrippa supported the Romans with zeal.1 Though Josephus does not mention it, according to Tacitus (Hist. 5.1) Agrippa participated in the final siege of Jerusalem. For his steadfastness in the Roman cause Agrippa was rewarded after the Jewish defeat with additional territory (Photius Bibliotheca 33) and praetorian rank (Dio 66.15.4). The author of 4 Baruch takes a critical look at such Jewish cooperation with Rome. His assessment is one very much at odds with the conduct of Agrippa, Josephus, and the other Jewish elites who supported the Roman effort to quell unrest in Judea. 4 Baruch is a fanciful expansion of the biblical account of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the city’s inhabitants. The second part of the text tells the story of the return of the exiles to the Holy City under the leadership of Jeremiah. While the biblical book of Jeremiah serves as the basis for the narrative, many important themes are also borrowed from Ezra-Nehemiah. These biblical books and the history they contain merely serve as the starting-point for an imaginative author, who amplifies this material with elements of fantasy. The text is directed at an audience trying to come to terms not so much with the loss of Jerusalem to the Romans, but with the troubling tendency 1 Responding to the call of the Jerusalem elites he sent soldiers into Jerusalem to stop the revolt in its infancy (Josephus B.J. 2.320–325). He also accompanied the illfated expedition of Cestius Gallus (2.500–502, 523–526). Later he contributed forces to Vespasian’s Galilean campaign (3.29, 68). At the siege of Gamala he was wounded by a sling stone when he approached the walls of the city for a parley (4.14–16). His services prompted Vespasian on one occasion to defend him as one of Rome’s great allies (Josephus Vita 407–408).

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

145

of some Jewish leaders who continued to sympathize with Rome in the aftermath of the catastrophe. For the author there can be no common ground between Jew and Roman. The restoration of the people demands severing all ties with the conquerors. 4 Baruch, once one of the more obscure of the Pseudepigrapha, has enjoyed in recent years a surge in scholarly attention, much of which is extremely insightful.2 There has yet to be, however, a thorough attempt to understand the text in its historical setting, especially one analyzing the contribution the author has made to our understanding of Jewish attitudes toward the Roman Empire. The present chapter is offered as a remedy to this deficiency. 5.1 Summary of the Text 4 Baruch, despite increased attention in recent years, remains a little known text to many scholars; a brief summary of the story will be beneficial. The tale begins with God announcing to Jeremiah that he is going to destroy Jerusalem on account of the sins of the inhabitants. Jeremiah fears that the king of the Chaldeans will have occasion to boast when he takes the Holy City of God. God assures Jeremiah that he himself will destroy the city (4 Bar. 1). Jeremiah enters the temple to mourn the impending destruction. He is met there by his associate Baruch, 2

For the Greek text see J. Rendel Harris, The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of the Year 136 A.D. (London: Clay, 1889), based on six manuscripts and the Ethiopic version; R. A. Kraft and A.-E. Purintun, Paraleipomena Jeremiou (SBLTT 1, Pseudepigrapha Series 1; Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), based on over sixty manuscripts with an English translation; J. Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paralipomena Jeremiou) (SBLWGRW 22; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), with a Greek text based on a critical analysis of Harris and Kraft-Purintun. For an English translation see S. E. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” OTP 2.413–26; Herzer, 4 Baruch. Herzer’s text and translation are used in the present study. For a brief introduction see Denis, Introduction, 70–8; Nickelsburg, JLBBM1, 313–18—the text does not appear in the revised edition; idem, “Paraleipomena Jeremiae,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2:2; ed. M. E. Stone; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 72–5; Schürer, 3/1.292–4. Major recent studies include J. Riaud, Les Paralipomènes du Prophète Jérémie: Présentation, texte original, traduction et commentaires (Cahiers du Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherches en Histoire, Lettres et Langues 14; Angers: Association Saint-Yves, 1994). J. Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggadah des frühen Judentums (TSAJ 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). See also the contributions to JSP 22 (2000), a special volume dedicated to 4 Baruch. For bibliography see Herzer, 4 Baruch, 159–76.

146

chapter five

whom he informs of the divine declaration. Both weep and rend their garments (2). When night comes, the two mount the walls of the city in accordance with God’s command. From their perch they see angels descend from heaven bearing torches and taking up their positions on the city walls. Jeremiah begs the angels to allow him one last conversation with God before the city is destroyed. They consent and Jeremiah asks God what he should do with the temple vessels. He is told to bury them. He also asks that Abimelech the Ethiopian be spared the grief of witnessing the city’s destruction. God then tells Jeremiah that he will go into exile with the people, but that Baruch will remain. Jeremiah and Baruch enter the sanctuary, gather up the vessels, and bury them. The next morning Jeremiah sends Abimelech to the vineyard of Agrippa on an errand to gather figs (3). Once the Chaldean army has surrounded the city, the leader of the angels sounds his trumpet and invites the enemy into Jerusalem. Jeremiah leaves the city with the keys to the temple and throws them up to the sun for safekeeping; this act is accompanied by an admission of false stewardship. The Chaldeans enter the city and drag the people and Jeremiah off to Babylon. Baruch puts dust on his head and utters a short lament. He then leaves the city and sits in a tomb where angels minister to him (4). The story then turns its attention to the fate of Abimelech, who was sent by Jeremiah on an errand for figs. Figs duly collected, Abimelech, overcome by the day’s heat, rests in the shade of a tree, where he falls asleep for sixty-six years. Waking up from what he supposes was a short nap, Abimelech hastens back to Jerusalem fearing Jeremiah’s displeasure at his dawdling. When he returns to Jerusalem he does not recognize the city and finds that all his neighbors and family have gone. He assumes that he is lost and exits the city. After careful scrutiny he recognizes the city’s landmarks and reenters Jerusalem. When he still cannot find his way around inside the city he leaves and sits outside. Presently an old man approaches him and through their conversation it gradually dawns on Abimelech that he has slept much longer than he had imagined. The old man tells him of the exile of Jeremiah and the people. Abimelech is convinced of the miraculous nature of his nap by the fact that it is no longer fig season (5). In answer to Abimelech’s prayer an angel guides him to the tomb from which Baruch has not stirred through the sixty-six years. The sight of Abimelech and the basket of figs causes Baruch to offer up a

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

147

prayer to God announcing his hope for the resurrection of the righteous. Baruch wants to inform Jeremiah of the miraculous preservation of Abimelech and the basket of figs. He asks God in prayer how he might get in touch with Jeremiah. God answers that he will send an eagle as an intermediary and commands Baruch to write a letter to Jeremiah telling him that he must expel those who have become foreigners from the people in exile. Once this is done, God will lead them back to Jerusalem. Baruch writes the letter spelling out the conditions of the return: whoever listens to the commandments of the Lord through Jeremiah will return, whoever does not will become a stranger both to Jerusalem and to Babylon (6). Baruch is met by the promised eagle to whom he gives the letter, fifteen figs, and instructions for their delivery to Jeremiah in Babylon. The eagle arrives just as Jeremiah and the exiled community prepare to bury one of their dead. When the eagle lands on the corpse it is restored to life. At the eagle’s insistence Jeremiah reads the letter to the assembled people who weep, put dust on their heads, and ask Jeremiah what they must do to return to their city. Jeremiah exhorts them to follow the commandments and writes a letter to Baruch telling him of the oppression that the exiled community has suffered and the apostasy that it has provoked. The eagle again serves as an intermediary (7). When the day for departure arrives, God tells Jeremiah to address the returnees telling them to separate themselves from the works of Babylon. More specifically they are to put away Babylonian spouses. The people make their way to the Jordan River where those who do not listen to Jeremiah are not to cross. About half the people do not heed Jeremiah’s commands and cross over the river with Babylonian spouses in tow. When they arrive at the walls of Jerusalem they are prohibited entry by Jeremiah, Baruch, and Abimelech, whereupon they return to Babylon. The Babylonians, however, also refuse them entry and they are compelled to found a new city in a desert place some distance from Jerusalem. They name their new city Samaria (8). Upon their return the people spend nine days rejoicing and offering sacrifices. On the tenth day Jeremiah alone offers a sacrifice and beseeches Michael the Archangel to lead the righteous in through the gates of righteousness. At the end of his prayer Jeremiah falls dead. When the people try to bury him a voice tells them that he is still living. After three days he rises up and calls on the people to glorify God and the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who will come to choose twelve apostles to preach to the nations. The people become angry and plan

148

chapter five

to stone Jeremiah, whose life is spared by a stone divinely transformed and given the appearance of the prophet, which the people begin to stone. Meanwhile, Jeremiah teaches Baruch and Abimelech all the mysteries that he learned in heaven. When he has finished the stone cries out that it is not really Jeremiah and the people, realizing the deception, stone the real Jeremiah to death. The stone turned prophet is set up over Jeremiah’s tomb as a gravestone (9).3 5.2

Original Language and Composition Date

The original language of 4 Baruch was once generally thought to be Semitic, either Hebrew or Aramaic, though a Greek original also had its champions.4 Advocates of either position have rarely based their arguments on an exhaustive analysis of the text. Recently the text was subjected to just this sort of rigorous scrutiny and a very strong case was made for a Greek original.5 The question of composition date is, as usual, vexed. That the text was written in the Roman period, and more precisely in the first century A.D., is assured by the mention of the Vineyard of Agrippa (3.10: τὸν ἀμπελῶνα τοῦ Ἀγρίππα; 3.15: τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα; cf. 5.25), though the identity of the topographical reference remains unclear. Scholarly opinion has placed the composition in the early part of the second century, generally in some relation to the revolt of Bar Kokhba, on the basis of various arguments.6 J. Rendel Harris understood the work as a Jewish-Christian eirenicon directed at Jews in the wake of the Bar Kokhba revolt and accord-

3

This last chapter has some obviously Christian additions. Semitic: G. Delling, Jüdische Lehre und Frömmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremiae (BZAW 100; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), 72–4 (a Palestinian language, i.e. Hebrew or Aramaic); Denis, Introduction, 75, (Hebrew, possibly Greek); Robinson, OTP 2.414 (Semitic, possibly Hebrew); Schürer, 3/1.292 (Hebrew or Aramaic). Greek: Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, xviii n. 5; P. Bogaert, review of G. Delling, Jüdische Lehre, RBén 78 (1968): 345–6; Riaud, Les Paralipomènes, 129–30; Herzer, Die Paralipomena, 192; M. Philonenko, “Les Paralipomènes de Jérémie et la traduction de la Symmaque,” RHPR 64 (1984): 143–5; idem, “Simples observations sur les Paralipomènes de Jérémie,” RHPR 76 (1996): 159. 5 B. Schaller, “Is the Greek Version of the Paralipomena Jeremiou Original or a Translation?” JSP 22 (2000): 51–89. 6 For a summary of representative attempts at dating see Riaud, Les Paralipomènes, 127, 130–2; Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxx–xxxv. 4

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

149

ingly dated it to 136.7 In his analysis the author was capitalizing on the Hadrianic prohibition of Jews from entering Jerusalem to issue an invitation to his Jewish brethren to accept baptism that they might as Christians avoid this ban. There are many problems with this theory. One wonders whether Roman officials would have possessed the theological sophistication to distinguish Jews from Jewish-Christians. On Harris’s theory the crossing of the Jordan (8.4–5) represented baptism, in so far as the returning exiles had to renounce Babylon and cross the river in order to enter Jerusalem.8 It should be noted, however, that many of the returnees do cross the river and are, nevertheless, refused admittance to Jerusalem. Following the key to the text’s symbolism provided by Harris would require that the Jews who submitted to baptism were still denied entry to Jerusalem despite their Christian identity.9 Another problem raised by Harris’s understanding of the text’s symbolism is the need to identify non-converting Jews with Babylon. Earlier in the text the Babylonians sack Jerusalem and haul the Jews and Jeremiah off into exile. According to Harris we would have to understand the Babylonians later in the text to be the Jews themselves. The confusion of the symbol’s meaning weakens Harris’s theory. While it is difficult to accept Harris’s interpretation of 4 Baruch as a Jewish-Christian eirenicon, another item has been understood as pointing to a composition date of 136: the sixty-six years of Abimelech’s sleep (5.1, 30).10 Adding the figure of sixty-six to the year 70 yields a composition date of 136. This simple calculation also raises difficulties. The disaster in 4 Baruch is the destruction of Jerusalem. The waking of Abimelech is sixty-six years later. If the text were written in response to the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt one would expect that

7

Harris, Rest of the Words of Baruch, 12–17. Not as clear is an earlier mention (6.23) of the Jordan. Here the Jordan seems to be symbolic, though of what is not certain. The later passage suggests that those who do not forsake Babylon ought not to cross over, but they do anyway. It seems difficult, therefore, to think of the Jordan as a sign of any initiatory rite, for all, literally, pass it, though not all are admitted into Jerusalem. 9 Most scholars have rejected Harris’s identification of the Jordan with baptism, opting instead to see it as a symbol of circumcision; Riaud, Les Paralipomènes, 29–30, 64 n. 18; Nickelsburg, JLBBM1, 316; M. E. Stone, “Baruch, Rest of the Words of,” EncJud 4.276. Appeal is made to G. Fitzer, “σφραγίς,” TDNT 7.947, for the term’s use to designate circumcision. It is not at all apparent that the question of circumcision is a concern of the author of 4 Baruch. 10 Harris, Rest of the Words of Baruch, 13; Nickelsburg, JLBBM1, 315, discusses the use of the figure of sixty-six years, but does not seem to commit to the dating. 8

150

chapter five

event to stand behind the symbolic Babylonian assault on Jerusalem. If the destruction of 70 is symbolized by the Babylonian capture of the city in the text, it is difficult to see how the defeat inflicted by Hadrian on the Jews in 136 would be the sign of hope that represents the return of the people to the Holy City.11 Another item has been used to date the text: the founding of Samaria by the returnees who refused to hear Jeremiah’s call to put away their Babylonian wives (8.4–5). Scholars have seen in this a reference to the Samaritans and have proposed that the text is an eirenicon directed at this group.12 After the group of Jews founds Samaria, Jeremiah calls (8.9) upon the schismatics to repent, promising them that the angel of righteousness will lead them to their exalted place. This theory calls for a compositional date in the first half of the second century, more precisely around 130, for at this time there appears to have been a thaw in Judeo-Samaritan relations, which were particularly stormy during the first century A.D. Evidence for improving relations is found in statements attributed to early Tannaitic authorities, notably Rabbi Aqiba (second generation of the Tannaim; ca. 90–130) and Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel (third generation of the Tannaim; ca. 130–160).13 The Talmud recounts a dispute between R. Aqiba and R. Ishmael over the sincerity of Samaritan conversion: Were they true converts or opportunists? R. Aqiba issued a decision favorable to the Samaritans, declaring them true converts.14 Problems of interpretation

11

The literal use of the sixty-six years to calculate a composition date is rejected by Riaud, Les Paralipomènes, 130; Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxxi; already by E. Schürer, review of J. Rendel Harris, The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of the Year 136 A.D., TLZ 15 (1890): 83. 12 Riaud, Les Paralipomènes, 131–2, viewed the text as an eirenicon directed at the Samaritans. For the identification of the rejected exiles with the Samaritans see J. Riaud, “Les Samaritains dans les ‘Paralipomena Jeremiae,’ ” in La Littérature intertestamentaire, colloque de Strasbourg (17–19 octobre 1983) (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1985), 133–52; idem, Les Paralipomènes, 106– 111; Nickelsburg, JLBBM1, 315; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 131–9. This identification has not, to my knowledge, been challenged. 13 For the development of the Tannaitic views of the Samaritans see L. H. Schiffman, “The Samaritans in Tannaitic Halakhah,” JQR 75 (1985): 323–50; for a firstcentury view see L. H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Attitude toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence,” in Jewish Sects, Religious Movements, and Political Parties (ed. M. Mor; Omaha, Neb.: Creighton University Press, 1992), 23–45; repr. in Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (AGJU 30; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 114–36; R. J. Coggins, “The Samaritans in Josephus,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), 257–73. 14 B. Qidd. 75a-b; p. Giṭ. 1.4; Schiffman, “Samaritans,” 327–8.

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

151

arise. The dispute is found only in the Talmud, compiled long after the deaths of the participants. There is no evidence that these sages held such opinions in the second century. It has been suggested that the dispute attributed to R. Aqiba and R. Ishmael reflects the concerns of the Amoraic era which saw the compilation of the Talmud.15 Even if the formulation attributed to Aqiba was based on an accurate recollection of the sage, it is still markedly different from the account in 4 Baruch. Aqiba’s declaration that the Samaritans were true converts rests on the assumption that they were not of Jewish origin, whereas 4 Baruch portrays the founders of Samaria as a group separated from the main body of Jewish returnees.16 Apart from the difficulties inherent in the reconstruction of the views held by rabbinic authorities of the second century, especially when these views are recorded in the Talmud, this theory falters on the unlikely assumption that the author of 4 Baruch had the Samaritans in mind in the passage under discussion. In fact, certain considerations

15

Schiffmann, “Samaritans,” 327–8. The same problem exists for another favorable judgement of the Tannaim vis-àvis the Samaritans (t. Ter. 4.12, 14). Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel (third generation of the Tannaim; ca. 130–160) stated that the Samaritans were like Jews in all respects. The opposing view was taken by his son, R. Judah the Prince, who declared the Samaritans to be like non-Jews. A comparison of the two opinions renders opaque the true status of the Samaritans. If they are like Jews, the suggestion is that they are not in fact Jews; the same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the opposing formulation. The biblical account of Samaritan origins (2 Kgs 17) presents them as a mixed population imported by the Assyrians after the northern kingdom of Israel was taken into exile. These new inhabitants continued to worship their ancestral gods while also adopting elements of the Israelite religion, thus producing a syncretistic cult. Josephus A.J. 9.279, 288–291, follows the biblical account though he dismisses the charge of syncretism. Though Josephus’ understanding of the Samaritans’ status is not entirely clear, he seems to favor the view that they were foreigners. Feldman, “Josephus’ Attitude,” 114–36, has collected the evidence from Josephus, which illustrates two tendencies in the author’s presentation, sometimes presenting the Samaritans as foreigners and sometimes as having a Jewish origin. A comparison of the evidence seems, at least to me, to come down with more certainty for the former proposition. The biblical account in 2 Kings, and other Old Testament evidence for the Samaritans, has been subjected to criticism on the grounds that it does not really refer to the Samaritans at all; see esp. R. J. Coggins, “The Old Testament and Samaritan Origins,” ASTI 6 (1968): 35–48; idem, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975). For the purposes of the present study it is necessary only to point out that Jews of the first and second century A.D. accepted the biblical account as a true rendition of Samaritan origins; for this the testimony of Josephus is of primary importance. For a full account of the Samaritans see J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect (New York: Ktav, 1907); A. D. Crown, ed., The Samaritans (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989). 16

152

chapter five

lead to the rejection of the Samaritan identification and quite a different understanding of the author’s symbolic use of the foundation of Samaria. Despite the similarity of the name, the city of Samaria really had little to do with the Samaritans, whose metropolis was Shechem with their cult center on nearby Mount Gerizim.17 It was in Shechem that Rehoboam was crowned (1 Kgs 12.1) and Jeroboam made it his capital (1 Kgs 12.25). The city was destroyed by the Assyrians in 724 B.C. and reoccupied in the years before Alexander’s advent.18 Josephus (A.J. 11.302–325) recounts the founding, with Alexander’s blessing, of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim.19 The city became, according to Josephus, the metropolis of the Samaritans, whom he often calls Shechemites (A.J. 11.340–346).20 Though both city and shrine were destroyed by the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus I (Josephus A.J. 13.255– 256; B.J. 1.63), the site continued to hold great importance for the Samaritans even up to the time of the revolt against Rome in A.D. 66.21 The city was refounded by Vespasian as Flavia Neapolis (Nablus). Thus it is Shechem that was associated with the Samaritans. The history of Samaria is quite similar in many respects to that of Shechem.22 It, too, was built by a king of Israel, Omri, and served as the capital of the northern kingdom for a time (1 Kgs 16.23–24), before being destroyed by the conquering Assyrians when they took

17 Nowhere in 4 Baruch is the group labeled as Samaritans. This is a significant omission. 18 The reoccupation of Shechem is clear from archaeological and numismatic evidence; see G. E. Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), 170–2. 19 For the resettlement of Shechem by the Samaritans see G. E. Wright, “The Samaritans at Shechem,” HTR 55 (1962): 357–66; idem, Shechem, 175–81; Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, 105–11. 20 The book of Sirach (50.25–26) also refers to the Samaritans through their association with Shechem. For discussion of the passage see Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, 82–6. 21 Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, 113–115; Wright, Shechem, 183–4; Schürer, 1.207; 2.18–19. The procurator Pontius Pilatus was sufficiently concerned about the intentions of a pilgrimage to the site that he ordered a massacre of the gathered Samaritans. Samaritan complaints to the governor of Syria led to the procurator’s removal (Josephus A.J. 18.85–89). During the early days of the revolt, the Samaritans again gathered at Mt. Gerizim to discuss joining the rebellion. Vespasian forestalled Samaritan participation by sending against them the commander of the fifth legion, Sextus Cerealis Vettulenus, who killed 11,600 of them (Josephus B.J. 3.307–315). 22 For Samaria see A. Parrot, Samaria, the Capital of the Kingdom of Israel (trans. S. H. Hooke; SBA 7; London: SCM, 1958); Schürer, 2.160–4.

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

153

the people of Israel into captivity (2 Kgs 17.1–6). It recovered and became an important administrative center under both the Babylonians and the Persians, but was again destroyed when it rose up against Alexander and became the scene of the murder of Andromachus, the Macedonian governor of Coele-Syria (Q. Curtius Rufus 4.5.9). Either Alexander or Perdiccas resettled it with Macedonians and it became henceforth a Greek city.23 It was destroyed three more times by Ptolemy I, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and John Hyrcanus I before it was captured by Pompey and rebuilt by Gabinius. Finally Octavian granted the city to Herod after the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra (Josephus B.J. 1.396; A.J. 15.217). Herod rebuilt the city along opulent lines and renamed it Sebaste in honor of Augustus. Sebaste had all the amenities of a Greco-Roman city with a theater, forum, colonnaded streets, and a stadium, while the ruins of the old royal palace provided the foundation for a temple to Roma and Augustus.24 Settled with veterans Sebaste became a pagan city and the recruiting ground for the military detachment of the Sebastenoi who saw much service under Roman commanders against the Jews.25 What must have galled the most is the fact that this hostile pagan city was a Herodian foundation. It is the pagan and perhaps the Herodian connection that makes the city an important symbol for the author of 4 Baruch as will be shown below. For the purposes of the present discussion of dating, the demonstration that the author was not concerned with the Samaritans is enough.

23

Wright, Shechem, 178; Schürer, 2.160. Josephus B.J. 1.403; A.J. 15.292, 297–298. For the temple see J. W. Crowfoot, K. M. Kenyon, and E. L. Sukenik, The Buildings at Samaria (Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931–1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, vol. 1; London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1942), 123–7. 25 In the tumult following the death of Herod they did not side with the rebels, but fought alongside the Romans (Josephus B.J. 2.52, 58, 63; cf. A.J. 15.266). Claudius nearly transferred the troops to Pontus when the citizens of Sebaste showed unseemly joy at the death of his friend, the Jewish king Herod Agrippa (Josephus A.J. 19.356– 366). The procurator Cumanus led the Sebastenoi against the Jews after they avenged some Galilean pilgrims who had been killed while passing through Samaria (Josephus B.J. 2.236; A.J. 20.122). When a disturbance broke out between the Jewish and Gentile inhabitants of Caesarea, the latter relied upon the garrison which included the Sebastenoi (Josephus B.J. 3.66; A.J. 20.176). The city of Sebaste was targeted by Jews at the outbreak of the revolt (Josephus B.J. 2.460). After the war Vespasian fulfilled Claudius’ plan of transferring the soldiers, though the location of their new station is not known (Josephus A.J. 19.366). 24

154

chapter five

A third theory presents yet another argument for a composition date in the first part of the second century. Again the Bar Kokhba revolt comes into play. This time, it is claimed, certain features of the text reflect the mood of the Jews in Judea in the years leading up to the revolt.26 According to this theory, after the failure of the Diaspora revolts of 115–117 the Jews were faced with the question of how to cope with Roman authority. The decision of Hadrian to refound Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina on a visit to Palestine in 129–130 intensified the question. The refoundation of the city explains the failure of Abimelech to recognize Jerusalem upon his return (5.7).27 The main support of this theory is the strong eschatological component of the text, which places Jewish hopes for the future in God and adherence to his Law. This is consonant with increased eschatological speculation that is thought to underlie the Bar Kokhba revolt. The argument is rather circular. In fact, very little is known about Jewish thought in the years prior to the outbreak of the war under Hadrian. The texts under examination in the present study might all be taken as representatives of Jewish thought between the wars. In them, however, the eschatological elements which shift Jewish hopes onto God and his Messiah seem, if anything, to counsel against military action and the renewal of hostilities. Compared to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, the eschatological features of 4 Baruch are much reduced in prominence. The most notable difference in this regard is the omission of any mention of the Messiah. At the same time, 4 Baruch is perhaps the least confrontational of all the texts vis-à-vis Rome. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are much more concerned with the fate of the conqueror than 4 Baruch, in which there is not a single vision of the punishment to befall the destroyer of Jerusalem. In fact, as will be argued, the tendency of 4 Baruch goes beyond 2 Baruch in the call to separate from Rome. The author, through the use of symbols recalling the return from the Babylonian captivity, calls upon his audience to avoid Rome and all things Roman.28

26

Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxxi–xxxiv, places the composition in the years 117–132. Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxxiii, feels that the destruction of 70 would not account for this, though it is not clear why this should be the case. 28 Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxxiii, imagines that the failure of the revolts under Trajan raised the problem of coping with Rome, but surely this was a much graver concern in the wake of the tragedy of 70, with which event the symbolism of the text is a closer fit. 27

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

155

None of the theories positing a compositional date in the years around the Bar Kokhba revolt is convincing. Such precision is impossible to attain from the evidence in the text. For the purposes of the present discussion it is enough to show that the text is written during the Roman period and in response to the destruction of Jerusalem. To anticipate the argument formulated below, a main concern of 4 Baruch is the corrosive effect of contact with Rome on the Jewish people and the consequent need for radical separation from the conquerors in order to preserve the holiness of God’s chosen people. As with 2 Baruch, the recounting of the events of 587 B.C. differs so markedly from the traditional accounts as preserved in the biblical books of Jeremiah, 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, that it is likely that the account has been used as a cipher for some other event. Unlike 2 Baruch, 4 Baruch also draws upon and refashions traditions about the return from captivity found in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. 2 Baruch shares many parallel traditions with 4 Baruch. 2 Baruch is also one of the easiest to set in the Roman context based on internal evidence. Whether the author of 4 Baruch used 2 Baruch as a source has been a perennial question.29 The shared material falls mostly at the beginning of both works in the narrative of the Babylonian assault on Jerusalem and the preparations beforehand by Jeremiah and Baruch. Beyond these similarities, the aims of 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch diverge. 2 Baruch focuses on the remnant left in Judea, while the attention of 4 Baruch is directed towards the exiles in their preparations for the return and the return itself. 2 Baruch tries to remove the Roman question from the prominent place it held in the minds of postwar Jews, whereas 4 Baruch, as will be argued, is engrossed with the Roman

29 For an overview of the various solutions see Riaud, Les Paralipomènes, 40–8; Herzer, 4 Baruch, xvi–xxiii. Arguing for dependence upon 2 Baruch are Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1.177–221; and Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae, 33–77; idem, 4 Baruch, xvi–xix, xx. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Narrative Traditions in the Paralipomena of Jeremiah and 2 Baruch,” CBQ 35 (1973): 60–8; Riaud, Les Paralipomènes, 40–8; idem, “Les Paralipomena Jeremiae dependent-ils de II Baruch?” Sileno 9 (1983), 105–28; and B. Schaller, “Paralipomena Jeremiou,” in Historische und legendarische Erzählungen (ed. W. G. Kümmel; vol. 1.8 of Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1998), 670–6, argue for independent reliance of both authors on a common tradition. The dependence of 2 Baruch on 4 Baruch, argued by K. Kohler, “The Pre-Talmudic Haggada. B—The Second Baruch or Rather the Jeremiah Apocalypse,” JQR 5 (1893): 408; and L. Gry, “La Ruine du Temple par Titus. Quelques traditions juives plus anciennes et primitives à base de la Pesikta Rabbathi XXVI,” RB 55 (1948): 215–26, has found little acceptance.

156

chapter five

Question. Baruch is the central figure of 2 Baruch, with Jeremiah moved off stage early in the narrative. Jeremiah dominates 4 Baruch even in the few chapters that tell of the fortunes of Baruch and Abimelech. Deciding between direct dependence and shared traditions is scarcely possible and perhaps unnecessary. It is the contention of the present work that the texts being treated herein were all written in some sort of dialogue with each other. That is not to say that they were read round robin and written in response to one another, but the ideas contained in them must have been current among the rather limited number of literary producers of late first-century Palestine. If 4 Baruch does not depend from 2 Baruch, it certainly was written in the same literary and intellectual milieu. The use of the Babylonian conquest as a starting point in union with some of the other texts of the present study and in contrast to other Second Temple discussions of the Jews’ relations with foreign overlords must have derived its resonance from the recent destruction of the city and temple at the hands of the Romans. The especially close relationship between 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch increases the likelihood that the latter was composed after 70. Finally, there is the one piece of internal evidence discussed above: the location of Abimelech’s sixtysix year siesta in the Vineyard of Agrippa (3.10, 15; 5.25). This surely comes from a context in the first century A.D. or later and thus in the Roman period. The return to Jerusalem, taken by many scholars to be symbolic, is dependent on the radical separation from the ways of the Babylonians (Romans). The paraenesis is meant to resonate with the readers of 4 Baruch. Though there is no conclusive proof that the text was written after 70 and that the Babylonians were used in such a way as to inspire reflection on the Romans, the probability inclines that way. The most that can be said is that the questions addressed by 4 Baruch, the images and symbols used in the text, and many of the themes treated suggest that it should be read closely with 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. The complete absence of allusions to the situation under Hadrian and the suppression of circumcision incline toward acceptance of a date prior to the crisis during his reign. The pull of Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum and Sibylline Oracle 4, both of which also treat these same things, makes a date in the later first century seem more likely. To this tendency can be added the Flavian concerns of 4 Ezra. Certainty is impossible, but it would seem that 4 Baruch is looking more towards the catastrophe of 70 than that of 135.

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

157

5.3 Analysis While 4 Baruch begins with the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the people of Israel, the main concern of the author is return. Nor is the author’s attention trained on the events of 587 B.C. and the return from Babylon. Rather the author writes a tract for his own times and his contemporaries who are struggling to cope with a new conqueror. The author’s counsel to his fellow Jews can be recovered through an examination of his many expansions on and reversals of the received traditions of the Babylonian captivity as he fits the lessons of this event to his present circumstances. Three such reversals are of supreme importance for our study of Jewish reactions to Rome: the role of Jeremiah, the injunction against intermarriage with Babylonians, and the role of Babylon after the return from exile. The centrality of the figure of Jeremiah in 4 Baruch has often been commented upon.30 When he is onstage his presence dominates; when he is off, he fills the thoughts of the other figures (5.5, 11, 18; 6.8, 10). He is described as God’s chosen one (1.1, 7; 3.4, 5; cf. 7.15). He is both prophet and, apparently, high priest.31 There is also an Exodus motif in the Lord’s leading his people out of Babylon with Jeremiah cast in the

30 For the centrality of Jeremiah see Ch. Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum (TUGAL 118; Berlin: Akademie, 1976), 46; J. Riaud, “La figure de Jérémie dans les Paralipomena Jeremiae,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (ed. A. Caquot; AOAT 212; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 373–85; idem, Les Paralipomènes, 94–7; idem, “The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetae: His Originality; His ‘Christianization’ by the Christian Author of the Conclusion (9:10–32),” JSP 22 (2000): 31–44. 31 He is called a prophet (1.1—Harris) in only two manuscripts. Despite this lack of official prophetic designation, he nevertheless functions as a prophet throughout the text, especially as an intercessor for Israel before God. Elsewhere he is called a servant of God: 6.22 (τοῦ παιδός μου); 1.4 (τῷ δούλῳ σου); 3.9 (τῷ δούλῳ σου). On these terms see Riaud, “Figure of Jeremiah,” 35–36. He is designated as a priest at 5.18; 9.8; cf. Jer 1.1: “The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, of the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin.” He appears to be the high priest as he offers the sacrifice upon the people’s return to Jerusalem. For nine days those who were with Jeremiah were offering sacrifices on the people’s behalf, but on the tenth day Jeremiah alone offered the sacrifice. This has usually been interpreted as the sacrifice on the 10th of Tishri, viz. Yom Kippur, which could only be offered by the high priest (Lev 23.26–32; Num 29.7–11; m. Yoma 1.1–7). On this interpretation see Riaud, Les Paralipomènes, 56; idem, “Figure of Jeremiah,” 37; Herzer, Die Paralipomena, 145–6; idem, “Direction in Difficult Times: How God Is Understood in the Paralipomena Jeremiae,” JSP 22 (2000): 23–4.

158

chapter five

role of Moses (6.20–23; 7.18–22).32 Jeremiah indeed cuts an impressive figure in our author’s presentation. What has escaped notice, however, is that the author also dishes out a fair amount of criticism of the great prophet. This criticism of the Jeremianic program for Jewish relations with foreign imperial powers, as laid out in the biblical book of Jeremiah, is of profound significance both for our understanding of Roman-Jewish relations after 70 and in recovering the debate over involvement with the Romans within the Jewish community. It will be useful before proceeding to review the biblical Jeremiah’s policy vis-à-vis the Babylonians both before and after the capture of Jerusalem. Jeremiah, relying on divine instructions, counseled Zedekiah, the king of Judah, to pursue a policy of loyalty to Babylon (Jer 27.8–11, 12–22; 38.17–23). As is well known, Jeremiah’s prophetic utterances provoked a great deal of opposition that brought down on his head the charge of treason and imperiled the prophet’s life (Jer 37.11–16). Zedekiah emerges from the narrative of the book of Jeremiah (37.17–21; 38.1–6) as a rather weak king, who secretly consults with the prophet, but cannot bring himself to follow Jeremiah’s advice, nor even lift a finger to save him from his enemies. In the event, Jeremiah’s prudent policy is rejected and Nebuchadnezzar advances on Jerusalem. Zedekiah and his advisors pay for their errors as Jeremiah’s policy is vindicated. The vindication, however, is bitter as it encompasses the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem.33 Jeremiah’s Babylonian policy of accommodation could, mutatis mutandis, be applied to the situation in first-century A.D. Roman Judea. The similarity of the situations was not lost on one participant: Josephus. The historian adopted a Jeremianic policy of accommodation and loyalty to Rome and promoted it as the only path to peace even as Jerusalem lay besieged. Josephus (B.J. 5.362–419) pleaded with those who were holding Jerusalem against Titus’ army to surrender and thereby save both themselves and the Holy City and its temple. In his rehearsal of previous catastrophes to befall the Jewish nation and their Holy City, Josephus calls to mind Jeremiah’s attempts to sway Zedekiah. Josephus (BJ 5.391–393) compares his present listeners

32 Riaud, “Figure of Jeremiah,” 37; Herzer, “Direction in Difficult Times,” 22; for the link between Jeremiah and Moses, a common theme in post-biblical Jeremianic literature, see Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum, 50, 79–83 (esp. 80). 33 Noth, History of Israel, 284, provides a convenient outline of Jeremiah’s activity and policy.

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

159

unfavorably to the Jews of Jeremiah’s day, for while the latter refrained from putting the unpopular prophet to death, the former assault Josephus with missiles as he tries to instruct them.34 Josephus is thus cast in the role of the prophet of Anathoth. The recognition of the timeliness of Jeremiah’s message could be expected even if we did not possess the confirmation given by Josephus. As was said above, the treatment of Jeremiah in 4 Baruch is not uniformly positive. Jeremiah’s failure as guardian of the people is emphasized on two separate occasions. As the Chaldeans enter the city, Jeremiah takes the keys of the temple and throws them away in the face of the sun. When he does so he confesses a corporate unworthiness to keep them and describes those who had charge of the keys as false guardians. Jeremiah presents (4 Bar. 4.3–4) himself, it seems, as a representative of this otherwise undesignated group.35 This is in contrast to the tradition of the temple keys as presented in 2 Baruch, where it is the priests who toss away the keys declaring their failed stewardship.36 How exactly Jeremiah has failed is not made clear. It is certainly no failure of personal holiness, for God commands (1.1–3) Jeremiah to leave Jerusalem precisely because his prayers prevent the divine punishment from falling on the sinners in the Holy City. It is the sins of the people that bring down God’s wrath. Jeremiah’s confession of false stewardship inculpates the prophet as well. The author’s subsequent treatment of Jeremiah points the way toward a solution. God commands (3.11; cf. 5.21) Jeremiah to accompany the people into exile and to be their teacher. Jeremiah’s mission is not a resounding success. In a letter written to Baruch Jeremiah tells him of the disaster that has befallen the exilic community in Babylon. Jeremiah assures Baruch that it is proof of his righteousness that God has not allowed him to see the affliction that the exiles suffer at the hands of

34

Whether Josephus consistently saw himself as a Jeremiah figure is another question. The case has been made by D. Daube, “Typology in Josephus,” JJS 31 (1980): 26–7; Rajak, Josephus, 170–1 and n. 45, seems to treat the identification with some skepticism. 35 It is not at all made clear the group for whom Jeremiah speaks. It could possibly be the priests, this would accord with the parallel passage in 2 Baruch (for which see the next note). On the other hand, Jeremiah could be speaking for all Israel. It is, nevertheless, a striking admission of guilt, even if it is shared with others. 36 2 Bar. 10.18: “You, priests, take the keys of the sanctuary, and cast them to the highest heaven, and give them to the Lord and say, ‘Guard your house yourself, because, behold, we have been found to be false stewards.’ ” On the tradition see Nickelsburg, “Narrative Traditions,” 61–6; Nir, The Destruction of Jerusalem, 83–99.

160

chapter five

the Babylonians. As a result of their difficult situation the people have begun to invoke the aid of a foreign god (7.23–29). Later it becomes clear that many of the exiles have contracted marriages with Babylonians (8.3) despite Jeremiah’s instructions (7.32) to abstain from the pollutions of the Gentiles of Babylon (ἀπέχεσθαι ἐκ τῶν ἁλισγημάτων τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς Βαβυλῶνος). The letter of our Jeremiah calls to mind another letter penned by the biblical Jeremiah in rather different circumstances. Indeed, the situation of the pseudepigraphical letter’s composition contrasts pointedly with the biblical letter, as does its message. After the Babylonians had taken the young King Jehoiachin into exile, but before the capture and destruction of the Holy City in 587, Jeremiah sent a letter to the exiles in Babylon.37 In this letter he proposed a modus vivendi for the exiles in a foreign land. They were to set to work building up a life in exile: planting gardens, building houses, taking wives, having children and arranging marriages for their children. They must also, advised Jeremiah, come to terms with their new masters. Their fortunes were tied to those of their new home. They were instructed, therefore, to pray for the city of their exile: Babylon.38 This letter of advice to the exiles in Babylon has been seen as a formative document not only for subsequent Diaspora Judaism, but for all Jews during the Second Temple period. Jewish independence ended long before the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. Jewish life in the Second Temple period is marked by the dominance of a succession of empires culminating with the Romans who destroyed the Second Temple. The Jews had to learn to adapt to their subordinate status both in the Diaspora and in Palestine. Jeremiah’s letter provides a blueprint for such adaptation.39

37 For the capture and exile of Jehoiachin see 2 Kgs 24.1–17. The text of Jeremiah’s letter is reproduced at Jer 29.4–28. It is addressed to “the remaining elders among the exiles, the priests, the prophets, and all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon” (29.1). 38 Jer 29.4–7: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem into Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” 39 Gruen, Diaspora, 135, explores the implication for Diaspora Jews; S. J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 28–34, takes

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

161

It is precisely this letter and the biblical prophet’s policy of accommodation that the author of 4 Baruch has in mind in his presentation of Jeremiah in Babylon. Jeremiah’s assignment as exilarch for the deported Jews is a signal failure as his charges are found praying to a foreign god in their affliction.40 The reversal is illustrated by his letter to Baruch. The biblical Jeremiah wrote a letter from Jerusalem to the unfortunate exiles in Babylon grouped around the deposed Jehoiachin. His letter was full of optimistic advice designed to make the best of a bad situation. For the Jeremiah of our pseudepigraphon the tables have been turned. The prophet finds himself in exile. The news from Babylon, the subject of a letter to Baruch left alone in Jerusalem, is bad. The Jewish community is being ground down under the heel of Nebuchadnezzar. In their despair they have forsaken their God and turned to a foreign one. They have followed the counsel of the biblical Jeremiah and contracted marriages, but with Babylonians! It is difficult for the reader to come to any conclusion other than that Jeremiah has not been a resounding success as exilarch. It is now possible to speculate about Jeremiah’s failure as a steward that caused him to turn over the keys of the temple to the sun. In so doing, we might then set 4 Baruch in its late first-century context as a response to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. The narrative of the destruction of Jerusalem both presents Jeremiah as the protector of the city (1.1–2) and convicts him of failure as steward of the temple (4.3–4). This ambiguity reflects that of the biblical Jeremianic policy. Accommodation, of the sort practiced by the Jewish leadership in the

a broader view, arguing for a Jeremianic policy of political cooperation both in the Diaspora and in Palestine. Indeed, this program was largely successful as there were only four major rebellions: that of the Maccabees, the Great Revolt, the Diasporan uprising under Trajan, and the revolt of Bar Kokhba under Hadrian. 40 Riaud, “Figure of Jeremiah,” 37–8, seems to view his tenure as exilarch as a success on the strength of his continued instruction of the exiles and his negotiations (7.14) with Nebuchadnezzar to secure a Jewish cemetery. This does demonstrate Jeremiah’s successful dealings with the king of Babylon, but it is a minor victory in the face of the apostasy of his charges despite his preaching separation from the Babylonians. Jeremiah’s influence with the Babylonian king falls short of providing security for his community, as is shown by the harsh treatment meted out to the Jews and the crucifixion of some of their number. Riaud’s view is rather sunnier than that of the author of 4 Baruch. This is not to impute to Jeremiah himself any of the failings of his charges. He is not, after all, without authority, for when at the Jordan he tells (8.4) the Jews to put away their Babylonian spouses half of the offenders do listen to him. Jeremiah’s authority did not, however, suffice to prevent their contracting the marriages in the first place.

162

chapter five

decades preceding the outbreak of revolt in A.D. 66, could claim a certain amount of success in mediating between the demands of Roman officials and the grievances of Jewish subjects. It led ultimately, however, to failure.41 A particular example of noteworthy success was the pressure put on the Syrian legate Petronius to resist the plan of the emperor Gaius to dedicate a statue in the Jerusalem temple. In the final analysis, the mediating role of the Jewish ruling class, of which the high priests formed the kernel and perhaps even constituted the majority, failed to stave off revolt and its violent suppression.42 The author’s rejection of this policy of accommodation does not rest only, or even mainly, on its failure to prevent the loss of Jerusalem. Turning to the main theme of 4 Baruch, the return of the Jews from exile, it becomes clear that the author is keenly aware of the danger of accommodation with the Romans, namely the weakening or even loss of Jewish identity. The author contends that radical separation from Rome is the only path open to recovery of this lost identity. The author’s message is not, of course, presented in such straightforward terms, but rather through the use of symbols drawn from the Jews’ previous experience of exile under the Babylonians and their return from Babylon. By taking up these familiar events and reshaping them to conform to the contours of the more recent experience of national tragedy, the author rejects the notion of Jeremianic accommodation or cooperation and substitutes a policy of isolation. The return from the captivity in Babylon was a formative event for Second Temple Judaism. The magnanimity of the Persian conqueror, Cyrus, as he sent the Jews back to their land; the order to rebuild the temple and resettle Jerusalem; the opposition provoked among the people of the land; the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah; their shock at finding the returnees intermingling with these outsiders; all these events are recorded in the biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah.43 For the author of these books and Chronicles, commonly known as the Chronicler, Israel is identified with the exilic community. It was they,

41 For a persuasive presentation of this argument, see M. Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66–70, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 42 Jeremiah’s priestly status is emphasized at 4 Bar. 5.18 in contrast to the biblical book of Jeremiah where it is only stated in the opening verse. Even there he is merely accorded priestly ancestry with no mention made of his actually holding any priestly office. 43 For an overview of this period see Noth, History of Israel, 300–336.

