INTRODUCTION

"Rome and Jerusalem" ranks amongst the most fascinating of topics. In the history .of the Jewish people, the Roman Empire played a determining role the consequences of which are still felt to this day. The later destinies of Judaism have ultimately been simply the consequences of the tragic confrontations of the Jews with the Romans at the beginning of the Christian era. Despite an early idyllic encounter, Rome and Jerusalem ultimately opposed each other. In this conflict, Jerusalem almost perished but not completely, while Rome would share the fate of all great empires, rising to grandeur and descending into decadence. The history of relations between Rome and the Jews has been written countless times, and it is not my intention to recount it here. Por all that, this history, would seem to remain somewhat incomprehensible, for lack of sufficient penetration into the Jewish mentality of the time. There alone lies the kernel of a resistance, unique throughout the Roman Empire, which was to entail all the disastrous consequences. As Tacitus observes, "Only the Jews did not give up, which intensified angers." To attempt to understand this mentality, we possess, within the established chronological limits of this study (between 161 B.C.E. date of the treaty of alliance between Rome and the Jews, and the beginning of the 4 lS century, marking the end of the pagan empire), a corpus of extremely varied sources originating in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Over the whole period from 161 B.C.E. to the capture of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and the immediate aftermath of the first great revolt against Rome, historians arc almost exclusively dependent on Flavius Josephus. The works of this controversial historical figure are however difficult to handle, since his exceptional witness to a conflict in which the Jews were deeply divided, was that of a polemlst. This led him to upbraid his political enemies to the point of injustice, so conscious was he that the survival of his people was at stake. Apart from Maccabees Book I, the two historical writings by Philo of Alexandria and the work of Josephus, the remaining sources arc devoid of historical character, whether it be the commentaries of Biblical books found at Qumran, the Sibylline

oracles, the Jewish apocalypses written after 70 or even the "ocean" of Talmud and Midrash, where one might not venture without a solid methodological preparation. These latter sources all reflect an image of Rome which, while not offering any new information with regard to Rome itself, contributes to a greater understanding of the mental attitude by which various Jewish circles confronted the greatest power of the time. The Jews were, of course, not the only subjugated people to transmit "the vision of the vanquished" but the vision they convey is by far the most complex. The indictment made on the dominating power of almost the entire known world, by a people who judged history on the basis of ethics and ultimate ends, endows the Jewish image of Rome with a moral and eschatological dimension of extreme originality. Penetrating the mental universe out of the material universe of the Jews, the power of Rome ended up determining their conception of the world and human destiny.

Part one The earthly image of rome

For approximately four of the five centuries of Judaeo-Roman relations, which constitute the chronological framework for this study, Rome controlled the destinies of Judaea and the principal Mediterranean Jewish communities. Rome's power was like nothing the world had ever seen; but its perception among the Jews of the Empire, at first positive, swiftly deteriorated as major crises erupted between them. The course of Judaeo-Roman relations over those five centuries began with a treaty of friendship in 161 B.C.E.; but gradually the relationship changed as the Romans engaged first in indirect, then in direct subjugation. The Jews fomented three uprisings, which were brutally suppressed. Faced with the reality of their situation, the)' were ultimately forced into resignation. The Jewish sources in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, from 1 Maccabees to the Talmud and even the Midrash, have preserved more of a reflection than a direct account of what transpired; but nonetheless, those sources permit us to reconstruct the picture which a small conquered people formed of the greatest power of the time. Of course these Jews were not just any people. They were a

people who believed the)' were entrusted with a divine mission; and because that mission was being cruelly subverted, they reacted much more strongly than other contemporaneous groups and nations suffering conquest. In addition to learning from the events themselves on which our sources admittedly shed very uneven light we can discover much about the organisation of the Roman Empire from accounts of those people who, powerless to shake off the Roman yoke, daily lived under that domination. In the first part of this study we will examine sources of very different kinds legal texts, anecdotes (some quite faithfully reported, others distorted by time), exegetical commentaries inspired by particular events, even poems and reported incidental remarks. On the basis of such testimonies we shall attempt to render an accurate picture of Rome and its power as it appeared in the eyes of the Jewish people.

chapter 1
FROM FRIENDSHIP TO DISILLUSIONMENT

The earliest image of Rome as the Jews perceived it is found in I Maccabees, probably written about 100 B.C.E. This account reflects the goodwill generated half a century earlier in 161 B.C.E. with the signing of a treaty of friendship and alliance between Rome and the Jews in a period where the Jews were at war against a hellenised Syria. This friendship remained untarnished for a century until, in 63 B.C.E. on the pretext of settling a dynastic dispute, Pompey came to conquer Jerusalem, and entered the Holy of Holies of the Temple, oblivious to the magnitude of this sacrilege. From then on there is a marked change in the fedings of Jews towards Rome. Through the literature of the time one can discern the growing hatred which after 63 B.C.E. replaced the idealisation of their distant ally Rome.