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

163

on the banks of Euphrates, who kept alive the traditions and wisdom of their people; with them was the covenant preserved. Only the residue of Israel remained in Palestine. Repatriation was the necessary first step to reestablishment of the national cult. The restoration did not, however, proceed without incident. Not only did the neighboring peoples attempt to sabotage the Jews in their reconstruction, but the Jews themselves were guilty of mingling with the peoples of the land.44 It comes as a shock to Ezra when, upon his arrival in Palestine, he finds that the Jews have not separated themselves from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. Indeed, the returnees have gone so far as to take wives from among these peoples (Ezra 9–10; Neh 13.23–31). Ezra is appalled and views the relations between Israel and the peoples of the land as a forsaking of God’s commandments (Ezra 9.1–4, 10–12). He immediately sets about remedying the situation by commanding an obedient people to put away their foreign wives (Ezra 10; cf. Neh 9.2). Nehemiah is confronted with the same problem when he finds that certain Jews have taken wives from Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab, and that their children cannot even speak Hebrew. He spares no pains in cleansing the Jews of these foreign elements, even beating and pulling the hair of recalcitrants (Neh 13.23–30). In his retelling of the exile the author of 4 Baruch is more traditional than the author of 2 Baruch. The latter trains his focus on the remnant left in Palestine. It was this group that carried the banner for Judaism. The remnant were the faithful, while the exiles were the sinners. In 4 Baruch there is no remnant left in the land. The fact is emphasized by the figure of Baruch, who was the central figure of 2 Baruch, but in 4 Baruch is reduced to his proper subordinate status as Jeremiah’s scribe. After a perfunctory lament he withdraws to a tomb to wait out the period of desolation (4.6–11; cf. 6.1). When the period of sixty-six years has passed, Abimelech returns to find Jerusalem a ghost town (5.7–13). The author of 4 Baruch departs from tradition when he tackles the question of intermarriage. In the biblical account the intermingling of Israel with the people of the land occurs after the return. In 4 Baruch

44 The biblical book of Malachi (1.6–2.9; 2.10–16; 3.6–12, 13–21) preserves a record of cultic abuses.

164

chapter five

the mingling occurs while the Jews are still in Babylon. The difference is paramount. In the biblical account the Jewish returnees are guilty of pollution when they intermarry with those of inferior status who are found in the land. In 4 Baruch the Jews are guilty of mingling with their conquerors, with those very ones who have humiliated Zion. It is made a condition of their return that those Jews who have taken Babylonian spouses abandon them (8.4).45 The intermarriage is merely one item singled out from a general tendency to follow the lead of Babylon in other matters. The requirement that they put away their Babylonian wives particularizes the more general requirement that they separate from the works of Babylon (6.14; 7.32; 8.2).46 The intimacy of the Jewish adoption of Babylonian practices is symbolized in concrete terms by the intermarriage with Babylonians. The break with tradition as presented by Ezra-Nehemiah casts light on the historical situation of the author of 4 Baruch. To take the issue of intermarriage first, it is striking that the Jews are marrying Babylonians. It is remarkable that the Babylonians are even included in a story of the return from exile. In the biblical account the return is a direct result of Cyrus’ overthrow of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. It is the Persian king who issues the decree of return. In 4 Baruch there is not a whiff of any change in the status of the Babylonian conquerors.47 This mirrors the situation of post-70 Judea. Rome had not been overthrown by any foreign power and was consequently still a presence that had to be negotiated by any work dealing with the situation after 70. Any hope the Jews might have of changing their situation could not rely on help from a foreign power.48

45 The basis of Jeremiah’s command seems to be the letter of Baruch. The text of the letter (6.17–23) makes no mention of this separation, but merely calls upon the exiles to listen to Jeremiah. 46 The only other specific example of the apostasy of some in the exilic community is their calling upon foreign gods (7.25–26). The connection of idolatry and intermarriage with the nations goes back to Deut 7.1–6 (cf. Judg 3.4–7; 1 Kgs 11.1–4). 47 Cyrus did not, of course, destroy Babylon when he conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 and the city continued to be an important center long into the Macedonian period and beyond. The impression given by the author of 4 Baruch, however, is one of continued Babylonian authority. The Persian conquest of Babylon was the earthly condition for the return from exile. Cyrus is the proximate cause of the Jews’ return to their land, though he is acting as God’s agent. 4 Baruch eschews human agency and the return is entirely dependent on God. In this it is more closely parallel to the exodus, as is made clear in the text. 48 Sibylline Oracle 4 explores this theme in great detail, as will be shown.

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

165

In Ezra-Nehemiah one suspects that it is precisely the residue of Israel that comprises at least some part of the peoples of the land. The returnees do not hesitate, therefore, to intermarry with this group, especially as it would be in possession of the land that the exiles left behind. Intermarriage with the conquering power is another matter entirely. 4 Baruch suggests that a significant number of the exiles had taken Babylonian spouses.49 The author is taking aim at Jews who have chosen a policy of accommodation. This interpretation brings together the author’s reuse both of the figure of Jeremiah and the motif of intermarriage taken from Ezra-Nehemiah. The flaw that disfigures the Jeremianic policy of cooperation is exposed by Jeremiah’s failure as exilarch of the Jews in Babylon. In the view of our author, the collapse of the Jewish community as it begins to call upon foreign gods and intermarry with Babylonians is the end to which the Jeremianic policy tends. The rejection of such a policy must be complete. In 4 Baruch this rejection is commanded by God and passed on to the people through Jeremiah, who is presented as overturning the very policy that the biblical Jeremiah enjoined upon the exiles. The author of 4 Baruch reverses the program of the great prophet of the fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of captivity. Instead of advancing a program of accommodation and cooperation, the prophet of Anathoth has become the spokesman for radical separation and isolation, thereby usurping the message of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the process of this usurpation, the author of 4 Baruch has redirected the call for separation to the Babylonians (Romans) rather than the people of the land. A corollary of this reading of 4 Baruch is that there must have been a group of Jews in the aftermath of 70 that was working to bridge the gap between Roman overlord and Jewish subject. Josephus would fit the ticket. So, too, would Agrippa and other Jews who sought to put the disaster of 70 behind them and concentrate instead on the realities of a provincial Judea still under the control of the Romans. Agrippa’s loyalty to Rome had prompted him to take up arms against his co-religionists during the revolt. Josephus had served the Flavians well during the war and continued as a Flavian apologist vis-à-vis the Jews after the war. A particularly striking parallel to the situation as illustrated by 4 Baruch is the relationship that developed between Berenice and Titus. Two

49

It was certainly a number large enough to found the city of Samaria (8.8).

166

chapter five

Herodian women went so far as to marry or contemplate marriage with the Romans, a fact that gives extra poignancy to his use of the traditional intermarriage motif from Ezra-Nehemiah.50 Intermarriage with the Babylonians is a well-chosen symbol for Herodian and other Jewish cooperation with the Roman conquerors. It is this group of collaborationists that finds itself in 4 Baruch cut off from Jerusalem and forced to build Samaria. This group considers itself equally at home with Jews and with Romans. When Jeremiah calls upon the people to put away their Babylonian spouses, this group rejects the command and determines to take their wives with them to Jerusalem, which they call their city.51 When Jeremiah bars their entry into the Holy City, they respond by returning to Babylon, which they call their place.52 This group evidently viewed both Babylon and Jerusalem as its home. The author has invented a most apt symbol for the dual allegiances of the Jewish accommodationists of his own time, for Josephus and the Herodians were equally at home both in Rome and Jerusalem, not only metaphorically, in that they moved with equal comfort among both Jews and Romans, but even literally, maintaining residences in both Rome and Judea. Such divided loyalty cannot be maintained according to the author of 4 Baruch. The group that refuses to put away Babylonian wives and turns with nonchalance to retrace its steps back to Babylon finds itself barred from that city as well (8.7). Finding itself unexpectedly homeless, the group is forced to build Samaria, far from Jerusalem. The implication is clear and chilling. The author warns the accommodation party that it will find itself cut off from both Rome and Jerusalem. It cannot find a place among the Jews because of its attachment to foreign ways and ideas. It will be equally shunned by the Romans for desiring to keep its Jewish identity integral. In other words a compromised existence is ultimately untenable. The author, however, holds

50 Dio 66.15.3–4, 18.1; Suetonius Div. Tit. 7; Tacitus Hist. 2.2; Epit. de Caes. 10, record Titus’ affair with Berenice, Agrippa’s sister, and her attempts to marry the conqueror of Jerusalem. According to Josephus A.J. 20.141–4 another sister of Agrippa, Drusilla, married the procurator Felix. Acts 24.24 also reports this connection. 51 4 Bar. 8.4b: “And half of those who had married from among them did not wish to listen to Jeremiah but said to him: ‘We will never ever forsake our wives; rather let them join us in our return into our city.’ ” 52 4 Bar. 8.6: “And they said to themselves, ‘Let us arise and return to Babylon, to our place.’ ”

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

167

out hope to Jews in this unfortunate situation. If they repent they will be led by the angel of righteousness to their exalted place. For this group of Jews cut off equally from their own people and from their imperial masters, the city of Samaria is a fitting symbolic residence. It was founded by a king of Judea whose Jewish identity was itself sometimes questioned.53 Herod often sought favor with the Romans and neighboring Gentiles through means that estranged certain of his co-religionists.54 Sebaste was thus both a Jewish and a Gentile foundation. The founder was a Jewish king, but the inhabitants were mostly Gentiles. It was founded upon the ruins of a former capital of the kingdom of Israel, but it contained a temple dedicated to Roma and Augustus. For all the loyalty shown to Rome by the city’s inhabitants, the Sebastenoi were transferred by Vespasian after the Jewish War, as had been threatened by Claudius. Sebaste-Samaria lay somewhere between Rome and Jerusalem, but as the author makes clear, it was in a deserted place far from the latter.55 While the call for separation from Rome is clear, the end to which 4 Baruch tends requires investigation, in order to discover what the aim of this radical separation is. In keeping with the connections between 4 Baruch and Ezra-Nehemiah the separation from Babylon and Babylonian spouses is joined to the return from exile. The pairing of exile and return suits the sixth-century B.C. perfectly. The conquest of A.D. 70, however, did not feature an exile or captivity. How, then, would a late first-century audience understand the theme of return in 4 Baruch? The author of 4 Baruch also writes of an exilic community as though it is the only community. There is no remnant in Jerusalem apart from Baruch in his tomb and Abimelech in his vineyard. The community is with Jeremiah in Babylon. The reward for their putting away Babylonian spouses and rejecting the ways of the Babylonians will be the return to Jerusalem. The return to the Holy City comes as such an anti-climax in the text itself, however, that the reader suspects the author has in mind something other than an actual return or even an earthly restoration of Jerusalem.

53 Herod’s ancestry was Idumean, which prompted his opponent Antigonus to brand him a “half-Jew” (ἡμιιουδαίῳ: Josephus A.J. 14.403). 54 On this aspect of Herod’s policy see Schürer, 1.296–316. 55 4 Bar. 8.8: “And upon learning this, they turned back and came to a deserted place far from Jerusalem, and they built a city for themselves and called its name Samaria.”

168

chapter five

The return concerns the author from the beginning of the text. Before the Chaldeans have even entered Jerusalem the idea of return has already been planted. God orders (3.8) Jeremiah to bury the vessels of the temple service until the time of the gathering of the beloved. God instructs (3.11) Jeremiah to stay with the people in Babylon until he brings them back to the city. Baruch, in his short lament over the fall of Jerusalem (4.9), demonstrates his confidence in the people’s return. Thus even in the narrative of the conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, the author raises the expectation of return. The return itself, however, is no triumphal entry. The people with Jeremiah are led across the Jordan and approach the Holy City. There, those who have married Babylonians are denied entry by Jeremiah, Baruch, and Abimelech. The attention then shifts to the fortunes of those who have been turned away (8.6–9). When the returnees again appear, they are sacrificing with Jeremiah. It can only be assumed that they have even entered Jerusalem, as no mention is made of this event. We are faced with a seeming contradiction. On the one hand, the importance of the return is repeatedly underlined in the text; on the other hand, the return itself is accompanied by no fanfare and is only implied, at most, at the end of the text. Other details increase the tension between what the reader expects and what he finds. As was mentioned, the temple vessels are hidden in the ground until the coming together of the beloved people (3.8). This is surely an allusion to the restoration of the temple cult. It comes as a great surprise at the end of the book, therefore, when Jeremiah offers sacrifices, that there is no mention of the temple vessels or, indeed, of the temple itself !56 The conclusion that the author is not dealing with any actual return to Jerusalem or anticipating an earthly restoration of the temple is inescapable. The return has, consequently, been interpreted by scholars in symbolic terms. The return to Jerusalem thus foreshadows the Jews’ entrance into the heavenly Jerusalem.57 Pointers in the text, it is alleged, tend toward this conclusion. The middle span of the text,

56 4 Bar. 9.7, does record that Jeremiah, Baruch, and Abimelech were standing at the altar. This merely throws into relief the author’s disinterest with the temple and its cult, the restoration of which is otherwise unacknowledged. 57 This interpretation was first suggested in an influential article by Ch. Wolff, “Irdisches und himmlisches Jerusalem—Die Heilshoffnung in den Paralipomena Jeremiae,” ZNW 82 (1991): 147–58.

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

169

which recounts the tale of Abimelech, introduces the expectation of the heavenly Jerusalem. The figs, in particular, become a sign of this hope. The figs are still as fresh after Abimelech’s sixty-six year sleep as they were when he picked them (5.26–30). To reward the old man who revealed the truth of the exile to Abimelech, the latter gives him some figs with the wish that God may reveal to him the way to the heavenly Jerusalem (5.34). On the basis of the figs’ preservation, though not Abimelech’s, Baruch wishes to write to Jeremiah among the exiles (6.7–8). Through an angel God directs (6.13–15) Baruch to announce to Jeremiah by letter the time of the return. The hope for the heavenly Jerusalem is also expressed in Jeremiah’s prayer at the end of the text. Jeremiah mentions (9.5) the archangel Michael as the one who will lead the people into the city. This is, however, after they have already entered Jerusalem, and appears to point beyond this event. What this further goal will be is clarified by an earlier statement, when Jeremiah urged those who founded Samaria to repent, for if they did so, the angel of righteousness would lead them to their exalted place (8.9). Though Michael is not named here, the epithet “angel of righteousness” is given to him also in Jeremiah’s prayer in Jerusalem. Upon the combination of Abimelech’s words to the old man, the promise of an exalted place to the founders of Samaria, and the notion that Michael will in the future lead the righteous in, is constructed the case for the eschatological expectation of the heavenly Jerusalem found in 4 Baruch. The case, however, is not altogether very strong. The most compelling piece is Abimelech’s pious wish for the old man. The weakest link is the mention of Michael in Jeremiah’s prayer. The most that can be said is that eschatological speculation makes an appearance in 4 Baruch, as a theme, but by no means the dominant one. Even if Jeremiah’s prayer looks forward to Michael’s leading the righteous into the heavenly Jerusalem, it must be noted that the theme of return has already been accomplished, albeit without fanfare. The return is a basis upon which might be founded the eschatological hope for the heavenly Jerusalem; it should not be confounded with that hope. The return to Jerusalem is, indeed, symbolic, but the resolution of 4 Baruch is mundane. The author’s concern, right up to the walls of Jerusalem, is with those who will not separate themselves from the Babylonians. When the reader expects to find a description of the triumphant reentry into the Holy City, he is instead treated to an account of the tribulations of the recusant Jews, rejected at both Jerusalem and

170

chapter five

Babylon. The return is encompassed in the rejection of the things of Babylon. That is to say, the return is a matter of means rather than an end. Rejecting Babylon, understood symbolically, is the return from exile. Once the recalcitrant Jews have been sloughed off, the author avoids any mention of a real return to Jerusalem. Instead attention is turned to the ten days of sacrifice. The sacrifice has often been identified with the holy day of Yom Kippur based on the length of the festivities. It is precisely the festive nature of these sacrifices—the Jews are said (9.1) to be rejoicing—that raises questions about the identification. The festival that closes the book recalls a passage from Jeremiah’s letter to Baruch. In it, after noting the apostasy of the exiles, Jeremiah reminisces about the festivals in Jerusalem before the captivity. The memory is bittersweet and draws a groan and tears from the prophet (7.27). The attention given to the absence of religious festivals is not paralleled in 4 Baruch by any other suggestion of disrupted Jewish life. Of particular note, especially by comparison with 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, is the lack of concern for the Law. Nowhere in the text is the Law explicitly mentioned; nor is there any injunction to obey the commandments. God does command the Jews to listen to Jeremiah. The prophet’s message, however, is not obedience to the Law, but separation from the Babylonians.58 The author’s reticence in clarifying the sins

58 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 93 n. 57, notes that the term nomos is missing; he seems to suggest, however, that “holding to the commandments” and “hearing the voice” of God function as substitutes. It is true that the Jews are convicted of not keeping the Lord’s commandments (6.21). This passage provides the basis for their punishment. It is worth noting that the solution proposed requires only hearkening to the words of Jeremiah regarding separation from the Babylonians. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 98, 110, uncovers hidden references to the Law in the image of light (φώς) found twice in the text (5.34; 6.12). These few references do not, however, render obedience to the Law as central a theme as he claims, nor do they have anything to do with Jeremiah or the exiles, referring rather to Baruch and the figs. The dominance of the theme of separation and clarity with which it is expressed show that this theme was uppermost in the author’s mind. This can be illustrated (3.11) in the command given to Jeremiah to declare to the exiles the good news (εὐαγγελιζόμενος). Herzer, 4 Baruch, 70–1, reads this in conjunction with the statement that Jeremiah kept teaching (διδάσκων) the people in Babylon (7.32) to mean that Jeremiah is teaching the people to preserve the Law. The latter text, however, is concerned with keeping the people apart from the Babylonians. If the author is concerned with observance of the Law, he seems to have distilled it to the separation from the nations. Nowhere is obedience to the Law connected to the hope of return. Nowhere is Torah observance made a requirement for the audience of 4 Baruch. The marked contrast to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in this regard underscores this omission.

4 baruch and jewish cooperation with rome

171

that caused God to bring the Babylonians against Jerusalem coupled with the almost total silence regarding the Jews’ need to rededicate themselves to observance of the Law leaves the adoption of Babylonian ways and spouses as the only obstacle between the Jews and return. This then must be viewed as the central message of 4 Baruch. 5.4 Conclusion 4 Baruch is an optimistic text. The author does not torture himself with the wrenching question of theodicy, as does the author of 4 Ezra. Nor does the gloomy disposition of the author of 2 Baruch, with his dim view of Diaspora life and the sinfulness of the Jews, cloud his vision of the future. The catastrophe of 70 came upon the Jews for the usual reason: they sinned. This explanation is so deeply embedded in tradition that the author of 4 Baruch could hardly avoid it. He need not, however, agonize over it. There is no notion in the text that any deep-seated flaw, stretching back to Adam, has disfigured the relationship between God and his chosen people. From the beginning of the text the theme of punishment is muted. Even before Israel has gone into exile, its return is promised. The period of exile, sixty-six years, passes literally like a dream. The return is not contingent upon the Jews cleaning up their act and no strictures regarding Torah observance recall the Jews to their proper devotion to holiness and justice. A shadow does hang over this sunny picture: Rome. Even contemplating Jerusalem’s conqueror does not provoke our author to issue ringing denunciations of this wicked empire.59 Absent, too, is the consolation of a promised chastisement to befall Jerusalem’s destroyers. Rather the author is concerned with those Jews who persist even after the humiliation of the Holy City and the chosen people in their policy of accommodation and cooperation with the imperial masters. Separation is required. If the Jews are guilty of any sin it lies in their being too cozy with the Romans. The author advances his case through the reuse of the biblical traditions concerning the fall and restoration of Jerusalem in the sixth century B.C. He draws his cast of characters from the book of Jeremiah. He culls his themes and images from the books of Jeremiah, 2 Kings, 59 The Romans will not survive, according to the lament of Baruch (4 Bar. 4.8), but the theme is dropped as soon as it is picked up.

172

chapter five

2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah. Through a series of inversions he fits the rather different circumstances of the sixth century B.C. to the situation of the first century A.D. Jeremiah, the prophet of accommodation, becomes the voice of isolation. The nuptials between returnees and the people of the land, which so excited the ire of Ezra and Nehemiah, are celebrated in Babylon: the conquered marry the conquerors. The impetus to return, which in Ezra-Nehemiah was attributed to the magnanimity of Cyrus, is in 4 Baruch contingent upon the Jews rejecting the ways of Rome. The return to Jerusalem and the work required to reestablish Jewish life there dominate the traditional account of Ezra and Nehemiah. The author of 4 Baruch brings us right to the point of recovery of the Holy City, but does not dwell on the reentry. It seems that the return is accomplished merely by removing the elements that refuse to separate themselves from Babylon. The message is separation. Other considerations are excluded. It is in this way that the book is optimistic. The only thing that is keeping the Jews from true adherence to their traditions, represented by Jerusalem, is their entanglement with Rome. Once that problem is resolved, the return to a normal existence is accomplished. There is no need to wait for an eschatological solution. Rome does not have to be cast into the fire to free the Jews. Nor is hope fastened onto a Messiah, who must come to punish Rome before he may restore the Jews to their proper place. Not even a Cyrus is needed, for Babylon is still thriving even as the Jews reach the walls of Jerusalem. It is merely necessary for the Jews to resist Jeremiah’s call, echoing across the centuries and recently reiterated by Josephus, encouraging them to seek their welfare in the prosperity of the city where they have been sent into exile.

CHAPTER SIX

“THEN THE STRIFE OF WAR WILL COME TO THE WEST” SIBYLLINE ORACLE 4 AND THE CONFLICT OF EAST AND WEST Thucydides (1.3.3) famously observed that in Homer’s poems there were neither Greeks nor barbarians. It is in response to the Persian Wars (490 and 480–479 B.C.) that we begin to see Greek authors reflecting on the characteristic differences between Greeks and the barbarian “Other”.1 The Athenian tragic poet Aeschylus, himself a veteran of Salamis, explored the conflict of Greek and Persian in his Persae, performed in 472. Aeschylus (Pers. 747–8, 763–6) pinpoints the Persian king’s hubris in his desire to bring both Europe and Asia under his control. Not content with Asia, which the gods had assigned to him and his predecessors, Xerxes decides to yoke the Hellespont and cross over into forbidden Europe. The defeat at Salamis and the destruction of his forces are the result of attempting to join what nature had separated. Some decades later Herodotus followed Aeschylus’ interpretation in his history of the conflict between Greeks and Persians.2 In his famous proem Herodotus (1.1–5; cf. 7.20.2) traces the conflict between Europe and Asia back to its mythical beginnings with the rape of Io by Phoenician sailors and of Europa by Greek sailors. The back and forth continues until the Greeks overreact in Herodotus’ view and invade Asia touching off the Trojan War. According to Herodotus the Persians viewed their invasions of Greece as vengeance for the Trojan War. Though Herodotus likely did not mean for this supposed Persian

1 For a good introduction see E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989); P. Georges, Barbarian Asia and the Greek Experience: From the Archaic Period through the Age of Xenophon (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 76–114; T. Harrison, The Emptiness of Asia: Aeschylus’ Persians and the History of the Fifth Century (London: Duckworth, 2000); or more generally P. Cartledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). 2 Herodotus 8.109.3 has Themistocles say that it was Xerxes’ crossing of the Hellespont to unite Europe and Asia under the power of one man that invited divine displeasure and disaster upon his undertaking.

174

chapter six

interpretation to be taken entirely seriously, the notion of eternal conflict between Europe and Asia became a cornerstone of Greek reflection on nations and peoples of the East. In the fourth century the Athenian orator Isocrates elaborated an entire international policy on the notion.3 Meditating on the internecine strife that was tearing the Greeks apart, he began a campaign to encourage the Greek cities to join together for an invasion of the Persian Empire. Departing from Herodotus’ tale of rape and counterrape, Isocrates (Panath. 80) saw the Trojan War as a retaliation for Asian inroads into Europe made by the mythological figures Pelops, Danaus, and Cadmus. All the Greeks needed was a leader to unify them against Persia. After considering Athens and Sparta; the Spartan king Agesilaus; the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius I; and the Thessalian leader Alexander of Pherae, Isocrates finally settled on King Philip II of Macedon (Phil. 8–9). Isocrates died in 338 and Philip in 336 after sending an expeditionary force into Asia Minor. It fell to Philip’s heir to carry on. Alexander the Great invaded Asia in 334 and had defeated the last Persian king by 331. During the war Alexander made many symbolic gestures which advertised it as a second Trojan War.4 He also made it clear that the war was undertaken to punish Persia for its invasion of Greece.5 Nor did the theme die with the last of the Achaemenids, 3 For the notion see J. de Romilly, “Isocrates and Europe,” G&R 39 (1992): 2–13. See also L. Canfora, “L’idea di Asia in Isocrate e Demostene,” in The Birth of European Identity: The Europe-Asia Contrast in Greek Thought (ed. H. A. Khan; Nottingham Classical Literature Studies 2; Nottingham: University of Nottingham, 1994), 156–61; S. Usher, “Isocrates: Paideia, Kingship and the Barbarians,” in the same collection, pages 131–45. 4 Arrian Anab. 1.11.5 records that before crossing to Asia Alexander sacrificed at the shrine of Protesilaus, the first Achaean ashore; for an important incident involving Protesilaus’ shrine during Xerxes’ invasion see Herodotus 9.116. Arrian Anab. 1.11.6 says that Alexander’s fleet landed at the same harbor where the Achaeans had. In imitation of Protesilaus, Alexander was the first to leap into the surf from the ship according to Diodorus 17.17.2 and Justin Epit. 11.5.12. At Troy Alexander offered sacrifice to Athena Ilias and honored the graves of his ancestors Achilles and Ajax, for which see Arrian Anab. 1.11.7; Plutarch Alex. 15; Diodorus 17.17.3; Justin Epit. 11.5.12. While there he also offered an expiatory sacrifice at Priam’s grave for his murder by Alexander’s ancestor Neoptolemus; for this see Arrian Anab. 1.11.8. Strabo 13.27 (594) also records a benefaction made to the city of Ilium in honor of Andromache, an ancestress through his mother’s line. Finally, according to Arrian Anab. 1.11.7, he dedicated his armor in the Temple of Athena Ilias in exchange for some arms supposedly dating from the Trojan War, which he had carried before him in battle. 5 Justin Epit. 11.5.6 makes this explicit. Plutarch Alex. 16 recalls that after the Battle of the Granicus Alexander sent 300 captured shields to Athens, which had suf-

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 175 for the advent of Rome in the affairs of the Successor Kingdoms gave it new life. This was especially so during the war between Rome and the Seleucid king Antiochus III (192–188 B.C.). The idea to apply the theme to this conflict no doubt arose from the points of contention between Antiochus and the Romans. Led by a desire to reclaim all lands that had once belonged to his imperial predecessor Seleucus I, Antiochus began to encroach on the cities of Asia Minor. His ambition finally drew him across the Hellespont into Europe. This was too much for Rome in the years immediately following the defeat of the Macedonian king Philip V. The Romans issued an ultimatum telling Antiochus that he should stay out of Europe and confine his expansionistic policy to the continent of Asia. Antiochus ignored Rome’s demands and war followed, pitting the Roman republic against the successor to both Alexander the Great and the Persian Empire.6 Given the facts of this war it was natural that Greeks under the influence of Herodotus interpreted the clash of empires as a clash of continents. Two works made use of the Europe versus Asia theme in their understanding of the war. The first is a collection of oracles attributed to a certain Antisthenes the Peripatetic, which is preserved as the third book in Phlegon of Tralles’ Mirabilia (FGH 257 F36 III).7 The text contains a number of oracles threatening Rome with destruction fered greatly at Xerxes’ hands. Again according to Plutarch Alex. 34, after Gaugamela Alexander gave permission to rebuild Plataea, the site of the final battle on Greek soil against the Persian army. He also sent a portion of the spoils from the battle to Croton, the only Greek city in Italy that had aided the Greeks in their hour of need. Plutarch Alex. 37 also records that after capturing the royal capital of Persepolis Alexander took his seat on the throne of the Achaemenids, an act which caused one Greek in his retinue to weep. 6 Livy 34.58.1–3; Diodorus 28.15; cf. Livy 33.34.1–4, 39, 40; also Polybius 18.47.1–3, 50, 51. 7 For an English translation and commentary see W. Hansen, Phlegon of Tralles’ Book of Marvels (Exeter Studies in History; Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996), 32–7 (translation), 101–12 (introduction and commentary). For recent discussion see J.-D. Gauger, “Phlegon von Tralleis, mirab. III.,” Chiron 10 (1980): 225–61; idem, “Orakel und Brief: Zu zwei hellenistischen Formen geistiger Auseinandersetzung mit Rom,” in Rom und der griechische Ostens: Festschrift für Hatto H. Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Ch. Schubert, K. Brodersen, and U. Huttner; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1995), 54–7; J.-L. Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme: aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 271; Rome: École française de Rome, 1988), 238–64. Though most scholars date the text of Antisthenes to the time of the Antiochene War, Gauger has argued for dating it to the context of the Mithridatic Wars. For arguments against this position see Ferrary, Philhellénisme, 254–7.

176

chapter six

as a result of the victory over Antiochus. In one oracle (FGH 257 F36 III.9) it is foretold that the kings of Asia will gather together to bring desolation to Europe. Another warns (FGH 257 F36 III.7) that Asia and Europe will team up against the Romans, overrunning Italy to desolate the land and enslave its inhabitants. The second work to employ the theme is the Alexandra, a poem attributed to Lycophron, a tragedian and scholar in the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, but likely composed a century later.8 In this poem a messenger reports the prophetic utterances of Cassandra to her father, Priam. The prophetess’s words are mostly concerned with the sack of Troy, the wanderings of the Greeks after they leave Troy, and the establishment of her Roman kinsmen in Italy. Towards the end of the poem there is a section (Alex. 1283–1460) dealing with the centuries-old conflict between Europe and Asia, which will finally be settled by the Romans (1446–1450) when they make war on one of Alexander the Great’s successors. As a result of their victory the Romans will acquire rule over land and sea (1447–8; cf. 1228–30). These works demonstrate the Greek tendency to understand Roman wars in the East through the lens of the East-West conflict. Some centuries after the defeat of Antiochus the author of Sibylline Oracle 4 appealed to the same traditions in order to come to terms with the Roman victory over the Jews and the resulting loss of Jerusalem. 6.1

Summary of the Text

The Sibyl begins by introducing herself and claiming inspiration not from the false god Apollo, but from the great God, who has not been fashioned into an idol by the hands of men (Sib. Or. 4.4–7). A denunciation of idolatry and magnification of God’s greatness follow (8–17).

8 The best statement for the traditional date during the reign of Ptolemy II remains A. Momigliano, “Terra Marique,” JRS 32 (1942): 53–64. Doubts about the attribution to Lycophron surfaced already in Antiquity; Schol. to line 1226. Modern scholars who reject the traditional dating often place it in the context of the Second Macedonian War (200–197 B.C.). For a discussion of the main points of debate see A. Hurst, Lycophron, Alexandra (Paris: Belles lettres, 2008), xiii–xxv. G. Schade, Lykophrons ‘Odyssee’: Alexandra 648–819, (Texte und Kommentare 20; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999), 220–8, provides a useful chart of the solutions proposed by scholars from 1788 through 1991. For a recent study reexamining the whole question and proposing a date in the context of the Antiochene War (192–188 B.C.) see K. R. Jones, “Lycophron’s Alexandra, the Romans, and Antiochus III” (forthcoming).

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 177 The Sibyl declares that she will proclaim the things that are now and the things that will be from the first generation until the tenth (18–23). Before beginning her record of the events to befall the generations, she contrasts the behavior of the righteous and the wicked. The former love and bless the great God rejecting all temples, altars, and animal sacrifice and avoiding sinful behavior (24–34). The wicked are those who deride the just and attribute to them their own foul deeds (35–39). God will, however, bring judgement upon the world, upon the pious and the impious. The latter will be sent into the fire, while the pious will remain in a blessed state on the earth. These things are to happen in the tenth generation (40–47). The central part of the book contains a prophetic review of the history of the imperial powers that dominated the Near East. Each empire is assigned a period of rule reckoned by generations. The total number of generations is ten. The Sibyl begins with the Assyrians, who will rule over all mortals for six generations from the time of the Flood (49–53). Then the Medes will destroy them and reign for two generations. During this time there will be an eclipse, an earthquake, and a war with the Persians (54–64). The Persians will then possess the greatest power of the whole world, ruling for one prosperous generation. This period of felicity will, nevertheless, be marred by the disastrous advent of the Greeks in Asia. The Nile will hide for twenty years causing drought and famine in Egypt. A king (certainly a reference to Xerxes) will come against Europe from Asia, only to be received back as a fugitive from war. Strife will cause the ruin of many cities and the death of many men in Greece. Then as man enters into the tenth generation the yoke of slavery will come to Persia (65–87). The Macedonians will next boast of scepters. Various disasters— military, geological, seismic—will befall Thebes, Tyre, Samos, Delos, Babylon, Baris, Cyzicus, and Rhodes, and Bactria will be colonized (88–101). The might of Macedon is not destined to last, for war will come from Italy in the West. The world will bear the yoke of slavery for the benefit of Italy. Ruin will come to Corinth and Carthage. Earthquakes will lay Laodicea and Lycian Myra prostrate. Armenia will be enslaved (102–114). War will also come to Jerusalem from Italy. The temple of God will be sacked. A great king (certainly a reference to Nero) will flee from Italy across the Euphrates. After his departure civil war will break out. A Roman commander will burn the temple of Jerusalem and fill the land of the Jews with slaughter and ruin. These events will be

178

chapter six

accompanied by an earthquake on Cyprus. Then a torch from a crack in the earth will rain fire down on cities in Italy, a probable reference to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79. War will come to the West. The fugitive king (Nero) will return across the Euphrates at the head of a great army. Antioch and Cyprus will fall victim to war. The wealth that Rome had plundered will flow back into Asia. Famine will destroy the cities of Caria when the Maeander dries up (115–151). The remainder of the text concerns the eschaton. Impiety will be in the ascendant, while piety will be held in low regard, thus provoking God’s wrath and prompting him to destroy the race of men by fire. The Sibyl then exhorts men to put aside murders and outrages and to cleanse their bodies in rivers. Only through prayer and repentance will men placate God. If the Sibyl’s exhortation goes unheard, then fire will fill the world consuming it and all the cities, rivers, and seas that cover its face and reducing everything to ash, including the entire race of men. From the dust, however, God will refashion the frames of men for judgement. The wicked will be buried in Tartarus and gehenna. The pious will live on the earth in God’s favor (152–192). 6.2 Composition Date The date generally assigned to Sibylline Oracle 4 rests on two pieces of internal evidence. The first is the prophecy of a torch that will arise from a cleft in the earth in Italy to burn many cities and men (130– 134). This event is placed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. Since the author is generally careful in his chronology, it seems reasonable to take this as a reference to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79, nine years after the destruction of Jerusalem. This gives us a terminus post quem. The second item useful for dating the text is the theme of Nero’s return. Prior to a civil war and the coming of the Romans to burn the temple, the author foretells that a great king, under a curse for the murder of his mother, will flee from Italy (119–124). This royal matricide whose disappearance provokes a civil war can be none other than Nero.9 After the eruption of Vesuvius this fugitive king reappears in the East leading an army from over the Euphrates (137–139).

9

Suetonius Nero 49 tells of the mysterious circumstances of Nero’s suicide in 68.

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 179 The Sibyl’s account has none of the mythical elements of the Nero redivivus legend associated with later Jewish and Christian literature.10 The author seems rather to be drawing on the intermittent appearances of men falsely claiming to be Nero in the East during the decades following the emperor’s death. There are three recorded manifestations of False Neros in the eastern provinces. The first appeared in 69 almost immediately after Nero’s death.11 The imposter, apparently either a slave from Pontus or a freedman from Italy, threw Asia and Achaea into turmoil with his resemblance to the emperor in both looks and musical ability. He set sail for Syria with his followers, who included deserters from the Roman legions, but was forced by a storm to land on the island of Cythnus, where he attempted to add to his forces from fugitive slaves and legionaries passing through on return from leave. He was finally apprehended by a Roman governor en route to Asia. A second imposter appeared during the reign of Titus.12 The historical record preserves this imposter’s name as Terentius Maximus, an Asiatic who resembled Nero in appearance and voice. John of Antioch reports that this False Nero claimed to have escaped from the soldiers sent to kill him and had lived for years in hiding. Both Zonaras and John of Antioch tell us that he gained some followers in Asia and more as he advanced to the Euphrates. According to Zonaras, he sought refuge with Artabanus, a pretender to the Parthian throne.13 Angry at Titus, Artabanus planned to restore the self-proclaimed Nero to the imperial throne. Zonaras does not record the ultimate fate of Terentius,

10 For the ancient traditions concerning the return of Nero see A. E. Pappano, “The False Neros,” CJ 32 (1937): 385–92; M. P. Charlesworth, “Nero: Some Aspects,” JRS 40 (1950): 69–76; J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBLDS 13; Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature for the Pseudepigrapha Group, 1974), 80–85; L. Kreitzer, “Hadrian and the Nero Redivivus Myth,” ZNW 79 (1988): 92–115; J. W. van Henten, “Nero Redivivus Demolished: the Coherence of the Nero Traditions in the Sibylline Oracles,” JSP 21 (2000): 3–17; P. A. Gallivan, “The False Neros: A Reexamination,” Historia 22 (1973): 364–5; and now E. Champlin, Nero (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003), 9–35. 11 Tacitus Hist. 2.8–9; Cassius Dio Epit. 64.9.3 (Xiphilinus); Zonaras 11.15. 12 Zonaras 11.18; John of Antioch, fr. 104, quoted in E. Cary, Dio’s Roman History, 9 vols. (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914–1927), 8.300–301. 13 John of Antioch says that this False Nero expected a warm welcome from the Parthians in exchange for having returned Armenia to them during his reign.

180

chapter six

but John of Antioch says that once his true identity was discovered he perished.14 Details of the final recorded False Nero are rather more elusive. A passage at the end of Suetonius’ biography of Nero provides the only evidence. The biographer states (Nero 57.2) that about twenty years after the emperor’s death, when he himself was a young man, a person appeared claiming to be Nero. He found strong support in Parthia, but was finally surrendered, apparently to the Romans, with some reluctance. The vagueness of Suetonius’ language can suggest little more than a date during the reign of Domitian (ca. 88 or 89).15 None of the historical False Neros fits perfectly the description of the Sibylline Oracle 4, though Terentius Maximus, the False Nero during the reign of Titus, comes closest. It is possible that the Sibyl’s portrait is a composite of the various recorded, and perhaps even unknown additional, manifestations. It is worth noting that all three of the imposters arose in the East and enjoyed some provincial popularity, with one even winning over some soldiers. Another point, to which we shall return below, is the warm support which these imposters enjoyed among the Parthians.16 The combination of Vesuvius’ eruption and a report of Nero’s return that bears the closest resemblance to the False Nero under Titus suggests a composition date either during that emperor’s short reign or early in Domitian’s. As for the geographical provenance little can be said with certainty. While a fairly strong case has been made for the Egyptian origin of Sibylline Oracle 3 and 5 there is very little in Sibylline Oracle 4 that

14 John of Antioch, fr. 104, provides no reason to assume that it was the Romans who killed him. 15 Some scholars have suggested that Suetonius has inadvertently misdated the appearance of the False Nero during the reign of Titus. The details of Suetonius’ story differ on one important point, however, namely the surrender of the False Nero. There is nothing in John of Antioch’s account of the earlier imposter to suggest that he was ever handed over by the Parthians. For a review of the controversy and its participants see Gallivan, “False Neros,” 364–5, who champions the traditional number of three False Neros; C. Tuplin, “The False Neros of the First Century,” in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 5 (Collection Latomus 206; ed. C. Deroux; Brussels: Latomus, 1989), 382–3. The testimony of Tacitus Hist. 2.8 is decisive in accepting at least three manifestations. While introducing the False Nero of 69, Tacitus says that he will record the careers of other imposters later in a lost portion of his history. 16 Tacitus Hist. 1.2 even says that one False Nero nearly caused the Parthians to take up arms.

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 181 would suggest such an origin for it.17 The Sibyl hardly mentions Egypt at all, dwelling mostly on Judea and touching on places in Asia Minor, Greece, and Syria. There is one piece of internal evidence that has been pressed into service in order to provide a rather precise location for the writing of the text. At one point the Sibyl recommends (165–169) that men wash their bodies in perennial rivers while seeking pardon for their sins. God will accept this sign of repentance and refrain from destroying the world. This seems to be a reference to baptism and repentance, akin to the ministrations of St. John the Baptist, rather than daily ritual cleansing, familiar from sects such as the Essenes.18 Thus we might be dealing with an author who belongs to a Jewish baptizing sect. Some have suggested the Jordan River valley as a likely location for such a sect and by extension for the composition of Sibylline Oracle 4.19 Keeping in mind the fact that those who came to see the Baptist traveled from all over Judea and even as far afield as Galilee, such specificity of location lacks decisive evidence. All the same, a Judean provenance seems likely given the author’s preoccupation with the Roman assault on Jerusalem and his over all lack of interest in other regions. 6.3 Analysis In order to understand the message of Sibylline Oracle 4, we must first be certain of its textual integrity. Scholars have mostly assumed that the work, in its present form, is a composite text. A later redactor, working after A.D. 70, is supposed to have taken an earlier example

17 On the provenance of Sib. Or. 3 see Collins, Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 33, 47–55; Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 124–5. On the provenance of Sib. Or. 5 see Collins, Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 75–7; Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.390–1. 18 For a critique of the theory of an Essenic connection see V. Nikiprowetzky, “Reflexions sur Quelques Problemes du Quatrième et du Cinquième Livre des Oracles Sibyllins,” HUCA 43 (1972): 29–57; J. J. Collins, “The Place of the Fourth Sibyl in the Development of the Jewish Sibyllina,” JJS 25 (1974): 377–9; B. Noack, “Are the Essenes Referred to in the Sibylline Oracles?” ST 17 (1963): 90–102, though he places the text’s origin in Egypt, is willing to countenance some memory of the Essenes in Sib. Or. 4. 19 J. Thomas, Le Mouvement Baptiste en Palestine et Syrie, 150 av. J.-C.-300 ap. J.-C. (Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theologica vel in Facultate Iuris Canonici consequendum conscriptae, ser. 2, 28; Gembloux, 1935), 82; tentatively accepted by Collins, “The Place of the Fourth Sibyl,” 379.

182

chapter six

of Near Eastern political propaganda cast in the form of an oracle and added certain elements. The common view holds that the kernel of the text (49–101) is an anti-Seleucid tract that employs traditional themes to foretell a future reassertion of eastern dominance over the Macedonian interloper from the West.20 The oracle’s Roman material is assigned to the hand of a later, and somewhat clumsy, redactor (102–151). Finally, according to the theory, the lengthened oracle has been framed with the eschatological material at the end (152–192) and the polemic against idolatry at the beginning (1–48) of the text. A close reading of the text, however, suggests a greater degree of unity among the various parts. It is time to reexamine the arguments upon which the composite hypothesis is founded. It will be argued here that one author is responsible for the entire text and that the Roman material is integral to the author’s conception of the interplay between East and West, which he ultimately rejects in favor of an eschatological solution. This becomes clear both in the central political oracle and in the framing material. Thus, Sibylline Oracle 4 provides another example of the thoughtful rejection of traditional, albeit Greek, modes of understanding the relationship between Jews and Rome at work in the texts presently under discussion. First, the case for the composite hypothesis must be examined. According to this theory, the author of the central oracle has used two historical schemata in his interpretation of history. He has divided the history of the world after the Flood into ten generations. These ten generations have then been fitted into the framework of a succession of four world empires: Assyria, Media, Persia, Macedonia (Seleucid). Assyrian might lasted six generations (49–50) until it was replaced by the Medes, who held sway for two generations (54–55); the Persians (65–66) and Macedonians (86–87) followed with a generation each. Into this carefully combined presentation of history is inserted the Roman material, which has the feel of an afterthought. Not only does the inclusion of Rome upset the four kingdom pattern, but the intruder is not assigned a place in the ten-generational scheme, instead 20 D. Flusser, “The Four Empires in the Fourth Sibyl and in the Book of Daniel,” IOS 2 (1972): 150–3, sees between the composition of the anti-Seleucid oracle and the final text an intermediate stage in which the Roman material (lines 102–151) was added; Collins, “The Place of the Fourth Sibyl,” 373–5, would also add the eschatological predictions in lines 174–192. J. Geffcken, Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina, (TUGAL new ser. 8; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902), 18–19, also suggested an originally pagan oracle at the center of the text.

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 183 crowding Macedon in the final generation. Thus the argument goes for rejecting the integrity of the text. The periodization of world history using the succession of ages or kingdoms is well known from ancient literature with examples in Greek, Latin, Jewish, and Persian literature. The oldest known use of such a division of history is in Hesiod’s Works and Days (106–201), wherein the various ages of man are represented by types of metal, recording in symbolic terms the descent from the excellence of the golden age through the silver and bronze to the baseness of the current age of iron. Hesiod upsets the metallic succession by inserting the age of heroes between the ages of bronze and iron. The book of Daniel (2.31–45; cf. 7.1–14) provides another famous example combining the metallic descent with a succession of world empires. In this text the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a statue with a head of gold, silver torso, brazen legs, and feet of iron and iron mixed with clay. The prophet Daniel interprets the dream to signify the succession of world empires beginning with Nebuchadnezzar himself as ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. The symbolic meaning of the subsequent metals is not spelled out, but is usually assumed to represent the empires of the Medes, the Persians, and the Macedonians (Seleucids).21 A fifth kingdom destroys the final member of the sequence and lasts forever after. This is symbolized by a large stone that smashes the feet of iron and clay, destroys the statue, and grows into a mountain that fills the earth. This last kingdom is God’s. The succession of empires was a common Greek historiographical convention, also adopted by the Romans. Its roots lie in Herodotus’ Histories. In his first book Herodotus traces the rise of the Persian Empire. The story begins with the Assyrians (1.95.2), who controlled Asia for 520 years. The Medes revolted from them (1.95.2) and established themselves as the rulers of Asia east of the Halys River in Asia Minor. These in turn were overthrown by the Persians (1.130.1–2) under Cyrus. This same succession was followed by Ctesias of Cnidus,

21 Flusser, “The Four Empires,” 155; J. W. Swain, “The Theory of the Four Monarchies Opposition History under the Roman Empire,” CP 35 (1940): 1–2. There are problems with this interpretation, for the Median Empire was contemporaneous with the Neo-Babylonian. Both fell to Cyrus the Persian. For a discussion of the difficulty see Swain, 10. For discussion of various theories identifying the metals see Collins, Daniel, 166–70. For the use of the succession of empires in political propaganda see also D. Mendels, “The Five Empires: A Note on a Propagandistic Topos,” AJP 102 (1981): 330–7.

184

chapter six

court physician to the Persian king Artaxerxes II (404–358 B.C.), in his history of Persia (apud Diodorus 2.21.8, 28.8, 32.4–5, 34.6).22 Historical circumstances, of course, prevented either Herodotus or Ctesias from advancing past a succession of three kingdoms. The current of Greek historiography swept on into the Roman period. By then the succession theory had grown to embrace five world powers: Assyria, Media, Persia, Macedonia (Seleucid), and Rome. Polybius records (apud Appian Pun. 19.132) that P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, as he beheld the destruction of Carthage, wept and reflected upon the fates of the great empires: Assyria, Media, Persia, and Macedon. He was moved to quote Hector’s words to Andromache (Homer Il. 6.448–449) presaging the fall of sacred Troy. When Polybius asked him what consideration brought these words to his lips, Scipio confessed his fear that one day fate would bring such a change upon Rome. Thus as early as 146 B.C. the notion of the succession of world empires was sufficiently well known not only for the Greek historian to record it, but also for the philhellenic Roman commander to refer to it. Rome was seen as the fifth empire, fourth to succeed Assyria. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing in the Augustan age, also mentioned the sequence of five empires in his work on Roman antiquities. In his preface (Ant. Rom. 1.2) he magnifies the glory of Rome by comparing it favorably to the might of Assyria, Media, Persia, and Macedonia, none of which equaled Rome in either territorial extent or duration of rule. Appian, the Alexandrian historian writing during the age of the Antonines, also made use (Hist. Rom. praef. 9–10) of the succession of empires in order to highlight the superiority of Rome to those that had come before. The theme was also known in the Latin historiographical tradition. An otherwise unknown historian Aemilius Sura, who is mentioned in a gloss inserted into the history of Velleius Paterculus (1.6.6), recorded that after the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, and Macedonians had ruled over all the peoples, the supreme power passed to Rome in the days of the Macedonian kings Philip V and Antiochus III.23

22 In contrast to Daniel, Herodotus and Ctesias consider Babylon as less important and relegate it to a digression. Herodotus 1.178–187, 192–200, records many Babylonian customs and describes the city of Babylon itself; Ctesias apud Diodorus 2.29–31, is concerned mainly with Babylonian astronomy. 23 Swain, “Four Monarchies,” 2–3, argues that Sura’s chronology is based on Ctesias’ Persica and Eratosthenes’ Chronographiae, for he locates the foundation of Assyria

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 185 The Greek and Latin historiographical traditions thus give us many examples of a theory of imperial succession. Herodotus and Ctesias record the passing of power from Assyria to Media and then to Persia. Polybius, Aemilius Sura, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Appian present a series of five powers, adding Macedonia and Rome to the list of Herodotus.24 What we do not glimpse often in the wild, however, is that creature so often on view in the scholarly preserve, namely the four-empire schema.25 There are, to be sure, a fair number of examples of the succession of kingdoms as an interpretive tool, but there is little reason to set four as the normative number as it is so often assumed to be by scholars. The book of Daniel, of course, has enshrined the number four, but it is precisely Daniel’s interpretation of the four kingdoms beginning with Babylon that the author of Sibylline Oracle 4 has ignored.26 This should call into question the notion that our author has

1,995 years before the overthrow of Philip V and Antiochus III, perhaps using the battle of Magnesia in 190 B.C. as a starting point. Ctesias apud Diodorus 2.22.2, dated the foundation of Assyria one thousand years before the Trojan War, which according to Eratosthenes ended in 1184 B.C. Both sets of calculations arrive at the foundation of Assyrian power in 2184 B.C. Of course, Sura may have derived all of this from Ctesias, who may have included Eratosthenes’ date for the Trojan War in his discussion in the Persica. Swain has taken Sura’s silence on the Third Macedonian War and the Third Punic War to indicate a date between 189 and 171 for the historian. Mendels, “Five Empires,” 331–2, rejects this early date preferring one in the first century B.C. 24 Sib. Or. 3.158–161, records five kingdoms: 1) Egypt, 2) Persians, Medes, Ethiopians, and Assyrian Babylon, 3) Macedonians, 4) Egypt again, 5) Rome. Sib. Or. 8.4–11 offers a rather confused list. First comes Egypt; then (second) the Persians, Medes, Ethiopians, and Assyrian Babylon; then (third) Macedonia; finally (fifth!) the Italians. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.418 n. a, seems to take the kingdom of Babylon as distinguished from the Persian Empire, perhaps making it the third empire with Macedonia fourth. The Greek, however, does not seem to warrant such an interpretation: πρῶτα μὲν Αἰγύπτου βασιλήιον, εἶτα τὸ Περσῶν Μήδων Αἰθιόπων τε καὶ Ἀσσυρίης Βαβυλῶνος, εἶτα Μακηδονίης, τῦφον μέγαν αὐχησάσης, πέμπτον δ᾿ εἶτ᾿ Ἰταλῶν κλεινὴ βασιλεία ἄθεσμος ὑστάτιον πᾶσιν δείξει κακὰ πολλὰ βροτοῖσιν καὶ πάσης γαίης ἀνδρῶν μόχθους δαπανήσει. 25

It is worth pointing out that Hesiod, despite his assigning four ages of man to symbolic metals, nevertheless actually divides the race of men into five ages. 26 That four has been taken as the normative number of kingdoms derives from Daniel. So much is clear from the centrality of the biblical text to modern treatments of the question; see Swain, “Four Monarchies,” 1–2, 9–10, 16; Flusser, “Four Empires,” 148, 155–9. Some of the texts dealt with in the present work have adopted this four kingdom schema from Daniel, with Rome as the fourth kingdom; 4 Ezra 12.11–12; 2 Bar. 39.3–7. Josephus A.J. 10.209–210, 276–277, repeats Daniel’s statement that the golden head is Nebuchadnezzar, but he explains the feet of iron as a reference to Rome. He leaves the stone that smashes the feet unexplained, suggesting that the interested reader should consult the book of Daniel. It is worth noting, however, that even the book of Daniel envisions a five-kingdom schema, the last being the kingdom of God.

186

chapter six

taken up a text dealing with the supposedly canonical four-kingdom schema and then added Rome. There is nothing in Sibylline Oracle 4 that suggests the author was concerned with a succession of four empires. He does not number the kingdoms. He does not make reference to Daniel. In short, there is no reason that interpreters of the text should continue to force the Sibyl’s account of five kingdoms into the Procrustean theory of four monarchies, itself suspect, and then relying on this hermeneutical tool to declare that the Roman material is an addition. The only model according to which the author of Sibylline Oracle 4 divides world history is the sequence of ten generations. The author’s employment of this second scheme explicitly demonstrates the integrity of the Roman material to the whole presentation of world history, rather than its later addition, as will now be argued. The division of history into ten generations, while it does not have quite as illustrious a pedigree as the theory of imperial succession, was used by ancient authors as a tool to carve world history into manageable and understandable pieces.27 The fifth-century Virgilian commentator Servius reports that the Cumaean Sibyl divided history into ten periods, over the tenth and last of which the Sun would reign.28 The “Apocalypse of Weeks”, contained in the apocalypse preserved in Ethiopic and known as 1 Enoch, also divides history into ten periods, each one a week long.29 Sibylline Oracle 4 (20, 47–48) explicitly uses this schema to divide history, as a tally of the generations allotted to each empire confirms. The crowding of the Macedonian and Roman Empires into the tenth generation, when taken together with the supposed schema of four empires, has been advanced as a reason for assigning the Roman material to a later redactor of an earlier Hellenistic oracle.30 The appeal to

27

Flusser, “Four Empires,” 162–4, 171 (chart). G. Thilo and H. Hagen, eds. Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica Commentarii 3 vols. (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1881–1900), 3.1.44–45, commenting on the Fourth Eclogue; quoted by Flusser, “Four Empires,” 162 n. 59. 29 1 En. 93.1–10 and 91.12–17 are commonly read together as a unit that has been broken up in the extant text of the apocalypse; see R. H. Charles, “I Enoch,” APOT 2.262–5. 30 That both the Macedonians and the Romans occupy the tenth generation is not explicitly stated by the author. It follows, however, from the Sibyl’s claim to narrate the things to come from the first generation to the tenth. In the tenth generation, after the advent of Rome, the world will be judged (4.40–48). The tenth generation will also 28

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 187 the four kingdom theory has been shown to be inadequate. A better understanding of the meaning of the two European empires will show that, far from arguing for the subsequent inclusion of the Roman material, the grouping of Rome together with Macedonia in the tenth generation actually underscores the integral place of Rome in the text. The structure of the Roman material features strong parallels to that of the Sibyl’s prophecy regarding Macedonia, Persia, and Greece.31 The Macedonians and Romans are spoken of in terms far different from the various Oriental monarchies that precede them. Assyria is mentioned in colorless terms devoid of any judgement. Its power is merely stated to last six generations and to extend over all men (49–50). The Medes are described as exulting in thrones (54), presumably a reference to pride. Otherwise there is little criticism and no praise. Things change with the Persian Empire. One the one hand the Persians enjoy power and prosperity, but on the other they suffer through many evils, which are all ascribed to the Greeks. This negative assessment of the Greeks, the first European nation to intrude into the Sibyl’s historical review, continues on through the European Macedonians and Romans, who are treated in wholly negative terms. At the approach of the tenth generation and the coming of Macedon, the yoke of slavery and terror would fall upon the Persians (86–87). The power of Rome would also bring slavery (102–104, cf. 114). The reign of each empire will begin with the capture of a great city: Macedon will destroy Thebes (89) and Rome will destroy Corinth (105).32 Of a different order, but significant as proof of the integrity of the Roman material is the strong parallel between Rome and Persia in the persons of the two unnamed, but identifiable, kings of Rome and Persia. In the section on Persia there is a prophecy of a king who will come from Asia wielding a great spear and accompanied by ships without number. He will walk over the sea and cut through a

see the enslavement of the Persians by the Macedonians; 4.86–87. Thus into the tenth generation are crowded the domination of the Macedonians, their defeat by Rome, Roman domination, and the judgement. 31 It should be noted that a fair amount of the prophecy concerning the Persian period is actually taken up with affairs in Greece: vv. 67–71 and 83–85 or about onethird of the total lines. 32 These details, not terribly important in themselves, serve to underscore the parallelism between Rome and Macedon by providing a similar oppressive beginning to both.

188

chapter six

mountain. Despite his strength, however, he will return to Asia as a fugitive from war.33 This is a reference to the Persian king Xerxes who led an expedition against Greece in 480 B.C. Herodotus claimed (7.20–21) that Xerxes’ army was the largest that had ever been marshaled, indeed, it dwarfed all previous armies combined and was drawn from all the nations of Asia. The army, according to Herodotus (7.60–100), numbered 1,700,000, while the fleet comprised 3,000 fighting and transport ships. Xerxes and his army marched across the Hellespont on a pontoon bridge constructed atop hundreds of triremes and penteconters moored in the strait (Hdt. 7.33–37, 54–56). This feat surely gave rise to the Sibyl’s words that he walked upon the deep. That the king will cut through a mountain refers to the digging of the canal through Mount Athos recorded by Herodotus (7.22–25; cf. 6.44) and taken as a sign of Xerxes’ desire for ostentatious display. Despite all of this, Xerxes was compelled to withdraw from Greece after the Persian defeat at Salamis, though his commander Mardonius stayed on until the defeat at Plataea. Xerxes’ retreat could with justice be described as the flight of a fugitive. For want of food the soldiers were forced to eat grass and treebark. They were subjected to plague and dysentery. When they arrived at the Hellespont they found that the bridges had been destroyed by storms. Only a remnant of the army reached Sardis with Xerxes (Hdt. 8.113–120). Herodotus’ picture of the Great King is hardly flattering. Nor is that in Sibylline Oracle 4, which echoes Herodotus’ description of Xerxes in striking contrast to the generally positive assessment of Persian power and prosperity. The Sibyl’s picture of Nero (119–124, 137–139) is similar in many details to that of Xerxes. He will come as a fugitive from the West into Asia (ἀπ᾿ Ἰταλίης βασιλεὺς μέγας οἷά τε δράστης φεύξετ᾿ ἄφαντος ἄπυστος). His flight will take him across the Euphrates (ὑπὲρ πόρον Εὐφρήταο) and into the Parthian land (ὑπὲρ Παρθηίδα γαῖαν). Just as

33 Sib. Or. 4.76–79: “A king will come from Asia, brandishing a great spear, with countless ships (ἥξει δ᾿ ἐξ Ἀσίης βασιλεὺς μέγα ἔγχος ἀείρας νηυσὶν ἀμετρήτοισιν). He will walk the watery paths of the deep, and will cut through a lofty mountain as he sails. Him will wretched Asia receive as a fugitive from war (ὃν φυγάδ᾿ ἐκ πολὲμου δειλὴ ὑποδέξεται Ἀσίς)” (trans. Collins, OTP, is used unless otherwise noted). It is interesting to note that Josephus B.J. 2.358 offers a similar description of Xerxes in Agippa’s speech to the people of Jerusalem counseling them to avoid war with Rome. There, too, Agrippa calls attention to Xerxes’ hubris vis-à-vis the Hellespont and Mount Athos and likens him in flight to a fugitive slave (δραπέτην).

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 189 Xerxes’ flight from Greece is followed by the outbreak of internecine strife among the Greek cities (83–85), a reference to the Peloponnesian War, so, too, does Nero’s flight precipitate the civil war of A.D. 69 (124), the Year of the Four Emperors. After Nero’s flight, war will come into the West and the Roman fugitive, wielding a great spear, will cross the Euphrates with many thousands (ἐς δὲ δύσιν τότε νεῖκος ἐγειρομένου πολέμοιο ἥξει καὶ Ῥώμης ὁ φυγάς, μέγα ἔγχος ἀείρας, Εὐφρήτην διαβὰς πολλαῖς ἅμα μυριάδεσσιν). Thus Nero is Xerxes in reverse, as it were. He begins as a fugitive from the West and ends as an invader from the East, whereas Xerxes began as an invader from the East and ended as a fugitive from the West. The verbal parallels, especially the detail about the great spear, are also striking. The argument against viewing the Roman material as tacked on to an earlier anti-Seleucid oracle does not come, of course, from the similarity of the Nero material to that of Xerxes. The parallels in language and theme could just as easily be the work of a redactor patterning his presentation of Nero on that of Xerxes. What is more striking is the existence of the Xerxes material itself. If the oracle ended with the Seleucids, there would be no reason to have made mention of Xerxes. It is not clear, at all, what purpose Xerxes would have served. The inclusion of Xerxes only makes sense in light of the comparison with Nero. Xerxes stands as a precursor for Nero. He finds his fulfillment in Nero. Thus the Roman material is indispensable for understanding the Achaemenid material and must, therefore, be original. Structurally the Roman material is tied in closely with the Persian and Macedonian portions of the political oracle that stands at the center Sibylline Oracle 4. The structure, however, provides merely the foundation upon which is erected a carefully crafted thematic unity. The Sibyl’s predictions regarding Persia, Macedonia, and Rome play upon a common topos from the Greek literary and historiographical tradition: the conflict of East and West.34 The author departs from the traditional use of this theme as he looks at the events of his own time from his own Jewish vantage point. In the political oracle the author blunts the radical separation of East and West. In the framing material at the beginning and end of Sibylline Oracle 4 he further

34 On the use of this theme in the Sibylline Oracles see E. Kocsis, “Ost-West Gegensatz in den jüdischen Sibyllinen,” NovT 5 (1962): 105–110.

190

chapter six

undermines this common interpretation of history, offering in the process another view. As noted above, the author has mixed feelings about the Persian period. On the one hand he calls the Persian Empire the strongest the world will know and says that the Persians are destined to enjoy a prosperous rule. After this promise of felicity the prediction in the next line is jarring: During the generation of Persia’s rule, all evils that men pray to be spared will come to pass (65–67). The catalogue of evils (67–71) includes battles, murders, dissensions, exiles, the ruin of towers and the overthrow of cities. It is true that for many of these catastrophes Persia is not to blame. Instead the blame rests with the Greeks, who will sail to the Hellespont and bring doom to Phrygia and Asia. All these evils are chronologically connected to their advent.35 Even those that are not causally related to the Greek invasion of Asia—a famine in Egypt, the eruption of Mount Etna in Sicily, and the fall of Croton (72–75, 80–82)—are nevertheless chronologically related. Thus, according to the Sibyl, the crossing of the Greeks into Asia brings not only political strife, but even natural disasters. The portrait of Persia is also marred by the unprepossessing figure of its king and champion against the Greek invaders, Xerxes (76–79). The author’s recollection of the Greek invasion of Asia recorded here has been interpreted plausibly to refer to Athenian assistance to the Greek cities of Asia Minor during the Ionian Revolt (499–494 B.C.).36 The Greeks did indeed wreak havoc culminating in the sack of the Persian capital of Asia Minor at Sardis.37 It was this intrusion into Persian affairs that provoked the anger of the Persian king Darius I against Athens, while the burning of the Temple of Cybele in Sardis prompted Xerxes’ revenge burning of temples in Athens.38 If the Sibyl is referring to the Ionian Revolt, as seems probable, then there is a slight telescoping of events, in which Darius’ unsuccessful invasion of Greece is passed over in favor of Xerxes’ unsuccessful, but more magnificent, invasion.

35 The prominence of Greece at the beginning of line 75: Ἑλλὰς ὅταν μεγάλαυχος, underlines the central part which the Greeks play in the troubles that plague the Persian period. 36 Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.386 n. j. 37 For the Ionian Revolt see Herodotus 5.28–54, 97–126; 6.1–32; burning of Sardis: 5.100–102. 38 Burning of Temple of Cybele: Herodotus 5.102; Darius vows to punish Athens: 5.105–106.

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 191 Despite the many troubles predicted by the Sibyl for the generation under Persian rule, the advent of Macedon in the tenth generation causes Persia’s fortunes to plummet further still. For the tenth generation of men will see the yoke of servitude come upon the Persians. Nor is the period of Macedonian ascendancy presented in terms of a stark contrast between East and West. The siege of Tyre and the destruction of its inhabitants is perpetrated by the Carians, rather than the Macedonians (90). Bactria is colonized by the Macedonians and the people of Bactria and Susa flee to Greece (95–96). What exactly is meant by this transfer of populations is unclear. It does have the effect, however, of rendering permeable the conceptual opposition of East and West, for Macedonians will live far in the East and Bactrians and Persians will dwell in Greece. The image is of cultural amalgamation rather than strict separation. The stage is set for the final empire, that of Rome. Although Rome puts an end to Macedonian power, the author is especially hostile to it as a result of the assaults on Jerusalem. It is also through a Roman, however, that the East will finally avenge itself on the West for the many outrages endured since the Persian period. The Sibyl’s promise of an Asian victory won under the command of the imperial fugitive Nero recalls the Roman championing of Asia in the Alexandra. The Romans are generally indicted for enslaving the world, but more specifically the author trains his focus on the their ill-treatment of the Jews. Twice the author records Roman aggression against the temple of God in Jerusalem. It is generally assumed that both refer to the Roman capture in 70.39 A case, however, can be made for the two references recording two different Roman assaults on the temple: Pompey’s and Titus’. The first consideration in favor of this is the author’s careful attention to chronology. In his treatment of Greek history during the Persian period he traces the events in their proper order: the Ionian Revolt, Xerxes’ invasion and retreat, and the Peloponnesian War. In his record of Alexander’s reign and conquests he also follows the proper sequence: Thebes, Tyre, Babylon, Bactria. His account of Rome begins with the fall of Corinth and Carthage (both in 146 B.C.). Then, slavery comes to Armenia. Why would he depart

39 See H. C. O. Lanchester, “The Sibylline Oracles,” APOT 2.395 nn. to vv. 115–128, 117, 118; Collins, OTP 1.387 n. w.

192

chapter six

from his usual careful attention to chronology when he came to treat Rome’s activities in Jerusalem?40 Putting aside for the moment the statement under discussion, namely that the Italian war comes upon Jerusalem (115–118), the rest of the section on Rome proceeds in the correct order: the disappearance of Nero, civil war, the burning of the temple, the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, and the return of Nero (ca. A.D. 80 or later). It is better to understand the first item placed in its proper chronological position as a reference to Pompey’s assault on Jerusalem. The enslavement of Armenia would then be Pompey’s humbling of Tigranes, who, though confirmed in his kingdom, nevertheless saw his territory reduced and had to pay a hefty indemnity. Pompey’s triumph included Armenia.41 Pompey took possession of Jerusalem as a result of the war between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. The Temple Mount was held by those resisting Pompey’s attempt to capture the city. After besieging the temple for three months, Pompey took it and a massacre followed. Though he broke into the holy of holies, he did not plunder the temple according to Josephus (B.J. 1.152–155; A.J. 14.71–73). Sibylline Oracle 4 recalls the incident as a storm of war that will come upon Jerusalem from Italy, which it will result in the sack of the temple. The author says that this will happen when the Jews trust in folly, cast off piety, and commit murders in front of the temple.42 40 Though Nero also had dealings with Armenia, it is hard to imagine that his settlement with Tiridates could be construed as enslaving Armenia. 41 For the humbling of Tigranes, who laid his diadem at Pompey’s feet before it was given back to him, see Velleius Paterculus 2.37.3; Valerius Maximus 5.1.9; Plutarch Pomp. 33; Plutarch Comp. Cim. Luc. 3; Cassius Dio 36.52.2; Livy Per. 101; Florus 1.40.27; Eutropius 6.13; Orosius 6.4.8. For the indemnity of 6000 talents, see Cicero Sest. 58; Strabo 11.14.10; Velleius Paterculus 2.37.4; Plutarch Pomp. 33; Cassius Dio 36.53.2; Appian Mithr. 104; Eutropius 6.13. For Pompey’s triumph, see Pliny Nat. 7.98. Tigranes became a friend and ally of the Roman people. 42 Sib. Or. 4.115–118: “An evil storm of war will also come upon Jerusalem from Italy (ἥξει καὶ Σολύμοισι κακὴ πολέμοιο θύελλα Ἰταλόθεν), and it will sack the great temple of God, whenever they put their trust in folly and cast of piety and commit repulsive murders in front of the temple (ἡνίκ᾿ ἂν ἀφροσύνῃσι πεποιθότες εὐσεβίην μέν ῥίψωσιν στυγεροὺς δὲ φόνους τελέωσι πρὸ νηοῦ)”. Scholarly opinion differs on the identity of those trusting in folly and committing murders in front of the temple. Nikiprowetzky, “Reflexions,” 68; and Collins, “Place of the Fourth Sibyl,” 367 n. 15, understand the charge to be leveled against the Romans. Geffcken, Oracula Sibyllina, 97 n. to v. 117, assigns responsibility to the Zealots. It seems more likely, however, that those responsible are the Jews during the civil war that occasioned Pompey’s intervention in Judean affairs. It is generally assumed that the author uses Σολύμοισι to refer to the city of Jerusalem (Σόλυμα); see the translations of Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.387; Lanchester, “The Sibylline Oracles,” APOT 2.395; see also A.-M. Denis,

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 193 This would admirably fit the circumstances of the civil war between the brothers Aristobulus and Hyrcanus. Josephus recounts the siege of Aristobulus’ supporters in the temple by Hyrcanus. During the siege Josephus calls attention to two particularly memorable acts: the stoning of Onias and the refusal of Hyrcanus’ army to sell sacrificial animals to the priests in the temple with Aristobulus.43 Indeed, it was the murder of Onias, a man dear to God, and the impiety regarding the sacrificial animals that led to the divine retribution of a famine falling upon the land. One difficulty remains in identifying the first assault on the temple in Sibylline Oracle 4 with Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem, but it is not insurmountable. Josephus (A.J. 14.71–73; B.J. 1.152–153) says emphatically that Pompey did not plunder the temple, while the Sibyl (4.115– 116) says that the Italians did sack it.44 Despite Josephus’ certainty in Concordance grecque des Pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament (Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1987), 703. This is a rare form of the city’s name, but it finds use in classical authors: Valerius Flaccus Argonautica 1.13; Statius Silvae 5.2.138; Martial 7.55.7; 11.94.5; Pausanias 8.16.5; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 5.27; 6.29. It is not, however, used in Jewish or Christian authors apart from Sib. Or. 4. Two considerations suggest that it is better to read the term here as referring to the Jews or the people of Jerusalem, rather than to the city itself. This would then allow us to read the Jews as the ones who cast aside piety and commit murders before the temple. Homer mentions a people called the Σόλυμοι three times: Il. 6.184, 204; Od. 5.283. These are apparently a people who dwelled in Lycia, according to Herodotus 1.173, and Strabo 1.21.10. Tacitus Hist. 5.2 claimed the Solymi as the founders of Jerusalem (Hierosolyma) and saw in them the origins of the Jewish people. It should cause little surprise that Sib. Or. 4 has adopted this Homeric—and Herodotean—usage given the epic and Homeric coloring of the entire poem. A second consideration rests on the author’s syntax. Greek usage normally requires a preposition after verbs of motion when indicating motion towards. When a verb of motion is followed by the dative, indicating motion towards, the noun in the dative is usually a person; see H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. ed. G. M. Messing; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), §§ 1475 (Dative of Interest), 1485 (Dative of Advantage), 1532 (Locative Dative; Dative of Place). Comparisons within the text of Sib. Or. 4 show that the author’s practice conforms to this standard; 4.101: ἥξει καὶ Ῥοδίοις κακόν (people—dative); 125: εἰς Συρίην δ᾿ ἥξει Ῥώμης πρόμος (place—preposition followed by accusative); 145: ἥξει δ᾿ εἰς Ἀσίην πλοῦτος (place—preposition followed by accusative). It seems best, therefore, to read Σολύμοισι as referring to the people called by Homer the Solymi; here, of course, the author has taken them for the Jews. 43 Josephus, A.J. 14.19–28. The story of the sacrificial animals was sufficiently well known to find inclusion in the rabbinic literature; b. Soṭah. 496; b. Menaḥ. 646; b. B. Qam. 82b. When Pompey captured the temple, many of the defenders, including the priests who were in the middle of conducting sacrifices, were killed by their co-religionists; Josephus A.J. 14.70; B.J. 1.150. It is to the impiety of the Jews accompanying the stasis between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus that Josephus B.J. 5.395–397 attributes the subjection of his people to Rome. 44 Pompey’s restraint finds compelling corroboration in Cicero Flac. 67.

194

chapter six

the matter, another tradition is preserved by Cassius Dio (37.16.4), who claims that Pompey did plunder the temple. The so-called Psalms of Solomon, which scholars assign to the mid-first century B.C., also seem to suggest (2.2, 3, 19, 24) that the Romans pillaged the temple on this occasion. It is likely that the author of Sibylline Oracle 4 also followed this tradition.45 Thus it seems reasonable to take the first notice of Roman aggression against Jerusalem and its temple to be that perpetrated by Pompey.46 Nero departs from Italy after this, but before the second attack on the temple, during which it is destroyed by Titus (119–127). Vengeance, however, will come upon Rome in two forms. First, there will be a volcanic eruption in Italy that will burn cities and kill many men (130–134), a clear reference to the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in A.D. 79. According to the Sibyl (135–136), this punishment does not fall upon Italy as a result of the destruction of Jerusalem but because God is stirred to wrath against the Romans for killing the innocent tribe of the pious. Vengeance will also come in the form of a war, which will arise in the East and break upon the West (137–139).

45

The author’s choice of vocabulary is interesting. The verb (ἐξαλαπάζειν) used is rarely found in authors of the classical period, but is a favorite of Homer. It is used twelve times in the Iliad and Odyssey. Nine times it refers to the sack of Troy by the Achaeans: Il. 1.129; 4.33; 8.241, 288; 20.30; Od. 3.85; 8.495. Il. 5.642; once is refers to Heracles’ sack of the city: 14.251. The Odyssey (4.174–176) preserves another suggestive use. Menelaus tells Telemachus that had Odysseus returned to Sparta with him, he would have emptied one of his towns (μίαν πόλιν ἐξαλαπάξας) of its people so that Odysseus could settle it with his own people transplanted from Ithaca. Here the verb clearly means to depopulate. The author of Sib. Or. 4, reflecting on the slaughter that accompanied the taking of the temple, might have chosen that Homeric term most closely associated with the taking of Troy, memorable also for its scenes of carnage. The plundering of wealth may not have been uppermost in his mind when selecting the word. 46 The reference to Pompey’s assault on Jerusalem in Sib. Or. 4 finds a parallel in Josephus. In the Bellum (5.395–7) Josephus views Pompey’s meddling in Jewish affairs as the central incident that brought the Jews under Roman control. All the same, reading the Sibyl’s words as a reference to Pompey’s eastern campaign in the 60s B.C. leaves a large chronological gap between the sack of the temple by Pompey and the flight of Nero (118–119). This is not an insurmountable problem as the nature of the oracle leads the author often to move swiftly from event to event. For example the narrative jumps from the sack of Corinth and Carthage in 146 B.C. to Pompey’s eastern campaigns in the first century. Before that the author moves from Alexander’s conquests to the establishment of Roman power in the East with the destruction of Macedonian power. In the Median and Persian periods the Persian Wars follow immediately on Cyrus’ defeat of the Medes.

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 195 The leader of the Eastern forces will be that same fugitive who fled from the West before the fall of Jerusalem, namely Nero. In terms resembling the description of Xerxes, the fugitive will brandish a great spear and will cross the water, in this case the Euphrates, at the head of tens of thousands. Far from being a Nero redivivus, for the emperor is not dead in the Sibyl’s view, rather the figure appears as a Xerxes redux. As Xerxes invaded Greece in answer to the intrusion of the Greeks into Asian affairs, so now Nero will lead an eastern army against the Romans in answer to their assault on the Jews. Xerxes’ attempt ended in failure and he, too, returned as a fugitive to the East. Following his return power was transferred from the Persians to the Macedonians and Romans. The war that is now launched will meet with success according to the prophecy of the Sibyl. In it, Asia will not only recover the wealth that has been lost to Rome, but will gain more besides (145–148; cf. Sib. Or. 3.350–353). Nor does the victory of East over West offer a final resolution to the problems faced by the Jews. It is only an eschatological solution that will fully satisfy the author. This fact renders the political solution favored by the eastern victory of secondary importance. Before turning to the eschatological solution, we must first explore the author’s decision to appeal to the Greek tradition of the conflict of East and West. What features of the late first-century context invited the author’s reflections? What is the author’s message in this context? It would seem that our Jewish author composed Sibylline Oracle 4 to oppose a tendency among his co-religionists who sought a political solution to their humiliation by Rome. The value of the Greek historiographical convention of a struggle between East and West for propaganda purposes is illustrated by its employment in support of Antiochus III and the Seleucids as they faced the increasing involvement of Rome in eastern affairs. This finds expression in Antisthenes’ account of prophecies in the wake of the Antiochene War promising divine chastisement on Rome and Italy. It is entirely likely that Jews also picked up this theme and refashioned it to fit their own hopes for revenge on the imperial aggressor from the West that had recently destroyed their Holy City and crushed the revolt stirred up by previous oppression. Persia would be an eminently suitable symbolic figure on which to fasten hope. It was Persia, after all, that had liberated the Jews from Babylon. Nor is the use of Persia entirely symbolic, for memories of Persia combined with the reports of Nero returning from

196

chapter six

the East perhaps reflect the hopes of certain Jews that Parthia might serve as a possible candidate for the position of liberator as had happened once before in Judean history. In 40 B.C. the Parthian commander Pacorus had taken advantage of Mark Antony’s absence from the East to invade Syria. The Parthians penetrated into Phoenicia and Judea where they deposed the high priest Hyrcanus II, who enjoyed Roman support, in favor of Antigonus. The Parthians were joined in this campaign by a Roman defector, Q. Labienus, who had been sent to Parthia by Caesar’s assassins to get support for the war against Antony and Octavian. He had been stranded there after the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi. During the invasion of 40 B.C. he commanded a detachment of troops that penetrated into Asia Minor.47 More recently during the reign of Nero hostilities had broken out between Rome and Parthia over the Armenian throne when the king of Parthia, Vologaeses, had made his brother, Tiridates, king of Armenia. The war that followed saw victories and defeats for both sides and was finally settled diplomatically with Nero confirming Tiridates after a show of obeisance on the part of the king.48 Not only had the Parthians achieved their aim of establishing an Arsacid on the Armenian throne, but Tiridates’ journey to Rome from the Euphrates was a magnificent display of Parthia power, paid for by Rome. The journey took nine months. Tiridates was escorted by three thousand Parthian horsemen. Cassius Dio likens the journey to a triumphal procession. In the cities along the way, all decorated to welcome the distinguished visitor, the populace turned out to celebrate the would be king of Armenia. Though Nero put on a fine show for his Roman audience, with Tiridates prostrating himself and addressing Nero as his god before receiving the diadem, there is little doubt that the impression left in the East was one of Parthian triumphalism. Even the period of peace begun with Nero’s settlement seems to have witnessed disturbances on the Euphrates frontier, though the evidence is meager.49 In 72, the governor of Syria, L. Caesennius Paetus, 47 For an overview of the campaign see A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy in the East, 168 B.C. to A.D. I, (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1984), 302–306; for the Jewish side of things see Schürer, 1.278–80. 48 On the settlement and Tiridates’ visit to Rome, with sources, see Champlin, Nero, 221–9. 49 On the incidents of this period and their sources see N. C. Debevoise, A Political History of Parthia, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), 198–202.

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 197 who had been humiliated by the Parthians in the war during Nero’s reign, informed Vespasian of an alliance brewing between Vologaeses and Antiochus of Commagene, which would have given the Parthians access to the Euphrates crossing at Samosata. Paetus invaded Commagene forcing the king to flee to Parthia. Afterward Commagene and Armenia Inferior were annexed as provinces. There also seems to have been some trouble in 76 during M. Ulpius Traianus’ tenure as governor of Syria, for which he was awarded triumphal insignia. Apart from these brief notices and a few others dealing with internal problems, hardly anything is known of Parthian actions in the decades between Nero’s settlement and Trajan’s war. The accounts of the False Neros suggest that the imposters hoped to find support in Parthia in carrying out their aims. Indeed, the sources claim that the Parthians were enthusiastic about the prospect of Nero’s return from hiding.50 In the general tumult described by the sources that accompanied each new appearance of Nero, it is entirely possible to imagine that some Jews looked to Iranian Parthia for deliverance from the new Babylon on the Tiber. Nero was popular in the East and his miraculous return must have filled many hearts with hope. Suetonius (Nero 40.2) records some well known prophecies foretelling Nero’s deposition and promising him a new kingdom in the East. Some of these prophecies even located the seat of his future reign in Jerusalem. To those Jews desperate for revenge Nero’s return with Parthian support was a dream come true. The hopes which some Jews placed in Parthia were founded upon the favorable Jewish view of Persia. The Jews had been well served by the Persians and the positive picture of the Persian Empire and kings had entered into their sacred writings. The Persians were above all the conquerors of the hated Neo-Babylonian Empire and the authors of the Jewish restoration from exile. Cyrus, the founder of Persian might, is lauded in extravagant terms in the book of the prophet Isaiah. There the Lord calls Cyrus his shepherd and even his anointed (Messiah in the Hebrew text).51 It is Cyrus who issues the initial order to rebuild

50 Suetonius Nero 57.2 records that after the emperor’s death Vologaeses sent envoys to the senate asking that Nero’s memory be honored. 51 Isa 44.28: “(I am the Lord) who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose’ ”; 45.1–7: “Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him—and the gates shall not be closed . . . For the sake

198

chapter six

the temple in Jerusalem according to Ezra.52 The successors of Cyrus are also instrumental in the rebuilding and resettling of Jerusalem.53 A last example might be taken from the biblical book of Esther, in which the Persian king Ahasuerus (Xerxes) is led by his Jewish wife Esther to thwart an anti-Jewish plot concocted by his servant Haman.54 It must also be remembered that the Persians were the only people who ruled over the Jews without committing some great outrage against them. The Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. The Babylonians razed Jerusalem and its temple. The Macedonians under Antiochus IV assaulted the temple and attempted to stamp out Jewish religious practices. The Romans razed Jerusalem and its temple a second time. For a Jew of the later first century A.D. to have looked back with fondness to the days of Persian ascendancy, he need only have read his sacred books. The author of Sibylline Oracle 4, however, has not taken these books as his starting point as had the authors of 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and 4 Baruch. Instead, he has taken up certain Greek ideas and refashioned them to suit his own needs. He has done so by employing various traditional modes of eastern political propaganda,

of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I surname you, though you do not know me” (1, 4). 52 Ezra 1.1–2: “In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom, and also in a written edict declared: ‘Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah’ ”; cf. 1.7–8; 3.7; 4.3; 5.13–14, 17; 6.3. 53 Ezra 6.14: “They finished their building by command of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus, Darius, and King Artaxerxes of Persia.” Ezra also preserves royal letters and decrees ascribed to Darius (6.1–13) and Artaxerxes (4.17–23; 7.11–26). Artaxerxes is also assigned responsibility for the sending of Nehemiah; Neh 2.1–8. 54 E. S. Gruen, “Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass,” in Cultural Borrowings and Ethnic Appropriations in Antiquity (Oriens et Occidens 8; ed. E. S. Gruen; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005), 90–104, cautions against discerning an overly rosy view of the Persians in the Old Testament. While many of his observations are well founded, especially for the book of Esther, I Esdras, and the Danielic addition Bel et Draco, the portrait in Isaiah and Ezra-Nehemiah does seem less susceptible to a subversive reading. To notice, as Gruen does, that in Isaiah Cyrus acts as the agent of God in no way lessens the majesty of the Persian monarch, rather it is ennobling. The confusion of Persian royal decrees in Ezra-Nehemiah is at least partly the result of the confusion of the two books themselves. If any message is derived from reading between the lines it is that Jewish affairs were of considerably less importance to the Persian kings than the author presents them as being, which fact causes little surprise.

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 199 namely the Sibylline oracle and the hope of an eastern victory over the West. The Persians mean nothing in themselves. Their importance stems from the good service they performed for the Jews in the sixth century B.C. By using the East-West motif, however, the author is able to showcase Persian failure in the chaos caused in Asia by the Greeks and Xerxes’ vain attempt to avenge Asia on the invaders. It is possible that the author had an eye on Parthia in his treatment of Persia, for as was mentioned above, the sources that document the appearances of False Neros often comment on the close connection between these pretenders and Parthia.55 The contradictory portrait of Persia might have had something to do with Parthian pretensions to be the heirs of Persia, as the Arsacids claimed political descent from the Achaemenids.56 We might now reconstruct an historical context for the political oracle that lies at the heart of Sibylline Oracle 4. In the wake of the suppression of the Jewish Revolt, many Jews were looking for some sign of restoration and revenge. Many of these Jews turned to the events of the Babylonian conquest and Persian restoration for a framework in which to understand their current plight, as is demonstrated by 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 4 Baruch. The texts inspired by the biblical account of these events tend to focus attention on the need for Jews to rededicate themselves to the Law and to traditional observances of their ancestral faith. The response advocated is one of reaffirmation of Jewish identity in the face of the tragedy of 70. This event surely led many Jews to question their faith and the strength of the God who led them out of Egypt and Babylon. Where was he now? The authors of 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 4 Baruch tried to confront Jewish concerns by appealing to the symbols and themes of their national literature. The desire for revenge was put off to the future and placed in God’s hands. In the meantime the authors counseled introspection, advising the Jews to turn their attention to the state of their own people and their own souls. The tendency of Sibylline Oracle 4 accords in most points with the other texts, but attacks the central problems from another angle. In place of the Bible the Greco-Roman genre of Sibylline prophecy,

55 Cassius Dio Epit. 66.19.3 = Zonaras, 11.18; John of Antioch, fr. 104; Suetonius Nero 67.2; Tacitus Hist. 1.2. 56 Tacitus Ann. 6.31 records that one Parthian king, Artabanus III (A.D. 12–ca. 38), boasted of restoring his kingdom to the boundaries of the Persian and Macedonian empires as they had been established by Cyrus and Alexander respectively.

200

chapter six

common coin for political propaganda throughout the eastern Mediterranean, served as the author’s inspiration. The often political nature of these prophecies shaped our author’s approach to the problem. By their unanimous advocacy of an eschatological solution to the Roman Question, the biblically inspired apocalypses studied earlier implicitly reject a political solution. Sibylline Oracle 4 explores the possibility of a political solution explicitly and finds it wanting. All of this suggests that there were some Jews in the decades following 70 who hoped for and perhaps advocated a political solution. There was strong precedent for this in Jewish history, of course, for the Persians had liberated them from Babylon. And if Persia had liberated them from Babylon, what prevented a similar deliverance from Rome? The likelihood of a Jewish hero leading the fight against Rome was a remote idea in the years immediately following the end of the revolt. There was, however, a restlessness in the East after 70. This can be seen in the rise of various men claiming to be Nero returned from hiding. These figures were able to enlist some support from among the population of the eastern provinces and some form of patronage from Parthia. Might not the Parthian Empire, as heir to the Persia of the Achaemenids, be a source of salvation for the Jews ground under the heel of Rome? Our author has taken up the Sibylline traditions and fashions a political oracle of his own, but he has done so in order to bring the notion of a political and earthly settlement of the Jews into doubt. He turns attention to the eschaton and the moral life in a way that accords well with the other authors presently under study. The Jews were not to pin their hopes on a human conqueror such as Nero even at the head of Parthian hordes. Rather they must look to God for vengeance and salvation. The central political oracle, a tale of revenge against the Romans, raises difficulties. The author shows the disparity that exists between eastern hopes and the reality of the situation in his look back on the Persian period, where he declared that Persia enjoyed a generation of prosperity, but went on to list the many evils that men faced under Persian rule. The hopes for eastern victory are brought into further disrepute by the mode in which they are ultimately effected, namely through the return of the Roman emperor, and a matricidal one at that. The framing material reinforces this tendency while also supplying an alternative to the hope of an earthly and political restoration. With our discussion of the text’s political message concluded, we can move on to consider some other points.

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 201 In the political section of Sibylline Oracle 4, Rome’s aggression against the Jews is put in terms of the outrages committed against the temple, both the sack by Pompey and the burning by Titus. Yet the author seems less concerned with the temple than he does with the deaths of the pious (135–136).57 This accords with his introductory remarks where the author completely dismisses the validity of temple worship. There no distinction is made between the Jewish sacrificial cult and those of the pagans. In the introductory verses (4–7) the Sibyl claims inspiration not from Apollo, but from the great God, who is characterized as having no manmade idol. There is nothing surprising in this, for the Jewish religion was aniconic. The author (8–11), however, goes on to declare that the great God does not have a house, a stone set up as a temple, but rather lives in a place that cannot be seen from the earth.58 After A.D. 70 this statement had the full ring of truth, for the temple had ceased to exist and God no longer had a house made by men. But the statement in the oracle seems rather to be laying down a general claim, namely that the great God is characterized as one who has neither idol nor manmade house on earth. Since the great God is one who has no temple, the pious are those who reject all temples. The author (24.30a) delivers a strong condemnation of all temple worship and cultic sacrifice calling happy all those who trust in piety rather than in temples, altars, and bloody sacrifices. This is no mere condemnation of pagan idolatry as some have been tempted to read it.59 On another interpretation it is claimed that the author is not here issuing a deliberate attack on the Jewish temple, rather his attitude is to be seen as one of neglect in which he fails to distinguish it in his text from pagan temples.60 This is, of course, still an attack, but not necessarily a deliberate one, and certainly not a direct one. Neither theory is convincing. In the decades after the

57 The text seems to suggest that the punishment to befall Rome in the eruption of Vesuvius and return of Nero does not come in answer to the treatment of the temple, rather it is for the killing of the pious, presumably the Jews. The conflict between the righteous and the wicked is an important part of the Sibyl’s message. It, rather than the conflict between East and West, characterizes the eschatological thinking of the text. 58 The manuscript tradition preserves three variants for this line. The reading here followed is the one adopted by Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.384. 59 Noack, “Are the Essenes?” 97–8. 60 This is the interpretation of Collins, “Place of the Fourth Sibyl,” 366–9.