1. Rome as friend and ally

1. The treaty of friendship and alliance between Rome and the Jews Since its victory over the Syrian king Antiochus III in 190 B.C.E., Rome had taken a close interest in Eastern affairs. Masquerading as Syrian ally, Rome indeed sought to weaken the rival kingdom, although calling it ally, and consequently viewed with secret satisfaction the uprising of the inhabitants of Judaea against their Seleucid sovereign, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. So the support Rome accorded the Jews in 161 B.C.E. at the request of Judas Maccabec suited Roman political ambitions in the region. According to I Maccabees, the initiative for the closer association came from the Jews: Judas had heard of the fame of ihe Romans, that they were valiant in power, that ihey were favourably disposed toward all who joined them, that the) - offered friendship to all who approached them (I Macc. 8:1)

So Judas despatched two envoys, Eupolemos son of John, son of Accos, and Jason son of Elcazar, with the hope that the Romans would help them to be liberated from the yoke of the Syrians, to propose to the Romans "friendship and alliance". On finally reaching Rome the envoys were received by the Senate and their proposal of alliance immediately accepted. They returned to Jerusalem with a copy of the senatorial decree engraved on bronze tablets. After the preamble traditional to all Roman documents', the terms of the treaty as presented in I Maccabees 8. committed the Jews to come to the defence of Rome: The much debated authenticity of this treaty is now generally admitted

If however, war shall be declared against Rome first, or against any of their allies, in any of their domains, the Jewish nation will be expected to fight at their side as allies, as the occasion shall dictate to them, whole-heartedly. To those who start the war, they shall neither give nor supply

grain, arms, money, or ships, as Rome shall decided They shall keep their stipulations without receiving anything in return. (I Macc. 8. 24-26) In return Rome promised support to the Jews:On these
same conditions, if war falls to the lot of the Jewish nation first, the Romans will assist as allies faithfully, as occasion shall dictate. No grain, arms, money or ships shall be given to the allies as rome shall decide. They shall keep these stipulations without deceit5. (I Macc. 8,

27-28 The historian Flavius Josephus probably with recourse to I Mac- cabecs cites a decree of the Roman senate underlining the mutual obligations of th
Romans and the Jews in a slightly different light: No one of those who arc subject to the Romans ihall make war on the Jewish nation, or furnish to those who make war on them any grain, ships or money. And if any attack the Jews, the Romans shall assist them as far as they are able, and on the other hand, if any attack the Romans, the Jews shall help them as allies. (AJ 12, 417-418) A plausible if not definitive solution in Taublers proposal has been reiterated by most commentaries. This corrects the I Maccabccs text to conform with what Joseph us writes which seems to summarise it. This correction renders the Judaco-Roman "alliance" consistent with such other known treaties as that of Astypalea4 in which the two parties agree to furnish neither weapons, nor money, nor ships to the enemies of their allies. Whatever the case, it is clear that the two clauses of the treaty arc strictly equal and the two partners are therefore theoretically on an equal footing contrary to what has sometimes been asserted. This is no surprise in a period in which Rome was careful to observe with its "friends" customary forms of politeness between nominally equal powers5. While the Jews were still a people rebelling against Syrian domination Rome was treating them as an independent nation. Furthermore, by entering into this pact of friendship and alliance Rome openly favoured Jewish independence. Justin6 may be understood in that light: Separated from Demetrius and looking for Roman friendship, the Jews were the first Near Eastern people to receive independence at a time when the

Romans simply squandered the property of others. (Epitome of Tragus-Pompeius 36, 3) So apart from any military aid, this alliance represented a major diplomatic victory for the Jews.

But it must be admitted that there were no military consequences for this alliance for either Jews or Romans, although ostensibly it also served as a mutual defence agreement. For example, the Romans launched nothing more than a strong warning to Demetrius 1, successor to Antiochus IV: Moreover concerning the atrocities which King Demetrius is perpetrating against you, we have written to Kim saying, "Why have you made your yoke heavy upon our friends and allies the Jews? If they again appeal to us against you. we will demand satisfaction for them, and will make war upon you by sea and land. (I Macc 8:31-32) The threat was ignored. The significance of the agreement was therefore purely diplomatic. For the Jews, the main purpose of the Roman alliance was as a deterrent to its enemies. At the same time, the alliance made them part of Rome's large family of client states. 2. Renewal of the alliance By the time the ambassadors returned with their copy of the agreement with Rome, hostilities had already resumed between the Jews and Syria. As Judas had died in battle, an agreement reached during his lifetime could have been brought into question. Usually, the rulers of other friendly states renewed their alliance with Rome on their accession to the throne, and Judas' successors did likewise. The alliance initiated by Judas was renewed by his brother and successor Jonathan7 once his authority had been consolidated in the country: Jonathan saw that the time was opportune. He chose men and sent them off to Rome to confirm and renew friendship with them. (I Macc 12:1)

Benefiting from the struggles over succession which plagued Syria, Jonathan was offered the titles of High Priest of the nation and King's It is more likely that the very messengers who announced Jonathans death were also charged with asking the Senate to confirm its alliance with the Jews. According to our text, once that confirmation was obtained and the Senates letter was read in Jerusalem before the assembly. Simon sent Numcnius to Rome, "with a large gold shield weighing one thousand minas" (14, 24). 8 According to an apparently authentic letter from the consul Lucius, 9 the Roman alliance was consolidated this time by a specific gesture favourable to the Jews, in which Rome assumes the role of protector: We have decided, therefore to write to the kings and to the countries, not to do any harm to them, nor to make war on them nor their cities nor their country, nor to make an alliance with those who fight against them. (I Mace 15: 19) The Romans seemed to be eager to consolidate Simons power. In this same letter,sent to five Near Eastern kings and nineteen countries, they requested the extradition of any opponents of Simon who might be seeking refuge among them. In 140 B.C.E., the third year of Simons priesthood, a great assembly named him "commander and high priest in perpetuity" (I Macc. 14, 41) and approved the Roman-Jewish alliance. To that alliance can be attributed Demetrius II s friendly behaviour toward the Jews, when he "had learned that the Jews were called friends, allies and brothers by the Romans, who had gone with honour before Simon's messengers" (14, 40). According to Flavius Josephus {AJ 13, 259), after Simons death in 134 B.C.E. the Judaeo-Roman alliance was again renewed under his succcssor John Hyrcanus. After that, we hear nothing more about the alliance until Hyrcanus II. who ruled from 63 to 44 B.C.E. as a mere ethnarch of Judaea, vassal of Rome. He had heard how Aniiochus. (he great king of Asia had come against them in battle with one hundred and twenty elephants, cavalry, chariots and a very strong army, and how he had been beaten by them. They had taken him alive, and determined that he and his successors had to pay them great tribute, giving up hostages and surrendering territory, namely... (I Macc 8:6-7)

Since the writing of the Maccabees text was largely undertaken later than the time of Judas, the passage also includes the misfortunes of Greece and the sack of Corinth in 146 B.C.E.. On the other hand, the Punic Wars arc not mentioned in the text, although Flavins Jose- phus in spite of the anachronism does mention the capture of Carthage during the Third Punic War as one of the elements which weighed upon Judas' decision: Judas, having heard of the power of the Romans and that they had subdued Galatia and Iberia and Carthage in Libya, and in addition had conquered Greece and the kings Perseus. Philip and Antiochus the Great, he decided to nuke a treaty of friendship with them. (AJ 12,414) As early as the first third of the second century, many Eastern Mediterranean peoples, like the Jews, impressed by the Romans' military successes, chose the Roman camp in order to be on the side of power and fortune. Even if the text of Maccabecs included some inaccuracies (for instance, the report of the capture of Antiochus III), these inaccura- cics themselves indicate that the legend of Rome was beginning to take root: Roma invicta, a nation of "valiant warriors" (sec I Macc 8:1). But many historians and text critics, concerned more with reporting the brute facts, have failed to grasp the importance of this passage, in which non-Romans speak about Romans and contribute to the growth of the legend. It was an imposing legend, but one that carried within it the seeds of threat: How the)- had gained possession of the entire region by their plans and persistence, although the place was far away. (I Macc 8, 4) Furthermore it was reported how the)- had destroyed and enslaved the rest of the kingdoms and the islands, which had at one time or another arisen against them. (I Macc 8. 11) The>- had conquered kings both near and far. and all who heard of their fame were afraid of them. (I Macc 8, 12) This admiration did not carry any fatal premonition of danger because Judas hoped that the Jews would benefit from Roman amicitia: (To prevail upon them to lift the yoke from them,] since they saw that the kingdom of the Greeks was reducing Israel to slavery. (I Macc

8:18)

After all, had Rome, following its victories over Philip of Macedon, not liberated all the Greek cities under that kings rule? Had Rome, in 168 B.C.E., not granted liberty to the Lycians and to the Carians who had suffered under the harsh rule of Rhodes? Granting a favour to these small Mediterranean nations cost Rome nothing while at the same time serving to weaken a turbulent ally. Thus, Rome appeared to be the liberator without sacrificing its own interests. At the time when Judas Maccabcc was turning to Rome, Polybius describes Roman politics thus: For many decisions of the Romans arc now of this kind: availing themselves of the mistakes of others the)- effectively increase and build up their own power, at the same time doing a favour and appearing to confer a benefit on the offenders. (Polybius 31. 10) The idealized impression of what Rome was like survived for a very- long time in the Near East. Rome was also clever enough not to take territorial advantage after its victory over Antiochus, and for some time did not directly intervene in local affairs. That, too, enhanced Rome's reputation as a benevolent conqueror. Meanwhile, at the other end of the Mediterranean, after 171 B.C.E., complaints began to surface about the greed and arrogance {avaritia iuperbiaque) of the Roman magistrates." We dctcct a feint echo of this unrest in I Macc. 8, 3: People had told him what they had done in Spain, when they secured there the mines of silver and gold. A short time later, after the defeat of Perseus, a stronger, more frightening Rome began to show its true colours: the Romans had "on the occasion of the war against Perseus inaugurated a new policy of annihilating the kingdom of Macedonia."12 Their cruelty went even farther with the sack of Corinth in 146 B.C.E.; I Maccabees docs not neglect to mention these atrocities, but seems to praise Rome for its victor)- over the Achaean league, defeated by "a single general": Many of them had been slain. They had taken away their wives and their children, had plundered them, gained possession of the land, torn down their strongholds and enslaved them even to this day. (I Mate 8:10)