202

chapter six

destruction of the temple in Jerusalem it would be provocative to issue a blanket statement condemning temples and sacrifices. There is nothing in the Sibyl’s words that exclude the Jewish temple. It is hard to believe that readers would have made a mental reservation when they were reading these words. Despite the Sibyl’s stance in opposition to temple worship, she, nevertheless, does place a great deal of importance on the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem temple as a wicked act. Its significance is demonstrated by the amount of space given to the two Roman assaults on the temple, by Pompey and Titus. Sibylline Oracle 4 is a short text, in which the author has practiced extreme economy in his inclusion of details. Out of a great number of violent acts committed by the western imperial powers the author selects only a handful of the more well known. For the Macedonians he recalls only the sack of Thebes and the capture of Tyre. The account of Roman atrocities is limited to the capture of Corinth, the destruction of Carthage, the enslavement of Armenia, and the two attacks on the temple. Of these, the author devotes more lines to the assaults on Jerusalem than to the other items together.61 Thematically the assault on Jerusalem parallels the intrusion of the Greeks into Persian affairs. It is this intrusion that provokes Xerxes to invade Europe, though he is defeated. It is following the Roman attacks on Jerusalem that Nero returns and wreaks havoc on the West.62 The Roman actions against the temple are central to Sibylline Oracle 4. For this reason the author’s rejection of the temple cult is also of significance. Though more radical an expression of anti-temple sentiment than in the other texts that have been discussed above, the author’s attitude is consistent with the tendency of these other texts to downplay the importance of the temple’s loss.63 Our author, like the authors of some of the other works under discussion, realized that fixation on the loss of the temple, tragedy though it was, and the strong desire for revenge that it bred could only be stumbling blocks for the Jews

61 Sib. Or. 4.89 (Thebes—one line), 90 (Tyre—one line), 105 (Corinth—one line), 106 (Carthage—one line), 114 (Armenia—one line), 115–118 and 125–127 (Jerusalem— seven lines). 62 Though the return of Nero is not provoked by the burning of the temple, but rather by the slaughter of the pious Jews. 63 For the Sibyl the assaults on Jerusalem were an important demonstration of Roman imperial aggression. The fact of the temple’s loss in itself, however, was less significant.

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 203 as they sought to readjust themselves to their circumstances in postwar Judea. The challenge was two-fold. They had to feel their way forward in a religion changed by the removal of one of its central pillars. They also had to come to terms with the continued presence of Rome among them. The obscuring of the dichotomy between East and West that was a feature of the political oracle finds expression also in the framing material. In the first line of the book the Sibyl addresses the people of boastful Asia and Europe, thereby distancing the following prophecy from any partisanship on one side or the other.64 This theme of boastfulness is touched upon throughout the text. The Medes will boast on their thrones (54: ἐπαυχήσουσι). Boastful Greece will sail to the Hellespont (70: μεγάλαυχος). The Macedonians will boast of scepters (88: αὐχήσουσιν). The tag is applied to nations of both East and West. This pride or boastfulness besets the men of both Europe and Asia in a way that would be incompatible with a thoroughgoing chauvinism in favor of the East. The fullest expression of this withdrawal from the dichotomy required by the contest of East and West comes in the vision of the eschaton. In the Sibyl’s description of the end of time there is neither East nor West, neither Jew nor Gentile, there is only pious and impious. In contrast to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch there is no call to return to the Law, which is never mentioned in Sibylline Oracle 4. In this omission the author is more akin to the thought of 4 Baruch. The code of the Sibyl is simpler. The pious are those who love the great God, who bless him before meals, and trust in piety. They will neither commit murder, nor seek unlawful gain. They will not lust after their neighbor’s wife nor indulge in wicked acts with other men (24–34). The wicked are those who mock the pious and despise their example (35–39). When judgement comes upon the world the impious will be sent into the fire, while the pious will enjoy life upon the bountiful earth (40–46). This appears to be the ideal. When the Sibyl reintroduces the topic of the eschaton at the close of the text the picture is more dire. The end of the world will be a time of wickedness when the impious will destroy the pious. God in his wrath will consume all mankind in a 64

Sib. Or. 4.1: κλῦτε, λεὼς Ἀσίης μεγαλαυχέος Εὐρώπης τε. It is not entirely clear whether the adjective is meant to describe Asia or Europe. This ambiguity gives an impression of ambivalence. Perhaps the author means to attach it to both. Or perhaps he is inviting the reader to examine his own interpretation.

204

chapter six

conflagration (152–161). There is still hope of repentance by which God’s designs might be warded off (162–170). The prophecy ends on a note that suggests the unlikelihood that the Sibyl’s words will be heeded, in which case God will destroy the entire race of men and even the whole world will be engulfed in flames. All will be burned and nothing but dust will remain (171–178). From the dust God will refashion the men who were destroyed and then subject them to judgement, punishing the wicked and rewarding the just (179–192). Sibylline Oracle 4 like 2 Baruch advances the idea that all men will be judged according to the same divine criterion, though the standard for each author is different. The author of 2 Baruch subjects all men to the Law, even those who might not know it due to their pride. The Sibyl adopts a broader rule of general moral principles that are not restricted to Jews or to the Jewish experience in the text. Even though many of the specific items mentioned by the author are found in the Law, they are not limited to the Jews by being designated as the Law. In doing this, the Sibyl extends salvation in a more open way to the people of the world in that proselytism and conversion are not necessary preconditions of salvation. Absent also is the notion that the eschaton will provide a time for the settling of scores against the Romans for their rough treatment of the Jews. Nor will the end of time become an occasion for the triumph of East over West. Indeed the juxtaposition of the triumph of East over West in the war stirred up by Nero’s return from across the Euphrates with the beginning of the end time in which the rival factions will be the just and the wicked, makes the purely temporal concerns of those who hope to see the return of Asia’s material wealth appear paltry indeed. The author of Sibylline Oracle 4 is calling his readers to contemplate the more cosmically significant division that exists among men, which is not geographical but moral. 6.4

Conclusion

The author of Sibylline Oracle 4 has much in common with the authors of the other texts under discussion in the present work. In the aftermath of the disastrous Jewish Revolt he, like his contemporaries, had to come to terms with two facts, one of termination and one of extension. The suppression of the revolt incorporated in the defeat of the Jewish combatants the destruction of their Holy City and temple. Whether

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 205 all recognized then that this event would bring to a close the sacrificial cult of the Jewish religion is another question. Drawing on their historical memory, hearkening back to the restoration of the temple and cult during the Persian period, many Jews must have expected, or at least hoped for, rebuilding and renewal of the cult. The author of Sibylline Oracle 4 makes the strongest statement against this hope. It is not that the temple was devoid of importance for our author. Roman aggression was illustrated to the full in the assaults against the temple perpetrated by the Roman commanders Pompey and Titus. The author is surely echoing his coreligionists’ hopes for vengeance when he calls up in prophetic tones the return of the matricidal Roman emperor Nero to avenge the Jews upon the Romans. The Sibyl, however, seeks to shift Jewish resentment away from the destruction of the temple. In the political oracle that lies at the heart of Sibylline Oracle 4 she ascribes the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the return of Nero to divine retribution for the killing of the pious rather than the destruction of the temple. By doing this the author foreshadows the time preceding God’s chastisement of the world, when the human race will be divided into the pious and the impious. It is one of the distinguishing marks of the latter that they persecute the pious. Thus the author has placed Sibylline Oracle 4 in that group of texts— 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 4 Baruch—that attempts to displace the temple as a focus for Jewish resentment against Rome giving rise to the desire for revenge. Like the authors of these texts, our author downplays the desire for revenge by calling his fellow Jews to turn inwards. For him, as for the others, it is the life of the soul that matters. The dichotomy between East and West or Jew and Roman is not nearly as significant as that between pious and impious or righteous and wicked. The termination of the temple cult opened a new period for the Jews, one in which new boundaries needed to be set. Many authors that we have examined in eschewing the temple turned instead to the Law as a centralizing focus of their faith. Adherence to the Law served as the distinguishing marker for righteous and wicked. Even in those authors of broader views that could encompass the salvation of proselytes from among the Gentiles the Law provided the touchstone for piety and for judgement. Sibylline Oracle 4 completely ignores the Law. For this author a moral code equally accessible to Jews and Gentiles is the criterion for righteousness. Felicity is promised to those who love God, bless him, reject temples, commit no murder, refrain

206

chapter six

from unlawful gain, turn their eyes away from their neighbor’s wife, and preserve themselves from impure relations with men. This moral code is within the grasp of any and the author of the Sibylline Oracle 4 seeks in no way to restrict it to the Jews. As for the aspect of extension, the razing of Jerusalem, a momentous change to be sure, was played out against a backdrop of white togas and red military cloaks. When the temple and Holy City were removed from the scene, the conquerors remained; indeed, their presence increased. This was a new problem for the Jews as they sought to interpret the fall of Jerusalem in traditional terms, for the exile that characterized the fall of Solomon’s temple was played out in reverse after 70. The Jews did not go into exile among a foreign people, rather the land itself saw an influx from the conquering nation, especially in the form of a legion occupying the land once reserved as God’s footstool. Many authors were led by contemplation of this reality to adopt an apocalyptic worldview with its promises of a supernatural punishment to be visited on the imperial masters of the Jews in their land. The author of Sibylline Oracle 4 makes a temporary detour from the path followed by his fellow authors and explores other avenues of political salvation. Perhaps taking his cue from the excitement that surrounded rumors of a return from the East of the Roman emperor Nero, the author essayed to fit the events of his current world into a doubleframework of historical interpretation as old as the writing of history itself. The return of Nero from Parthia recalled to his mind and to that of his contemporaries the abortive attempt of Xerxes to punish the troublesome Greeks who had—by the late first century A.D.—nearly six hundred years previously intruded into the affairs of the eastern empires and peoples. The return of Nero, with the backing of various Parthian patrons, stirred up hopes of finally restoring the scepter to Asia that had been lost to Alexander. Drawing on two Greek historigraphical traditions, namely the succession of empires and the conflict between East and West, the author composed an oracle describing the upheaval, both political and even natural, to be caused by the intrusion of European powers into the Near East. These historical models had served the Greeks of Asia in the days when Rome began to take a more active role in the affairs of the Greco-Macedonian kingdoms of the eastern Mediterranean. The author of Sibylline Oracle 4 departs from the black and white view of Antisthenes, opting instead to color the dichotomy between Asia and

sibylline oracle 4 and the conflict of east and west 207 Europe in shades of gray. Far from balancing western malignity against the benign rule of the earlier eastern powers culminating in Persia, the author has instead offered a more critical view of both sides. The Macedonians are not the protagonists as they were in the prophecies recorded by Antisthenes. Rather the harm brought to Asia by Alexander and his successors was equated to that brought by Rome. For those who wished to look back to a Persian golden age, the author has composed a corrective by juxtaposing the prediction of Persian prosperity and might to a catalogue of the most grievous disasters that might befall men. The portrait of Persia is capped by the failure of Xerxes to avenge Persia on the marauding Greeks. It is Xerxes who provides the template for the awaited savior of the East, the imperial runaway from Rome. The Sibyl prophesies that Nero will succeed where Xerxes failed. Is it to be considered as a victory for Asia that a Roman triumphs where the Great King met with humiliating defeat? Our author shows his dissatisfaction with the political revenge to be accomplished by Nero as Xerxes Redux. Just as the East is to taste the fruits of victory and the flow of wealth from East to West is reversed, the author departs from his description of a temporal and political solution and turns to an eschatological one that will prove to be permanent and thorough. In the description of the end of times the Sibyl proclaims that God will destroy the entire world and the race of men. By comparison the political and economic aspirations of the East appear insignificant. Again our author substitutes the moral dichotomy of piety and impiety for the political one of East and West. The destruction to be wrought by God casts a shadow over even the greatest feats of imperial destruction perpetrated by Rome and Macedon. Out of this divine destruction, moreover, a greater hope arises. After the ruin of the world and the annihilation of men, God will refashion their frames and subject them to a proper judgement, in which the just will be separated from the wicked. The former are destined for a new earth where they will bask in the warm light of the sun and the favor of God. The wicked are destined for the darkness of Tartarus and gehenna, wherein the deficit of light will be made good by an abundance of heat.

CHAPTER SEVEN

“THEN HE WILL RETURN DECLARING HIMSELF EQUAL TO GOD” SIBYLLINE ORACLE 5 AND THE RETURN OF NERO We have already seen in the chapter on Sibylline Oracle 4 the historical traditions relating to Nero’s return after his apparent death. There is nothing supernatural about these stories. Nero does not return from the dead, but from some hiding place where he went after faking his suicide. The story did not, however, stop with the death of the last returning Nero, for it took on a supernatural element that endured down through Antiquity, especially among Jewish and Christian authors. In the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (4) the prophet foretells that in the final days of the world the demonic Beliar will come to earth in the form of a king who had murdered his own mother. Once he has come, he will set about the persecution of the Church. The Messiah will eventually come and throw Beliar into gehenna (5). Better known, of course, are the passages relating to the eschaton in the book of Revelation. There the former emperor appears in a complicated prophecy involving a red dragon (Satan) and two beasts which serve as the dragon’s assistants (Rev 12–13). One beast has ten horns and seven heads, one of which seemed to have received a mortal wound, but it had healed (13.3). This is likely a reference to the phenomenon of the returning Nero. The other beast had two horns and spoke like a dragon. It compelled the people of the earth to worship the first beast. Furthermore, it marked all the people of earth with the name of the beast or its number, which is 666 (13.16–18). Unlike the descriptions of Nero in the Sibylline Oracles and the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, there are no details of the historical Nero to help in identifying the eschatological Nero. Instead the author encodes the name through the use of gematria, whereby Nero Caesar is calculated as “666”. Sibylline Oracle 5 makes extensive use of similar Nero traditions and stands somewhere between the historical use displayed in Sibylline Oracle 4 and the full-blown demonic Nero of Revelation and later Christian tradition.

210

chapter seven 7.1

Summary of the Text

Before turning to a discussion of the date and provenance of the text and an analysis of its message it would be useful to give a brief summary. In contrast to the tight organization of the much shorter Sibylline Oracle 4, Sibylline Oracle 5 is a rather diffuse collection of oracles that are related to each other to a greater or lesser extent by the repetition and development of certain images and themes. The text can be divided into six sections. The first serves as an introduction. The second through fifth follow a more or less consistent pattern, which is broken by the sixth and final oracle. The first section (verses 1–51) presents an overview of the history of the Latin race. No names are mentioned explicitly. Rather the identities of the subjects are masked in clues, often gematria. The first eleven verses deal with the kings of Egypt, Alexander, Aeneas, and Romulus and Remus. The remaining lines take each ruler of the Roman world in turn beginning with Julius Caesar. The text in its present form ends with Marcus Aurelius, though the last figure treated in detail is Hadrian.1 The next four sections adhere roughly to a pattern.2 Each oracle begins with the Sibyl reflecting on her task. This is followed by denunciations of various nations, generally Egypt or Babylon. Next comes a prediction of the coming of a destructive figure. This figure often bears a resemblance to Nero, though for reasons argued below, these references are not as clear as they are sometimes taken to be. The coming of the destructive figure heralds the advent of a saving figure, often with messianic overtones. Each oracle ends with a prediction of some kind of destruction or judgement. The second section (verses 53–110) contains as oracle against Egypt, in which the Sibyl foretells that the Nile will flood and cover the land causing its beauty to disappear. The Sibyl particularly addresses Memphis, chastising it for raging against the children of God. Egyptian idolatry and theriolatry also come in for condemnation. Next, the Sibyl

1 The last line of this section (v. 51) briefly alludes to the emperors Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verus. Many scholars have dismissed it as an interpolation. Arguments for this are given below. 2 The four sections are: second oracle (53–110), third oracle (111–178), fourth oracle (179–285), fifth oracle (286–433). For a description of the pattern see S. Felder, “What is the Fifth Sibylline Oracle?” JSJ 33 (2002): 367.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

211

mentions the coming of a Persian who will invade the land and kill a great multitude, causing Asia to lament over the gifts she received from Egypt.3 Then the same figure will rush in from the West bringing war. Just as the Persian seems to have reached the pinnacle of daring and is preparing to attack the city of the blessed ones, God will send against him a king, who will destroy all the other great kings and nobles. This will be God’s judgement on men. The third section (verses 111–78) contains a series of pronouncements of disasters to befall various eastern places. Then a king of Rome will cut through the isthmus and kill his mother. He will flee from Babylon and come to the Medes and the Persians. He was the one who seized the temple and burned the men who went into it. At his appearance the world was shaken and a great city and righteous people was destroyed.4 In the fourth year a star will shine that will destroy the earth.5 It will burn the sea, Babylon, and Italy on account of the destruction of the Hebrews. The section ends with a condemnation of Rome. The fourth section (179–285) again concerns Egypt. The Sibyl foretells destruction that will befall a roster of Egyptian cities and neighboring lands. There follows a peculiar little oracle against the Gauls and Ravenna. The Sibyl then describes a celestial battle among the stars that will result in the burning of the earth. This will in turn destroy Ethiopia. Nero will then bring destruction on Corinth among other things. The Sibyl warns that death and destruction are in store for the world on account of the great city and righteous people who are held in esteem by God. There follows a denunciation of hubris. The section ends with a promise of an end to war. A man will come from heaven. The Jews will be exalted, while the wicked will hide. The earth will not produce fruit so long as men worship animals in Egyptian fashion. Only the land of the pious will flow with milk and honey because the people there put their trust in God.

3 Though Egypt is not named explicitly in the section detailing the advent of the destructive figure, it makes most sense to understand Egypt as the addressee, following the oracle against Egypt in the preceding part. 4 It is a feature of the oracle that it switches back and forth between the future and past tense. 5 This third section does not contain a messianic figure in the form of a man. The star, however, is a very common messianic image.

212

chapter seven

The fifth section (286–433) begins with a series of warnings to various Asian cities and peoples. The Sibyl takes a short break from doomladen pronouncements to offer a prayer for Judea, God’s special gift for all men. She then launches back into warnings, forecasting ruin for the Hellespont. An Egyptian king with conquer Macedon and the peoples of Lydia, Galatia, Pamphylia, and Pisidia will be victorious in war. Italy will also be destroyed. The earth will be shrouded in darkness as both the sun and the moon cease to shine. God will now be in control and will show no pity to idolaters. The Sibyl asks that the righteous be ruled by law and wisdom, lest God destroy all men. A war will come. A matricide (Nero) will come from the ends of the earth to conquer the world. He will kill many rulers and raise up those crouched in fear. War will come from the West and fire will fall from Heaven. War will finally cease, leaving the survivors to enjoy peace. The Sibyl then chastises Rome for its many impure acts. A lamentation for the destroyed temple follows. The section ends with the coming of a man from Heaven carrying a scepter given to him by God. He punished the impious nations with destruction and adorned the city which God desired (Jerusalem) with a beautiful temple and a tall tower. The peoples of East and West gave glory to God. The sixth and final section (434–531) does not follow the same pattern, lacking any mention of a destructive or a saving figure. The section begins with an oracle against Babylon predicting its loss of power. The Sibyl then foretells a day when the sea will dry up and Asia will be covered with water. There will be locusts and the resettlement of peoples. There will be war and a barbarian invasion of Asia. A famine will force men to eat their parents. The sun will set never to rise again and there will be no moonlight. The Sibyl then goes on to foretell the conversion of the Egyptians, who will build a temple to God, setting aside their ancestral religion. The Ethiopians, however, will invade Egypt and destroy the temple, provoking God to punish them with destruction. Sibylline Oracle 5 ends with the description of a great battle among the heavenly bodies. Finally, God was roused to action and shook the heavens causing the stars to fall to earth. The sea received them and the entire earth was enkindled and burned beneath a starless sky.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero 7.2

213

Composition Date

Proposals for dating Sibylline Oracle 5 have usually relied on the introductory review of history in the first section of the text.6 As the text stands now, it must be dated to the reign of Marcus Aurelius or later, for this is the last emperor to whom allusion is made.7 Some scholars, however, have rejected the line referring to Hadrian’s successors as an interpolation, preferring instead a date early in Hadrian’s reign.8 The argument has two parts. First, it is assumed that a Jewish author wrote the oracle. Given this assumption, in itself sound, it is judged unlikely that a Jew could have written in positive terms about Hadrian after the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt and the foundation of Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem.9 The author’s Jewish identity seems to be guaranteed by his criticism of Nero (34) for proclaiming himself to be the equal of God and his description of Vespasian as a destroyer of pious men (36). There are other reasons to suspect the originality of the line mentioning Antoninus Pius and his successors. Every Roman ruler from Caesar through Hadrian is identified by one or more clues. Generally the number corresponding to the first letter of the ruler’s name is the distinguishing mark.10 In addition, other clues are given about the names. For instance, of Hadrian the author says that his name is the 6 As is usual with texts of this sort, there is a great deal of dispute over the dating. Felder, “Fifth Sibylline Oracle,” 368–72, provides an overview of the main participants in this debate and their proposals. Clement of Alexandra in his Protrepticus (4) quotes a few of the Sibyl’s prophecies regarding the destruction of pagan shrines in Ephesus and Egypt (verses 296–7, 484–5, 487–8). If Clement was relying on the text of Sibylline Oracle 5, rather than a shared source, this would yield a terminus ante quem in the early second century. Even if Clement did derive his quotations from a finished text, it does not mean that the text we have did not undergo further changes after his time. 7 Sib. Or. 5.52: “After him (i.e. Hadrian) three will rule, but the third will come to power late in life” (trans. Collins, OTP, used throughout unless otherwise noted). The three rulers who came after Hadrian are Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, and Marcus Aurelius. The author’s description of the last as coming to the throne late in life is consistent with the historical record, for Marcus was born in 121 and became emperor in 161. 8 Collins, Sibylline Oracles, 75, 94–5; idem, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.390, has advocated a composition date in the context of the Jewish revolt of 115. 9 Sib. Or. 5.46–48: “After him (i.e. Trajan) another will reign, a silver-headed man (i.e. Hadrian). He will have the name of a sea. He will also be a most excellent man and he will consider everything.” 10 There are exceptions. Of Augustus it is said that his name will begin with the first letter of the alphabet (15). Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, none of whom did anything

214

chapter seven

name of a sea, while of Tiberius, that his name is the name of a river. Finally, for nearly all of the other rulers some incidents from their reign are given, for example, Augustus’ annexation of Egypt or Claudius’ conquest of Britain.11 No detail of any kind to aid in identification is given for Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, or Marcus Aurelius, except that the last will come to rule later in life. A second reason to suspect an interpolation arises from the fact that the historical review seems to conclude in the lines after Hadrian is mentioned. After describing and praising Hadrian the Sibyl addresses (49–50) the reader and informs him that in his time and in the time of his descendants all of the things listed will happen. It is only after this concluding statement that the notice of Hadrian’s successors comes, giving the strong impression that it has been tacked on to bring the text up to date in the latter part of the second century. If we omit the reference to Marcus Aurelius and his predecessors, that makes the reign of Hadrian the latest dateable item in Sibylline Oracle 5. On balance, it would seem likely that the positive treatment of Hadrian could only have been written by a Jewish author prior to 131. Of course, the existence of the interpolated line leads one to wonder what other changes might have been made to the text after its composition or redaction during the reign of Hadrian. Prophetic texts lend themselves particularly well to updating. All that can be said is that nothing obviously later than the reign of Hadrian appears in the text. A striking omission in this regard is any reference to the revolt of Bar Kokhba. For the purposes of the present study, a final composition date during the reign of Hadrian will be assumed, though the material used by the final author may have a much older origin. As for provenance, scholarly opinion leans heavily toward an Egyptian context for the writing of Sibylline Oracle 5.12 The prophecies of destruction and our author’s ire are directed at both Rome and Egypt. The Roman suppression of the Jewish Revolt and its climactic act in the destruction of Jerusalem make the author’s animosity toward the imperial power understandable and give no clue to his origin. The author’s remarkable interest in Egypt, on the other hand, is difficult to imagine

particularly memorable, are remembered only for killing each other (35). Hadrian, too, is identified without resort to gematria. 11 Gaius is the only emperor identified solely by the first initial of his name (24). 12 Collins, Sibylline Oracles, 75; idem, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.390–1.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

215

if he lived in Palestine or Asia. As will be argued below, the author’s considerations of Egypt seem to derive some of their impetus from the biblical book of Isaiah, which also seems to underlie the author’s understanding of Rome. It is conceivable, then, that the author’s interest in Egypt stems from his use of Isaiah, rather than residence in Egypt. This would not, however, explain why an author using the book of Isaiah outside Egypt should allow that nation to dominate his text to the degree that it does in Sibylline Oracle 5. If Sibylline Oracle 5 is an Egyptian-Jewish production, as seems likely, it represents a remarkably enduring devotion to the temple in a Diaspora setting. With these tentative conclusions regarding the text’s dating and provenance we can proceed with an analysis of the author’s message. 7.3 Analysis In contrast with the other texts that we have examined the Sibylline Oracles are straightforward in their approach to Rome. The imperial power does not hide behind a Babylonian veil. Adopting the voice of the pagan prophetess the authors of Sibylline Oracle 4 and 5 deal with Rome in explicit terms. Indeed, the present oracle begins with a forthright appraisal of the Roman rulers beginning with Julius Caesar. Though names are not named the subjects are only thinly concealed behind flimsy devices such as gematria and wordplay on the emperors’ names. What emerges is a clear commentary reign by reign as the Sibyl focuses on certain details of each emperor. Comparison with the vagueness of the Eagle Vision in 4 Ezra shows the clarity and specificity of the Sibyl’s treatments of the emperors, as she highlights specific deeds and accomplishments of the men who rule both Rome and the world. The fact that the author summed up nearly two hundred years of imperial history in a mere thirty-seven lines invites the reader to contemplate the picture he presents through his careful and pointed selection of material. The opening line of the historical review sets the tone of hostility toward Rome. The Sibyl (5.1) describes the subject of her historical review as the mournful age of the sons of Latinus (στονόεντα χρόνον . . . Λατινιδάων). Before proceeding to her description of the Roman emperors, the Sibyl locates the historical review in time by three reference points. Julius Caesar, the first ruler, will come after three things: the death of the kings of Egypt; the conquests and death

216

chapter seven

of Alexander the Great; and some incidents from the early history of Rome including the flight of Aeneas and the rise of Romulus and Remus (2–11). Of the fifteen Roman rulers from Caesar to Hadrian, eight receive little more than a bare mention with almost no attention to any of their imperial acts.13 Claudius and Vespasian receive a little more attention than these eight emperors.14 The latter receives only two lines, in which he is condemned for destroying pious people. This is a surprising understatement for the man who made war on the Jews.15 Julius Caesar and Tiberius receive slightly fuller descriptions. Caesar is celebrated for his conquests, though Gaul goes unnamed. Tiberius is the first emperor to enjoy a good amount of specific detail. The Sibyl (21–3) declares that he will rule over the Persians and Babylon and that he will strike the Medes with his spear. This is a rather odd statement and presumably refers to Tiberius’ activities in the East, especially his dealings with Artabanus III of Parthia.16 The three emperors who receive the most attention from the Sibyl are Augustus, Nero, and Trajan, with six, seven, and five lines respectively. Military success is foretold (16) for Augustus: Thrace and Sicily will kneel before him, as will Memphis.17 The Sibyl (17–8) goes on to condemn the wickedness of Memphis’ rulers, who were responsible for its fall; Cleopatra is also blamed. It is interesting that Egypt is represented by Memphis, the ancient capital, rather than Alexandria. Apart from Augustus’ military successes, the Sibyl also draws attention to 13 Galba, Otho, and Vitellius are remembered for killing each other (35). Domitian is accursed, while his successor Nerva is revered (39–41). None of Caligula’s deeds are mentioned, only that he has a first initial of three (24). Titus put his father to shame and took away his power (38–9). Hadrian is celebrated for his excellence and perception (46–8). 14 There is an allusion to Claudius’ conquest of Britain (25–7). 15 More surprising still is the Sibyl’s lack of attention to Titus’ destruction of Jerusalem. The act is recalled later in the text, but the Sibyl has chosen to focus more attention on Nero. 16 In answer to Artabanus’ attempt to put his son on the Armenian throne, Tiberius dispatched Parthian royal hostages from Rome and involved Artabanus in a war with the neighboring Iberians. Tiberius’ threat to back the bid of Tiridates for the Parthian throne forced Artabanus to accept the Roman candidate for the Armenian throne. It was a masterful bit of diplomacy. 17 The reference to Sicily surely recalls the suppression of Sextus Pompeius by Octavian as triumvir. Thrace’s subjection must reflect the little known Thracian War which began in either 13 or 12 B.C. and ended with Roman victory after three years of hard campaigning (Cassius Dio 54.34.5–7; Velleius Paterculus 2.98; Livy per. 140; Seneca Ep. 83.14.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

217

his legislation and administration. The Sibyl (19) foretells that he will give laws to the peoples and subject all things. We have in Augustus the full gamut of imperial activity: conquest, suppression, legislation, and subordination. The picture of Augustus is not couched in negative terms. The author reserves criticism for the leaders of Memphis. No mention is made of Augustus’ death, only that he had a long reign and handed rule over to another. The Sibyl’s (42–6) description of Trajan also focuses on that prince’s wars and conquests. Trajan is described as a mountain-ranging Celt who is hurrying to an eastern conflict, which will end with his shameful death, for he will fall and lie buried beneath foreign dust bearing the name of the Nemean flower.18 The negative assessment of Trajan comes as a bit of a shock in a catalogue that has been mostly favorable or indifferent to the emperors. It must be remembered that the closing years of Trajan’s reign were not happy ones for the peoples of the eastern provinces and beyond their borders. Beginning with the annexation of Armenia in 114 over a dispute with Parthia, Trajan concentrated a large Roman army in the East and initiated a series of annexations that netted most of Mesopotamia for Rome. In the course of fighting, even the Parthian kingdom fell into Roman hands. Sensing the overextension of the Roman army, certain populations of the eastern provinces erupted in revolt. The Jewish communities of Egypt, Cyrene, and Cyprus rose up against their Gentile neighbors in frightful massacres. Heavy reprisals followed as Trajan and his commanders struggled to regain control. In the midst of this Trajan died. Though he provides no specifics, it is likely that the chaos of the years of revolt and suppression (115–117) weighed heavily on the assessment of Trajan in our author’s mind. The attention given to Alexander by our author in the opening lines (4–7) of his historical review might have a connection to Trajan. Alexander, designated the citizen of Pella, will subject the East and the West. He will meet his match at Babylon and his corpse will be offered to Philip. Furthermore, the Sibyl casts aspersions on the rumor of Alexander’s divine parentage.19 Both Alexander and Trajan enter into an eastern war in which

18 The crowns won by victors at the Nemean Games were made of wild celery, whose Greek name (σέλινον) recalls the Cilician city of Selinus where Trajan died, while returning from his eastern war. 19 The denial of Alexander’s divine parentage perhaps echoes the Sibyl’s rejection of Nero’s divinity.

218

chapter seven

they lose their lives. Both are described as corpses. The author does not seem to look kindly on rulers who stir up trouble in the East. It was perhaps Hadrian’s decision to withdraw from Trajan’s conquests that leads our author to praise him so highly, especially his showing consideration of all things.20 We finally turn to the emperor who attracted the greatest deal of our author’s attention, both in the historical review and throughout the text of Sibylline Oracle 5: Nero. The author’s handling of Nero is very different from that of the other emperors. Whereas the Sibyl focused mainly on the wars of the emperors, with Nero the author’s attention is diverted to other things. Apart from a general statement (29) describing Nero as a terrible serpent breathing out war, the Sibyl mostly deals with Nero’s character. He is an athlete, a charioteer, a murderer, and a man whose audacity knows no bounds. His attempt to cut a canal through the Isthmus of Corinth is also recalled. Finally, the Sibyl foretells his death and reappearance, when he will claim to be equal to God. Nero is, thus, the very picture of imperial arrogance. The Sibyl will return to many of these items in the subsequent sections in order to form a composite picture of a destructive figure whose activities will signal the advent of the final times of the earth. The introduction serves three purposes. First, it ties Rome and Egypt together in ways that will be explored over the course of the succeeding sections. Second, it strikes a note of hostility regarding Rome. Third, it provides historical material for the man of destruction who appears throughout the text and introduces the idea of Nero’s return. Sibylline Oracle 5 is a rich and complicated text, in large part owing to its composite nature. There has yet to be a full and detailed study of it and such a thing is beyond the scope of the present treatment. In the pages that follow we shall trace two of the themes that arise in the introductory review of Roman history. The first theme is that of the man of destruction figure who appears in every section but the last. Though it would be improper to see each manifestation of this figure as an example of the Nero redivivus myth, details of this emperor’s life and afterlife certainly do play an important part in the author’s presentation of this agent of destruction presaging the end of time.

20 This speculative interpretation of Trajan might suggest a date closer to the death of that emperor and the accession of Hadrian, when such considerations were fresh in the author’s mind.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

219

The second theme is the author’s analysis of the enemies of Israel, namely Egypt, Babylon, and Rome. Throughout the oracles that follow these three nations make repeated appearances. Their acts of evil bring on the man of destruction and the end time in which all are apparently destroyed, leaving nothing. The analysis will proceed oracle by oracle rather than thematically. We shall begin with the second section (53–110). The second section begins with an oracle (52–92) against Egypt in which there is nothing that reflects directly on Rome. The oracle begins with the Sibyl declaring herself a friend of Isis. She foretells the excessive flooding of the Nile which will ruin Egypt’s beauty and glory. The Sibyl then addresses Memphis in particular (60–72), declaring that it will be punished for raging against the children anointed by God. The agent of punishment will be a nurse, who will be imposed on Memphis, once herself a great ruler of the earth. The city will also fall from the stars and no longer be able to ascend to heaven. The Sibyl then launches into a denunciation of idolatry and theriolatry. Finally, certain other cities are condemned by name: Thmouis and Xouis, followed by Alexandria in a fragmentary passage (88–9), which promises that war will never leave the famous nurse of cities. There also seems to be a reference (92) to the Nile drying up. The emphasis on the fall of Memphis from glory is evocative not of the coming of Rome, but of the advent of Macedonian rule in Egypt. It was Alexandria that replaced and overshadowed the ancient capital. The nurse (70: τροφόν) whom Memphis receives is very likely Alexandria, which is described as a nurse (88: θρέπτειρα) a few lines later.21

21 While it is true that both lines use a different Greek word for nurse, the proximity of two nurses makes an identification between Alexandria and Memphis’ nurse likely. This interpretation receives some support from Sibylline Oracle 11. In a review of Hellenistic history the Sibyl talks about Alexandria’s rise at the expense of the older capital. Sib. Or. 11.232–6: “Then Egypt will be a ruling bride and the great city of the Macedonian prince, revered Alexandria, famous nurse of cities (θρέπτειρα), glittering with beauty, will alone be metropolis. Then let Memphis blame its rulers”. It is worth noting that the description of Alexandria as a famous nurse of cities uses the same language as Sibylline Oracle 5. The relationship between Sibylline Oracle 5 and 11 is not clear. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.431, has argued that 5 depends on 11. His main consideration is the summary nature of Sib. Or. 5.1–11, which reads like a condensed version of Sib. Or. 11. The opening verses of Sib. Or. 12.1–11 are also identical to Sib. Or. 5.1–11. Either way, the text of Sib. Or. 11 helps in our understanding of Sib. Or. 5.60–72. If the passage on Alexandria and Memphis in Sib. Or. 11 is derived from Sib. Or. 5, then we see the author of the former interpreting the latter as a reflection on Alexandria’s supersession of Memphis. If we accept the priority of Sib. Or. 11,

220

chapter seven

Memphis is being punished for its treatment of the anointed children of God. While the Alexandrian pogrom of A.D. 38 might come to mind here, as well as the bloodshed during Trajan’s reign, it seems unlikely that either of these is the event remembered by the Sibyl. The focus is here on Memphis, or by extension Egypt of old, rather than on Alexandria, capital of the new Greco-Roman Egypt. The oracle is better interpreted in light of the traditional hostility between the Jews and Egypt stemming from the events recorded in Exodus.22 A second cause for the punishment of Egypt comes from the idolatrous practices of the country.23 The Egyptian oracle in the second section of Sibylline Oracle 5 seems to be an old text. It has nothing to do with Rome, except perhaps for the fragmentary lines dealing with Alexandria’s comeuppance. Rather the text deals with the punishment of Pharaonic Egypt affected by the coming of the Macedonians and the building of Alexandria. If this interpretation is correct, the oracle against Egypt would belong to the earlier substratum of Sibylline Oracle 5. This has an implication for the conclusion of the second section prophesying the coming of the agent of destruction (93–110). The destructive figure is a Persian. He will come to Egypt like a hailstorm. He brings destruction upon the land and death to its inhabitants. He is barbarian-minded, strong, bloody, and raving nonsense (96). The destruction wrought by this Persian will cause Asia distress as it laments the things she obtained from Egypt. This figure is described again as the one who had obtained the land of the Persians. After this second introduction of the figure the Sibyl has him coming from the West to lay the land waste. He will even come to destroy the city of then the author of Sib. Or. 5 used a source discussing that same supersession. One last item that deals with the rivalry between the old and new capitals of Egypt is the Oracle of the Potter. Two redactions that survive on papyrus foretell the desertion of Alexandria by the god Agathos Daimon, who returns to Memphis, leaving the city of the foreigners (Alexandria) abandoned. In one passage (P2 [i.e. P. Rainer G.19 813], col. II vv. 36–38) Alexandria is described as the all-nourishing city (πόλις παντοτρόφος). For the text see L. Koenen, “Die Prophezeiungen des ‘Töpfers’,” ZPE 2 (1968): 178–209. 22 On this interpretation see Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.394 n. u. Another fact suggests this interpretation. Immediately following the Egyptian oracle comes the Sibyl’s first description of the destructive figure, in this case a Persian who swoops down into Egypt like a hailstorm. The image calls to mind the plague of hail that beset Egypt as a result of Pharaoh’s failure to release the Israelites (Exod 9.18–35). 23 The Sibyl’s condemnation of Egyptian idolatry bears a strong resemblance to the harsh criticism of idolatry in the book of Isaiah. This is not the only parallel between our present text and the biblical prophet, as we shall see.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

221

the holy ones until a king sent by God will destroy all the great kings. This will be God’s judgement on men. The passage has been read as a reference to Nero’s return. According to this theory, he is designated a Persian because of the connection with Parthia of the False Neros of the Flavian period.24 The odd statement that this Persian will come from the West requires the assumption that after coming to Egypt the returning Nero will go off to conquer Rome before returning once again to attack Jerusalem.25 This theory begs many questions. It should first be noted that there is absolutely nothing in this passage that suggests that the author had Nero in his mind. The figure is not a matricide. He has not come from Babylon. He has not cut a canal through the Isthmus of Corinth. None of the clues that point to Nero in some of the other passages in Sibylline Oracle 5 describing the destructive figure is present here to identify the Persian. Let us subject the passage to a fresh reading unhindered by the Nero hypothesis. First, we must establish that the scene of the figure’s activity is Egypt. This is rather straightforward. The passage comes right on the heels of a long oracle condemning Egypt. The Sibyl addresses (93) the victim of the Persian in the second person: “The Persian will come upon your soil like hail.” The beginning of Sibylline Oracle 5’s third section, which comes immediately after the passage describing the destructive figure, has the Sibyl remonstrating with her heart for compelling her to show such things to Egypt; she then goes on to prophesy concerning Asia.26 It thus seems reasonable to take Egypt as the victim of the assault of the Persian. Who, then, is this Persian? There were, of course, two Persian kings who invaded Egypt: Cambyses (530–522 B.C.) and Artaxerxes III Ochus (358–338).27 The former was responsible for the initial conquest and annexation of the kingdom. The latter finally reacquired Egypt, which had broken away from Persia in the aftermath of Xerxes’ disastrous war in Greece. Both had a bad reputation among Egyptians and Greeks. The portrait of the raving maniac Cambyses is indelibly painted by Herodotus; while

24

Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.395 n. y. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.395 n. b2. 26 Sib. Or. 5.111–2: “Alas for you, wretched heart, why do you provoke me to show these things to Egypt?” 27 Van Henten, “Nero Redivivus Demolished,” 14–17, favors an Achaemenid interpretation of these lines. 25

222

chapter seven

Diodorus and Plutarch show that Ochus fully deserved his inglorious sobriquet.28 There is, however, a difficulty in accepting the notion that Sibylline Oracle 5 recalls either of these Achaemenid conquerors. Neither Cambyses nor Artaxerxes III offered any injury to the city of the blessed ones, Jerusalem. A closer look at the description of the Persian might point the way to a solution, speculative as it must remain. In the first line of the passage under discussion the figure of destruction is simply called a Persian. A later description (101), however, styles the figure “the one who obtained the land of Persia.” In other words, we might see the first use of the term Persian as a veil over his true identity. This could possibly be a reference to a non-Persian ruler of the old Persian Empire, Alexander or one of his successors. One of his successors, Antiochus IV, fits the description of Sibylline Oracle 5 quite well. Antiochus has the added advantage of being an archetypal bad ruler in the Jewish tradition. Sibylline Oracle 5 has the ruler of the Persian land invade Egypt. Antiochus did this. The invader is barbarian-minded, violent, and a raving lunatic. Stories of Antiochus’ eccentricities abound in antiquity. As for his being barbarian-minded, what better insult to hurl at a Greco-Macedonian monarch? He will, once he reaches the pinnacle of audacity, turn his violence against Jerusalem.29 This certainly recalls to mind the picture of Antiochus from the Jewish sources, especially Daniel. Antiochus was not, of course, stopped by a king sent from heaven. The author of the book of Daniel, however, imagined a very similar end for Antiochus IV in the advent of the archangel Michael.30

28 For Cambyses’ conquest of Egypt, see Herodotus 3.1–16; for his madness, Herodotus 4.27–37. Diodorus 16.51.2 records the destruction and plundering that followed Artaxerxes’ reconquest of Egypt after driving out the last native pharaoh, Nectanebo; see also Plutarch de Iside 31 (Mor. 363C). On Artaxerxes’ war in Egypt see the full discussion of P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (trans. P. T. Daniels; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 685–8. 29 Perhaps even the fact that the destructive figure in the Sibyl’s prophecy will come from the West finds an answer in the career of Antiochus IV. The sequence of events according to the Sibyl begins with an invasion of Egypt by the Persian. Then he will rush in from the West to lay the land waste. Finally, he will become bold enough to assault Jerusalem. Antiochus did not, of course, enter Egypt from the West. He did, however, return to Judea from Egypt; that is to say, he entered Judea from the West. Daniel, as is well-known, describes the war of Antiochus against Egypt in terms of North and South. 30 Dan 12.1: “At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence.”

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

223

Perhaps, then, in Sibylline Oracle 5, we are dealing with a very old tradition in this second section, an oracle against Egypt from the days of the Sixth Syrian War. Taken together with the prophecy of the destructive Persian, it would seem that the oracle’s author, if it can be ascribed to a single hand, favored neither the Ptolemies nor the Seleucids. Nor do the native Egyptians with their idolatry and theriolatry win the author’s esteem. This interpretation must remain purely speculative. The description contained in the passage fits Antiochus IV well, taking into account the vagaries of prophetic narrative. This is not to discount entirely the possibility that Cambyses or Artaxerxes III lies behind the oracle as well. The oracle might very well be a reapplication of an original anti-Persian oracle to the new circumstances of a Seleucid invasion of Egypt. The oracle has in turn been incorporated into an anti-Roman oracle in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, who succeeded where his forerunner Antiochus had failed. The interesting thing about Sibylline Oracle 5 is that Titus is almost nowhere presented as the principal Roman enemy of Jerusalem, but Nero is. Further analysis of the Neronian elements of Sibylline Oracle 5 will show that the destructive figure is composed of many elements with a large admixture of details from the historical Nero. Here in this first instance we can already see that Antiochus IV also added to the portrait of the man of destruction. We shall now turn to the next oracle. The third oracle (111–78) begins with a lengthy prophecy of various disasters to befall Asia. Destruction comes upon sites in Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia. The Euphrates will flood and destroy the Persians, Iberians, Babylonians, and Massagetae. Then various natural disasters will befall certain cities and peoples of Asia Minor. Syria and Phoenicia, along with Bithynia, will be burned to ashes. Outside Asia, Thessaly, too, will be destroyed by the flooding Peneius. It is impossible to recover the historical moment to which these dire prophecies refer, if they are even ex eventu. If they are meant figuratively, perhaps they recall the Macedonian invasion of Asia Minor and the penetration into central Asia. After these geographically specific pronouncements the Sibyl turns her attention back to the man of destruction, this time in unmistakable Neronian guise. The prophecy (137–53) is largely ex eventu and drawn from the events of the historical Nero’s reign as well as the activities of the False Neros. A great king of Rome will cut through the Isthmus of Corinth. Singing sweet songs with his melodious voice, he will destroy many men and his mother. Then he will flee from Babylon and come to the

224

chapter seven

Medes and Persians to whom he had given glory. Among these peoples he will lurk, plotting against a true people. This was the man who seized the temple and burned the citizens who entered it. When he appears, creation will be shaken and kings will die. Those who remain will destroy a great city and righteous people. There is much going on in this report, which blends events from both the reign of Nero and his return from the East. The author recognizes the great popularity of Nero in the East and indicates that Nero felt very much at home there, for it was the Medes and Persians whom he desired first of all and glorified. This is no doubt a reflection of the criticisms leveled at Nero for his handling of Tiridates.31 It also recalls to mind that the False Neros of the Flavian period found refuge and support in Parthia. The connection of Nero with the seizure of the temple presents greater problems. In the oracle under discussion there are two apparent references to the destruction of Jerusalem. Nero seizes the temple and burns the citizens entering it (150–1). Later when Nero appears, or perhaps reappears, and the kings perish, the ones who are left holding onto sovereignty destroy Jerusalem and the righteous people (153–4). The perishing of the kings when Nero returns is probably to be understood as a reference to Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. The ones who remain holding onto sovereignty and who destroy the great city would be Vespasian and Titus. How then does Nero fit in? Nero did not, of course, have a hand in the destruction of Jerusalem. It is true that the war began during his reign, but seems to be a bit of a stretch to reckon the destruction up to him. The first point to notice in unraveling this problem is that the Sibyl does not say that Nero will burn the temple or Jerusalem. Rather, Nero will seize the temple and burn the citizens going into it. The destruction of the city is assigned to rulers after Nero’s departure from Rome, in the text styled Babylon. Nero himself never set foot in Judea. Nor did Nero ever burn any Jerusalemites. How then to make sense of these lines? There was one incident during Nero’s reign that involved the temple and resulted in the deaths of thousands of Jerusalemites. The procurator Gessius Florus seized seventeen talents from the temple treasury. When the Jews protested he unleashed his soldiers on the populace allowing them to loot houses and to massacre the inhabitants. Josephus

31

Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.396 n. j2.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

225

(B.J. 2.293–308) tallies Jewish losses at 3,600 dead. In Josephus’ account there is no mention of an actual seizure of the temple. This is not a serious obstacle, as Josephus does not tell us the circumstances of Florus’ act, for instance whether force was needed against any Jewish resistance. Even if the procurator’s exaction was not conducted through violence, it is easy to imagine that the author of Sibylline Oracle 5 might have used heightened language. A rather more serious problem with identifying the incidents in Josephus and Sibylline Oracle 5 arises in the Sibyl’s description of Nero burning the citizens. Josephus’ account does not mention fire. Burning in the midst of looting is certainly not surprising. On the other hand, the Sibyl might be using language figuratively. Perhaps she wishes to convey that Nero destroyed many men and chose “burning” to associate Nero’s act with the ultimate fiery destruction caused by Titus. What remains incontrovertible is the fact that the Sibyl does not assign responsibility for burning the temple or city to Nero. His role as a destroyer of Jews is, however, amplified beyond what the record might allow even if we accept the Sibyl’s words as an exaggerated retelling of the incident during the procuratorship of Florus. The last part of this section (155–61) deals with Rome. First the Sibyl warns of a coming cataclysm that will destroy the entire earth. The seer’s focus narrows to its effects on Italy. A great star will fall from heaven and burn up Babylon and the land of Italy. This will happen because of Italy’s role in the destruction of many faithful Jews. The Sibyl (162–78) then goes on to denounce Rome in terms very much reminiscent of one of the oracles against Babylon found in the biblical book of Isaiah. Isaiah (13) reports the words of the Lord against Babylon and the punishment that will befall the great kingdom on account of its treatment of Israel. The Lord will summon a great host from the end of the heavens to destroy the whole earth. The earth will be made desolate and sinners will be destroyed. The heavens will cease to give light. It is the Medes whom the Lord will use to accomplish the punishment of sinners. Babylon will become like Sodom and Gomorrah, uninhabited for all generations. Then Israel will taunt Babylon with its comeuppance. The proud words of Babylon that it would make itself like the Most High will be thrown back in its face. The Lord will rise up and cut off from Babylon its name, remnant, and posterity (Isa 14.1–27). Elsewhere, Isaiah again prophecies the punishment that will befall Babylon. In this later prophecy Isaiah reports Babylon’s proud words

226

chapter seven

that she would be immune from punishment because she alone was and there was no one besides her, appropriating the notion from God, its rightful owner. Babylon, according to Isaiah, felt secure in saying this because she relied on her skill in sorcery. Nevertheless, Babylon would lose her children and become like a widow.32 Just as in Isaiah’s prophecy, so too in the Sibyl’s we find a cosmic chastisement. While it is caused through the agency of a falling star, rather than by the Medes, the effect is the same, namely worldwide destruction (Sib. Or. 5.155–61; cf. Isa 13.5, 9). Rome will be desolate for all the future ages, just as Babylon (Sib. Or. 5.162–4; cf. Isa 13.19–20). The soil of Rome will be despised because of the sorceries practiced there (Sib. Or. 5.165; cf. Isa 47.9). In retribution for Rome’s impurity it will sit by the banks of the Tiber, a widow (Sib. Or. 5.169–70; cf. Isa 47.8–9). Rome merited the divine chastisement on account of her proud words that she alone was and that no one would ever ravage her.33 But now God will destroy Rome and her people and there will be no sign left of her former glory (Sib. Or. 5.174–5). Rome will take up her abode in the fiery regions of hades (Sib. Or. 5.177–8; cf. Isa 14.15). The similarity in details between the condemnation of Rome in Sibylline Oracle 5 and the prophecies against Babylon in Isaiah is striking, especially the usurpation of the divine “I am” by Rome and Babylon. The great difference between the two works is in the scope of the coming chastisement. Though Isaiah suggests that the world will be swept clean, in fact, only Babylon is punished for its actions against Israel. Sibylline Oracle 5 sees Rome’s wickedness as a threat to the world. As will be made clear in the very last oracle delivered by the Sibyl at the end of the text, the world is destined for destruction. Also of interest is the way in which the author of Sibylline Oracle 5 has taken the very Jewish material of Isaiah and reset it in pagan form. There is nothing particularly Jewish about the author’s reuse of Isaiah. A third point worth noting is the way in which our author has simply lifted much of the imagery for the anti-Roman oracle from Isaiah without spelling out the Rome/Babylon identification. Sibylline Oracle 5 is one of 32 Isa 47.8–9: “Now therefore hear this, you lover of pleasures, who sit securely, who say in your heart, ‘I am, and there is no one besides me; I shall not sit as a widow or know the loss of children’—both these things will come upon you in a moment, in one day: the loss of children and widowhood shall come upon you in full measure, in spite of your many sorceries and the great power of your enchantments”. 33 Sib. Or. 5.173: “But you said, ‘I alone am, and no one will ravage me’”; cf. Isa 47.8, previous note.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

227

the few texts we have that deals with Rome as Rome, without hiding it behind the Babylonian mask. Nevertheless, the obvious connection between the two destroyers of Jerusalem is still influencing his choice of material. The work is about Israel’s great enemies: Babylon and Egypt from the biblical period and Rome from the author’s own day. The fourth section of the oracle (179–285) is full of mystery. Like the other sections it seems to be a composite of various oracles with different aims from different times, mostly ante-dating the Roman period, for with the exception of the lines relating to Nero (214–227), there is nothing Roman mentioned. The section begins with an oracle against Egypt (179–199) prophesying various destroyers who will come to the land. Though the oracle professes to deal with Egypt, in fact the cities and lands named as victims include places in Cyrene and Libya, as well. The Egyptian cities include Memphis, Python, Thebes, and Syene; the Libyan cities include Barca, Teuchira (Arsinoe), and Pentapolis; in addition the lands of Libya and Cyrene are named. The destroyers include a savage man, who will destroy Thebes; a great man of the Ethiopians, who will destroy Syene; dark-skinned Indians, a possible reference to Ethiopians, who will take Teuchira by force; and a very mighty man, who will destroy Pentapolis. It is significant that Alexandria is not mentioned as we would expect, if we were dealing with the Roman period. One possible indication of the oracle’s date, or at least the dramatic date, is the mention of Barca. The Sibyl (187–8) declares that the city will exchange the dirty frock (κυπάσσιον) for a white one. This could conceivably be a reference to the enslavement of the city by Darius’ Persian expeditionary force that penetrated into Libya while pacifying the Egyptian revolt that broke out after the death of Cambyses.34 Coming immediately on the heels of the oracle against Egypt, Libya, and Cyrene is another puzzling oracle (200–5). The Sibyl declares that the ocean between the Brygi and the Gauls will be filled with blood as a result of the evil they did against the children of God when the purple, or Phoenician, king led a Gallic army out of Syria against the

34

Thus Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.397 n. r2, understanding the κυπάσσιον to be the Persian short frock. It is not clear why a white κυπάσσιον would indicate slavery rather than the dirty one which Barca sheds. For the capture of Barca, see Herodotus 4.200–4.

228

chapter seven

Sidonians; Ravenna will also be destroyed.35 The details could not be more specific and yet the oracle’s interpretation defies any solution. The Brygi were a Thracian tribe that inhabited the districts to the north of Beroea in Macedon. In Antiquity they were imagined to have migrated into both Asia Minor (Herodotus 7.73; Strabo 7 frag. 25 [H. L. Jones p. 349]; Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. Βρίγες), where they acquired the name of Phrygians, and Illyria (Strabo 7.7.8; Appian B.C. 2.39). The Gauls mentioned here might be provincials from Gaul. They could, moreover, be Galatians. The Phoenician, or purple, king might be some reference to Vespasian or perhaps even Nero.36 Again, we might here be dealing with an older oracle. The Hellenistic monarchs in Asia were known for using Galatian mercenaries (Justin 25.2; 27.2). This might account for the Sibyl’s saying that they will be led from Syria. As for the Sidonians against whom the Gauls are to be led, it is difficult to see how this would mean the Jews conquered by Vespasian and Titus. We might understand the term to refer more broadly to Phoenicians, but this brings very little in the way of aid in resolving the oracle. The best solution based on the evidence seems to be taking it as a Hellenistic oracle, as the Roman connection is too tenuous. The Sibyl (214–9) then turns once again to Nero. This time it is not the Nero of history who interests the Sibyl, but rather the Nero who returns. The oracle is directed against Corinth whose destruction is foretold by the seer. The first part contains a fairly standard interpretation of the returning emperor. The Fates will bring Nero back, though he is now fleeing, a reference to the supposed escape of Nero when facing death. When he returns he will destroy Corinth and ravage the land. The Sibyl calls to mind Nero’s previous activity in the vicinity of Corinth when he tried to cut a canal through the isthmus. Thus far there is nothing remarkable in the Sibyl’s prophecy. Nero will flee and will return bringing destruction in his wake. The rest of the Nero oracle provides some interesting details. The Sibyl (220–7) begins by stating that God has specially gifted Nero with great strength so that he might accomplish deeds unlike any 35 The manuscript tradition reads βρύτεσσι, which Wilamowitz emended to Βρύγεσσι, an emendation accepted by Geffcken in his edition. Collins, “Sibylline Ora-

cles,” OTP 1.398 n. u2, prefers the manuscript reading and renders the translation as “Britains”. This is not, so far as I can see, a usual translation, nor is this even a Greek word. The Brygi (Βρύγοι) or Briges (Βρίγες), on the other hand, are a known people. 36 Collins, OTP, 1.398 n. v2, reads the oracle as a reference to Vespasian, who had Gauls in his army. I know of no evidence for Gallic soldiers in Vespasian’s army.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

229

previous king. As an example of his wondrous acts the Sibyl declares that Nero will cut off the roots of three heads and give them to others to eat, so that they might eat the flesh of the parents of the impious king. The Sibyl explains that terrors are in store for the world because of a great city and righteous people preserved through everything and esteemed by Providence, a clear reference to Jerusalem and the Jews. The uprooting of the three heads from their roots recalls an image in the book of Daniel. The prophet sees a vision of a beast with ten horns. In their midst there grows up a little horn which uproots three of the horns.37 The beast is identified with the Seleucid Empire and the little horn with Antiochus IV. The three kings put down by Antiochus are not so clear, but a case could be made for his brother and predecessor Seleucus IV and his two nephews, who were the rightful heirs to the throne. Antiochus did not himself kill these opponents, but could easily be blamed as the deaths were to his benefit. It is possible that we once again find a connection between Antiochus IV and Nero. Nero was, of course, well known for his murders, so it would be hard to single out just three, except for the Sibyl’s further words, not taken from Daniel, that he would give the victims to others so that they might eat the bodies of his parents. Nero murdered his mother, Agrippina. Perhaps he was also implicated in the supposed murder of his adoptive father, Claudius, by his mother. Again, as with Antiochus IV, Nero need not have been a participant, guilt could be attached to his benefiting from the death. As a third family death we might add his step-brother and co-heir Britannicus. The Sibyl, of course, speaks of parents, but perhaps we could stretch the meaning to encompass parents and brother. Nero also killed his wife, Octavia, Claudius’ daughter. This solution has one major flaw, namely that the Sibyl locates Nero’s cutting off the roots of the three heads after his return, whereas the killings of Claudius, Agrippina, and Britannicus were actions of the historical Nero. Another solution presents itself. Perhaps the cutting off of the three heads refers to the three contenders for the throne after Nero’s death, or more properly from the Sibyl’s point of view, after Nero’s disappearance from Rome. This requires a rather loose

37 Dan 7.8: “I was considering the horns, when another horn appeared, a little one coming up among them; to make room for it, three of the earlier horns were plucked up by the roots”; cf. 7.24: “As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them. This one shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings”.

230

chapter seven

interpretation of the Sibyl’s statement that the murders involved his parents, but perhaps we could understand the Sibyl to be calling Nero’s successors his predecessors or ancestors, as they would be in relation to a restoration to the throne. One cannot help but wonder whether the author of Sibylline Oracle 5 has not reused earlier material relating to Antiochus IV and attempted to assimilate it to Nero. This would certainly seem to be the case with the first man of destruction oracle in the second section. On the other hand, the author might have done so in regards to the second section and then continued to employ Antiochus as a lens through which to view Nero, thus explaining his allusions to Daniel in the section presently under discussion. The various oracles foretelling the man of destruction certainly comprise many Neronian elements, but non-Neronian elements also exist alongside them, so that we end up with a composite evil king that bears a strong resemblance to Nero, though surpassing him in some details. The present section ends with a long encomium of the Jews (238– 85). The oracle lays out three stages in the national life of the Jews. The first is characterized as a golden age when the glorious message of the prophets was offered to all the men of the world. Then an evil leader brought grief and toil. Finally, the Jews will be restored, wars will end, and the Jews will set up trophies marking their victories over the wicked. In this day a man will come from heaven and the wicked will hide themselves. The earth will cease to yield until men turn to God and put away idols and the animal gods honored by the Egyptians. The message is fairly conventional, but has a few points that merit discussion. The elements of the oracle are for the most part general and cannot be assigned to any particular historical context. There is certainly nothing that points to any knowledge of Rome. There are two details, however, that point away from a Roman context. The transition from the days of the evil leader to the restoration of the Jews is marked by the cessation of war, pestilence, and groaning in the land of the Persians (247–52). One of the blessings of that age will be the removal of the unclean foot of the Greeks from the land; furthermore, the Greeks will apparently honor the laws of the Jews (264–5). In our discussion of the man of destruction in the second section of the text, we suggested that the emphasis on the land of the Persians, but not the people of the Persians itself, most likely alluded to the Seleucid monarchy and state, which came to possess the old empire

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

231

of the Achaemenids. Perhaps the same principle is at work here. The wars and other hardships of the Persian land might be a reference to the troubled affairs of the Seleucid Empire in the days of Antiochus IV and especially his successors, for the history of the Seleucids in this era is one of usurpation, civil war, and treachery, which left its mark on Judea. It is easy, then, to see why the restoration will include the removal of Greeks from the land of Judea and their possible conversion. If this interpretation is correct, we are again dealing with an author who has borrowed from Jewish anti-Seleucid literature and presented it in the context of the Roman occupation of Judea. This supports the contention that Antiochus IV served as an archetype for Nero. The fifth and longest section follows (286–433), beginning with an oracle against many of the cities of Asia Minor prophesying their destruction through natural disasters (286–327). Then, after a brief prayer to God to show favor to Judea based on his early election of this people (328–32), the Sibyl delivers an oracle against the Thracians, Macedonia, and Italy (333–60). After this the Sibyl proceeds to Nero again (361–85) and then to a denunciation of Rome (386–96) and a lament for the destroyed temple (397–413), before finishing with the announcement of a saving figure that will come from Heaven to restore the temple (414–33). We might be justified in seeing this as the heart of the composite text which comprises Sibylline Oracle 5, as it brings together many of the themes found elsewhere in the text and addresses the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in direct terms, one of the few texts in this study to do so. The first part of the oracle against European peoples is focused on the region of the northern Aegean (333–41). The Sibyl declares her desire to see a disaster befall the Thracians and for the wall that divides two seas, perhaps the Mediterranean/Aegean and Euxine, broken down by Ares. She declares that the Hellespont will be yoked by the descendants of the Assyrians; the strait will also be destroyed by warring Thracians. An Egyptian king will seize Macedonia and barbarians will overthrow unnamed leaders. Finally the Lydians, Galatians, Pamphylians, and Pisidians will conquer. A few of these prophecies are immediately identifiable, with a greater or lesser degree of certainty. The yoking of the Hellespont recalls Xerxes’ bridging of the strait during his Greek expedition. No Egyptian king, whether native or Macedonian, ever conquered Macedon. This could be a reference to Ptolemy Ceraunus, an illegitimate son of

232

chapter seven

Ptolemy I who accompanied Seleucus I in the campaign that ended with the Syrian king’s victory at Corupedion, a victory which opened Europe up to the victor. Ceraunus murdered Seleucus and claimed the Macedonian throne briefly before his own defeat at the hands of marauding Gauls.38 This seems in retrospect a fairly minor event to merit inclusion in the Sibyl’s foretelling of future woe for Europe. This whole oracle, with its emphasis on the Hellespont and wars involving Europeans and Asiatics is redolent of the propaganda war between Antiochus III and the Romans.39 The Sibyl then shifts her attention to Italy, which she claims will be destroyed. It seems that God himself will take this task in hand and the destruction of Italy will be accompanied by a cosmic cataclysm when the sun will cease to shine as will the moon. The blackness that descends on the earth will force men to notice God, though he will show no mercy to those who sacrifice animals to idols. The Sibyl ends by encouraging people to love God in order to avert the things which she prophesies (342–60). It should be noted that the cause for Italy’s punishment goes unmentioned. It is not connected with Rome’s humiliation of the Jews, nor with her arrogant imperialism. The only apparent cause it Italy’s idolatry, but this is a fault that the Italians and Romans shared with most of the world’s population. One wonders what context gave rise to this anti-Italian oracle, where neither Rome’s greed nor its aggression is condemned, as we would expect if one of Rome’s eastern wars gave rise to it. Following the oracle against Italy is the most fully developed prophecy (361–85) of Nero, one which links the king’s return with eschatological upheavals. The focus of the prophecy is the returning Nero’s conquests and wars, but with some other features of interest. Nero, who is identified by his matricidal act, will come from the ends of the earth. He will destroy all the lands and conquer everything. He will seize the one through whom he was destroyed. This should probably be understood as Rome or Italy. The Sibyl continues, that he will destroy men and rulers and set fire to all men as had never been done before. A great war that will come from the West will cause the rivers to flow with blood and Macedonia to drip with wrath. The descrip-

38 39

Thus Collins, OTP, 1.401 n. r3. On this see the introduction to the previous chapter.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

233

tions of Nero’s destructiveness are for the most part straightforward, but how is the war from the West to be understood? This war marks a turning point for Nero. The Sibyl (374) says that this war will bring an alliance for the people from the West and destruction for the king. The portrait of Nero the destroyer, victorious over all comers emphasizes the universality of his conquests. He even, apparently, turns against Rome itself, though the description of the fighting centers on Macedonia. Are we then to understand the alliance with the people of the West as a union of East and West against Nero? The notion has a precedent in the oracles credited to Antisthenes, as we have seen. At one point an oracle (FGH 257 F36 III.7) promises the union of an eastern king with the people of Europe for a war against Italy. Perhaps something like this is envisioned here, though the other party to the alliance is not named. Is it Macedonia? Nor does the Sibyl provide details as to Nero’s destruction. What is of interest is the fact that the returning Nero’s demise comes not at the hands of a saving figure from heaven, but in the midst of an earthly war. This point will be returned to below, but first some other unusual elements of the description of Nero must be noted. Interspersed with the description of Nero’s conquests are what appear to be elements of a more positive appreciation of the returning king. Twice the Sibyl comments on Nero’s intellectual capacity. When Nero returns from the ends of the earth he is described as fleeing and devising schemes in his mind.40 To this rather vague statement is added another affirming the king’s wisdom. The Sibyl says that Nero will consider things more wisely than all men.41 The line recalls the description of Hadrian in the review of history that begins Sibylline Oracle 5. Not only is Nero’s wisdom extolled, but he is presented as a champion of the downtrodden, for the Sibyl declares that he will through his zeal raise up those who are frightened.42 All of this is indeed rather surprising, for we have not been led to expect a favorable attitude toward Nero and yet one seems to be mixed up with the more destructive elements of the returning king.43

40 Sib. Or. 5.363–4: “A man who is a matricide will come from the ends of the earth in flight and devising penetrating schemes in his mind.” 41 Sib. Or. 5.365–6: “He will destroy every land and conquer all and consider all things more wisely than all men.” 42 Sib. Or. 5.370: “Through zeal he will raise up those who were crouched in fear.” 43 On the positive approach to Nero in this case see Champlin, Nero, 14–15.

234

chapter seven

As noted in the introduction to this chapter the attitude towards Nero, especially in the East, was on the whole more positive than critical. One might be justified in saying that apart from the senatorial tradition which informs our major historical sources on Nero, the lower classes and provincials were ready to look on Nero as a benign and even beneficent figure. This conflicting view of Nero from the various constituencies of the Roman Empire might stand behind the ambivalent portrait in the present oracle. It should be noted that Nero’s destruction is general; it is not directed at the Jews. The fact that Nero destroys peoples and kings would not on the face of it hold any particular horror for Jews. The Nero oracle comes on the heels of oracles relating the destruction planned for Asia, the northern Aegean, and Italy. Could the people cowering in fear, who are raised up by Nero, possibly be the Jews? As we have seen in Sibylline Oracle 4, discussed in the previous chapter, the return of Nero was not necessarily something to be dreaded. As was argued above, Sibylline Oracle 4 was penned as a tract seeking to discourage Jewish hopes for vengeance under the leadership of the returning Nero. Our view of Nero is perhaps clouded by the Greco-Roman tradition of criticism. Sibylline Oracle 5 throughout focuses on the emperor’s more outrageous aspects: his matricide, the murder of his family, the canal through the isthmus. It should be noted, however, that none of these horrible or hubristic acts were to the disadvantage of the Jews. It is quite possible that the return of this awful destroyer king need not have been anticipated with anxiety by the Jews. The eschaton is always an upheaval, but in the way that birth is. At the end of it all the Jews will remain standing in a new world free from oppression. This is the message to which the Sibyl turns after the oracle on Nero. The war with the West leads to the death of the king. After this, bedlam ensues. The blast of winter blows through the land and war fills the plain. Heaven opens up and fire rains down. Fire, blood, water, lightning, darkness, war, and a mist cover the world and destroy all the kings and nobles. War will then cease, indeed it will become unlawful, and only the wise will be left to enjoy a peace made sweeter by the experience of evils through which they had passed (375–85). In the Neronian oracle under discussion Nero is a destroyer and a conqueror, but he falls in the midst of his wars. After his death it is a combination of war and natural cataclysms that bring ruin to the world. At the end of all of this, however, a wise people is left. The author does not name these people and it is not clear whether we are

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

235

to understand them to be the Jews. Elsewhere in the text, as we shall see, the author holds out the possibility of conversion for the Gentiles. Nevertheless, it would be reasonable to assume that the author intends the Jews here, for in the earlier encomium on the Jews the Sibyl prophesied their restoration in an era free from war. Nero, then is not the final destroyer figure who faces off against the Messiah. Rather, in this oracle, he appears as a harbinger of the end. His agency is restricted to starting the eschatological process. There are also some positive aspects of Nero. The author, like many especially in the East, is ambivalent about Nero. After the Nero oracle comes a warning to the city of Rome to turn aside from sexual sins (386–96). The Sibyl addresses the Romans as matricides, thereby linking the whole people with Nero. She accuses them of fostering pederasty, prostitution, incest, and bestiality. The shadow of Nero is perhaps also visible here, as the Sibyl (390) draws attention to an incident of sexual relations between mother and son and also makes mention (392) of kings who defiled their mouths. The punishment that awaits the Romans for their sexual transgressions is the cessation of the eternal fire tended by the Vestal Virgins (395–6). This could be a reference to the burning of the Temple of Vesta in the Forum in A.D. 64.44 If this interpretation is correct, it provides a nice transition to the next section of the oracle, which details the burning of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. Just as the author tackles Rome without hiding behind the trope of the Babylonians, so too does he deal in forthright terms with the destruction of the temple (397–413). The prophecy of the temple’s destruction is not presented as an event still lying in the future. Rather the Sibyl’s language treats the event as already passed, as indeed it would be for the author and audience of Sibylline Oracle 5. Unlike 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch, the discussion of the temple’s demise does not focus on the details of the destruction itself. Instead the Sibyl uses the occasion of the prophecy to contrast the temple of the true God with the pagan practice of idolatry. The Sibyl relates the vision in the first person, as though she were present at the temple’s burning, as perhaps the author was. She expresses the hopes of the Jews that this temple, the house of God made by a holy people, would be eternal. The Jews did not worship idols in there, but the great God who made all living

44

Thus Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.402 n. v3.

236

chapter seven

creatures. The contrast between the great God of the Jews and the false idols made of clay, which the pagans revered is carried through to the Sibyl’s appraisal of the temple’s conqueror, Titus. The Sibyl refrains from naming the Roman conqueror and future emperor. Instead she describes the temple’s destroyer as insignificant and impious, using the same adjective (ἀφανής: 408, cf. 403) to describe both the king and the clay from which pagan idols are fashioned. The contrast between the Romans and the Jews might be more sharply defined depending on the interpretation of the line following the one recording the temple’s fate. The Sibyl says that the obscure king cast down the temple and left it a ruin along with a great multitude and glorious men.45 The syntax of the sentence leaves the proper connection of the great multitude and glorious men in doubt. Did they come with the obscure king to destroy the temple and leave it in ruins, or did the obscure king come and leave the temple in ruins along with the multitude and glorious men, who are to be understood as encompassed within the ruin of the temple? If the former, it is odd that the Roman army, as the multitude would have to be understood, is described as glorious. It seems more reasonable to understand the multitude and glorious men as the Jews, who were caught up in the temple’s disastrous fate. If the second interpretation is correct, then this marks the division between the Romans with their insignificant clay gods and impious king and the Jews with their true God and their glorious people. The impious king who destroys the temple comes to a bad end. When he leaves the land of Judea he will be killed by immortal hands as a sign to others who might wish to destroy a great city (411–3). While it is true that Titus’s death was not miraculous, the hand of God could be seen in its untimeliness.46 It is worth pointing out that actual responsibility for the temple’s destruction is laid not at the feet of Nero, who in the Sibyl’s presentation of that emperor can hardly be described as obscure. As with many of the texts that make up the present study, the loss of the temple in itself is not the problem, rather here in Sibylline Oracle 5 it is the inferiority of Rome and her idols and kings to the great God of the Jews. 45

Sib. Or. 5.410: “But now a certain insignificant and impious king has gone up, cast it down, and left it in ruins with a great horde and illustrious men (σὺν πλήθει μεγάλῳ καὶ ἀνδράσι κυδαλίμοισιν).” 46 The objection belongs to Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.403 n. x3.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

237

The fifth section ends with a prophecy of the coming Messiah (414– 33). The prophecy serves as a conclusion to the section and is tied in with many of the themes raised during the previous oracles. Overall, the work of the Messiah is to right the wrongs committed by Rome. The messianic figure is described as a blessed man wielding a scepter given to him by God and coming down from heaven. His first act is to restore to the good all of the wealth that had been taken by previous men. Though Rome is not mentioned here, the Sibyl seems to envision the redistribution of the wealth that Rome has taken from her subjects.47 The Messiah will then set about the work of destroying the wicked. According to the Sibyl he will burn every city down to its foundations and all the nations that did evil. In a way, the work of the Messiah is not so different from that of Nero when he returns from exile in the Neronian oracle of this section of the text. Given Sibylline Oracle 5’s ambivalence to Nero in this section, we might suggest that certain messianic elements have found their way into the Sibyl’s description of the returning Nero. After the work of destruction comes the work of restoration. The Messiah will restore Jerusalem and the temple, destroyed by the Romans. Jerusalem is described as the city of God’s desire. It will be made more brilliant than the sun, moon, and stars. The temple will be exceptionally beautiful and will have the addition of a very tall tower reaching up to the clouds, which will be visible to all men. The purpose of the tower is to demonstrate to all peoples of East and West the glory of God. It will have its intended effect, as all the peoples of East and West begin to sing hymns to God’s glory (420–8). The Sibyl seems here to imagine the conversion of the world after the removal of whatever wicked elements have prevented men from seeing the truth of God’s power. Indeed, the Sibyl declares that at this time there will no longer be adulteries, the unlawful love of boys, murder, or battles (429–31). The list of sins recalls the Sibyl’s preoccupation with the sexual impurities of the Roman nation and its violent acts. It is interesting to note that idolatry is not singled out for mention. Finally, the Sibyl (432–3) announces that God, who is the founder of the great

47 Sib. Or. 4.145–8 contains a similar prophecy, when the Sibyl declares that the wealth which Rome plundered from Asia will be returned with interest in the period just before the eschaton.

238

chapter seven

temple, will accomplish all of these things for the holy people in the last time. The messianic oracle that ends the fifth section reads as a conclusion to the oracles about Nero, Rome, and the temple that preceded it. The violence, greed, and impurity of Rome will find its reversal in the activities of the Messiah. The return of Nero, the description of which includes some messianic elements, stands as a precursor to the purifying actions of the Messiah. Just as Rome’s wickedness reached its pinnacle in the destruction of the temple, so will messianic justice culminate in its restoration as a beacon of truth to all the surviving peoples of the world after the destruction of the wicked. Peace will reign in a world purged of the particular crimes associated with Rome. The sixth and final section of Sibylline Oracle 5 (434–531) contains four oracles. One prophesies the coming fall of Babylon (434–46). Another provides a grab-bag of natural and manmade catastrophes that are to befall the nations of the Mediterranean (447–83). A third foretells the eventual conversion of Egypt from its idolatry and the building of a temple there to the true God, which is later destroyed by the Ethiopians (484–511). A final oracle describes a heavenly battle between the constellations that ends with the stars falling to earth and burning it up (512–31). The oracle against Babylon seems to be just that; which is to say that the Sibyl is directing her warnings at Babylon rather than Rome behind the Babylonian mask. The point is made clearly, though in rather enigmatic language, by the Sibyl’s (442–3) declaration that Babylon will send hostages to Rome. This might possibly be a reference to the steady stream of hostages sent by the Parthian and other Asian dynasties to Rome for security and education beginning in the reign of Augustus. Though the oracle is directed against Babylon, it should perhaps be read as a warning to Rome. Interestingly, the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem is not given as the reason for the kingdom’s humbling. Rather it is Babylon’s arrogance and imperial pretensions that serve as the implied basis for future punishment. The Sibyl draws attention to the wealth of Babylon with its golden throne and sandals; its pride, which will be restrained with a bridle; its impiety; and its crooked words. The same sort of things could be said, and indeed has been said, by the Sibyl about Rome. The applicability of the Babylonian oracle to Rome is increased by the lofty terms used to describe the imperial sway of Babylon. It should

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

239

be remembered that although Babylon was a prominent kingdom whose imperial reach covered much of the Near East, it was not a world empire, as Rome was. And yet the Sibyl (435) chides Babylon, saying that for years it was the sole kingdom ruling over the world. Furthermore, she (436) claims universality for Babylon’s greatness. Such talk recalls the historical topos of the succession of empires which plays such a large roll in Sibylline Oracle 4. The description fits Rome better than Babylon. So, too, does one of the prophesied punishments that will befall Babylon. The Sibyl (438–9) declares that Babylon will tremble at the Parthians, though this people was not a plague to the Neo-Babylonian Empire of the sixth century B.C. More appropriate are the Sibyl’s (440–1) words telling Babylon not to worry how it will rule over Persians and Medes. This could very easily be a reference to the conquest of the Neo-Babylonian Empire by Cyrus. It might also recall, however, the Sibyl’s description in the first section of Sibylline Oracle 5 (22–3) of Tiberius’ accomplishments, where that emperor was said to rule over Persians and Babylon and to have conquered the Medes with the spear. Though the anti-Babylonian oracle might be an older piece of Sibylline Oracle 5, it surely does not go back far enough to serve as a serious warning to the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. It is better read as a warning to Rome. Just as Babylon was once an arrogant and grasping empire that received its comeuppance, so, too, would Rome. It is odd that the Sibyl does not draw attention to the two empires’ shared crime of destroying Jerusalem, but in Sibylline Oracle 5, as in many of the texts that make up the present study, Rome is more often condemned in general terms for her imperial arrogance than for any particular crimes, even against the Jews. The following oracle contains a mixture of natural calamities and manmade ones in the form of wars that will befall the world in the last time (447–83). The cities and regions affected and the means of punishment are too varied to discern any linking theme. So, too, does the oracle defy attempts to date it. There are some elements worth noting. The first lines (447–9) of the oracle describe an eschatological upheaval that will change the face of the Mediterranean basin. The sea will be dry. Asia will be covered by a body of water. The results of this will have a bearing on Asia and Italy. The drying up of the Mediterranean will mean that ships can no longer sail to Italy, while the new waters of Asia will become all-productive. While the meaning is not entirely

240

chapter seven

clear, the Sibyl seems to be predicting a change in the fortunes of Italy and Asia to the benefit of the latter. As Italy becomes isolated from Mediterranean trade routes, Asia prospers. There is another prophecy which reads as though it reflects on an historical event. The Sibyl (458–63) foretells that in the fifth generation when the ruin of Egypt ends and the kings intermingle, the Pamphylians will settle in Egypt, Macedonia, Asia, and Lycia. There will be a bloody war that throws the world into confusion and that will be stopped by the king of Rome and the leaders of the West. The oracle seems to envision a war among the powers of the East, to which Rome puts an end. Nor does this seem to be an event of the Republican era, for it is a Roman king who intervenes. On the face of it, this does not seem to be a negative image of Rome. The people causing the problem would appear to be the Pamphylians, who throw the world into madness with their emigration and war-making. If anything, perhaps the Roman king is a steadying influence. Once again the attitude toward Rome is ambivalent. Another peculiar oracle follows in which the Sibyl (464–7) tells of a barbarian invasion sweeping into Asia and destroying the Thracians. This would seem to be a reference, once again, to the Gallic migration into Asia Minor. The next oracle concerns Egypt (484–511). Specifically the Sibyl looks forward to a day when the Egyptians will lay aside their idolatry in order to embrace the worship of the true God. The Sibyl particularly comments on the abandonment of Isis and Sarapis. Then the priests clad in linen will urge the people of Egypt to build a temple to God. The temple will be built and will serve as a center of worship and sacrifice. Ultimately, however, this experiment will not work, for the Ethiopians will destroy the temple and God will rain down punishment on the land for failing to protect that which he had given them. The passage was most likely inspired by a prophecy of Isaiah detailing the ultimate conversion of the Egyptians.48 Though it seems in Isaiah

48 Isa 19.18–25: “On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the Lord of hosts. One of these will be called the City of the Sun. On that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the center of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord at its border. It will be a sign and a witness to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt; when they cry to the Lord because of oppressors, he will send them a savior, and will defend and deliver them. The Lord will make himself known to the Egyptians; and the Egyptians will know the Lord on that day, and will worship with sacrifice and burnt-offering, and they will make vows to

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

241

that the prophet has in mind Jewish communities in Egypt, which build the temple, it is clear that the Egyptians themselves join in the worship conducted there. Isaiah goes so far as to report that God will call the Egyptians his people. It is entirely likely that the author of Sibylline Oracle 5 is here relying on Isaiah. This claim finds some support from an earlier passage where the author has taken the very words put in the mouth of boastful Babylon by Isaiah and applied them to Rome. Now the author has appropriated the notion of Egyptian conversion, but has changed some of the details, fundamentally in one important respect, namely the ultimate failure of the conversion. There is no notion in Sibylline Oracle 5 that the Jewish community in Egypt is in any way involved in the conversion. Rather, it is the Egyptians themselves, led by their priests, who come to understand the unique position of God and build a temple in his honor. The differences between the account in Isaiah and the present one raises the suspicion that our author is offering a corrective to Isaiah’s rosy view of relations among Israel, Egypt, and Assyria after the conversion of the latter two. According to the Sibyl, Egypt’s conversion will be short-lived and punishment will befall the people for their failure to preserve the faith. In more general terms, this oracle discredits the notion that the conversion of the nations might serve as a basis for good relations between Jews and Gentiles. The final oracle of this section and the text as a whole portends cosmic destruction (512–530). In this oracle the Sibyl declares that God will order the stars to join battle with each other. She then recounts the battle between the constellations. Finally heaven was thrown into upheaval and shook causing the stars to fall to the earth. As the stars plummeted into the oceans the earth caught fire under the starless sky.

the Lord and perform them. The Lord will strike Egypt, striking and healing; they will return to the Lord, and he will listen to their supplications and heal them. On that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. On that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage.’ ”

242

chapter seven 7.4

Conclusion

The text ends on rather a low note with the earth engulfed in flames and the black sky devoid of stars. There is no restoration and no Messiah. There is no judgement and no renewal of heaven and earth, unlike Sibylline Oracle 4. Sibylline Oracle 5 is above all an oracle of destruction for the wicked, with very little attention given to the future, favorable prospects of the just. The closing section serves as a round up of all Israel’s enemies: Egypt, Babylon, and Rome. Each one is finished off in turn. Babylon receives its comeuppance from Rome itself. Then comes Rome, or more precisely the Roman world, for the Sibyl proclaims many disasters to befall different parts of the Mediterranean. The final one of the three seems as though it will make it through the eschaton due to a last-minute conversion from idolatry, but even this will not save the old, archetypal enemy of Israel, despite Isaiah’s hopeful message for the land of the Nile. Last of all, the stars themselves are whipped into conflict and cast down from the sky to destroy the entire earth. This is not a cheery message. Rather it comes from the pen of a man who is more consumed with hatred of Israel’s enemies than with love for his people. The message is not hopeful and in this it is unique among the texts of the present study. To be sure there are moments within Sibylline Oracle 5 that lead the reader to hope for a messianic solution and the reign of peace and happiness, but the ending of the oracle offers no such consolation. Sibylline Oracle 5 is clearly a composite text. There is little internal consistency between the six sections, or even within each section itself. Certain themes unite the various oracles and sections together. One such theme is the concern with Israel’s enemies and their punishment. Another, admittedly minor, theme is the redemption that awaits Israel, though this is lost sight of at the end of the text. A third that wends through all the sections save the final is the figure of Nero. Nero represented everything that was good and bad about Rome: cruel, sensual, debauched, a matricide and fratricide. His arrogance in attempting to carve a canal through the Isthmus of Corinth became a byword for hubris alongside Xerxes’ similar attempt at Mt. Athos. Nevertheless, Nero was beloved in the East. He was open-handed and took a genuine interest in the peoples and cultures of both the Hellenistic and the Oriental world. After a century of mistrust and suspicion, Rome and Parthia found a modus vivendi during his reign. In Sibylline Oracle 5 Nero looms larger than life.

sibylline oracle 5 and the return of nero

243

The presentation of Nero contains a blend of the historical and the mythological. The real Nero and the False Neros of the second half of the first century give way to an eschatological figure partly based on the historical Nero and partly drawing on biblical traditions of Antiochus IV. There is also a very clear borrowing from Isaiah throughout the text. The picture that emerges of Nero is at times ambivalent, but most often negative. Nero personifies Rome in its vices and operates in the form of an individual in a way that mirrors Rome’s own violent actions within the empire that it controls. Ultimately, Sibylline Oracle 5 is not an optimistic text. Perhaps this is because it relies too heavily on a pagan tradition that did not favor redemption or renewal. Perhaps the author had waited too long to see the promises of the other texts in this study fulfilled and had begun to think that any destruction, even if it were total, would be better than seeing Rome get off scot-free for its crimes.

CHAPTER EIGHT

“AND I SAW THERE THE LIKENESS OF THE IDOL OF JEALOUSY” THE APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM AND JEWISH IDOLATRY It is perhaps natural that an aniconic religion would have a conflicted relationship with idolatry. That there should be external conflict against those who worship idols is not surprising. It might be a little more surprising that there would be internal conflict, as well. For the Jews of Antiquity, living in the midst of, and often in subordination to, peoples who worshipped idols, their own rejection of idols was a strong mark of separation, but also for some Jews the wellspring of a desire to conform to pagan practices. Even as Moses descended from his meeting with God on the summit of Mount Sinai carrying with him the tablets containing God’s commandments for Israel, chief among which were the first and second demanding that Israel worship God alone and avoid all idols, the Israelites left in the charge of his brother Aaron had already constructed an idol in the form of a golden calf that they might worship it (Exod 32). After breaking the tablets and killing about 3000 of the people Moses ascended the mountain again and managed to obtain forgiveness for Israel and a new set of tablets. Nevertheless, the attraction of idols continued to plague Israel down through the centuries. The temptations of idolatry were especially strong for the kings of Israel and Judah. Among them it was Manasseh’s adoption that brought the most trouble for his kingdom and people (2 Kgs 21.1–18; 2 Chr 33.1–20). Manasseh’s father, Hezekiah, had been one of the great religious reformers of the kingdom of Judah. His zeal for the Lord had preserved Jerusalem from the Assyrian king Sennacherib. When Manasseh succeeded his father he scrapped Hezekiah’s reforms and rebuilt the high places, erected altars to Baal, and even built altars to various gods in the temple. He set the seal on his wickedness when he offered his son as a sacrifice to his new gods. The God of Israel was provoked by these evils and promised that he would bring a great chastisement on Judah and Jerusalem. The Holy City would be wiped, as one wipes a dish, and the people would be given into the hand

246

chapter eight

of their enemies. According to the book of Jeremiah (15.4), it was Manasseh’s embrace of the idols that ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. In addition to the attempts of some of their own kings to impose the worship of idols on them, the Jews were also targeted at times by pagan kings ruling over them. Antiochus IV’s desecration of the temple is recorded in the book of Daniel and 1 Maccabees. Three times Daniel (9.27; 11.31; 12.11) mentions the “abomination of desolation”, which Antiochus set up in place of the regular sacrificial offerings. 1 Maccabees (1.54) records that, whatever this sacrilegious object was, it was installed on the altar of burnt offering in the temple. The Roman period was not without its own attempt to desecrate the temple. Both Philo and Josephus recall the emperor Gaius’ order to set up a statue within the sanctuary of the temple. According to both Josephus (B.J. 2.184–5) and Philo (Legat. 198; cf. 75–119) it was Gaius’ wish to be considered a god and his suspicion that the Jews would not go along with it that prompted the emperor to order the governor of Syria to set up his statue in the temple. Fortunately, or perhaps providentially, Gaius died before he was able to achieve his aim. The Apocalypse of Abraham is concerned with idolatry. The author explores the rejection of idolatry as the basis of Jewish identity. He also warns that the attraction of idolatry, in the case of worshipping the Roman emperor, will lead to the forfeiture of that identity and the blessings that will accompany it in the world to come. 8.1

Summary of the Text

The Apocalypse of Abraham is divided into two parts. The first eight chapters are a midrash on God’s command to Abram to leave his father’s house (Gen 12.1–3).1 Seeking a reason not provided by the biblical account, the author has ascribed Abraham’s departure to his conversion from the idolatry of his father Terah, who in this text was not only an idol worshipper but even a crafter of idols (Apoc. Ab.