For the author of I Maccabees, Rome's grandeur outweighed its cruelty. Rome always seemed to take sole credit for that grandeur, and surely with some underlying thought that it received divine protection, or at least the favour of Fortuna. The writer equates Rome's immense power to that of a Deityi for example in this sentence: Whomsoever they wished to help and make kings became kings, and whomsoever they wished they deposed; and they were gready exalted. (I Macc 8:13)

b. An exemplary political regime

The brief account of chc Republican regime, which immediately follows that grandiose description in I Maccabees, may be seen as justification of Rome's power, enhancing its prestige. This new perspective is analogous to that of Polybius, who in his famous Book 6 briefly interrupts his account to examine the Roman constitution in order "that readers of my work may gain a knowledge how it was and by virtue of what peculiar political institutions that in less than fifty- three years nearly the whole world was overcome and fell under the single dominion of Rome." (Polybius 6, 3) The Roman political regime is contrasted implicitly with the despotism of the Hellenistic kings: Yet with all this, not even one of then put on a diadem, or donned purple for self-aggrandizement. (I Macc 8:14) The role of the Senate in Republican Rome which was in the process of becoming Senatorial Rome is well known, even though some of the details are inaccurate.

The)' had built a Senate house for themselves, and each day three hundred and twenty men13 sat in council planning continually on behalf of the people, so that the)- might govern them well. (I Macc 8:15)
When Judas sent his ambassadors to Rome, they were received by the Senate, to whom the)- spoke (8, 19), "and they brought back a letter which was copied on brass tablets and sent to Jerusalem to remain there among them as a memorial of peace and alliance" (1 Macc 8, 22). From that time, all the Jewish envoys mentioned in I Maccabccs presented themselves to the Senate.

The role of the Senate described in I Maccabccs conforms perfectly with what we know of it from other sources. The Senate, which received ambassadors 14 and dealt with nations and kings, represented the power of Rome to the outside world. Mommsen wrote that "Until the inauguration of the principate, the Senate reigned over Rome and through Rome it reigned over the world." (Mommsen, DP, VII, p. 223). Polybius (6 13, 8) noted it in this way:

So (hat again to one residing in Rome during the ab*cnce of the consuls the constitution appears to be entirely aristocratic; and this is the conviction of many Greek states and many of the Icings, as the Senate manages all business connectcd with them.
"During the absence of the consuls'", writes Polybius the phrase is noteworthy because it probably explains a glaring error in the passage: If this text, as the conclusion of the book indicates, was in fact written around 100 B.C.E., it may be suspccted that it reinforced a scarcely veiled warning against the first Hasmonean leader who. in 104 B.C.E. had dared, in the manner of the Hellenistic kings, to put on a crown and the royal purple vestments. 15 That extraordinarily daring action must have caused scandal because it appeared to the Jews as a usurpation of Davidic kingship. The author of I Maccabees, reflecting the indignation of his fellow Jews and fellow citizens, adopts a moral stand in opposing Roman austerity to the pretension of Aristobulus, a minor oriental king, intoxicated by his power and illusory position, in contrast to the real power of Rome. In fact, Aristobulus was driven by his love of Hellenism to imitate a Syrian neighbour, enemy of his people and his religion. Although the moral message of the text seems in our view intended for Judaean readership, it served nonetheless to anchor in the Jewish imagination the image of Rome as a model of political virtue, if not moral virtue as a whole. Such praise for the virtue of Rome was equalled only by Sallust, who contrasted the Rome of his day with the Rome of the past. He nostalgically recalled the time when "in peace as in war, certain standards were honoured" and "where harmony was great...quarrels, discord, enmities were carried out against external enemies; but within the land, citizens rivalled one another to be virtuous."16 Sallust placed this period in the years before the Third Punic War "because before the destruction of Carthage, the

Senate and the people of Rome shared government dispassionately and without violence; neither glory nor power kindled struggles between citizens."17 Such was the idealised picture destined to contrast with the upheavals in the Republic following the assassination of the Gracchi brothers:

The Republic that until then belonged to no one was miserably torn asunder".
Although Rome was fearfully powerful, and ccrtain of its abuses could not be ignored, nevertheless the author of I Maccabees saw it only as a benevolent protector: They had preserved friendship with their friends and with those who had relied upon them. (I Macc 8, 12)

Fidn Romana-. for the moment, this was the only image the Jewish people wished to
acknowledge.