1 Scholars since G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Apokalypse Abrahams (Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 1; Leipzig: Deichert, 1897), 41, have recognized a division between the first eight chapters and the final twenty-four (9–32). The first eight contain the story of Abraham’s conversion from the idolatry of his father; the second part consists of the apocalypse proper.

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

247

1.9; 2.1; 3.3). Through a series of accidents involving the damage or destruction of various idols Abraham comes to realize the helplessness of these objects to save themselves, let alone benefit men who pray to them. First Abraham enters a temple and finds the stone statue of Marumat lying prone on the floor. When Abraham and Terah attempt to set the god upright his head falls off causing Terah to fashion a new god, this time without the troublesome head (1). Later Abraham is sent off with an ass laden with five wooden idols to sell. He falls in with a Syrian caravan whose camels frighten his ass causing the idols to fall. Three of them are broken. When the Syrians learn about Abraham’s precious cargo they desire to buy the two undamaged idols. Through sharp dealing Abraham is able to extract the price of all five idols from the Syrians. When he returns home to Terah with the money his father gives thanks to the gods for Abraham’s good fortune. When Abraham attributes his success to his own good business sense he angers Terah (2–4). The comic finale comes when Terah tells Abraham to sweep up the woodchips left over from the morning’s idol carving for use in cooking Terah’s lunch. While gathering the scraps Abraham finds a small wooden idol named Barisat. Having enkindled the fire, Abraham leaves Barisat to watch over it and charges him with making sure that the fire does not go out. When Abraham returns he, predictably, finds that Barisat has heroically given himself to the fire in order to fulfill Abraham’s charge. The sight of the idol lying on its back half-engulfed by the flame provokes Abraham to laughter. After lunch when Terah is giving praise to Marumath, Abraham tells him that the praise more justly belongs to Barisat, who through love of Terah threw himself into the fire to cook his lunch. Terah is filled with admiration for Barisat’s power and decides to carve another Barisat that day to make him his lunch on the morrow (5).2 Terah’s credulity is too much for his son. The accumulation of evidence pointing to the helplessness and weakness of the idols has gradually brought Abraham to recognize the necessity of seeking out the true God. Abraham reasons that since Terah, as the maker of the idols, is as a god to them, the idols ought to honor him (3.3–4).3 Abraham 2

The fate of Barisat is reminiscent of the rather comic belittling of wooden idols in Isa 44.9–20. 3 The argument here is reminiscent of the relationship of the clay to the potter in Isa 29.16; 45.9; cf. 64.8.

248

chapter eight

confronts his father with his critique of idolatry. He appeals to the gods of his brother Nahor, which are made of precious metals, gold and silver—surely these gods are more venerable than Terah’s, which are made only of wood and stone. Abraham then goes on to demonstrate the powerlessness of Terah’s gods, who cannot save themselves let alone benefit their devotees (6). The argument continues based on the relative power of the elements of nature and celestial bodies. Abraham establishes a hierarchy of power—fire burns idols, water puts out fire, earth covers water, the sun dries up the earth, and so on—and says that he intends to seek the God who is over all because he created all (7).4 God responds to Abraham’s desire to find the God of gods, the Creator, by revealing himself and telling Abraham that he must leave his father’s house. Before Abraham has even made it out of the courtyard, he hears the sound of thunder and sees the house burned to the ground with Terah and all his possessions inside (8).5 Thus a motive is established for the otherwise inexplicable call of Abram in the biblical account: Abraham sought God. This is a reversal of the biblical call

4 R. Rubinkiewicz, “La vision de l’histoire dans l’Apocalypse d’Abraham,” ANRW 2.19.1: 141–2, has argued that this chapter is a later insertion based on the change from the first person to the third for Abraham, a change in the arguments brought against idolatry, and textual reasons. The change in person does not, however, occur in the two independent manuscripts of the text, one of which is the oldest extant. The argument of Apoc. Ab. 7 does have a different emphasis than that of the preceding chapters, but it builds on it as a foundation. While it is true, as Rubinkiewicz observes, that the earlier chapters are dealing with specific named gods and chapter 7 objects to worship of natural elements, viz. fire, water, the sun, stars, and so on, there is also a preoccupation in the earlier chapters with the material from which the idols are constructed, e.g. 1.2–3, 9; 5.3; 6.7–17. In chapter 7 the author takes the next logical step by showing that these elements are all subject to fire, a point already made in the burning of Barisat. The awareness that fire is subject to water, water to earth, earth to the sun, and so on, prompts Abraham to look for that God who created all and is above all. The notion that Abraham was searching for the true God, which finds expression throughout the text (8; 9.6; 17.20; 19.3), requires the integrity of chapter 7 where Abraham vows to seek the creator God (7.10). B. PhilonenkoSayar and M. Philonenko, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham: Introduction, texte slave, traduction et notes (Semitica 31; Paris: Maisonneuve, 1981), 50–1 n. 7; eidem, “Die Apokalypse Abrahams,” in Apokalypsen (ed. W. G. Kümmel; vol. 5.5 of Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1982), 427 n. vii, seem to accept the integrity of chapter 7. 5 G. H. Box and J. I. Landsman, The Apocalypse of Abraham (London: SPCK, 1919), 43 n. 14, explain the burning of Terah’s house as a midrash on Gen 11.31 and 15.7 which say that Abraham was brought out of Ur (“fire”). That Terah was an idolater is found in other texts, notably Jub. 11.16–12; see Box and Landsman, Apocalypse of Abraham, 88–94, for other, primarily rabbinic, accounts of Abraham’s conversion from idolatry.

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

249

of Abram who is sought out by God as part of some unaccounted for plan of God to establish his covenant with Abram and the people to be born of his seed. The author of the Apocalypse of Abraham has put the impetus on Abraham’s side. The second part of the Apocalypse of Abraham (chapters 9–32) contains the apocalypse proper. The starting point for the ascent of Abraham to heaven, where God will reveal to him the future history of the world and his seed, is the sacrifice of the divisions recounted in Genesis (15), where it also serves as the occasion for the striking of God’s covenant with Abraham. God sends the angel Iaoel to help him with the requested sacrifice (Apoc. Ab. 9–11). After a prolonged period of fasting, the two proceed to Mount Horeb where Abraham divides the prescribed victims. While he is sacrificing, another wicked angel, Azazel, attempts to seduce him away from Iaoel and cause him to stop the sacrifice, but Iaoel rebukes the interloper and Abraham continues (12–14). The sacrifice complete, Iaoel and Abraham mount on the wings of two of the victims, the pigeon and the turtledove, and fly up to heaven. As they approach a great fire which shrouds God, Iaoel tells Abraham to sing a hymn that the angel had taught him. Then Abraham discerns under the fire the heavenly throne, the four creatures, and the heavenly chariot (15–18). From the fire God addresses Abraham telling him to look down through the heavens to see that there are no other gods lurking about, for he is the only God. In a reversal of the account of the making of the covenant in Genesis, God again tells Abraham to look down and count the stars, promising to make his seed as numerous (19–20). Then in a series of visions, again projected below Abraham, the history of the world and Abraham’s seed unfolds. It is a history profoundly marred by sin and one in which Azazel plays a leading role (21–29). Abraham sees a great crowd of men, women, and children, divided into two groups on the right and left side of the picture. The group on the left, God explains, is the multitude of tribes who existed previously; elsewhere (22.4; cf. 29.4) it becomes clear that this group is the heathens. The right side consists of the people set apart for God who were prepared to be born from Abraham and called God’s people, that is the Jews (22.5). A vision of the fall of Adam and Eve, under the influence of Azazel, prompts Abraham to ask God that perennial question of apocalyptic: Why does God allow Azazel (who is synonymous with Satan, Satanael,

250

chapter eight

or the evil angel) to have dominion over men, and further, why does God allow that the heart of man should desire evil (23)? The answer, which is a central theme of the Apocalypse of Abraham, is that men have a choice whether to follow good or evil (23.13; cf. 26).6 There follows a tableau depicting sins both biblical and general which culminates in a scene of idolatry apparently carried out in the temple. Abraham then sees men come out from the crowd on the left to attack the crowd on the right, of whom they kill some and capture others. Then they burn and plunder the temple. God explains that all this happens because of the provocation of Abraham’s seed (24–27). Moved by the plight of his posterity Abraham asks the other question that is a staple of apocalyptic: How long will this last? God’s answer is, as is so often the case in this literature, obscure. God explains (28.4–5) that there are four ascents through which his anger will come in retribution for the works of Abraham’s seed.7 The fourth ascent is to last one hundred years, which is also the length of one hour of the age. The current age of impiety is also divided into twelve periods (29.1– 3). God assures what we might imagine to be an increasingly puzzled Abraham that if he counts it up he will understand. Without dwelling too long on the duration of this period, God directs Abraham’s attention back to the picture. Abraham sees a man come out from the heathen side. This man variously inspires among the people from either side, heathen and Jewish, both acceptance in the form of worship and rejection in the form of insults and blows. Azazel approaches the man, worships and kisses him, and then takes his stand behind the man. Indeed, Azazel is intimately bound up with the worship of the man as the vision and its explanation make clear. God says that the man is the liberation for Abraham’s seed from the heathen. Furthermore, the man should be considered as one divinely called as a test for those of Abraham’s seed. His appearance will herald the end of the age of impiety (29.4–13).8 God then reveals to Abraham

6 It will be noticed that this only answers the first question. The answer to the second question seems to be contained in the following chapter (24), which is obscure and has been subjected to many interpretations; see A. Rubinstein, “A Problematic Passage in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” JJS 8 (1957): 45–50. 7 Cf. Apoc. Ab. 27.3, where the heathen run up to the men and women of Abraham’s seed through four ascents. 8 For obvious, though not necessarily justified, reasons much or even most of Apoc. Ab. 29 has been viewed as a Christian interpolation. The chapter lies at the crux of the text’s interpretation offered here and will be discussed at length below.

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

251

the events of the end of this age and the beginning of the coming age of justice wherein the heathen will be punished along with some of Abraham’s seed, while the rest of the latter will rejoice (29.14–21). After receiving God’s promise to be with him forever, Abraham finds himself abruptly back on earth. Lingering questions about the end of the age are then cleared up by God, who enumerates the ten plagues that he promised would befall creation (30; cf. 29.15). Then a trumpet will sound and God will send his chosen one to gather his people. God will burn the oppressors of his people, who will themselves rejoice over the downfall of those from their own number who followed after idols and their murders (31). The text ends with the vision that Abram is given in the biblical account of the sacrifice of the divisions: his posterity will be aliens in a land that is not theirs, but the Lord is also the judge of that nation (Apoc. Ab. 32; cf. Gen 15.12–16). 8.2

Original Language and Composition Date

Though now the text is only extant in an Old Slavonic translation, scholars uniformly trace the Apocalypse of Abraham back to a Semitic original, with most deciding for Hebrew with minor Aramaic influence.9 A Greek intermediary is almost universally assumed, as for most literature existing in Slavonic, but one scholar has entertained the possibility of a translation directly from Hebrew into Slavonic during the episcopate of Leon Mung a Jewish convert and archbishop (1108/9– 1120) of Ochride in Macedonia.10 9 Box and Landsman, Apocalypse of Abraham, xv; A. Rubinstein, “Hebraisms in the Slavonic ‘Apocalypse of Abraham,’ ” JJS 4 (1953): 108–15; A. Rubinstein, “Hebraisms in the ‘Apocalypse of Abraham,’ ” JJS 5 (1954): 132–5; E. Turdeanu, “L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en slave,” JSJ 3 (1972): 153–80; repr. in Apocryphes Slaves et Roumains de l’Ancien Testament (SVTP 5; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 172–200; R. Rubinkiewicz, “Les semitismes dans l’Apocalypse d’Abraham,” FO 21 (1980): 141–8; Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 23–4; Rubinkiewicz and Lunt, “Apocalypse of Abraham,” OTP 1.682–3; H. G. Lunt, “On the Language of the Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham,” Slavica Hierosolymitana 7 (1985): 55–62; R. Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, en vieux slave: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire (Źródła i monografie 129; Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1987), 33–7. 10 A Greek intermediary is posited by Box and Landsman, Apocalypse of Abraham, xv; Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 23–4. For the suggestion of direct translation from Hebrew see Rubinkiewicz and Lunt, OTP 1.683; Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 36–7; Lunt, “The Apocalypse of Abraham,” OTP 1.686, in his additions to Rubinkiewicz’s introduction, assigns the text to the

252

chapter eight

The text is preserved in two more or less complete manuscripts, the earliest dating from the fourteenth century.11 Other witnesses to the text are preserved as incorporations into the Palaea, a chronicle of world history from the creation until the reign of David or Solomon drawing on the Old Testament and embellished by legendary material.12 An exact date for the text is elusive. The external evidence, wherein most notices of an apocalypse associated with Abraham seem to refer to texts other than that presently under discussion, brings the terminus ante quem down to the end of the second century A.D., when allusion is made to the text, or perhaps only legends also used by our text, in the Clementine Recognitiones (32–33).13 The internal evidence cannot be used to arrive at an exact date. Analysis of this evidence must aim at answering one question: Was the Apocalypse of Abraham written in response to the Roman conquest and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? An affirmative answer to this question is usually assumed with little argument. The evidence supporting this must be reviewed. The author of the apocalypse employs two dating methods, or rather offers two divisions of the time-period encompassing the visions shown to Abraham. The first comprises four ascents; secondly, there is a division into twelve ages (28.4–5; 29.2; cf. 27.3). The exact meaning of the four ascents is not entirely clear. The term is used twice. In a vision Abraham sees the heathen running towards the seed of Abraham through four ascents and then burning the temple.14 God interprets this by telling Abraham that his anger will come

reign of Simeon of Bulgaria (893–927) which saw a great burst of translations of texts from Greek into Old Church Slavonic. 11 For the manuscript tradition see Turdeanu, “L’Apocalypse d’Abraham,” 153–80; Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 14–20; Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 15–27. 12 For the Palaea see Box and Landsman, Apocalypse of Abraham, xii–xiii; Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 9–10. 13 For a review of the external evidence see Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 70–3. 14 Apoc. Ab. 27.3, is variously translated: Rubinkiewicz and Lunt, “The Apocalypse of Abraham,” OTP 1: “Behold, I saw (them) running to them by way of four ascents;” A. Pennington, “The Apocalypse of Abraham,” AOT: “I saw them running towards them for four generations;” Box and Landsman, Apocalypse of Abraham: “Lo! I saw them run towards them through four entrances;” Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham: “Voici que je vis quatre messagers qui arrivèrent jusqu’à eux;” Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham (v. 27.2): “Voici, je les vis courir vers ceux-ci par quatre entrées;” Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko, “Die

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

253

upon Abraham’s seed through the four ascents and in them will be retribution for their works.15 He goes on to say that the fourth ascent is one hundred years, so it is clear that the ascents are to be taken as time-periods (28.5). The same phrase appears in the Ladder of Jacob, another pseudepigraphon preserved only in Old Church Slavonic and related in various ways to the Apocalypse of Abraham, where it appears also to have a temporal significance.16 Most scholars have understood the four ascents to refer to the four kingdoms of Daniel, modified, as they are in other apocalypses, to signify Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome.17 There is good reason for this. The four kingdoms schema, which originates in the vision of Daniel, is elsewhere associated with Abraham’s sacrifice and the vision that he received from God. The account offered in the Targum Yerušalmi has Abraham see the four kingdoms that will rise against him: Babylon, Media, Greece, and Edom (Rome).18 The Palestinian Targums are

Apokalpyse Abrahams” (27.2): “Und ich sah sie auf diese zulaufen in vier Eingänge.” The problem is compounded by different redactions among the manuscripts, with different forms of the same root word: “descents, goings down; entrances, goings in; ascents, goings up; exits, goings out,” see Rubinkiewicz, OTP 1.702 n. 27d. The reading “messengers” is based on an emendation and supported only by Rubinkiewicz in his French translation; cf. Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko, “Die Apokalypse Abrahams,” 449 n. 2. 15 Apoc. Ab. 28.4: “For this reason (it is) through the four ascents you saw (that) my anger will be because of them, and in them will be retribution for their works” (trans. Rubinkiewicz, OTP, used throughout unless otherwise noted). 16 H. G. Lunt, “Ladder of Jacob,” OTP 2.409 (Lad. Jac. 5.7–10): “And this place will be made desolate by the four ascents . . . through the sins of your grandsons. And around the property of your forefathers a palace will be built, a temple in the name of your God and of (the God) of your fathers, and in the provocations of your children it will become deserted by the four ascents of this age.” 17 Box and Landsman, Apocalypse of Abraham, 74 n. 7; Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko, “Die Apokalypse Abrahams,” 449 n. 2; Pennington, “The Apocalypse of Abraham,” AOT 387 n. 27.2. R. G. Hall, Revealed Histories: Techniques for Ancient Jewish and Christian Historiography (JSPSup 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 76, has suggested that the four ascents represent the four captures of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus IV, Pompey, and Titus, but this hypothesis fails to explain why the fourth ascent would last one hundred years. 18 Tg. Neof. on Gen 15.12: “And behold Abram, saw four kingdoms rising against him. Dread: this is Babylon; Darkness: this is Media; Great: this is Greece; Fell upon him: this (is Edom the wicked which will fall and will not rise again).” The last lines concerning Edom were erased by later censors who took mention of Edom to refer to the Church. This passage comes from the Codex Neofiti I, which contains the only integral text of Targum Yerušalmi otherwise existing only in fragments. The text was edited by A. Díez Macho, Génesis (vol. 1 of Neophyti I, Targum Palestinense ms. de la Bibliotheca Vaticana; ed. A. Díez Macho; Textos y estudios del Seminario Filológico Cardenal Cisneros 7; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968)

254

chapter eight

believed—at least in their haggadic material—to antedate the Second Jewish Revolt, thus having a date around the end of the first century or beginning of the second century A.D.19 Abraham’s vision in the targumic tradition and in the Apocalypse of Abraham probably arises from the biblical revelation of the captivity in Egypt that comes in the wake of Abraham’s sacrifice.20 This same prophecy serves as a coda to the Apocalypse of Abraham (32).21 In the Genesis version the Egyptian captivity is given a duration of four hundred years. In the apocalypse the last ascent is one hundred years implying, though not stating, that the four ascents yield a total of four hundred years. The identification of the four ascents with the four kingdoms is not certain but is probable. The division of the age of impiety into twelve does little to aid in dating. One scholar, noting the similarities between the Apocalypse of Abraham and the Ladder of Jacob, has attempted to date the text with great specificity to the reign of Titus (A.D. 79–81).22 The ladder in Jacob’s vision has twelve steps, on each of which sit two busts (Lad. Jac. 1.5). The ladder with its twelve steps represents this age with its twelve divisions; the twenty-four busts represent the kings of the ungodly nations of this age (Lad. Jac. 5.1–4). Atop the ladder is the face of a man carved out of fire more terrifying than the lower twenty-four (Lad. Jac. 1.4, 6). This theory understands the twenty-four busts to symbolize twelve Roman rulers: Pompey, Mark Antony, Julius Caesar, and the nine emperors from Augustus to Vespasian. The face atop the ladder is then taken to represent the last king, Titus. The text can therefore be assigned to the years 79–81. The theory does not rest on secure foundations. Since the Ladder of Jacob specifies twenty-four busts, there is no reason to assume they signify twelve leaders. The choice to start with Pompey is arbitrary, one could as easily assume that the twelve Caesars are intended placing the text in the reign of and contains Spanish, French, and English translations, the latter by M. McNamara and M. Maher is quoted above. 19 Schürer, 1.102–5. 20 Gen 15.12–16: “Know this for certain, that your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred years” (13). Tg. Neof. on Gen 15.13, places this prophecy immediately following that of the four kingdoms. 21 Though here the author has substituted “one hour of the impious age” for the four hundred years of Genesis, thus bringing the closing prophecy into conformity with the text’s concern for the final division of the age, the author’s own. 22 Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 73–5.

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

255

Nerva. The division into twelve periods is a commonplace of apocalyptic and some of the apocalyptic texts dealt with so far in this work have reflected this.23 Although the division into twelve periods does not allow quite the precision that has been ascribed to them, they do aid in setting a relative chronology for the Apocalypse of Abraham. The vision of the man who comes from the heathen and splits the seed of Abraham into supporters and opponents foretells the events of the twelfth hour of impiety in the twelfth period of the age of God’s fulfillment (29.9, 13). This event will signal the closing of the age of impiety heralding the beginning of the age of justice. Thus the coming of the man will happen last before the end of the age. There is some indication that the appearance of the man represents an event of the author’s own time. In general it might be said that, as the last of the events to come presented from the vantage point of the past, it is reasonable to read this as the most recent event in the author’s experience. The overall message of the Apocalypse of Abraham, as will be argued below, is that the sons of Israel must make a choice between Rome and God. Those who remain loyal, or return to loyalty, to God will rejoice, while those who adhere to Rome will be condemned along with the heathen. Thus the coming of the man is the crisis of history and the culmination of the impious age. The author sees his people on the threshold of the glorious age and seeks to win them over to salvation. More specifically, Abraham’s questions about chronology and God’s answer seem to conclude the visions granted to Abraham up to that point in the text. God tells Abraham that what he has seen so far will be until the end of time.24 Then God directs Abraham’s attention to the picture again for the final vision of the man. The words “what you have seen” might be taken to have a double meaning. They signify both what Abraham had already seen in the picture of history and what the author and his audience had already seen unfold as they lived through history. Now Abraham and the audience are directed to the

23 4 Ezra, 14.11–12; 2 Bar. 27.2–13. Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 74, attempts with little success to disassociate the twelve-fold division of the Apocalypse of Abraham from these two. 24 Apoc. Ab. 29.2–3: “I decreed to keep twelve periods of the impious age among the heathens and among your seed, and what you have seen will be until the end of time.”

256

chapter eight

final scene, in which the latter are expected to play a certain role and it is to prepare them that the author composed his apocalypse. The penultimate vision is that of the burning and pillaging of the temple. The evidence presented above, while not constituting an ironclad case for dating the text to the period following the Roman destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, strongly suggests this to be the case. It can be imagined only with difficulty that the author is hearkening all the way back to the sixth century B.C. and the Babylonian destruction. The immediacy with which the text races from the destruction to the final scene, the choice between the man and God, is better explained with reference to a recent wound as yet, and indeed so long as the age of impiety continues, without hope of ceasing to be, fresh.25 8.3 Analysis Though the Apocalypse of Abraham falls neatly into two parts, namely the story of Abraham’s rejection of idolatry and his heavenly journey, the two parts are bound together by the theme of idolatry. Just as it was the patriarch’s rejection of his father’s idolatrous faith that moved God to reveal himself to Abraham and establish a special relationship with his seed, so too, when Abraham’s progeny turned back to idolatry God punished his chosen people. In a sense the very existence of Israel as a chosen people depends on Abraham’s rejection of Terah’s idols. The continued prosperity of Israel requires perseverance in the choice that Abraham made to find and worship the God who created all things. The culmination of Abraham’s vision, allowing the patriarch to view the signal event that will usher in the beginning of the eschaton, is also tied to the Jews keeping themselves free from worship of anything other than the God who chose Abraham and his seed. Abraham’s observations of the impotence of his father’s idols make him resolve to find the true God. He concludes his reflection with the 25 The case for a late first- or early second-century date might be strengthened by appealing to the similarity of concerns presented in the other texts under study. The Apocalypse of Abraham has many general points of contact with 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 4 Baruch. Convergences on specific points, e.g. Adam and the origin of sin, the twelvefold division, and Abraham as apocalyptic figure, lend even more support to the view that these various texts come from the same milieu and mindset. For the argument of shared Zeitgeist, see J. R. Mueller, “The Apocalypse of Abraham and the Destruction of the Second Jewish Temple,” The Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 21; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982), 343–7.

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

257

wish that God will reveal himself (7.12). God responds by introducing himself as the one for whom Abraham was searching (8.30). He goes on to declare himself Abraham’s protector and helper. Furthermore he promises to reveal future events to him because Abraham sought him and for that reason God called Abraham his beloved (9.6). God’s calling of Abraham is corroborated and explained in more detail by the angel Iaoel, who makes it clear to Abraham that his election by God comes from his rejection of idolatry. Indeed, Iaoel himself played an important role in Abraham’s transition from idolater to founder of the chosen race. When the angel introduces himself to Abraham, he tells the future patriarch that it was he who was dispatched to burn Terah’s house along with its inhabitants (10.12). Now, Iaoel had been detailed to bless Abraham and the land that God had set aside for him (10.13; cf. 10.6). Iaoel’s commission extends far into the future as he had been assigned along with the angel Michael to watch over the generation that would be born from Abraham (10.16– 17). When confronted by Azazel, as he prepares to make the sacrifice requested by God, Abraham learns the words that will drive the tempter away. Iaoel assures Abraham that his ability to avoid Azazel comes from his election and that election depends upon his decision to love God (14.2). Abraham’s election opens the way for his heavenly journey to God’s throne room where God announces to him the promise of progeny. But first God bids him to look down beneath his feet as Abraham is suspended over the firmament. God shows him that there are no other gods beside the one that he searched for, the one who has loved him (19.3). Abraham sees nothing but the lower heavens peopled with various angels. God then shows him the stars from his superior vantage point and promises Abraham descendants as numerous (20.5). Thus Abraham’s turning away from idolatry to seek the true God is closely bound up with God’s decision to love him and bless him with descendants, who will also be dear to God and blessed by him and his angels. As is clear from Iaoel’s assignment to be with Abraham’s descendants, the special relationship between God and Israel was to be enduring. This fact is demonstrated symbolically in one of Abrahams’ visions while in heaven. In answer to a divine instruction Abraham looks at the firmament beneath his feet and sees a great crowd of people divided into two groups. One stands on the left side of the picture and the other stands on the right (21.7). Abraham asks God about the

258

chapter eight

divisions and is told that the group on the left contains the tribes that existed previously, that is to say, before the election of Abraham and his seed. The group on the right consists of the people set apart by God for himself, the seed of Abraham.26 The scene makes Israel’s election quite clear visually. Abraham is looking down from the highest heaven as the history of the world unfolds through select events. Now he sees the division of men into Jews and Gentiles. The separation is radical, with each group taking up position on opposite sides of the scene. There seems to be no mechanism for crossing the divide. Unlike some of the other texts of this study, there is nothing to suggest that conversion is possible. Indeed, it would seem pretty clear from the fate of the Gentiles at the end of the present world that the author does not envision any chance of salvation for those who are not of Abraham’s seed (29–31). Although the nations are invariably condemned, it does not follow for the author that Jews are automatically saved by virtue of their descent from Abraham. There is a tendency toward evil even among the Jews. In the Apocalypse of Abraham the supreme evil, as will cause no surprise, is idolatry. Though at one point the author does provide a conventional list of sins of a more general nature, the cardinal sin that will lead certain Jews to punishment is a return to the idolatry from which Abraham’s choice liberated his progeny (24.6–9). Just as Abraham’s rejection of idols brought him knowledge of God and allowed for the creation of the Jewish people from his seed, so, too, the return to idolatry among the Jews leads to a loss of their very identity as Jews. It is not so much that certain sinful Jews will be punished for their misdeeds, but rather that their acts of idolatry strip them of their special status and return them to the fold of the idolatrous nations, where they will share in the punishment reserved for those who are not of Abraham’s seed. The heterogeneity of Abraham’s seed, consisting as it does of true Jews and idolaters, is explained using the somewhat mysterious figure of Azazel.

26 Apoc. Ab. 22.3–5: “And I said, ‘O sovereign, mighty and eternal! Why are the people in this picture on this side and on that?’ And he said to me, ‘These who are on the left side are a multitude of tribes who existed previously . . . and after you some (who have been) prepared for judgement and order, others for revenge and perdition at the end of the age. Those on the right side of the picture are the people set apart for me of the people with Azazel; these are the ones I have prepared to be born of you and to be called my people;’ ” cf. 29.14. On the relationship of Azazel to Abraham’s seed see the discussion below.

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

259

In the Apocalypse of Abraham, Azazel is a Luciferian figure. He is first introduced as he tries to persuade Abraham not to comply with God’s request that the would-be patriarch offer a set of sacrifices so that he might see the future (13.3–5). In answer to Abraham’s query, Iaoel identifies the interloper as Azazel and also rebukes him for his attempt on Abraham. Iaoel’s words uncover two important aspects of Azazel’s role in the divine economy. First, Iaoel says that Azazel has traded his heavenly abode for the earth by choice.27 The second important aspect is Azazel’s powerlessness over the righteous. Iaoel drives him away, telling him that he cannot rule over the righteous, for God did not allow that.28 Rather Azazel’s authority extends only to the wicked. Just as Abraham’s choice to reject idols led to the creation of his people, so it seems that Azazel’s choice to reject heaven is somehow bound up with the creation of the wicked.29 Azazel is in some ways, then, an anti-Abraham. Iaoel informs Azazel that the latter’s garment in heaven has been set aside for Abraham, while all the corruption that was previously in Abraham had been shifted to Azazel (13.14). The theme of choosing, so important to the development of both Abraham and Azazel, continues through to those over whom Azazel exercises his dominion. Abraham sees another scene unfold beneath his feet. This time the setting is Eden. In it he sees a man and a woman entwined. They were standing beneath a tree with fruit that resembled grapes. Behind the tree stood a hideous form, like a dragon but with human hands and feet as well as twelve wings. This was Azazel and he was busily feeding the grapes to Adam and Eve. Abraham asks God why he would allow Azazel such scope for destruction and God answers that Azazel only rules over those who desire evil.30 Thus we have a perfect example of

27 Apoc. Ab. 13.7–8: “And he said to him, ‘Shame on you, Azazel! For Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours in on earth, for you have selected here, (and) become enamored of the dwelling place of your blemish. Therefore the Eternal Ruler, the Mighty One, has given you a dwelling on earth.’ ” 28 Apoc. Ab. 13.10–11: “For the Eternal, Mighty One did not allow the bodies of the righteous to be in your hand, so through them the righteous life is affirmed and the destruction of ungodliness. Hear, counselor, be shamed by me! You have no permission to tempt all the righteous.” 29 Apoc. Ab. 14.6: “For your heritage is over those who are with you, with the stars and with the men born by the clouds, whose portion you are, indeed they exist through your being.” 30 Apoc. Ab. 23.13: “And he said to me, ‘Hear, Abraham! Those who desire evil, and all whom I have hated as they commit them—over them did I give him dominion, and he was to be beloved of them.’”

260

chapter eight

the freedom of man’s will to choose good or evil. Abraham chose the latter and received a place in heaven and a progeny dear to God, which was entrusted to the care of Iaoel. Azazel rejected God and now rules over those who choose evil. There is, of course, a bit of a difficulty when it comes to the nations, who are invariably under the dominion of Azazel. Does being born a Gentile immediately dispose one to desire evil? Abraham was born an idolater who was able to reject his heritage and yet the choice does not seem open to the nations. The author does not address this, for the Gentiles are not really of interest to him. It is the Jews and their choices that attract his attention. Azazel, as it turns out, not only has dominion over the nations, but also shares custody of the Jews with God. God reveals this to a shocked Abraham as he promises the patriarch descendants as numerous as the stars. God says that he will set Abraham’s seed aside for himself in his lot with Azazel.31 The thought that God shares dominion with Azazel, the creature who just attempted to derail Abraham’s sacrifice, is too much for the patriarch, who tries to find words to ask the delicate question: How could God share anything with such a one as Azazel?32 God gives no clear answer, instead turning to the division of mankind into Jews and Gentiles. An answer must be sought elsewhere in the text. The answer is to be found in a consideration of two acts of idolatry attributed to certain members of the seed of Abraham that culminate in the final judgement of all men and the punishment of the nations and Jewish apostates at the end of the present age. The first consists of the turning away of Israel from its God which results in the subjugation of the Jews to the rule of the Gentiles. A scene appears below Abraham. The patriarch sees an idol of jealousy which appears much like the idols that Terah used to make. A man is worshipping it and sacrificing children on an altar before the idol (25.1–2). Abraham asks God the meaning of the idol, the worshipper, and the sacrifice. He adds a few other things that were not described in the vision itself, but which are apparently to be taken as part of it, namely a temple, which Abraham describes as the art

31 20.5: “And he said to me, ‘As the number of the stars and their power so shall I place for your seed the nations and men, set apart for me in my lot with Azazel.’ ” 32 20.7: “And I said, ‘Eternal and Mighty One. Let your servant speak before you and let your fury not rage against your chosen one. Behold, before you led me up, Azazel insulted me. How then, since he is now not before you, did you establish yourself with them?’ ”

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

261

and beauty of God’s glory which sits beneath his throne (25.3). God answers Abraham and says that the temple and the altar are his idea of the priesthood. The idol is his anger, which is caused by the seed of Abraham. The man sacrificing is the one who has angered God. Finally, the sacrifice represents the killing of those who are a testimony of the judgement of the completion at the beginning of creation (25.4–6). The vision is complicated. As is so often the case, the language is obscure. The obscurity is perhaps compounded by the translations through which the text has gone. It might be an overly literal interpretation of the text to think that the author is here referring to a specific act of idolatry on the part of the Jews. The imagery is taken, of course, from Ezekiel’s (8.3–18) vision of idolatry in the temple of Jerusalem.33 As the interpretation given by God makes clear, however, the images are to be taken symbolically to represent a turning away from God on the part of Israel. The idol excites the jealousy of God who does not want to see his chosen people chasing after gods other than himself. Though the vision itself contains no temple, it is the temple that serves as the centerpiece of the interpretation given by God. The temple stands for the ideal priesthood. As Abraham’s question shows, the priesthood is linked to the glory of God’s throne. God says that the temple and priesthood are the dwelling place of the petitions of men and also the ascent of kings and prophets and the sacrifices that God has ordained to be made by the tribe of Abraham (25.4). Something, though the text does not explicitly say what, has gone wrong in this divine economy of the sacrificial cult. What should have been a pure institution has gone astray after a false god. Israel has turned away from the choice Abraham made to seek the God who created all things and punishment follows in the wake of Israel’s decision. In the next vision Abraham sees a crowd of heathens rush out from the left side of the picture to attack those on the right. The Jews are variously slaughtered or enslaved, while the heathen destroy the temple with fire and plunder its treasures (27.1–3). Abraham asks why this will happen. God tells him that it will happen on account of the

33

There is also a close resemblance, perhaps, between the figure in the vision and Manasseh, king of Judah. According to the author of 2 Kgs 21 Manasseh’s participation in the sacrifice of his son is the cause of Judah’s chastisement at the hands of the Babylonians.

262

chapter eight

patriarch’s seed which will provoke him because of the idol and the murders associated with it (27.7). The scene of Israel’s punishment might with equal likelihood be attributed to both the Babylonian and the Roman sack of Jerusalem, as there is nothing that favors either one. Indeed, the failure of the author to clearly indicate which is envisioned raises the event to the level of generality. That is to say that the vision is paradigmatic. The message might be presented in general terms. When Israel turns aside from Abraham’s choice to seek and serve the true God, this act of apostasy will sever the special relationship that exists between Abraham’s seed and God, who will then withdraw his protection and subject his people to the rule of the nations. Servitude is the punishment for rejection. Just as Terah and his house were consumed by fire, so too will Israel suffer the burning of the temple, the slaughter of its people, and the enslavement of the remnant. Violence and death are inextricably bound up with idolatry, which rarely stops with the mere worship of a fetish or totem. As is the case in Scripture, idolatry leads to human sacrifice. As men turn their back on God, so do they turn their back on each other, their murderous acts falling on the most innocent among them, namely their children. The subordination of Israel to the nations invites a further act of idolatry. Another scene confronts Abraham. This time he sees a man come out from the left side of the picture. A crowd of heathen follow the man who exits from their midst and begins to worship him. Then those on the right rush against the man. Some insult him, others beat him, and still others follow the lead of the heathen and begin to worship this figure. Azazel then appears and worships the man as well. He kisses the man’s face and takes up a position standing behind him (29.4–6). This scene is the crux of the Apocalypse of Abraham as it is the last one presented to Abraham before God speaks of the judgement that will befall mankind. Unfortunately, the text is rendered difficult because of probable corruption at the hands of scribes. It is necessary, however, to look carefully at this passage in order to tease out its meaning, which is central to the overall understanding of the Apocalypse of Abraham. The chief difficulty arises from the failure of the vision to match the interpretation given by God in answer to Abraham’s question. The disjunction begins in the very question that the vision prompts Abraham to ask. The patriarch asks God the identity of this man who is beaten and insulted by the heathen (29.7). In the vision itself there was no

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

263

mention of violence directed at the man from the heathen, but only from the Jews. The difficulties multiply in God’s answer to Abraham. God tells Abraham that the man will be the liberation of Abraham’s seed from the heathen. God says that he will bring this man out from the tribe of Abraham, from his own people (29.8–9). This is an obvious contradiction to the terms of the vision itself wherein the man arises from the heathen. All men will imitate this figure, according to God, and Abraham should consider him as one sent by God. The fact that the heathen worship him means that many of the heathen will trust in him. The fact that the Jewish response to the man is mixed means that many will be offended because of him (29.11–12). Finally, God says that the man will be a test for the Jews who have worshipped him. The discussion then turns to the coming judgement making it clear that the response to this figure is immediately bound up with the future fate of the Jews.34 How are we to make sense of this difficult, but crucially important passage? Opinion has been divided on the identity of the man. Most scholars have judged the text to reflect the hands of Christian scribes, who saw in the man a reference to Jesus. The case for this interpretation is not without support in the text. Such supporting evidence comes especially, indeed exclusively, from the interpretation given by God. A man comes from the Jews and finds some supporters amongst both Jews and Gentiles, while also stirring up the enmity of other Jews. He is a stumbling block for the Jews. He comes from God and serves as a liberator, in a spiritual sense at least, of the Jews from the Gentiles. This all conforms nicely to the broad outline of the career of Jesus. The terms of the vision, on the other hand, are jarring. The man comes from the heathen, who all apparently worship him. Azazel worships him, kisses him, and takes up position behind him. The text even seems to suggest that Azazel is worshipped with the man!35 This does not sound like a Christian understanding of Jesus. Various solutions have been proposed, all of them attended by difficulties. Hardly any of them will allow us to make any sense of the original meaning of the passage in its context as a Jewish text attempting

34

We shall turn to the matter of the future judgement below. Apoc. Ab. 29.7: “And I said, ‘Eternal, Mighty One! Who is this man insulted and beaten by the heathen, with Azazel worshipped?’” 35

264

chapter eight

to aid its Jewish readers as they oriented themselves to a post-temple Roman Judea. Most scholars who have dealt with the question have detected the hand of Christian interpolators to a greater or lesser extent, though some have qualified their support for this theory with reservations, which have already been noted.36 One theory that tries to get around the difficulty of attributing to a Christian interpolator the association of Jesus with Azazel involves members of a Gnostic-Christian sect in Mediaeval Bulgaria, namely the Bogomils.37 Only one author leans toward accepting the text almost entirely as Jewish.38 None of these studies has devoted more than a few paragraphs at most to the question. There has been only one detailed analysis of the disputed passage, though its conclusions have been largely set aside.39 It is time for a new evaluation of the question, one that attempts to understand the passage in a Jewish context. There is an obvious problem in the text, namely the contradiction between the vision itself, which shows the man coming from the heathen, and the interpretation, which has the man coming from the Jews. Three solutions present themselves. It is possible that the original author made a mistake; this seems unlikely as the passage leading up as it does to the final judgement is of some importance to the overall message of the text. It is more probable that the change came about at a later stage, during the translation of the text or during the copying.

36

Box and Landsman, Apocalypse of Abraham, 78; Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 65–6; Rubinkiewicz and Lunt, “The Apocalypse of Abraham,” OTP 1.684. Scholars expressing reservations include Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 24; Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature,” 415–6. 37 Rubinkiewicz, “La vision de l’histoire,” 141; Rubinkiewicz and Lunt, “The Apocalypse of Abraham,” OTP I.684, seems to back away from the theory a bit. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination2, 230, appears to entertain the theory; Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, 24, rightly reject it. The Bogomils were a sect with Manichean tendencies; see D. Obolensky, The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan NeoManichaeism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948); M. Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from Bogomil to Hus (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976), 12–23. 38 Nickelsburg, JLBBM2, 287, sees only verse 9b (“I will set up this man from your tribe, the one whom you have seen from my people”) as a potential Christian gloss. 39 R. G. Hall, “The ‘Christian Interpolation’ in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” JBL 107 (1988): 107–12. The basic argument of this article is accepted here, though the more specific identification of the man from the heathen with Hadrian remains too speculative for full endorsement. The interpretation offered in the following pages is largely drawn from Hall’s article, though with more attention to the integration of the passage into the overall message and thematic content of the Apocalypse of Abraham.

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

265

Either the vision or the interpretation must have it wrong. It is more likely to assume that the interpretation has changed the origin of the man. The claim that the entire passage is Christian rests on the assumption that the man is a positive figure. There are a series of arguments against this assumption. First, in a text that is so concerned with the evils of idolatry, with the worship of some other object or being in place of the true God, it is remarkable that the worship of a mortal and a heathen mortal at that could be viewed in a positive light. Unless there is some evidence to the contrary, it would be wisest to presume that the worship of a mortal man is an act of idolatry and therefore wrong. Is there evidence to the contrary? God tells Abraham that he should consider the man as divinely appointed.40 This does not, of course, require that the man is a salvific or messianic figure. In fact, there is some proof that he is not, for after Abraham has returned to earth, God unfolds the events of the coming judgement. After ten plagues that will befall the Gentiles, God will send his chosen one to deliver the people of Israel. This is the messianic figure in the Apocalypse of Abraham and he plays a very minor role. A further consideration concerns the fate of the Gentiles. Though there is a bit of ambiguity on the question, it would seem from the vision that the heathen from the left side of the picture unanimously worship the man. Yet, in the description of the judgement the nations are unanimously subjected to punishment. If worshipping the man were a good thing, why would the pagans that join some of the Jews in doing so be condemned for it? Another possible indication of the man’s goodness is the description of him as a liberation for Abraham’s seed from the nations.41 This is, indeed, a troubling passage for the theory that the man is a negative figure. It is also, however, rather obscure and requires understanding within the context of the vision and its message, especially as the bulk of that message points to the man being a bad thing for Israel.

40

29.10: “Consider him as one called by me.” 29.8: “Hear, Abraham, the man whom you saw insulted and beaten and again worshipped is the liberation from the heathen for the people who will be (born) from you.” 41

266

chapter eight

A useful parallel to the passage under discussion has been identified in the book of Revelation (13).42 There the author has a vision of a beast coming from the sea. A dragon, that was already on the scene, gives the beast authority. The beast receives some sort of wound on its head, but the wound is healed. The whole earth worships both dragon and beast. Certain men, the saints, resist them and are conquered by the beast. Then another beast arises and makes the earth worship the first beast. Having displayed its powers through signs, this second beast persuades the men of the earth to make an image of the first beast. The image comes to life and causes those who refuse to worship it to be killed. The similarity between the vision in the Apocalypse of Abraham and Revelation lies in the coordinated action of two evil figures, wherein one supports the other in a bid to win over the homage of mankind. In Revelation it is the devil in dragon form. In the Apocalypse of Abraham it is Azazel, who also appears in dragon form in the scene from the Garden of Eden. The fallen angel, Satan or Azazel, is behind the figure that is to be worshipped as an idol or false god in the two texts. In the Apocalypse of Abraham, the man comes from the heathen. This should immediately put the reader on his guard against the figure. Even worse the heathen worship him. Certain Jews attack the man and others follow the lead of the nations and pay homage to the man. Azazel supports those who worship the man with his own example giving a very public sign of support, a kiss and literally standing behind the man. God tells Abraham that many of the Jews will be offended because of the man. Furthermore, he will be a test for those of Abraham’s seed who worship him at the end of the age of impiety (29.12– 13). The worship of the man is, therefore, the final act that brings the age of impiety to a close ushering in the judgement in which not only the nations, who all worshipped the man, will be punished, but also some of Abraham’s seed. It is necessary to turn to the description of the judgement before we can understand the liberating role of the man for the seed of Abraham. The final judgement is described twice, once while Abraham is still in heaven and once after he has returned to earth. In the first description God says that his judgement will fall upon the nations who have acted wickedly through the people of Abraham’s seed. God will send

42

See Hall, “Christian Interpolation,” 108.