II. Deterioration in the Jews' perception of Rome after 63 B.C.E.

Barely a century after the conclusion of the first Judaeo-Roman treaty, Rome abruptly turned from distant friend and ally into being a close and harsh reality. The Jews had admired from afar its military exploits. But then, in 63 B.C.E., the Roman conquering legions entered Judaea in force. The many incidents and confrontations that ensued came to a head in 66 with, what Flavius Joscphus the Jewish historian writing from a Roman perspective called the "Jewish War", in other words, the "War in Judaea." In the spring of 63 B.C.E., Pompcy was in Damascus to put an end to the increasingly illusory independence of Syria and to organize its transformation into a

Roman province. Judaea's turn was probably not far off, but Roman ambitions there were aided by a dynastic quarrel. The conqueror king Alexander Janneus died, leaving the throne to his widow Salome Alexandra. Their oldest son Hyrcanus acted as high priest a post which, of course, his mother could not hold. He would normally have acceded to the throne, but he was too indolent a person to wish for power. His younger brother Aristobulus on the other hand, considered himself destined for kingship and on their mother's death seized power. Hyrcanus would have ceded his rights without difficult)- but for his councillor, a scheming Idumean named Antipater, who dreamed of nothing but acquiring power and manoeuvred to pave the way for Herod, one of his sons, to receive it. Both Hyrcanus and Aristobulus tried to enlist Rome's help, each in his own interest, by bribing Roman military leaders with gifts. The Romans hesitated for a while, but finally Pompcy allied himself with Hyrcanus and besieged Aristobulus' partisans in Jerusalem. Pompcy was victorious. But when he finally entered Jerusalem, he made what the Jews saw as that terrible blunder: he entered the Temple, accompanied by a large retinue. Pompcy thus saw "what it was unlawful for any but the high priests to sec". (4/14, 72) In recalling the events, Renan21 claims that the Jews showed "not a trace of sadness or anger" after this profanation. Joscphus, in spite of his well-known pro-Roman sympathy, declares exactly the opposite: Of all the calamities of that time none so deeply affectcd the nation as the exposure to alien eyes of the Holy Place, hitherto screened from view. (BJ 1. 152) Pompcy's unfortunate move aroused the enmity of both Aristobulus' followers, whom he had defeated, and the rest of the Jewish population whose religious sensibilities he had offended. In the end, Antipa- tcr succeeded in calming the situation, so that Hyrcanus II did renew the alliance between the Jews and Rome, even though he had lost his title of king and part of his territories and had to pay tribute. Yet, the damage that Pompcy had caused would remain irreparable: henceforward the name of Rome became associated with the notion of sacrilege, and that perception began to be felt in the writings of the period.

1. The emergence of anti-Roman literature In the first century B.C.E., began to flourish a literary corpus of apocalyptic tendency. This development will be analysed more fully in later chapters. Here wc shall simply mention three collections of anonymous writings from this period, which more or less overtly, express anti-Roman sentiments.

a. The Psalms of Solomon

Allusions to Pompcy's entrance into Jerusalem arc suggested in a collection of seventeen psalms from this period. From Psalm 2: Arrogantly the sinner broke down the strong walls with a battering ram and you did not interfere. Gentile foreigners went up to your place of sacrifice; they arrogantly trampled [it| with their sandals" (2, 1-2). "For the gentiles insulted Jerusalem, trampling (her) down;" (2, 19). This same psalm also contains a dear reference to the death of Pompcy:" 2:26-27 ...Picrccd on the mountains of Egypt, more despised than the smallest thing on earth and sea. His body was carricd about on the waves... By this reference, Psalm 2 and perhaps the entire collection may probably be dated to some time after Pompeys death in 48 B.C.E. Most scholars believe that the Psalms of Solomon originated in Judaea, and were written in Hebrew, although they have been passed down to us in Greek. Their note of deep hostility toward the Hasmonean kings, associated with expression of belief in resurrection, suggest that they may well have been written by Pharisees.

b. The Kittim of the Qumran Documents

Several of the Qumran scrolls discovered since 1947 mention invaders whom they call "Kittim". These people arc mentioned in the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (War Scroll), as well as in several commentaries known as pesharim and specific to the Qumram sect. These include the Pesher on Habakkuk, the very poorly preserved Nahum commentary, and fragments of the Isaiah

commentary. Of all these texts, the Habakkuk commentary attracts the most attention because of its rich historical allusions. The identity of the Kittim in these texts is a subject of controversy. Some scholars identify them exclusively as the Syrian Greeks, others as the Romans, others as Greeks or Romans depending on the texts. Others again see in this name an all-inclusive label, referring to all the pagan enemies of Israel, past, present or future. The ancient sources in which the name "Kittim" appears arc undcar as to the group's identity. The Kittim mentioned in Gen. 10:4 among the sons of Javan23, son of Japhcth, were most likely inhabitants of Kittion on the island of Cyprus; they arc also mentioned several times elsewhere in the Bible as a maritime people. 24 Kittim appear again in cpigraphic documents from the biblical period such as the Arad ostra- ca, on which an order is recorded to give them wine and bread; these Kittim could be Greek mercenaries in the army of the kingdom of Judah25. I Maccabees, states that Alexander son of Philip of Macedonia, came from the country of the Kittim (I Macc 1:1) and further on (8:5) Philip V of Macedonia and his successor Perseus arc presented as Kings of the Kittim". JubiUes 24, 28 also calls the Macedonians Kittim. Such are the sources that would support identification of the Seleucids with the Kittim in the Qumran documents. In fact by the second century B.C.E. the name Kittim no longer applies exclusively to the Greeks. Daniel 1 1 : 30 reads, "Ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall lose heart." Unanimous opinion interprets this as a reference to the Roman flotilla, whose intervention in 168 B.C.E. forced the Greek king of Syria, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, to abandon his plans to conquer Egypt and obliged him to return instead to his own country. The Greek version of the Sepmagint, which probably dates from the end of the second century B.C.E., renders the word Kittim in this verse by Po>|uubt, as well as in two other Biblical verses Nb 24:24 and Ezek 27:6. In the Aramaic Targums, which arc significantly later, as well as in the Vulgate, the identification of the Kittim with Rome or Italy seems to be taken for granted. Flav- ius Josephus, who stands between these two groups of texts, remarks that "the name Chethim is given by the Hebrews to all islands and to most maritime countrics"(/l/ 1, 128). That definition would apply much more accurately in Josephus* time to the Romans than to the Syrians.

We must also look at the Qumran documents themselves for evidence pertaining to the identification of the Kittim. In the Habakkuk glory, and to be pregnant with [works] of deceit, that their labour might be for nothing. (iQpHab X, 9-12)
The expression "man of lies" or "spreader of lies" recurs frequently in the Qumran texts, but none of these mentions clarify any of the others. We could even ask whether the phrase always refers to the same person, since many adversaries of the Qumran sea could merit this title. In the passage cited here, the "spreader of lies" is presented as a great builder interested in his own glory. The rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Hyrcanus II, to which Dupont-Sommer believes the text alludes, seems insufficient to earn him such a reputation. In fact, the only great builder known in Judaea during the Roman era was Herod. And we know that while the pagans admired his extravagant building projects, the Jews felt otherwise. The construction of a theatre and an amphitheatre in Jerusalem offended the Jewish ancestral traditions; and according to Josephus. Herod's neglect of their customs provoked endless turmoil.27 His construction of fortresses in Jerusalem and throughout the country was apparently intended to intimidate the population and discourage any ambitions to revolt. Even the reconstruction of the Temple initially aroused only mistrust among the Jewish population; and we may well imagine it as particularly unpopular among those of the Qumran sea, who were on the whole hostile toward the Temple at Jerusalem.28 Therefore we evaluate this cited passage to be a demonstration of hostility toward these Hcrodian building projeas. The Qumran exegete would have taken just such a position in a polemic about a contemporary issue, which places the redaaion of the work around 18 B.C.E. It is not surprising that he would treat Herod, an agent of Rome, as harshly as he would treat the Romans themselves in the same writing.

c. Tht Third Sibyl

The third book of the Sibylline Oracles, which is the oldest in that apocryphal collection, contains a number of oracles clearly directed in the second ccntury B.C.E. But anti-Roman feeling among Alexandrian Jews would hardly have been reasonable during that period.

The mention of the "seventh king" can only be a temporal milestone which allows us to date, from the Egyptian perspective, the Jewish Renaissance which followed the Maccabcan war. It was a period of national renewal during what was a particularly optimistic moment in the life of the Egyptian Jews in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor. From that perspective, it is quite natural that this "prediction" would follow the reminder of Macedonian calamities in 168 B.C.E. But this docs not necessarily need to have been contemporary with the period under consideration here. The anti-Roman note of the preceding verses is understandable if we assume that the composing of the passage dates to a time when at least one segment of Jewish opinion had already turned against the Romans. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this seventh king takes on a more perceptible messianic dimension in a following verse (v. 318), and again later, particularly in verse 609, where his coming coincides with the disappearance of idolatry and the consequent beginning of an era of widespread content. But whatever hopes were raised by the benevolence of Philometor. it is hard to see on the face of things how this king would have acquired a reputation of such magnitude. To clarify the reality, we might examine a context that goes beyond historical fact and revolves around the numeral seven, the most significant number in ancient civilisation. Was it not both the number of the planets and the days of the week? It is a particularly special number in Jewish culture, since the seventh day had concluded the work of creation with divine repose. Furthermore, verse 318 specifically states that Egypt "would be at rest" in the seventh generation of its kings. The Greek verb used here means "to erase" and it corresponds exactly to the Hebrew sbabbat. This frequent repetition of the number seven, which has dose parallels in other apocalyptic literature, suggests that we might well interpret the seventh reign mentioned by the Third Sibyl less as an historical period than as an apocalyptic era comparable to the "weeks" in the Ethiopian Enoch (ch. 93), which surely precedes the Third Sibyl. But the possibility remains that a real historical period that of the seventh king, Ptolemy Philometor, corresponding to the regaining of Judacan independent*, could be interpreted as foreshadowing the time with which we are concerned here.