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

267

ten plagues as punishment for those who provoke him. This will leave from Abraham’s seed the righteous, who will rejoice and destroy those who destroyed them (29.14–21). The passage raises some interesting questions. What exactly the author means when he says that the nations have acted wickedly through Abraham’s seed is not clear, though the promise that the righteous of Abraham’s seed will destroy their destroyers suggests that the wickedness of the nations consists in their maltreatment of the Jews. A second question concerns the identity of those who will be punished. God says that his punishment will fall on those who have provoked him. Elsewhere he uses the same word to explain to Abraham why the Jews will lose their temple and their independence (27.7). It is the Jews in that passage who provoke God. The second description of the judgement will make it clearer that a portion of the Jews will be punished. That leaves the righteous of Abraham’s seed who enjoy the destruction of their enemies. The author is talking here about a righteous remnant. It is not the Jewish people in its entirety that will be saved, but only those who reject the idolatrous worship of the man from the heathen. The second description of the judgement clarifies the interpretation just set out (31.1–4). A trumpet blast will sound in the air signaling the advent of God’s chosen one, who will summon his people humiliated by the nations. God will burn those who mocked his people and ruled over them also punishing those who mocked him. These are destined for hades. By way of contrast God reveals the fate of those who have chosen his desire and kept his commandments, namely that they will rejoice over the downfall of the men who followed after idols and their murders. This latter group, over whose punishment the just will rejoice, appear to be Jewish apostates. God expresses his disappointment at their loss. He says that he waited for them to come to him, but they refused. Instead they glorified an alien god and joined with one to whom they had not been allotted, after having abandoned the God who gave them strength (31.6–8). Mention of allotment immediately brings to mind the apportionment of the human race between God and Azazel (20.5). The author must have apostate Jews in mind here, for we know that the nations are given over to Azazel in their entirety, while the seed of Abraham should follow the patriarch’s example of devotion to the true God. Yet, God told Abraham that he shares dominion over Abraham’s seed with Azazel. This is not ideal, but rather an observation of the facts of

268

chapter eight

the situation. Azazel rules over those who choose to do evil by denying God. According to the author certain Jews have done so in their devotion to idolatry. The judgement at the end of time is closely connected to the worship of the man from the nations. This is the final act of human history. The nations and those Jews who follow the man will be set aside for punishment. The punishment to befall apostate Jews at the end of time is foreshadowed in the other act of idolatry that resulted in the destruction of the temple and the enslavement of Israel by the nations. When Israel turns its back on God, chastisement follows. Two questions remain. How are we to understand the man from the heathen as a liberation? And, is it possible to identify the man from the heathen with an historical personage? The role of liberator is generally seen as a beneficent one. Liberators free men from oppression. The Messiah is often portrayed as a liberating figure, come to deliver the Jews from the hands of oppressive Gentile rulers. The man from the heathen does indeed bring liberation to the seed of Abraham. Ever since the acts of idolatry that resulted in the subjugation of Israel to the nations, Abraham’s seed had endured mockery and harsh treatment. The cause of Israel’s humiliation was the rejection of God. It had not presumably been a wholesale rejection, for at the very least the boys who are being sacrificed on the altar in the vision are presented as victims rather than perpetrators of idolatry. The arrival of the man from the heathen offers a second opportunity to choose between serving God and worshipping that which is not God. It is a test. Those who choose to follow the lead of Azazel and the nations in worshipping the man join the Gentiles in the punishment that is prepared for them. Those who reject the man are quickly ushered into their reward. It is worth noting that the eschaton in the Apocalypse of Abraham seems to be rough only on the wicked. The plagues will come upon them. Unlike 2 Baruch, in the Apocalypse of Abraham the end time is painless for those who pass the test of refusing to follow the man from the nations. The latter’s role, then, while not positive, is the cause of no suffering for the righteous remnant. In this sense he is a liberation. His arrival is a watershed event that separates the good Jews from the bad and saves the former from both future punishment and the oppression of the nations. Is it possible to identify the man from the heathen? Apart from the erroneous identification of the man with Jesus there has been one

the apocalypse of abraham and jewish idolatry

269

attempt to do so. One scholar has seen the figure as representing the Roman emperor Hadrian.43 The argument goes as follows. Drawing on the similarity between the passages in the Apocalypse of Abraham and Revelation, it seems likely that the figure represented by both the man from the heathen and the beast of St. John’s vision is a Roman emperor, but which? The Jewish tax imposed by Vespasian on the survivors of the Jewish War caused many Jews to hide their Jewishness.44 Jews who hid or even departed from their Jewishness must certainly have participated in the imperial cult. Those who paid the tax, on the other hand, were supporting the cult of Jupiter Capitolinus, for the funds raised from the Jewish tax went, at least nominally, to offset the expenses incurred in the worship of this god central to the Roman pantheon. Hadrian’s plans for Jerusalem would have intensified this, for the emperor renamed the city Aelia Capitolina in honor of Jupiter Capitolinus. The site of the demolished temple was reconsecrated to this Jupiter and a statue of Hadrian was placed in the new temple.45 There are problems with this theory. Jews who did not conceal their identity suffered by paying the tax. Though the tax supported the cult of Jupiter Capitolinus, the taxpayers were certainly not apostates. Jews who hid their identity have always been a greater concern in Jewish literature.46 It is not clear from the sources that many Jews flocked to the worship of Jupiter in Aelia Capitolina, indeed, the city was off limits to Jews.47 This worship was certainly not directed at Jupiter Capitolinus. There is no evidence that Hadrian offered a great attraction to the Jews. It is true that Sibylline Oracle 5 speaks well of him, but the tone is hardly worshipful. Nevertheless, the theory has much merit, if only it can be cast in more general terms. Instead of forcing the identification of the man into the narrow limits of a particular emperor, we might accept the connection of the figure with Rome in a more general sense. When the author of the

43

Hall, “Christian Interpretation,” 109. Suetonius Dom. 12.2. For the imposition of the tax see Josephus B.J. 7.218; Cassius Dio 66.7.2. 45 Cassius Dio 69.12.1. For the statue see St. Jerome Comm. Isa. 1.2.9; Comm. Matt. 24.15. 46 See e.g. 1 Macc 1.11–15: “So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to the Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil” (14–15). 47 Jews driven out of Jerusalem: Dio 69.12.2; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.6.4; Dem. ev. 6.18.10; Justin 1 Apol. 47.6. 44

270

chapter eight

Apocalypse of Abraham speaks of the nations, it is easy to imagine that he had Rome in mind, for the punishment to befall the heathen comes from their lording their superiority over the Jews. The punishment that comes to the Jews for their idolatry is to be subjected to the heathen, who rule over them. There were, of course, many different empires in as many different epochs who held political dominion over the Jews, but after the destruction of the temple in 70 it would be reasonable to conclude that the Romans held pride of place in the Jewish imagination. 8.4

Conclusion

The message of the Apocalypse of Abraham is very similar to that of 4 Baruch, though the latter is little concerned with the fate of the Romans themselves. Both authors seek to dissuade their fellow Jews from overly familiar association with Rome. The Apocalypse of Abraham addresses the problem in very strong terms seeing closeness to Rome and perhaps the Roman emperor as an act of idolatry, or at least an act akin to idolatry. The solution for the author of the Apocalypse of Abraham is quite simple. The Jews need merely stay true to their traditional opposition to idolatry. They should follow the example of Abraham in rejecting all idols. Their troubles all began with the turn to idolatry which led to their subordination to the Gentiles. Of course, the vision of the human sacrifice before the idol of jealousy is likely to be taken symbolically. It symbolizes the Jews turning toward the nations and away from God. The latter need not, obviously, be a necessary corollary of the former, but it was for Jews such as the author of 1 Maccabees and 4 Baruch. The author of the Apocalypse of Abraham apparently followed suit.

CHAPTER NINE

CONCLUSION The suppression of the Jewish Revolt in A.D. 70 has been seen in retrospect as a watershed event in the religious life of the Jews. With the loss of the temple, its priesthood, and cult came a crisis that resulted in a new emphasis in Judaism. The Judaism of the rabbis embodied in the Mishnah and expanded in the Talmudim and other works rose from the ashes of Jerusalem. As rabbinic tradition has it the destruction of the Holy City brought the foundation of a new religious and scholarly center in Jamnia (Yavneh). Permission to found the school at Jamnia was reportedly given by Vespasian himself to R. Johanan ben Zakkai, who had escaped from Jerusalem and, according to rabbinic tradition, proclaimed the prophesy that Vespasian would be emperor.1 The loss of the temple and the Holy City was bitterly felt. The lament penned by the author of 2 Baruch compares for pathos with any found in the Hebrew Bible. The absence of Zion, according to the author, rendered all the actions of man and nature irrelevant as the point to which they tended, namely the sacrificial cult of the temple, had ceased to require them. Let the farmers refrain from sowing and reaping as the first fruits will no longer be offered in the temple. Let the vine no longer produce grapes as the offering of wine will not continue. Indeed, all the happiness of brides and bridegrooms had come to an end; nor need they bring forth children, for the barren had greater claim to rejoice now.2 Yet for all the sorrow of this lament and others like it in the literature presently under study, there is very little indication of the solution to the supposed religious crisis inspired by the Roman action against Jerusalem. The origins of the destruction are sought along traditional lines and conventional answers are provided. Since it was Jewish sin that caused this catastrophe, the solution lies in adherence to the Law. Suggestions that the temple must be restored find only rare expression in the authors’ speculation on the future of the Jews. Another

1 2

B. Giṭ. 56a–b; Lam. Rab. 1.5.31; ʾAbot R. Nat. 4. 2 Bar. 10.6–19.

272

chapter nine

question claims priority in the attention of our authors, namely the continued presence of Rome in Palestine. It is natural that many Jews in confronting this problem turned to the wisdom of experience found in the Jewish scriptures. These venerable books did not, however, provide a direct answer. When the Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem in the sixth century the remnant of Israel was taken into exile. At least this is the story presented in the exilic books of the Bible. Restoration was accomplished with the Persian overthrow of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the permission granted by Cyrus for the Jews to return to their land. The period of captivity in Babylon remains opaque. Only scraps may be culled from the books of the Hebrew Bible that offer any advice for establishing a modus vivendi with the conqueror. For the most part the record of the Babylonian conquest and captivity could only provide inventive authors of the Roman period with images and themes to be refashioned and reapplied to the questions that confronted the Jews of the late first and early second centuries A.D. Relying on mostly the same material the authors reworked it in an effort that produced a variety of responses to the question before them. The authors of 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 4 Baruch all drew on the books intimately associated with the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians and the restoration under the Persians, namely 2 Kings, Jeremiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The response of 4 Baruch is the simplest. Following Jeremiah into exile in Babylon, the author offers a critique of a common response to life under foreign conquerors, that of accommodation. The biblical Prophet Jeremiah, active in the years leading up to the fall of Jerusalem, counseled the king of Judah to remain loyal to Babylon. To a group of Jewish elites taken into exile in Babylon before the fall of the city, he had advised uniting their hopes for the future to those of the city in which they were dwelling. The author of 4 Baruch rejects this notion wholesale, viewing it as a disaster that leads to the loss of Jewish identity. Through the symbol of the founders of Samaria the author warns accommodationist Jews of his own day that their betrayal of their own nation will not endear them to Rome. This can be seen as an argument against the policy advocated by Josephus, who in one memorable passage of the Bellum Judaicum dons briefly the prophetic mantle of Jeremiah as he calls on his besieged co-religionists within the walls of Jerusalem to submit to the foreign power marked out for rule by God himself. The author of

conclusion

273

4 Baruch rejects this Jeremianic policy in favor of radical separation. Other than viewing the Romans as an object from which the Jews must isolate themselves, the author demonstrates very little further concern with the fate of the empire. A quite different response is offered by the author of 4 Ezra, who is consumed with resentment at the felicity of Rome in contrast with the sorrows that befell Zion. Through a complicated argument the author reasserts the notion of national salvation for the Jews based on adherence to God’s commandments as embodied in the Law given to Moses at Sinai. The argument rests on the observation that all men inherit the propensity to sin from Adam. The nations apart from the Jews are subject to the Law, but will not be saved by it as they do not know it in their pride. Despite the fact that the Jews have also inherited the Adamic cor malignum they need only rededicate themselves to legal observance in order to find happiness in the next world. The division between this world and the next is important to the author of 4 Ezra. As it appeared unlikely that the Jews in the Roman period could hope for an earthly restoration, a lasting solution to their present humiliation was sought in the end of this world and the beginning of the next. The Romans and, indeed, all the Gentiles are apparently excluded from this happy fate as is made strikingly clear in the Eagle Vision. The Eagle Vision presents the author’s understanding of Rome’s fate. Taking a cue from the vision of the four beasts in the book of Daniel, our author reinterprets the fourth beast as a reference to Rome, in the process changing the image of the beast into the immediately recognizable Roman eagle. The cruelty of this empire would ultimately provoke God to send his Messiah to destroy it. Through a complicated description of the many wings, winglets, and heads of the eagle, the author portrays in prophetic terms the upheaval to be experienced by the Roman Empire under the emperors. The vision ends with three heads that rule over all men in turn, a tolerably clear reference to the Flavian Dynasty. It is not, however, clear that the Roman Empire is to suffer only for its actions against the Jews. Rather it seems that the very might of the empire and its oppression of all peoples is the cause of its demise. The Messiah will cast Rome down in the days of the last head, namely Domitian, after whose fall the empire will be convulsed in a short period of chaos, before its final destruction. The resentment that fires the imagination and indignation of the author of 4 Ezra finds an antidote in 2 Baruch. In many ways the interpretation of events is the same. Man has inherited sin from Adam and

274

chapter nine

all nations are subject to the Law. The author of 2 Baruch has softened the edges a bit. He has allowed for the possibility of salvation for the nations, provided they become Jews. The corollary is that membership in the nation of Israel does not suffice for salvation. Just as Gentiles can become proselytes, so too can Jews become apostates. Rejecting the hardnosed fatalism of 4 Ezra, the author proclaims that in the final analysis Adam only caused his own fall. His descendants have the opportunity to follow him or to follow the Law of Moses. A more striking feature of this apocalypse is the author’s rejection of 4 Ezra’s nearly obsessive anxiety over the fate to befall the Roman conqueror. The author advises his readers to turn inwards. He urges that they cease to look for the decline of their enemies and instead take stock of their own circumstances. He admonishes them to prepare their souls for the reward that awaits them. Furthermore, the author puts the present suffering into perspective, twice declaring that the trials accompanying both destructions of Jerusalem, the Babylonian and the Roman, will seem like nothing compared to those that will attend the closing of this age. The two authors who used the pagan genre of the Sibylline Oracles departed from the traditions employed by the authors just discussed. The works nevertheless betray Jewish interests and even subtle borrowings, for instance in Sibylline Oracle 5’s repeated echoings of Isaiah. Sibylline Oracle 5 is very much a composite text. Many of the oracles seem to have a Hellenistic origin, as criticisms of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. A few parts point to a concern even with the Achaemenids. These many texts are woven together with some that were composed for the occasion to create a loose thematic unity. The Sibyl’s warnings are directed at the three major enemies of Jewish history: Egypt, Babylon, and Rome. The first might be said to be archetypical, its animosity already a major component of the Pentateuch. The evils of the Neo-Babylonian Empire dovetail more closely with Rome’s as both empires turned their violent hands upon the Holy City and its temple. Each in turn will be destroyed. Indeed, the author’s desire for destruction looms so large that the end of the text proclaims the total destruction of the earth and the heavenly bodies that shine in the heavens above it. One of the themes that winds through all but one section of the composite text is the figure of Nero. The portrait is a complex combination of the evil deeds of the historical emperor and the dreadful acts that will accompany his return from the East after his pretended

conclusion

275

death. As is the case with the final text, the picture of Nero is also a composite drawing on Antiochus IV and perhaps even the Achaemenids. Surprisingly, there also seem to be points of contact between the returning Nero and the coming Messiah. The author of Sibylline Oracle 4 follows the same venerable, albeit pagan, tradition. In this mode, the author examines two common themes that figure prominently in the Greco-Roman view of world history, namely the theory of a succession of empires and the rivalry between Asia and Europe. The latter was especially common as an anti-Roman propaganda device in the Greek East. It should cause little surprise that it was taken up in the years after the destruction of Jerusalem. The preoccupation of the author with Achaemenid Persia and the series of False Neros that sprang up in the years following the death of the emperor Nero might point to the hopes of some Jews for an earthly vengeance on Rome at the hands of Parthia. The author of Sibylline Oracle 4 aims at deflating these hopes. He does so by confounding the dichotomy between East and West in a way reminiscent of, if not quite so tortuous as, the Alexandra, a prophetic poem of the Hellenistic age. Beyond showing the unlikelihood of a temporal solution, the author draws the reader’s attention to a more significant dichotomy, that which exists between the righteous and the wicked. There is no notion that the breakdown occurs along ethnic lines; that is to say, Sibylline Oracle 4 does not restrict righteousness or salvation to the Jews, nor does the Law stand as the criterion. Rather the author lays down a moral code that does, to be sure, derive many of its commandments from the Jewish Law, but without naming the source. In this the Sibyl might seem to follow a trajectory already visible in 2 Baruch, one that envisions the possibility of salvation for all, or damnation for all, on the basis of a moral code accessible to all. The author of the Apocalypse of Abraham also departs from the traditions of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem on display in 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 4 Baruch. While he does look to the Bible for inspiration, he delves deeply into Israel’s past, seeking his seer in the person of Abraham, who learns of the dire things to befall his seed in the future during a journey to heaven. The choice of Abraham is in part dictated by the author’s concern with idolatry. The story of Abraham’s rejection of his father’s idols provides a reason for his election by the true God. While on his trip through heaven Abraham arrives in the throneroom of God in a scene inspired by Ezekiel’s vision of God enthroned

276

chapter nine

on a chariot. Beneath his feet he sees a series of vignettes, which are historical from the author’s point of view, but still lie in the future for Abraham’s seed. Among the scenes are some which illustrate the troubled relationship that will exist between the Jews and the Gentiles. The theme of idolatry then comes full circle as the Gentiles and some Jews are seen to worship a figure coming from the Gentiles, perhaps a Roman emperor. Collaboration is put into a theological context as analogous to idolatry. The hope for Jews in the eschaton will be resistance to idolatry in the form of cooperation with Rome. 3 Baruch is, in so many ways, a perfect coda for the study of these related texts. This apocalypse is remarkable for what it leaves out. There is no eschaton, no Messiah, no adherence to the Law, no Gentiles, no Jews, and—what is most striking for an account of a heavenly journey—no vision of God. 3 Baruch poses the question: Where is God? Rather than finding his answer in a vision of God in his heavenly throne room, or through assurances that a divinely sent Messiah will right the wrongs inflicted on the Jews, Baruch finds evidence of God’s providential government in natural phenomena in the cosmos. The lesson is transferred into the human sphere through Baruch’s observance of the heavenly ministrations of the archangel Michael. The seer learns that God is keeping track of the sins and righteous deeds of men. These will not only receive their punishment or reward in the hereafter, but are already seeing the effects of their behavior on earth. God showers blessings on the just and torments on the wicked through the mediation of the angels assigned to each man. One gets the impression from the omissions of 3 Baruch that the author was wearied by the apocalyptic assurances and speculations promoted by the type of text represented by the works that comprise the present study. Each promised a heavenly solution to the problems faced by Jews in the era after 70. Messiahs and judgements were all very fine, but how long was Israel to wait for such consolation. 3 Baruch proposes a solution that satisfies in the here and now. Just as God rules over the cosmos for the good of mankind, so too does he rule over men, though his ways are hidden. The message of 3 Baruch is a logical development from 2 Baruch’s message of turning inward and putting one’s own spiritual house in order. God will sort out the rest. The texts examined in this study were composed after the suppression of the Jewish Revolt. The end of the revolt coincided with the end of Jerusalem and the sacrificial cult. Yet, Rome remained. It was

conclusion

277

this fact that stimulated the authors of these various works. Josephus was not the only one to wonder how he and his fellow Jews were to respond to their changed, and yet unchanged, circumstances. It was not, of course, a new problem, for Rome had been present in Judea and the wider Near East for well over a hundred years before the fall of Jerusalem. The disaster of 70 did make the question more immediate. In the face of such a horrendous act, could a Jew still work with Rome? Josephus thought he could; Agrippa and others agreed. None of the other authors treated here had such a forgiving attitude. They did not, however, have a uniform response to the question, either. In seeking to confront the Roman Question each author, though in different ways, drew on the traditions of his forefathers. This turn to tradition does not in itself constitute an act of resistance, for Josephus, who sought to reconcile Jew and Roman, did so by appealing to these same traditions, albeit in a Greek historiographical form. This is a significant point, for clinging to tradition is not itself an indication of resistance. The contrast between Josephus’ use of the Jeremianic traditions and that found in 4 Baruch demonstrates this. The author of 4 Baruch appeals to the biblical Prophet Jeremiah in order to refute his message of accommodation to Rome. In so doing the author might be seen as a resistance figure, for he is calling for separation from Rome. It is clear, however, from the picture he paints of the Jews who do not heed his warning, cast in terms of putting away Babylonian wives, that his attention is trained on Jews rather than on Rome itself. In 4 Baruch there are no revelations of impending doom for Rome, rather there is the call for Jews to return to their ancestral customs and beliefs, which requires a turning away from Rome. Josephus uses the Jeremianic traditions to make exactly the opposite point. In this he is in some ways truer to the message of Jeremiah than the author of 4 Baruch. Amid the varying messages of the Jewish texts written in response to Roman imperial power in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem, there is one point of unity that holds true for all but 4 Ezra and Sibylline Oracle 5. It is the premium put on local Jewish concerns rather than attention paid to the wider problem of Roman imperialism. The authors of these works seek to locate themselves within the empire and hold fast to their traditions at a time when many were likely to have questioned them. It should be stressed that Josephus accords with this point of view. In suggesting a modus vivendi with Rome his attention

278

chapter nine

is trained inwards. The author of 2 Baruch gives this point its most explicit expression, when he tells his fellow Jews to cease waiting for Rome to fall and to tend to their spiritual life instead. This is not a message of resistance. Jewish traditions and customs are not to be held in order to resist Rome. The case is rather the opposite. It seems that the authors of these works were anxious lest their coreligionists lose sight of their customs and traditions. Whether there was any danger of this is unclear from our vantage point. Josephus appears to have been able to reconcile his religion with his politics, but, to take another well known example, the nephew of Philo and Roman official Tiberius Julius Alexander does not seem to have, or perhaps did not desire to do so. To say that the Romans did not expect apostasy in order to demonstrate loyalty is beside the point. The lengths to which Herod went in courting Roman favor did not sit well with the more devout of his fellow Jews. It is not that Rome compelled or even expected such behavior, rather it is the case that Rome rewarded it and therefore, perhaps unintentionally, made it attractive. We see then in most of the works under discussion a call for the Jews to stand fast in the beliefs and practices of their forefathers. It is convenient, if not necessary, to define a group by way of opposing it to another alien group. This principle can be seen at work in late firstcentury Jewish circles in relation to the Romans. The Romans thus serve as a touchstone upon which might be tested the authenticity of Jewish devotion to their ancestral God and his divine commandments embodied in the Law. In reaction to Rome and its empire the authors of these pieces turn their gaze inwards and concern themselves with local problems. This inward turning finds expression also in the work from Plutarch discussed in the Introduction. In the Praecepta gerendae reipublicae Plutarch advises his addressee Menemachus that success in politics requires the narrowing of the politician’s focus to his own city and civic duties. Though Plutarch does not champion the strict separation favored by the Jewish authors under discussion, he certainly underscores the value of keeping one’s ambitions local. The Jewish texts of the late first century under discussion also provide some support for recent theories of provincial attitudes that stress the local aspirations of many provincial elites. Incorporation into the Roman Empire brought with it new opportunities for establishing local ascendancy. In many societies this was done by jettisoning much

conclusion

279

of what marked one out as being alien to the new imperial culture. The adoption of Roman attitudes, outlook, architecture, and luxury goods might boost the claims of provincial elites on leadership of their communities. Proponents of this theory have had to rely mostly on material evidence that is open to many interpretations. Modern observers can never fully know what precise cause, or combination of considerations, prompted provincials to take up Roman habits and attitudes. The almost complete absence of literary evidence makes perilous any attempt to understand provincial intentions in this regard. The texts studied here offer some confirmation for the notion that attitudes toward the Roman Empire and its culture might have been adopted with an eye on local concerns. In Josephus’ opinion it was accommodation to the conqueror that provided the greatest benefit. He and others who reconciled with Rome were amply rewarded with titles, wealth, and access to the new imperial dynasty. In his dispute with Justus of Tiberias Josephus appeals to his own intimacy with Titus to refute his challenger’s claims. Justus in turn tried to bolster his position by claiming that he opposed the revolt against Rome from its inception. For the other Jewish authors reflecting on the Roman Empire it is the other side of the coin that shows, thus providing negative confirmation of the local potency of the posture taken vis-à-vis Rome. In the wake of a brutal imperial act like the destruction of Jerusalem, one might find one’s position secured in the rejection of the lures of accommodation. This might then constitute an act of resistance. The testimony of the works examined in the present thesis, however, suggests that even a stance against accommodation might have more impact in internal power struggles. That is to say, the rejection of accommodation is also the shunning of accommodationists. When separatism is the aim, those pursuing a policy of accommodation can be seen as greater enemies than the outsiders being accommodated. The evidence of this late first-century Jewish debate about the proper stance to be taken towards Rome can be applied more broadly. This is not to say that the Jewish situation or their reaction to their circumstances is typical, for the Jews were not a typical people. The notion of typicality among subjects of the Roman Empire is problematic to begin with. Are the Jews to be considered any less typical than the Gauls, or Greeks, or Cilicians, or Egyptians? If so, on what grounds?

280

chapter nine

It is surely significant that the ambivalence on view in their texts finds echo in Plutarch’s own ambivalence regarding Rome and her imperial agents. An appreciation of this ambiguous attitude towards Rome must be taken into account when we attempt to uncover the mentality of Rome’s subject populations. It is not a question of pro- or anti-Roman sentiments. Nor is it a question of resistance or Romanization. Any theory wedded to these simplistic dichotomies will break down when one tries to understand, for instance, the rebellions of the thoroughly Romanized Gallic Julii. The issue is much more intricate and involves the interplay of local concerns and the realization that one lives in an imperial society. The former consideration receives more weight in the small body of provincial literature that has come down to us. An awareness of this ambivalence, which can at once embrace both the eagerly sought status markers that come with accommodation to an imperial power even on a local level and the legitimate anxiety that in so doing one’s own traditional identity might be eroded, is an indispensable guide as we investigate the Roman Empire, or indeed any empire, and should not be put aside even as we contemplate the situation of our own contemporary world and try to understand our place within it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackroyd, P. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Ahl, F. M. “The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome.” American Journal of Philology 105 (1984): 174–208. Alcock, S. E. “Greece: a Landscape of Resistance?” Pages 103–16 in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. Edited by D. J. Mattingly and S. E. Alcock. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 23. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997. Ando, C. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Classics and Contemporary Thought 6. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Attridge, H. A. “Historiography.” Pages 157–84 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M. E. Stone. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2:2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Bell, R. H. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Bénabou, M. La résistance africaine à la romanization. Paris: Maspero, 1976. ——. “Résistance et Romanisation en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire.” Pages 367–75 in Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien: travaux du VIe Congrès international d’études classiques (Madrid, septembre 1974). Edited by D. M. Pippidi. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1976. Bensly, R. The Fourth Book of Ezra. Texts and Studies 3.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895. Bogaert, P. Review of G. Delling, Jüdische Lehre und Frömmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremiae. RBén 78 (1968): 345–6. ——. Apocalypse de Baruch. Sources Chrétiennes 144 and 145. Paris: Cerf, 1969. Bonwetsch, G. N. Die Apokalypse Abrahams. Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 1. Leipzig: Deichert, 1897. Bosker, B. “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 50 (1983): 37–61. Bowersock, G. W. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. ——. “The Mechanics of Subversion in the Roman Provinces.” Pages 291–320 in Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan. Edited by A. Giovannini and K. A. Raaflaub. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 33. Vandoeuvres-Genève: Foundation Hardt, 1987. Bowman, A. K. “Provincial Administration and Taxation.” Pages 344–70 in Augustan Empire, 43 B.C.–A.D. 69. Edited by A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin, and A. Lintott. Vol. 10 of The Cambridge Ancient History. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Box, G. H. “4 Ezra.” Pages 542–624 in vol. 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Edited by R. H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. ——. The Apocalypse of Ezra. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917. Box, G. H., and J. I. Landsman. The Apocalypse of Abraham. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1918.

282

bibliography

Brandenburger, E. Die Verborgenheit Gottes im Weltgeschehen: Das literarische und theologische Problem des 4. Esrabuches. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 68. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981. Brandon, S. G. F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1957. Brashler, J., P. A. Dirkse, and D. M. Parrott, “Asclepius 21–29 (VI, 8).” Pages 330–8 in The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Edited by J. M. Robinson and R. Smith. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Breech, E. “These Fragments I Have Shored Against My Ruins: The Form and Function of 4 Ezra.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 267–74. Briant, P. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by P. T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Brunt, P. A. “The Revolt of Vindex and the Fall of Nero.” Pages 9–32 in Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Repr. from Latomus 18 (1959): 531–59. ——. “Tacitus on the Batavian Revolt.” Pages 33–52 in Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Repr. from Latomus 19 (1960): 494–517. ——. “The Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes in the Roman Empire.” Pages 161–73 in Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien: travaux du VIe Congrès international d’études classiques (Madrid, septembre 1974). Edited by D. M. Pippidi. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1976. Canfora, L. “L’idea di Asia in Isocrate e Demostene.” Pages 156–61 in The Birth of European Identity: The Europe-Asia Contrast in Greek Thought. Edited by H. A. Khan. Nottingham Classical Literature Studies 2. Notthingham: University of Nottingham, 1994. Carlsson, L. Round Trips to Heaven: Otherworldly Travelers in Early Judaism and Christianity. Lund Studies in History of Religions 19. Lund: Department of History and Anthropology, Lund University, 2004. Cartledge, P. The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Cassius Dio. Dio’s Roman History. Translated by E. Cary. 9 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914–1927. Champlin, E. “The Life and Times of Calpurnius Piso.” Museum Helveticum 46 (1989): 101–124. ——. Nero. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003. Charles, R. H. The Apocalypse of Baruch Translated from the Syriac. London: A. and C. Black, 1896. ——, ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. ——. “II Baruch.” Pages 470–526 in vol. 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Edited by R. H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. ——. “I Enoch.” Pages 163–281 in vol. 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Edited by R. H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Charlesworth, J. H. “The Triumphant Majority as Seen by a Dwindled Minority: The Outsider According to the Insider of the Jewish Apocalypses, 70–130.” Pages 285–315 in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity. Edited by J. Neusner, E. S. Frerichs, and C. McCracken-Flesher. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985. Charlesworth, M. P. “Nero: Some Aspects.” Journal of Roman Studies 40 (1950): 69–76. Chiron, P. “Le logos eskhèmatisménos ou discours figuré.” Pages 223–54 in La parole polémique. Edited by J. Dangel, G. Declercq, and M. Murat. Paris: Champion, 2003.

bibliography

283

Clarke, E. G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984. Coggins, R. J. “The Old Testament and Samaritan Origins.” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 6 (1967–1968): 35–48. ——. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975. ——. “The Samaritans in Josephus.” Pages 257–73 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. Cohen, S. J. D. “The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash.” Prooftexts 2 (1982): 18–39. ——. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. Collins, J. J. The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 13. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature for the Pseudepigrapha Group, 1974. ——. “The Place of the Fourth Sibyl in the Development of the Jewish Sibyllina.” Journal of Jewish Studies 25 (1974): 365–80. ——. ed. Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. ——. “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre.” Pages 1–20 in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14. Edited by J. J. Collins. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. ——. “The Jewish Apocalypses.” Pages 21–59 in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14. Edited by J. J. Collins. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. ——. “Sibylline Oracles.” Pages 317–472 in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. ——. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ——. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. ——. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Crowfoot, J. W., K. M. Kenyon, and E. L. Sukenik. The Buildings at Samaria. SamariaSebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint expedition in 1931–1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, vol. 1. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1942. Crown, A. D., ed. The Samaritans. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Daube, D. “Typology in Josephus.” Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (1980): 18–36. Davila, J. R. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series 105. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Dean-Otting, M. Heavenly Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature. Judentum und Umwelt 8. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984. Debevoise, N. C. A Political History of Parthia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938. Dedering, S., ed. Apocalypsis Baruch. Vol. 4.3 of The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Delling, G. Jüdische Lehre und Frömmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremiae. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967. Denis, A.-M. Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graece: una cum historicorum et auctorum judaeorum Hellenistarum fragmentis. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970. ——. Introduction aux pseudépigraphs grecs d’Ancien Testament. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha 1. Leiden: Brill, 1970. ——. Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1987.

284

bibliography

Díez Macho, A., ed. Génesis. Vol. 1 of Neophyti I, Targum Palestinense ms. de la Bibliotheca Vaticana. Edited by A. Díez Macho. Textos y estudios del Seminario Filológico Cardenal Cisneros 7. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968. ——. Neophyti I, Targum Palestinense ms. de la Bibliotheca Vaticana. 6 vols. Textos y estudios del Seminario Filológico Cardenal Cisneros 7–11, 20. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968–1979. DiTommaso, L. “Dating the Eagle Vision of 4 Ezra: A New Look at an Old Theory.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 20 (1999): 3–38. Dodd, C. H. “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation.’ ” Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947): 47–54. Dyson, S. L. “Native Revolts in the Roman Empire.” Historia 20 (1971): 239–74. ——. “Native Revolt Patterns in the Roman Empire.” ANRW 3: 138–75. Part 2, Principat, 3. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975. Eck, W. “Provincial Administration and Finance.” Pages 266–92 in High Empire, A.D. 70–192. Edited by A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbone. Vol. 11 of The Cambridge Ancient History. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Eddy, S. K. The King Is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism, 334–31 B.C. Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Esler, P. F. “The Social Function of 4 Ezra.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994): 99–123. ——. “God’s Honour and Rome’s Triumph: Responses to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE in Three Jewish Apocalypses.” Pages 239–58 in Modeling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context. London: Routledge, 1995. Etheridge, J. W. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee. 2 vols. London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, 1862–1865. Felder, S. “What is the Fifth Sibylline Oracle?” Journal for the Study of Judaism 33 (2002): 363–85. Feldman, L. H., and G. Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. ——. “Josephus’ Attitude toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence.” Pages 23–45 in Jewish Sects, Religious Movements, and Political Parties: Proceedings of the third annual Symposium of the Philip M. and Ethel Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization, held on Sunday–Monday, October 14–15, 1990. Edited by M. Mor. Omaha, Nebr.: Creighton University Press, 1992. Repr. pages 114–136 in Studies in Hellenistic Judaism. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 30. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Ferrary, J.-L. Philhellénisme et impérialisme: aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique. Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 271. Rome: École française de Rome, 1988. Fischer, B. and R. Weber, eds., “Liber Ezrae Quartus.” Page 1934–67 of Biblia Sacra: iuxta Vulgatam versionem. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Fitzer, G. “σφραγίς.” TDNT 7.939–53. Flusser, D. “The Four Empires in the Fourth Sibyl and in the Book of Daniel.” Israel Oriental Studies 2 (1972): 148–75. Freeman, P. W. M. “‘Romanisation’ and Roman Material Culture.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 6 (1993): 438–45. ——. “Mommsen through to Haverfield: the Origins of Romanization Studies in Late 19th-c. Britain.” Pages 27–50 in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. Edited by D. J. Mattingly and S. E. Alcock. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 23. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997.

bibliography

285

Gallivan, P. A. “The False Neros: A Re-examination.” Historia 22 (1973): 364–5. Galsterer, H. “Local and Provincial Institutions and Government.” Pages 344–60 in High Empire, A.D. 70–192. Edited by A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbone. Vol. 11 of The Cambridge Ancient History. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Garnsey, P. D. A. “Rome’s African Empire under the Principate.” Pages 223–54 in Imperialism in the Ancient World: The Cambridge University Research Seminar in Ancient History. Edited by P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Garnsey, P. D. A., and C. R. Whittaker, eds., Imperialism in the Ancient World: The Cambridge University Research Seminar in Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Gaston, L. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. Novum Testamentum Supplement 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Gauger, J.-D. “Phlegon von Tralleis, mirab. III.” Chiron 10 (1980): 225–61. ——. “Orakel und Brief: Zu zwei hellenistischen Formen geistiger Auseinandersetzung mit Rom.” Pages 51–67 in Rom und der griechische Ostens: Festschrift für Hatto H. Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Ch. Schubert, K. Brodersen, and U. Huttner. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1995. Gaylord, H. E. “The Slavonic Version of III Baruch.” PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983. ——. “The Slavonic Version of 3 Baruch.” Polata Knigopisnaia 7 (1983): 49–56. ——. “3 (Greek Apocalypse of ) Baruch.” Pages 653–79 in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Geffcken, J. Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. New ser. 8. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902. Georges, P. Barbarian Asia and the Greek Experience: From the Archaic Period to the Age of Xenophon. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Ginzberg, L. “Baruch, Apocalypse of (Greek).” Pages 549–51 in vol. 2 of The Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by I. Singer. 12 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1902. Giovannini A., and K. A. Raaflaub, eds. Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 33. Vandoeuvres-Genève: Foundation Hardt, 1987. Goldenberg, R. “The Broken Axis: Rabbinic Judaism and the Fall of Jerusalem.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 45.3 Supplement (1977): 870–81. ——. “Early Rabbinic Explanations of the Destruction of Jerusalem.” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 517–25. Goodman, M. The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ——. Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. New York: Knopf, 2007. Groag, E., A. Stein, and L. Petersen, Prosopographia Imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1933–1966. Gruen, E. S. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. ——. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002. ——. “Persia Through the Jewish Looking-Glass.” Pages 90–104 of Cultural Borrowings and Ethnic Appropriations in Antiquity. Oriens et Occidens 8. Edited by E. S. Gruen. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005. Gruenwald, I. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 14. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Gry, L. Les dires prophétiques d’Esdras (IV Esdras). 2 vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1938.

286

bibliography

——. “La date de la fin des temps selon les révélations ou les calculs du Pseudo-Philon et de Baruch (Apocalypse syriaque).” Revue biblique 48 (1939): 337–56. ——. “La Ruine du Temple par Titus: Quelques traditions juives plus anciennes et primitives à base de la Pesikta Rabbathi XXVI.” Revue biblique 55 (1948): 215–26. Hadas-Lebel, M. Jerusalem against Rome. Translated by R. Fréchet. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 7. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Hall, E. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989. Hall, R. G. “The ‘Christian Interpolation’ in the Apocalypse of Abraham.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 107–12. ——. Revealed Histories: Techniques for Ancient Jewish and Christian Historiography. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 6. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Hansen, W. Phlegon of Tralles’ Book of Marvels. Exeter Studies in History. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996. Harlow, D. C. The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 12. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Harnisch, W. Verhängnis und Verheissung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeitund Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 97. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Harrington, D. J. “The ‘Holy Land’ in Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch.” Pages 661–72 in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, W. W. Fields. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Harris, J. Rendel. The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of the Year 136 A.D. London: Clay, 1889. Harrison, T. The Emptiness of Asia: Aeschylus’ Persians and the History of the Fifth Century. London: Duckworth, 2000. Haverfield, F. The Romanization of Roman Britain. 4th ed. Revised by G. MacDonald. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923. Henten, J. W. van. “Nero Redivivus Demolished: the Coherence of the Nero Traditions in the Sibylline Oracles.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 21 (2000): 3–17. Herzer, J. Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ——. “Direction in Difficult Times: How God Is Understood in the Paralipomena Jeremiae.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 22 (2000): 9–30. ——. 4 Baruch (Paralipomena Jeremiou). Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Greco-Roman World 22. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Himmelfarb, M. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Hingley, R. “Resistance and Domination: Social Change in Roman Britain.” Pages 81–102 in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. Edited by D. J. Mattingly and S. E. Alcock. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 23. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997). ——. Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity, and Empire London: Routledge, 2005. Hogan, K. M. Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom, Debate, and Apocalyptic Solution. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 130. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

bibliography

287

Hughes, H. M. “The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch or III Baruch.” Pages 527–41 in vol. 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Edited by R. H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Humphrey, E. McE. The Ladies and the Cities: Transformation and Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Asenath, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse and The Shepherd of Hermas. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Hunzinger, C. H. “Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1. Petrusbriefes.” Pages 67–77 in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans-Wilhelm Hertberg zum 70. Geburtstag am 16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern. Edited by H. Graf Reventlow. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Hurst, A. Lycophron, Alexandra. Collection des universités de France Série grecque 468. Paris: Belles lettres, 2008. James, M. R. “Apocalypsis Baruchi Tertia Graece.” Pages 83–94 in Apocrypha Anecdota II. Edited by J. A. Robinson. Texts and Studies 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897. Jones, C. P. Plutarch and Rome. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. Jones, K. R. “Lycophron’s Alexandra, the Romans, and Antiochus III.” (forthcoming) ——. “Persia and Babylon: Understanding Rome in the Greek and Jewish East.” (forthcoming) Kirschner, R. “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70.” Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985): 27–46. Klein, R. Die Romrede des Aelius Aristides. Texte zur Forschung 45. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges., 1983. Klijn, A. F. J. “The Sources and Redaction of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 1 (1979): 65–76. ——. Der lateinische Text der Apokalypse des Esra. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 131. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983. ——. “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of ) Baruch.” Pages 615–52 in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. ——. “Recent Developments in the Study of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 4 (1989): 3–17. Kocsis, E. “Ost-West Gegensatz in den jüdischen Sibyllinen.” Novum Testamentum 5 (1962): 105–110. Koenen, L. “Die Prophezeiungen des ‘Töpfers’.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 2 (1968): 178–209. Kohler, K. “The Pre-Talmudic Haggada. B—The Second Baruch or Rather the Jeremiah Apocalypse.” Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893): 407–19. Kokkinos, N. The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society, and Eclipse. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 30. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Kolenkow, A. C. B. “An Introduction to II Bar. 53, 56–74: Structure and Substance.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1971. Kraft, R. A. “The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity.” Pages 55–86 in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. C. Reeves. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. ——. “The Pseudepigrapha and Christianity Revisited: Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 32 (2001): 371–95.

288

bibliography

Kraft, R. A. and A.-E. Purintun. Paraleipomena Jeremiou. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 1, Pseudepigrapha Series 1. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. Krause, M., and P. Labib, eds. Gnostische und hermetische Schriften aus Codex II und Codex VI. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo, Koptische Reihe 2. Glückstadt: Augustin, 1971. Kreitzer, L. “Hadrian and the Nero Redivivus Myth.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 79 (1988): 92–115. Lambert, M. Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from Bogomil to Hus. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976. Lanchester, H. C. O. “The Sibylline Oracles.” Pages 368–406 in vol. 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Edited by R. H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Last, H. “Rome and the Empire.” Pages 435–78 in The Imperial Peace, A.D. 70–192. Edited by S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth. Vol. 11 of The Cambridge Ancient History. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936. Lintott, A. W. Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. London: Routledge, 1993. Lipschits, O. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Longenecker, B. W. “Locating 4 Ezra: A Consideration of Its Social Setting and Functions.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 28 (1997): 271–93. Lunt, H. G. “Ladder of Jacob.” Pages 401–11 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. ——. “On the Language of the Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham.” Slavica Hierosolymitana 7 (1985): 55–62. MacMullen, R. “Notes on Romanization.” The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 21 (1984): 161–77. Repr. pages 56–66 in Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. ——. Romanization in the Time of Augustus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Mason, S. Life of Josephus. Vol. 9 of Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary. Edited by S. Mason, L. H. Feldman, Ch. Begg, J. M. G. Barclay. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Mattingly, D. J., and S. E. Alcock, eds. Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 23. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997. McCrum, M. and A. G. Woodhead, eds. Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors Including the Year of Revolution A.D. 68–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961. Mendels, D. “The Five Empires: A Note on a Propagandistic Topos.” American Journal of Philology 102 (1981): 330–7. Metzger, B. M. “The Fourth Book of Ezra.” Pages 517–59 in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Metzger, B. M., and R. E. Murphy, eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Millar, F. ed. The Roman Empire and Its Neighbours. 2nd ed. London: Duckworth, 1981. ——. The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993.

bibliography

289

Millett, M. The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Momigliano, A. D. “Terra Marique.” Journal of Roman Studies 32 (1942): 53–64. ——. “Some Preliminary Remarks on the ‘Religious Opposition’ to the Roman Empire.” Pages 103–33 in Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan. Edited by A. Giovannini and K. A. Raaflaub. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 33. Vandoeuvres-Genève: Foundation Hardt, 1987. Mommsen, Th., The Provinces of the Roman Empire from Caesar to Diocletian. 2 vols. Translated by W. P. Dickson. Revised by F. Haverfield. London: Macmillan, 1909. Montgomery, J. A. The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect. New York: Ktav, 1907. Mueller, J. R. “The Apocalypse of Abraham and the Destruction of the Second Jewish Temple.” Pages 341–9 in The Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 21. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. Murphy, F. J. “2 Baruch and the Romans.” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985): 663–9. ——. The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 78. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. ——. “The Temple in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 671–83. Neusner, J. “Judaism in a Time of Crisis: Four Responses to the Destruction of the Second Temple.” Judaism 21 (1972): 312–27. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Narrative Traditions in the Paralipomena of Jeremiah and 2 Baruch.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35 (1973): 60–8. ——. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. ——. “Paraleipomena of Jeremiah.” Pages 72–5 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M. E. Stone. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2:2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. ——. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Nikiprowetzky, V. “Reflexions sur Quelques Problemes du Quatrième et du Cinquième Livre des Oracles Sibyllins.” Hebrew Union College Annual 43 (1972): 29–57. Nir, R. The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 20. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Noack, B. “Are the Essenes Referred to in the Sibylline Oracles?” Studia Theologica 17 (1963): 90–102. Noth, M. The History of Israel. 2nd ed. Translated by P. R. Ackroyd. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Obolensky, D. The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Ogilvie, R. M., and I. A. Richmond, eds. Cornelii Taciti: De vita Agricolae. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. Oliver, J. H. The Ruling Power: A Study of the Roman Empire in the Second Century after Christ through the Roman Oration of Aelius Aristides. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society N.S. 43.4. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953. Pappano, A. E. “The False Neros.” Classical Journal 32 (1937): 385–92. Parrot, A. Samaria, the Capital of the Kingdom of Israel. Translated by S. H. Hooke. Studies in Biblical Archaeology 7. London: SCM, 1958. Pennington, A. “The Apocalypse of Abraham.” Pages 363–91 in The Apocryphal Old Testament. Edited by H. F. D. Sparks. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984.