Several other passages relative to Rome imply a later dating. For example: - Verse 46: "And when Rome will also rule over Egypt" supposes a date in our opinion later than Rome's capture of Egypt in 30 B.C.E. - Verse 52: "Three will destroy Rome with piteous fate" could be an allusion to the triumvirs and their merciless rivalries directly affecting Egypt - Verses 464 to 469: predicts the destruction of Italy ravaged by: "no foreign war...but native blood, much bemoaned, inexhaustible". Indeed, for Rome and Italy the 1" century B.C.E. was rife with civil war. It is difficult to know if the composer of the Sibylline chronicle had in mind one of those wars, cither the social war (91-88 B.C.E.), the conflict between Marius and Sylla (88 B.C.E.), the war of Spar- racus (71 B.C.E.), the one in which Caesar opposed Pompcy, or the one in which Antony opposed Octavius. Ixt us say simply that the civil wars of the first half of the century remained purely internal while those of the second half spread throughout the Roman empire and even as far as Egypt. The latter wars were thus more likely to make an impression on a foreign observer. There was also the issue (334-335) of the appearance of a brilliant star in the West "which they call a comet, and which is a sign to mortals of sword, famine, and death, destruction of leaders and of great illustrious men." According to Suetonius,*1 a comet that appeared after the assassination of Caesar was visible in Rome for seven consecutive days. A short time earlier, an oracle found on a bronze tablet predicted that ua descendant of Julus would fall under the power of those closest to him and that Italy would soon atone for his death by terrible disasters". These oracles, pointing directly to Italy or Rome, thus give a terminus post quem which must be situated after the civil wars which brought Augustus to power. But to understand the violently anti-Roman attitude of the Jewish Sibyl of Alexandria, we must assume that some irreparable event had already taken place. That event was not the entrance of Pompey into Jerusalem which, after all, had happened long before but rather the terrible massacres of 38 C.E. when the Roman prefect Flaccus had

allowed the populace of Alexandria to run riot against the Jews. This event justified the curse established by the Sibyl: Know then that the destructive race of Egypt will be dose to its destruction, and that the previous year will have been the preferable for the Alexandrians. (Third Sibyl IL 348-349) The Psalms of Solomon, the Essene writings discovered at Qumran, and the Jewish Sibyl of Alexandria arc three quite different sources, written between approximately 48 B.C.E. and 40 C.E. All three reflect the same hostile sentiments toward Rome. 2. The new image of Rome Pompey s intrusion into the Holy of Holies probably marked "a turning point in the evolution of the nation's sentiments," as I. Levi asserts. He adds: "Depending on whether a literary work from around the end of Jewish independence betrays hostility or admiration or simply ignorance towards the Romans, we may determine whether it was written before or after the event.",3 In fact, right up until the eve of the war, the Jews accumulated ever more complaints against Rome, whose once friendly demeanour had grown more and more threatening.

a. A frightening military power The terms with which our anonymous sources described Roman power after 63 B.C.E. in certain respects are reminiscent of the account in I Maccabees so much so that, for example, in lines 175-181 of the Third Sibyl has been recognised a revival of the famous "Roman eulogy" of I Maccabccs 8. Furthermore, the resemblance in the Third Sibyl between the Romans and the Kittim would lead to the conclusion that the Kittim were indeed the Romans:
It will rule over much land, it will shake many, and after that, it will frighten all kings. (II. 177-178)

asserts the Third Sibyl in reference to the empire which would succeed that of the Macedonians.