290

bibliography

Pernot, L. “Il non-detto della declamazione greco-romana: discorso figurato, sottintesi e allusioni politiche.” Pages 209–34 in Papers on Rhetoric 8: Declamation; Proceedings of the Seminars Held at the Scuola Superiore di Studi Umanistici Bologna (February–March 2006). Edited by L. Calboli Montefusco. Rome: Herder, 2007. ——. “Aelius Aristides and Rome.” Pages 175–201 in Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods. Edited by W. V. Harris and B. Holmes. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 33. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Philonenko, M. “Les Paralipomènes de Jérémie et la traduction de la Symmaque.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 64 (1984): 143–5. ——. “Simples observations sur les Paralipomènes de Jérémie.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 76 (1996): 157–77. Philonenko-Sayar, B., and M. Philonenko. L’Apocalypse d’Abraham: Introduction, texte slave, traduction et notes. Semitica 31. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1981. ——. “Die Apokalypse Abrahams.” Pages 415–60 in Apokalypsen. Edited by W. G. Kümmel. Vol. 5.5 of Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1982. Picard, J.-C. Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 2. Leiden: Brill, 1967. ——. “Observations sur l’Apocalypse grecque de Baruch I: Cadre historique fictif et efficacité symbolique.” Semitica 20 (1970): 77–103. Pippidi, D. M., ed., Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien: travaux du VI e Congrès international d’études classiques (Madrid, septembre 1974). Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1976. Rajak, T. “Justus of Tiberias.” Classical Quarterly 23 (1973): 344–68. ——. “Josephus and Justus of Tiberias.” Pages 81–94 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. ——. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. 2nd ed. London: Duckworth, 2002. Reicke, B. “Synoptic Prophesies on the Destruction of Jerusalem.” Pages 121–34 in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Edited by D. W. Aune. Novum Testamentum Supplements 30. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Riaud, J. “La figure de Jérémie dans les Paralipomena Jeremiae.” Pages 373–85 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Edited by A. Caquot. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 212. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981. ——. “Les Paralipomena Jeremiae dependent-ils de II Baruch?” Sileno 9 (1983): 105–28. ——. “Les Samaritains dans les ‘Paralipomena Jeremiae.’” Pages 133–52 in La Littérature intertestamentaire: colloque de Strasbourg (17–19 octobre 1983). Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1985. ——. Les Paralipomènes du Prophète Jérémie: Présentation, texte original, traduction et commentaires. Cahiers du Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherches en Histoire, Lettres et Langues 14. Angers: Association Saint-Yves, 1994. ——. “The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetae: His Originality; His ‘Christianization’ by the Christian Author of the Conclusion (9.10–32).” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 22 (2000): 31–44. Robinson, S. E. “4 Baruch.” Pages 413–25 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. de Romilly, J. “Isocrates and Europe.” Greece & Rome 39 (1992): 2–13. Rubinkiewicz, R. “La vision de l’histoire dans l’Apocalypse d’Abraham.” ANRW 19.1: 137–51. Part 2, Principat, 19.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979. ——. “Les semitismes dans l’Apocalypse d’Abraham.” Folia Orientalia 21 (1980): 141–8.

bibliography

291

——. L’Apocalypse d’Abraham, en vieux slave: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire. Źródła i monografie 129. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1987. Rubinkiewicz, R. and H. G. Lunt. “The Apocalypse of Abraham.” Pages 681–705 in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Rubinstein, A. “Hebraisms in the Slavonic ‘Apocalypse of Abraham.’” Journal of Jewish Studies 4 (1953): 108–15. ——. “Hebraisms in the ‘Apocalypse of Abraham.’” Journal of Jewish Studies 5 (1954): 132–5. ——. “A Problematic Passage in the Apocalypse of Abraham.” Journal of Jewish Studies 8 (1957): 45–50. Saldarini, A. J. “Varieties of Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of the Temple.” Pages 437–58 in The Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 21. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. Sanders, P. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. Oudtestamentische Studiën 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Sayler, G. Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 72. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984. Schade, G. Lykophrons ‘Odyssee’: Alexandra 648–819. Texte und Kommentare 20. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999. Schalit, A. “Josephus und Justus.” Klio 26 (1933): 67–95. Schaller, B. “Paralipomena Jeremiou.” Pages 659–777 in Historische und legendarische Erzählungen. Edited by W. G. Kümmel. Vol. 1.8 of Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998. ——. “Is the Greek Version of the Paralipomena Jeremiou Original or a Translation?” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 22 (2000): 51–89. Schiffman, L. H. “The Samaritans in Tannaitic Halakhah.” Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1985): 323–50. Schürer, E. Review of J. Rendel Harris, The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of the Year 136 A.D. Theologische Zeitschrift 15 (1890): 81–3. ——. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). Revised Edition. Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and M. Goodman. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–1987. Schwartz, S. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2001. Scott, J. M. ed. Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997. ——. Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 72. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Segal, A. “Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity, and Their Environment.” ANRW 23.2: 1333–94. Part 2, Principat, 23.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980. Shaw, B. D. “Josephus: Roman Power and Responses to It.” Athenaeum 83 (1995): 357–90. Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Foreign Policy in the East, 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1984. Simon, M. Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, 135–425. Translated by H. McKeating. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Smallwood, E. M. The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 20. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Smyth, H. W. Greek Grammar. Revised Edition. Edited by G. M. Messing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956.

292

bibliography

Stone, M. E. “Baruch, Rest of the Words of.” EncJud 4.276–7. ——. “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 12 (1981): 195–204. ——. “Apocalyptic Literature,” Page 383–441 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M. E. Stone. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2:2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. ——. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Swain, J. W. “The Theory of the Four Monarchies Opposition History under the Roman Empire.” Classical Philology 35 (1940): 1–21. Swain, S. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50–250. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Tacitus. Agricola and Germany. Translated by A. R. Birley. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Thilo, G., and H. Hagen, eds., Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii. 3 vols. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1881–1900. Thomas, J. Le Mouvement Baptiste en Palestine et Syrie, 150 av. J.-C.–300 ap. J.-C. Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theologica vel in Facultate Iuris Canonici consequendum conscriptae, series 2, 28. Gembloux, 1935. Thompson, A. L. Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 29. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Tuplin, C. “The False Neros of the First Century.” Pages 364–404 in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 5. Collection Latomus 206. Edited by C. Deroux. Brussels: Latomus, 1989. Turdeanu, E. “Les apocryphes slaves et romains: leur apport à la connaissance des apocryphes grecs.” Studi bizantini e neoellenici 8 (1953): 47–52. ——. “L’Apocalypse de Baruch en Slave.” Revue des études slaves 48 (1969): 23–48. ——. “L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en slave.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 3 (1972): 153–80. Repr. pages 172–200 in Apocryphes Slaves et Roumains de l’Ancien Testament. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 5. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Usher, S. “Isocrates: Paideia, Kingship and the Barbarians.” Pages 131–45 in The Birth of European Identity: The Europe-Asia Contrast in Greek Thought. Edited by H. A. Khan. Nottingham Classical Literature Studies 2. Notthingham: University of Nottingham, 1994. Violet, B. Die Esra-Apokalypse (IV. Esra), Band 1: Die Überlieferung. Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 18. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910. ——. Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt. Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 32. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924. Volkmar, G. Das vierte Buch Esra (Esdra Propheta). Vol. 1 of Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen. Tübingen: Fues, 1863. Webster, J. “A Negotiated Syncretism: Readings on the Development of Romano-Celtic Religion.” Pages 165–84 in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. Edited by D. J. Mattingly and S. E. Alcock. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 23. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997. Webster J., and N. Cooper, eds. Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leicester University in November 1994. Leicester Archaeology Monographs 3. Leicester: School of Archaeological Studies, University of Leicester, 1996. Whitters, M. F. The Epistle of Second Baruch: A Study in Form and Message. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 42. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.

bibliography

293

Wolff, Ch. Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 118. Berlin: Akademie, 1976. ——. “Irdisches und himmlisches Jerusalem—Die Heilshoffnung in den Paralipomena Jeremiae.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 82 (1991): 147–58. Woolf, G. “The Unity and Diversity of Romanization.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 5 (1992): 349–52. ——. “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40 (1994): 116–43. ——. Becoming Roman: the Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ——. “MacMullen’s Romanization.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 14 (2001): 575–9. Wright, G. E. “The Samaritans at Shechem.” Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 357–66. ——. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Wright, J. E. “The Social Setting of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 16 (1997): 81–96. ——. “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer.” Pages 264–89 in Figures Outside the Bible. Edited by M. E. Stone and Th. A. Bergren. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 1998. ——. Baruch ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2003. Zimmermann, F. “Textual Observations on the Apocalypse of Baruch.” Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1939): 151–6. ——. “Translation and Mistranslation in the Apocalypse of Baruch.” Pages 580–7 in Studies and Essays in Honour of Abraham A. Neuman. Edited by M. Ben-Horin, B. D. Weinryb, and S. Zeitlin. Leiden: Brill, 1962.

INDEX Aaron 245 abomination of desolation 246 Abraham 64, 68, 86, 130 See also Apocalypse of Abraham Acta Alexandrinorum 17 Adam 42, 64–65, 83, 84, 90, 109, 115 See also Apocalypse of Abraham; 2 Baruch; 3 Baruch; 4 Ezra Aedinius Julianus (governor of Gaul) 12 n. 26 Aelia Capitolina 89, 154, 269 Aemilius Sura (Roman historian) 184 Aeschylus 173 Africa (Roman province) 13, 23, 54 Agricola, Cn. Julius (governor of Britain) 1–2, 13 n. 30 Agrippa I 23 Agrippa II 20, 21, 22, 26, 93, 143–144, 277 speech of in Bellum Judaicum 22–23, 24, 98, 144, 188 Agrippina (mother of Nero) 229 Alexander the Great 9, 152, 153, 174, 176, 206–207 Alexandra 176, 275 Alexandria 220 Ananias (Jewish high priest) 143 Ananus (Jewish high priest) 143 Ando, C. 7–8 Antigonus (King of Judea) 25, 167 n. 53 Antiochus III 175–176, 195, 232 Antiochus IV 62, 198, 222, 229, 246 See also Sibylline Oracle 5 Antisthenes (Greek author) 175–176, 195, 206–207, 233 Antoninus Pius 8 Antonius, M. (triumvir) 196 Apocalypse of Abraham Adam and Eve in 249, 259 and 2 Baruch 268 and 4 Baruch 270 and Bogomils 264 and Ezekiel (book of ) 261 and Genesis 254 and Hadrian 269 and Ladder of Jacob (pseudepigraphon) 253, 254 and 1 Maccabees 270

and Revelation 266 and Rome 269–270, 276 and Targum Yerušalmi 254 and the succession of empires 253–254 as Otherworldly Journey 113 Azazel in 249–250, 257, 258–259, 262, 264, 266 Christian interpolations in 263, 264, 265 date of 33, 252–256 Iaoel in 249, 257 Jewish origins of 35, 36, 264 message of 255 Messiah in 265, 267 Michael in 257 on Abraham and Azazel 259 on Abraham’s rejection of idolatry 256, 257, 270, 275 on Abraham’s seed 249, 250, 257, 258, 260, 263, 267 on idolatry 246–248, 256, 258, 265, 266, 275 on Jewish sin/idolatry and punishment 256, 258, 260, 261, 262, 267, 268, 276 on salvation 258 on the call of Abraham 248–249, 257 on the destruction of the temple 252, 255, 261–262 on the division of history into twelve ages 252, 254–255 on the division of mankind into Jews and Gentiles 257–258, 260, 276 on the dominion of Azazel 259–260, 267–268 on the election of Israel 256, 257, 258, 275 on the “four ascents” 250, 252–254 on the judgement 266, 267, 268 on the sojourn in Egypt 251, 254 on the temple 138, 261 on the throne of God 249, 257, 275 original language of 251 structure of 246, 255, 256 summary of 246–251 Terah in 246–248, 256 versions of 251–252

296

index

vision of the idol of jealousy in 260–261 vision of the man from the heathen in 255, 262–265, 266, 267, 268–269 Apollo 176, 201 Appian 184 Apuleius 3 Aqiba, R. 150, 151 Artabanus (Parthian pretender) 179–180 Artabanus III (King of Parthia) 216 Aristides, Aelius 8–9, 10, 11, 19, 63 Aristobulus II 25, 192, 193 Armenia 15, 196, 217 See also Sibylline Oracle 4 Artaxerxes III (King of Persia) 221–222, 223 Asclepius (Hermetic text) 16–17 Asia. See Europe and Asia, conflict of Assyria 86, 104, 111–112, 152, 198 Athens 9, 23, 174 Augustine, St. 3 Augustus 49, 63, 74, 153, 196, 238 Aurelius, Marcus 213, 214 Ausonius, D. Magnus 3 Azazel (angel). See Apocalypse of Abraham Baal 245 Babel, Tower of 129–131 See also 3 Baruch Babylon/Babylonians as a trope for Romans 32, 33–34, 89, 98, 156 destruction of Jerusalem by 25, 39, 68, 80, 86, 87–89, 111, 144, 198 exile of Jews in 39, 80, 82, 86, 104, 160 punished by God 39–40, 41, 76, 88, 99, 132, 225 See also 2 Baruch; 4 Baruch; 4 Ezra; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Jeremiah, book of; Jerusalem; Jews; Moses; Persian Empire; Sibylline Oracle 5 Baruch (biblical figure) 81–82 See also Baruch, book of (deuterocanonical); 2 Baruch; 3 Baruch; 4 Baruch Baruch, book of (deuterocanonical) 82 Baruch, Epistle of. See 2 Baruch 2 Baruch Adam in 83, 84, 85, 90, 96, 273, 274 and 4 Baruch 103

and 4 Ezra 82, 94, 96 and Josephus 91 and Romans (book of ) 100 angels in 83, 91 as a source for Jewish history under Roman rule 26 audience of 92–93 Babylonians in 34, 98 Baruch as seer in 80, 82 Cedar Vision in 84, 97–99 Cloud Vision in 85–86, 89 date of 32, 87–89 Epistle of Baruch in 86–87, 93, 103–108 exile in 91, 103–104, 105, 106–107 Jeremiah in 83, 104 Jewish origins of 35 Moses in 83 on apostasy 84–85, 97, 139 on proselytism 84–85, 97, 101, 109, 139 on Roman prosperity 92, 93 on Roman responsibility for the destruction of Jerusalem 91–92, 101, 102 on Rome as fourth empire 33, 89, 98 on salvation 90, 94–96, 101, 139–140 on sin 82, 93, 96, 100, 102, 104, 109, 273 on the Diaspora 93, 103, 105–107 on the election of Israel 35, 95, 99 on the impartiality of divine judgement 94, 100–101 on the Law (Torah) 35, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 93, 95–97, 101, 106, 107–108, 109, 139–140, 273–274 on the Messiah 35, 84, 98 on the punishment of the Jews 82, 94 on the punishment of the Romans/ nations 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 101, 102, 109, 142 on the restoration of the temple 32, 138 on the succession of empires 84, 98 original language of 87 parallels between Israel and Rome/ nations in 93, 94–95, 100, 109 Ramael in 85 setting of 79–80, 90 summary of 82–87 universalism in 37, 90 versions of 87

index 3 Baruch absence of reference to Law in 121, 139, 140–141, 276 absence of reference to Messiah in 121, 128, 136, 139, 276 absence of reference to Rome or Romans in 121, 128–129, 135, 142, 276 absence of reference to temple in 121 absence of theodicy in 123, 142 absence of vision of God in 121, 123–124, 126, 276 Adam in 115, 149 and 2 Baruch 120, 128, 137, 139, 141–142, 276 and 4 Baruch 114 n. 9, 120, 128, 137, 142 and Exodus 131 and 4 Ezra 120, 122–123, 127, 129, 137, 139, 141 and Liber Antiquitatum Judaicarum 131 and Romans (book of ) 142 and Sibylline Oracle 4 120, 139, 141 and the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy) 132–133, 134–136 and n. 54 as Otherworldly Journey 113 attitude of toward Jerusalem and temple 122, 136–137, 139, 142 audience of 121–122, 136 Baruch as seer in 82 Christian interpolations in 36, 115 n. 12, 116 n. 18, 118–119 date of 32 Jewish origins of 35–36, 118–120 Michael in 116–117, 126, 128, 134–135, 138, 139, 140, 276 Moses in 132–133, 134–136 Nebuchadnezzar in 121, 128 Noah in 115, 140 omissions in 120, 136, 276 on hades 124, 127 on mysteries/works of God 124–126, 129, 137 on natural phenomena 115–116, 124–126, 127, 142, 276 on sin 114–115, 118, 140–141 on the glory of God 125–126 on the phoenix 115, 125–126 on the punishment of sinners 124–125, 126–127, 128, 129, 142, 276

297

on the reward of the righteous 126–128, 142, 276 on the Tower of Babel 114, 124–125, 127, 129 original language of 118 possible references to Rome in 117, 129–132, 135–136 Samael in 115, 149 setting of 79 summary of 114–117 universal code of ethics in 140–141, 142 versions of 117–118, 119 4 Baruch Abimelech in 163, 167, 169 absence of Messiah in 154, 172 absence of remnant in land in 163, 167 and Agrippa II 165 and baptism 149 and 2 Baruch 36, 154, 155–156, 159, 163, 170, 171 and Exodus 157 and 4 Ezra 36, 154, 156, 170, 171 and Ezra-Nehemiah 144, 155, 164, 165, 166, 167 and Jeremiah (book of ) 144 and Josephus 165, 277 and Samaritans 150–152 and Sibylline Oracle 4 156, 164 n. 48 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt 148, 149–150, 154, 155 and the Law 170–171 Babylonians in 34, 156, 157, 166 Baruch as seer in 82 Christian interpolations in 36, 147 date of 32, 148 eschatology of 154, 169, 172 historical context of 145, 164 Jeremiah in 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 165, 167, 168, 170, 172, 272, 277 Jewish origins of 35, 36 message of 155 Michael in 147, 169 on intermarriage with Babylonians 147, 157, 160, 161, 163–164, 165, 166, 168, 171, 172 on Jewish cooperation with Rome 144–145, 165, 166, 171 on Jewish idolatry 160, 161, 165 on separation from Rome/Babylon 142, 147, 154, 155, 162, 165, 167, 169–170, 172, 272–273, 277

298

index

on the exile 36, 147, 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 167, 168, 169–170, 171, 172 on the restoration of the temple 168 original language of 148 Samaria in 147, 150, 151–152, 166–167, 169, 272 setting of 79–80 summary of 145 Vineyard of Agrippa in 32, 146, 149, 156 Bar Kokhba revolt 27, 148, 149–150, 154, 155 See also 4 Baruch; Sibylline Oracle 5 Beliar 209 Bellum Judaicum See Josephus Belshazzar 40, 82 Bénabou, M. 13 Berenice (Herodian princess) 165–166 Bordeaux 3 Boudicca (British leader) 15 Britain (Roman province) 12 n. 27, 13 n. 30, 14, 23 Britannicus (son of Claudius) 229 Brunt, P.A. 5–6 Brygi 227–228 Caesar, C. Iulius 14, 31, 49, 215 Caesennius Paetus, L. (governor of Syria) 196–197 Calgacus (Caledonian leader) 2 n. 3 Caligula. See Gaius Cambyses (King of Persia) 221–222, 223, 227 Caracalla 48, 49, 51 Carchemish, battle of 80 Carthage 177, 184 Cestius Gallus, C. (governor of Syria) 143 Charlemagne 74 n. 69 Charlesworth, J.H. 28, 29 Chronicles, book of 162 citizenship (Roman) 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 n. 26 Claudius Paulinus, Ti. (governor of Gaul) 12 n. 26 Claudius (Roman emperor) 23 n. 49, 144, 167 Clement of Alexandria 45, 50 Clodius Albinus, D. (governor of Britain) 49, 51 Clodius Macer, L. (governor of Africa) 54 Commagene 93, 197 Commodus 49

Corbulo, Cn. Domitius (governor of Syria) 15 Corinth 177, 187, 211 Cragus-Sidyma (Lycia) 3 Ctesias of Cnidus 183–184 Cumanus, Ventidius (governor of Judea) 153 n. 25 Cuspius Fadus (governor of Judea) 144 Cyrus 40, 41, 63, 69, 76–77, 99, 162, 164, 172, 183, 197–198, 272 Daniel, book of 40, 61, 130, 222, 246 on the succession of empires 33, 43, 72, 74, 88, 183, 185, 253, 273 Darius I 190, 227 Darius the Mede 40 David 64, 134 Davila, J.R. 35–37 democracy 11 Deuteronomistic History 27, 82, 132 Diaspora 105 n. 44, 154, 160, 215 revolt of Jews in 217, 220 See also 2 Baruch; 4 Baruch Didius Julianus, M. (emperor) 49 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 184 DiTommaso, L. 48–51 Diviciacus (Gallic noble) 14 n. 33 Domitian 48, 51, 56, 72, 180, 273 Druids 13, 14–15 Eagle Vision. See 4 Ezra East and West. See Europe and Asia, conflict of Egypt 23, 177 traditional Jewish view of 220 See also Sibylline Oracle 5 Einhard 74 n. 69 elites. See provincial elites emperor. See Roman emperor 1 Enoch 113, 186 Esler, P.F. 29 Essenes 181 Esther, book of 198 Euphrates River 104, 163, 177, 178, 189, 196, 197, 204 Europe and Asia, conflict of 173–174, 175–176 See also Sibylline Oracle 4 Exodus, book of 157, 220 Ezekiel 79 Ezekiel, book of 46, 275 Ezra 79, 198 books associated with 41 n. 3

index See also Ezra-Nehemiah, books of; 4 Ezra Ezra-Nehemiah, books of 41, 89 intermarriage in 162, 163, 164, 165, 172 4 Ezra Adam in 64–65, 66, 109, 273 and 2 Baruch 57 and 4 Baruch 57 and Ezekiel (book of ) 46 as a source for Jewish history under Roman rule 26–27 attitude toward destruction of Jerusalem and temple in 57, 60, 68, 71–72, 73, 79 Babylon/Babylonians in 34, 42 date of 32–33, 45–56, 89 Eagle Vision in 32, 43, 46–56, 58, 72–73, 109, 273 and date of 4 Ezra 32–33, 46–56 and the Flavian dynasty 50–56, 273 and the Severan dynasty 48–50 as a symbol of the Roman Empire 47–48, 73 historical interpretation of 48–56 on Rome as fourth kingdom 32, 43, 47, 74 summary of 46–47 Ezra as seer in 61, 79 Jewish origins of 35 on Roman prosperity 59, 70, 76, 103, 141, 273 on salvation 42, 65–66, 67–68, 273 on sin 64, 66–67, 74, 109, 273 on the divine favor of the Roman Empire 63, 76 on the domination of the Jews by Rome/nations 42, 57, 58, 59–61, 64, 68, 72, 76, 122 on the election of the Jews 42, 59–60, 64, 109, 122 on the eschaton 58, 69–70, 71, 76–77, 109, 122 on “the few and the many” 66 on the future punishment of Rome 61, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74–75, 122, 273 on the Law 29, 30, 35, 43, 58, 64, 66, 67, 69, 75, 77, 122, 139, 273 on the Messiah 29, 43, 56, 74, 76–77, 122, 273 on the restoration of Jerusalem 30, 70–71

299 on the succession of empires 43, 47 on the temple 35 original language of 44 patristic authors on 45 and n.16 Rome and Babylon in 57–58 setting of 57–58, 79 social function of 29–30 source criticism of 45 structure of 41 summary of 41–43 versions of 44–45

Felix (governor of Judea) 24 Festus, Porcius (governor of Judea) 24 figured speech 34 n. 65 five-empire/kingdom schema See Succession of empires; Roman Empire Flavian Dynasty 18, 26, 48, 51, 72, 76 propaganda of 55–56 and nn. 37–38, 108–109 triumph of over Judea 104, 108–109 Flavia Neapolis. See Shechem Florus, Gessius (governor of Judea) 143, 224–225 Four Emperors, Year of the 52–53, 55 and nn. 37–38, 224, 229 four-empire/kingdom schema See Succession of empires; Roman Empire Gaius (Caligula) 23 and n. 49, 24 n. 50, 162, 246 Galba (Roman emperor) 53, 55 See also Four Emperors, Year of the Gaul 6–7, 12 n. 26, 14, 23, 31 Gedaliah 81, 89 Gerizim, Mount 152 Geta (Roman emperor) 48, 51 God-fearers 37 See also Proselytes golden calf 245 Goodman, M. 27 governor. See Judea; Syria Greeks 4, 8 n. 20, 10, 11, 17, 31, 173 Hadas-Lebel, M. 30 Hadrian 89, 148, 150, 154, 269 See also Apocalypse of Abraham; Sibylline Oracle 5 Harlow, D.C. 36, 119 Haverfield, Francis 4–5 Hector 184 Hellenization 3, 5, 18

300

index

Hellespont 173, 175, 188, 212, 231 Herodotus 173–174, 175, 183–184, 188, 192–193 n. 42 Herod the Great 24 n. 50, 25, 63, 153, 167, 278 Herod (reader of Bellum Judaicum) 22 Herodians 21–22, 23 n. 49, 63, 143, 166 Hesiod 183 Hezekiah (King of Judah) 111, 134, 245 Hingley, R. 15–16 Homer 173, 192–193 n. 42, 194 n. 45 human sacrifice 13, 15 Hyrcanus II 25, 192, 193, 196 Iamblichus 3 Iaoel (angel). See Apocalypse of Abraham Imperium Galliarum 14 intermarriage. See 4 Baruch; Ezra-Nehemia, books of Isaiah 138 Isaiah, book of 33, 39–40, 63, 197, 225 See also Sibylline Oracle 5 Ishmael, R. 150, 151 Isocrates 174 Italy 24 Iulius Alexander, Ti. 24, 55 n. 38, 278 Iulius Archelaus (reader of Bellum Judaicum) 22 Iulius Civilis, C. (Batavian noble) 14, 15, 55–56 Iulius Classicus (Gallic noble) 14, 56 Iulius Sabinus (Gallic noble) 14, 56 Iulius Severinus, Q. (Gallic noble) 12 n. 26 Iulius Tutor (Gallic noble) 14, 56 Jamnia 271 Jehoiachin 87–88, 160, 161 Jeremiah 79, 80–81, 89, 104, 134 in Josephus 25, 33 on punishment of Babylon 39–40 pro-Babylonian policy of 80–81, 158, 161, 162, 165, 172, 272 See also 2 Baruch; 4 Baruch; Jeremiah, book of; Josephus Jeremiah, book of 112, 171, 246 Babylon in 80–81, 158 Baruch in 81 letter to Jews in Babylon in 160–161 Jeroboam 152 Jerusalem Babylonian destruction of 25, 68, 75, 272

Christian response to destruction of 27, 31 n. 63, 36, 119–120 future restoration of 28, 30, 271 heavenly 28, 138, 168–169 rabbinic response to destruction of Jerusalem 27, 31 n. 63 restored by Persians 39, 40, 61, 88, 162–163, 164, 195, 197, 199, 205, 272 Roman destruction of 19, 22, 29, 75, 88, 98, 112, 177, 198 See also Daniel, book of; Josephus; 1 Maccabees Jewish-Christians 37, 149 Jewish elites 21, 22, 61, 109, 143, 144, 162 Jewish literature in the Roman period 18–19, 32 rabbinic 19, 150–151, 271 See also Pseudepigrapha Jewish sin 111 responsible for destruction of Jerusalem 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 61, 64–65, 75–76, 91, 132, 135, 136, 145, 171, 192, 245–246, 271 Jewish tax 269 Jewish War (A.D. 66–70) 19 Jews and cooperation with Rome 144–145, 158 and the debate over Rome after A.D. 70 19–20, 31, 58, 109, 122, 156, 158, 279 attitude of toward Roman Empire after A.D. 70 18, 19, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 57, 73, 77, 101–103, 145, 272, 277 attitude of toward Roman Empire before A.D. 70 61–63, 76 divine election of 29, 42, 64, 68, 111 exiled to Babylon 39, 80, 82, 86, 272 idolatry of 80, 111, 112, 132, 245 Job, book of 123 Johanan ben Zakkai, R. 271 John Hyrcanus I 152 John of Gischala 104, 143 John the Baptist, St. 181 Jordan River 149, 168, 181 Josephus advocates cooperation with Rome 22, 23, 25, 26, 143, 158, 165, 277 and Agrippa II 22–23 and the Flavians 21, 26 audience of his Bellum Judaicum 21–22

index autobiography (Vita) of 20 and n. 44 defends his conduct of the war in Galilee 20, 21 on Jeremiah 25, 33, 158–159, 172, 272, 277 on Jewish attitudes toward Rome after A.D. 70 19, 22, 23–24, 63, 91, 143 on Lamentations 33 on the divine favor of the Roman Empire 24–25, 61, 63, 65, 68, 74, 75, 76, 77, 99, 103, 109, 272 on the succession of empires 24, 33, 48, 185 n. 26 speech of in Bellum Judaicum 24–26 Josiah (King of Judah) 134 Judea (province) 63, 76, 93 Roman governors of 22, 23, 61, 76 Jupiter Capitolinus 269 Justus of Tiberias 20–21, 22, 26, 31, 279 Kittim 62 and n. 52 Kraft, R.A. 35 n. 66 Labienus, Q. (Parthian commander) 196 Ladder of Jacob (pseudepigraphon) 254 See also Apocalypse of Abraham Lamentations, book of 33 Last, Hugh 5 Law (Torah) 29, 271 See also 2 Baruch; 3 Baruch; 4 Baruch; 4 Ezra Liber Antiquitatum Judaicarum (Ps.-Philo) 130 Longenecker, B.W. 30 Lycophron. See Alexandra 1 Maccabees 61, 62–63, 72, 74, 76, 98–99, 246, 270 Macedonians 5, 16, 17, 23, 198 See also Sibylline Oracle 4; Sibylline Oracle 5 Manasseh (King of Judah) 245–246 Mariccus (Boian rebel leader) 15 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 209 Menemachus of Sardis 9–10 Mercury 15 n. 35 Merkabah 113 n. 6 See also throne, vision of God’s

301

Messiah. See Apocalypse of Abraham; 2 Baruch; 3 Baruch; 4 Baruch; 4 Ezra; Sibylline Oracle 5 Michael (angel) 116, 147, 222, 257 See also Apocalypse of Abraham; 3 Baruch; 4 Baruch Millett, M. 6 Modestinus, Herennius (Roman jurist) 8 n. 19 Momigliano, A. 16 Mommsen, Theodor 3 Mona, Isle of (Anglesey) 15 Moses 67, 83, 94, 106–107, 158 Moses, Song of (Deuteronomy 32) 111, 132–136 See also 3 Baruch Murphy, F.J. 29 Nebuchadnezzar 39, 41, 76, 81, 82, 87, 121, 122, 130, 158, 161, 183, 239, 246 Nehemiah. See Ezra-Nehemiah, books of Nero 30, 34, 52–53, 54, 177, 179–180, 196, 197, 199, 200, 209, 224, 234, 242 See also Sibylline Oracle 4; Sibylline Oracle 5 Nero redivivus. See Nero, Sibylline Oracle 4; Sibylline Oracle 5 Nerva (Roman emperor) 56 Neusner, J. 27, 28 Noah 64, 115 Octavia (wife of Nero) 229 Omri (King of Israel) 152 Oracle of Hystaspes 16 and n. 37 Oracle of the Lamb 16 Oracle of the Potter 16 and n. 37, 220 n. 21 Otherworldly Journey. See Apocalypse of Abraham; 3 Baruch Otho (Roman emperor) 53, 55 See also Four Emperors, Year of the Pacorus (Parthian prince) 196 Parthian Empire 144, 179, 180, 196–197, 224, 242 See also Sibylline Oracle 4 Paul, St. 100, 144 Pericles 10 Persian Empire and the punishment of Babylon 40, 99 and the restoration of Jerusalem 39, 40–41, 162, 164, 195, 272

302

index

traditional Jewish view of 197–198 and n. 54 See also Jerusalem; Sibylline Oracle 4; Sibylline Oracle 5 Persian Wars 173, 174 Pertinax, P. Helvius (Roman emperor) 49 Pescennius Niger Justus, C. (governor of Syria) 49, 51 1 Peter, epistle of 33 Petillius Cerialis Caesius Rufus, Q. (governor of Britain) 56 Petronius, P. (governor of Syria) 24 n. 50, 162 Philip II (King of Macedon) 174 Philo 19 Philo, Ps.-. See Liber Antiquitatum Judaicarum Phlegon of Tralles 175 Pilatus, Pontius (praefect of Judea) 24 Piso, C. Calpurnius (Roman noble) 53 Pisonian Conspiracy 53–54 Plutarch 9–11, 278, 280 Polybius 184 Pompeius Magnus, Cn. 25, 61, 191–194 procurator. See Judea provincials attitudes toward Roman Empire 2–5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 31, 32 See also Aristides, Aelius; Citizenship (Roman); Plutarch; Provincial elites; Resistance; Roman Empire provincial elites and Romanization 2, 5, 6–7, 8, 14 and Roman imperial administration 1, 4, 6, 9, 10–11, 12, 13, 143, 278–279 See also Citizenship (Roman); Provincials; Roman Empire Psalms of Solomon. See Solomon, Psalms of Psalm 79 111 Psalm 115 112 Pseudepigrapha and the destruction of Jerusalem 27–31 as a source for Jewish history under Roman rule 19, 26–27 Christian preservation of 35, 38 Jewish origin of 35–37, 118 Ptolemy Ceraunus (son of Ptolemy I) 231 Ptolemy I Soter 232 Ptolemy II Philadelphus 176

Qumran

27

Rabshakeh (Assyrian official) 111–112 Ramael (angel) 85 Rendel Harris, J. 148–149 resistance 16, 277–278, 279 See also Calgacus; Druids; Greeks; Iulius Civilis, C.; Iulius Classicus; Iulius Sabinus; Iulius Tutor; Mariccus; Romanization; Tacfarinas; Vindex, C. Iulius Revelation, book of 33, 209 Romanization 1, 4 and n. 12, 5–7, 12, 279 and indigenous language and culture 2, 8, 13, 15 n. 35, 17–18 and n. 43 epigraphic evidence for 12, 16 literary evidence for 4, 8–9, 16, 279 material evidence for 4, 6, 8, 12–13, 15, 279 resistance to 4, 5, 13–16, 280 Roman emperor 7–8, 23 Roman Empire and post-colonial theory 2 and n. 4 and the destruction of Jerusalem 29, 30, 91–92 as fifth empire/kingdom 184–185 and n. 24 as fourth empire/kingdom 32, 33, 43, 47, 48, 74, 88, 89, 98, 253, 273 attitude of subjects toward 2–4, 8 divine favor of 24–25, 26, 61, 63, 65, 68, 75, 76, 77, 99, 103, 109 future punishment of 29, 30, 41, 61, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74–75, 92, 93 in the East after A.D. 70 68, 76, 93, 108 provincial literature on 4, 31 sins of 64–65, 73, 74, 96, 98, 99 size of 8–9, 23, 24, 98, 99 strength of 23, 24, 26, 62, 63, 74, 108 See also Apocalypse of Abraham; 2 Baruch; 3 Baruch; 4 Baruch; 4 Ezra; Jerusalem; Josephus; Sibylline Oracle 4; Sibylline Oracle 5; Succession of empires Romans, book of 100–101 Romulus and Remus 216 Rosmerta (Celtic goddess) 15 n. 35 Samael (angel) 115 Samaria (Sebaste) 152–153, 167 See also 4 Baruch

index Samaritans 150–151 and n. 16 See also 4 Baruch Schürer, Emil 26–27 Scipio Aemilianus, P. Cornelius 184 Sebaste. See Samaria Sebastenoi 153, 167 Seleucus I Nicator 175, 232 Sennacherib 112, 245 Sennius Solemnis, T. (Gallic noble) 12 n. 26 Servius 186 Severus, Septimius 48, 49, 50, 51 Shalmaneser 43 Shechem 152 Sibylline Oracle 3 185 n. 24 Sibylline Oracle 4 30 and Alexandra 191, 275 and 2 Baruch 198, 199, 204, 205, 275 and 4 Baruch 198, 199, 203, 205 and Daniel (book of ) 186 and 4 Ezra 198, 199, 205 and the Essenes 181 and the Law 203, 204, 205, 275 Armenia in 177, 191, 202 Assyria in 177, 182, 187 attitude toward temple and temple worship in 37, 177, 201–203, 205 baptism in 37, 181 date of 33, 89, 178, 180 Greeks in 177, 187, 190, 202, 203 historical context of 195–196, 199–200 Jewish origins of 35, 37 Macedonians in 177, 182, 187, 191, 203 message of 182 Medes in 177, 182, 187, 203 Mount Vesuvius in 178, 180, 192, 194, 205 Nero in 177–178, 180, 188, 191, 192, 195, 200, 202, 204, 205, 206, 275 on idolatry 176, 201 on sin 191, 203 on the conflict of Europe and Asia (East and West) 178, 182, 189–190, 191, 194–195, 199, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 275 on the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans 177, 191, 201, 202, 205 on the division of history into ten generations 177, 182, 186 on the eschaton 178, 182, 195, 203, 207

303

on the Ionian Revolt 190, 191 on the judgement 177, 203–204, 207 on the parallels between Nero and Xerxes 188–189, 195, 207 on the parallels between Rome and Macedon 186, 187, 189 on the parallels between Rome and Persia 187, 189 on the parallels between Rome and the Greeks 187 on the punishment of Rome 194 on the succession of empires 182–183, 186, 275 Parthian Empire in 188, 196, 199, 200, 206, 275 Persian Empire in 177, 182, 187, 190–191, 199, 200, 202, 207, 275 Pompey in 191–192, 201, 202, 205 provenance of 180–181 Romans in 182, 191 summary of 176–178 textual integrity of 181–183, 189 Titus in 177, 178, 191, 201, 202, 205 universal code of ethics in 37, 140, 203, 204, 205–206, 275 use of Sibylline traditions in 199–200 Xerxes in 177, 187–189, 190, 191, 199, 202, 206, 207 Sibylline Oracle 5 30 Alexander the Great in 216, 217–218 Alexandria in 219, 227 and Antiochus IV 222–223, 229, 230, 231, 243, 275 and 2 Baruch 235 and 4 Baruch 235 and Daniel 229, 230 and 4 Ezra 215 and Exodus 220 n. 22 and Isaiah (book of ) 33, 37, 215, 220 n. 23, 225–226, 240–241, 242, 274 and Sibylline Oracle 4 210, 234, 242 and Sibylline Oracle 11 219 n. 21 and the Bar Kokhba War 213, 214 Augustus in 216–217 Babylon in 211, 212, 221, 223, 225, 238, 242, 274 Christian interpolations in 36 Cleopatra in 216 Corinth in 211, 228 date of 33, 213–214

304

index

East and West in 217 Egypt in 37, 210, 211, 212, 214–215, 218, 219, 221, 223, 227, 231, 238, 240–241, 242, 274 gematria in 210, 213, 215 Greeks in 230, 231 Hadrian in 213, 216, 218, 233 Italy in 212, 225, 231, 232, 234, 239–240 Jewish origins of 35, 36, 213 Jews in 230–231 Julius Caesar in 216 Macedonians in 212, 219, 220, 223, 231, 231, 232, 233, 274 Memphis in 210, 216, 219, 220, 227 Messiah in 212, 231, 235, 237, 238, 242, 275 Nero in 210, 212, 216, 218, 221, 223–224, 228–230, 231, 232–235, 236, 237, 238, 242–243, 274–275 on idolatry 219, 220, 223, 230, 232, 235–236, 238, 240, 242 on parallels between Babylon and Rome 223, 224, 226–227, 238–239 on Roman emperors 210, 215–216 on Rome as Babylon 33 on sin 235, 237 on the destruction of the temple 212, 224–225, 231, 235–236, 238 on the destructive figure 218, 220–221, 222, 223–225 on the enemies of the Jews 219, 226–227, 242, 274 on the eschaton 234 on the restoration of the temple 138, 212, 231, 237, 242 Parthians in 238, 239 Persians in 211, 216, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 230, 239, 274 possible pre-Roman elements in 223, 227–228, 230–232, 243, 274 provenance of 180, 214 Rome in 211, 215, 216, 218, 219, 225, 233, 235, 237, 240, 242, 274 structure of 212 summary of 210–212 Tiberius in 214, 216 Titus in 228, 236, 239 Trajan in 216, 217–218 universalism of 37 Vespasian in 216, 228 Sibylline Oracle 8 185 n. 24 Sibylline Oracle 12 51

Simeon ben Gamaliel, R. 150 Simon b. Giora 104 Smallwood, E.M. 26 Sodom 40, 95 n. 21 Solomon, Psalms of 194 Solymi 192–193 n. 42 Song of Moses. See Moses Sparta 9, 23, 174 Stone, M.E. 27–28 succession of empires 24, 27, 33, 43, 47, 48, 72, 74, 84, 88, 98, 182–187, 253–254, 273, 274 See also Aemilius Sura; Appian; Apocalypse of Abraham; 2 Baruch; Ctesias of Cnidus; Daniel, book of; Dionysius of Halicarnassus; 4 Ezra; Herodotus; Hesiod; Polybius; Scipio Aemilianus, P. Cornelius; Sibylline Oracle 3; Sibylline Oracle 4; Sibylline Oracle 8; Targum Yerušalmi Suetonius Paullinus, C. (governor of Britain) 15 Syria 3, 103 Roman governors of 23, 24 and n. 50, 144, 197, 246 Syriac literature 18 n. 42 Tacfarinas (African leader) 13, 14 Tacitus, Cornelius 1, 2 and n. 3, 13 n. 30, 15, 32 Targum Yerušalmi 133–134, 253 temple (Jerusalem) heavenly 28 polluted by Jewish sin 25 restoration of 21, 138 Romans and 22, 25, 26, 114 vessels 40, 109, 146, 168 voice from temple as omen 88, 91 See also Jerusalem theodicy 26, 27–28 throne, vision of God’s 113 Thucydides 173 Tigranes (King of Armenia) 192 and n. 41 Tiridates (King of Armenia) 192 n. 41, 196, 224 Titus 21, 25 n. 51, 26, 48, 61, 73, 91, 103, 108, 158, 165–166, 177, 179, 223, 254, 279 death of 51, 56, 236 See also 4 Ezra; Sibylline Oracle 4; Sibylline Oracle 5; Sibylline Oracle 12

index Tower of Babel. See Babel, Tower of Trajan 17, 18, 56 See also Sibylline Oracle 5 Trojan War 173, 174, 176, 184, 194 n. 45 Ulpius Traianus, M. (governor of Syria) 197 universalism See 2 Baruch; 3 Baruch; Sibylline Oracle 4; Sibylline Oracle 5 Uriel (angel) 42 Verginius Rufus, L. (governor of Germany) 54 Vespasian 20, 21, 48, 50, 54, 61, 73, 74, 76, 167, 197, 269, 271 Vesta, Temple of 235 Vindex, C. Iulius (Gallic noble and governor) 14, 53, 54

305

Vita See Josephus Vitellius, A. (emperor) 52, 53, 55 See also Four Emperors, Year of the Vitellius, L. (governor of Syria) 24 n. 50 Vologaeses (King of Parthia) 196, 197 Vulgate 45 Woolf, G.

6–7

Xerxes 188, 190, 221, 231, 242 See also Sibylline Oracle 4 Yavneh. See Jamnia Year of the Four Emperors. See Four Emperors, Year of the Yom Kippur 170 Zedekiah (King of Judah) 25, 158 Zerubbabel (King of Judah) 89