Later, in lines 520-536, the Sibyl recalls the miseries of Greece, conquered and forced into slavery by a "terribly barbarian people," a description in which it is impossible not to recognise Rome. Although this text only repeats and amplifies I Macc 8, 10 regarding the sack of Corinth, the essential difference between the two texts lies in the greater sympathy for the victims expressed in the Sibyl's text and its emphasis on the brutality of the conqueror. The author of the *I*hird Sibyl, may of course be influenced by a Greek source inspiring this sympathy with the victims, but whatever the case the conqueror emerges more terrifying than glorious.
When a truly barbarian people descends on the Greeks, it will destroy many heads of select men. Many fat sheep of mortals will be rent in pieces, as will herds of horses, mules and loud-bellowing cows. They will lawlessly burn down well-built houses. Under pressure, they will lead many persons as slaves to another country, including children and deep- girded women, tender (women) stumbling headlong out of their chambers, on their delicate feet. One will sec them in fetters, suffering every terrible arrogance at the hand of enemies with a barbarous tongue. They will have nobody co fend off war to any extent, nor anyone to help them to save their lives. They will sec the enemy enjoying their possessions and all their wealth. There will be trembling beneath their knees. A hundred will flee, and one will destroy them all. Five will stir up grievous anger. In a shameful way, they will be mingled with each other in terrible war and cry of batde, and they will cause joy to the enemies but grief to the Greeks. (U. 520-536)

In a style much closer to that of the prophet whose work is the point of departure for its exegesis, the Pesher on Habakkuk evokes the impression of terror produced by the enemy who had replaced the Chaldeans. This refers to the Kittim who, very likely, were none other than the Romans of the end of the first century:
'This concerns the Kittim who inspire fear and dread in all the nations" (IQpl lab iii 4). from plundering and destroying allies, and friends, those near them and those far off, weak or powerful and from considering every government which is not subject to them, especially monarchies, as their enemies."

The insatiable appetite of a conqueror extending over the entire inhabited earth is so described in the Pesher on Habakkuk: They [the Kittimj come from afar, from the islands of the sea, to devour all the people like a vulture which cannot be satisfied. (IQpHab iii 10-12) Although these lines contain biblical references, when Isaiah (13, 5) referred to these enemies coming "from a far country from the ends of heaven", he assigns them the goal of "destroying the whole region." not all the peoples of the earth. Thus the Qumran exegete describes a thirst for domination unequalled in history. The author of the Psalms of Solomon, for his part, understood "the tumult of numerous peoples" to be the threats from the enemies of Israel to which Isaiah refers: My car heard distress and the sound of war. The blan of the trumpet sounding slaughter and destruction. The sound of many people as of a violent storm, As raging fire storm sweeping through the wilderness. And I said to my heart, Where, then, will God judge it? I heard a sound in Jerusalem, the holy city. My stomach was crushed at what I heard; (Aalms of Solomon 8. 4 and 8. 12) It was a striking way, inherited from tradition, to describe the enemy army on the march, an army which, for this new psalmist, was that of Pompey. While the terms in which certain of the above texts describe Roman power are certainly reminiscent of I Maccabees, the overall impression is quite different. They were no longer inspired with admiration for a great and distant protector, but rather with terror in direct confrontation before an omnipresent enemy. And in the light of biblical precedents, which helped to understand the contemporary situation, the author would identify the present enemy with the most horrific enemies of a remote past internal polirics, and even these elements arc ignored elsewhere in the Psalms of Solomon. On the other hand. The Third Sibyl was aware of all the convulsions of the end of the Republic, and rejoiced in the misfortunes that Rome inflicted on itself. Discord was no more a coin- cidencc than concord: if the latter was born of virtue, the

former was the result of the moral decadence of a Rome spoiled by success and the influx of wealth: "A nation powerful and without shame" (Third Sibyl, I. 466) "a virgin bursting with gold often drunk on wine" {ibid. U. 356-357). As Sallust36 observes, "the most just and best of governments is transformed into a crucl and intolerable empire" by the contagion of its vices. According to this admirer of ancient virtues, the unleashing passions for wealth and power, ultimately destroyed the Roman Republic. The theme that each nation has the government it deserves by reason of its virtues or its vices permeates the vengeful accents of the Sibylline Oracles.

c. The role of Rome in History

When anonymous Jewish sources portrayed the Romans the most severely, they only reiterated what ccrtain Latin authors had told their fellow citizens as early as the first century, either directly or by means of speeches attributed to an enemy leader. But there was a completely different spirit pervading their declarations as also their description of the end of Roman power which according to both Latin and Jewish sources would ultimately take placc. For Sal lust also, filled with Platonic ideas, all that begins must end, and greatness is inevitably followed by decadence. His attacks against the immorality which permeated both private and public life in Rome stemmed from a profound anguish over the increase in what he saw as signs announcing the end: Since everything which has a beginning must also have an end, the day destined for the destruction of Rome shall come. Then citizen will battle with citizen; and succumbing to fatigue and weakness, they will fall pre)- to some king or nation...But if our youth continue to have the same desires and habits as today...beyond doubt this glory will soon be broken, and the city of Rome along with it.*7

A century earlier, Scipio had wept before the ruins of Carthage because in the midst of glory, he foresaw the downfall of his country, which was then victorious but would soon be defeated by some other power. M These two attitudes express a view common in the Hellenistic era with regard to the vicissitudes of fortune and the fragility of great empires. It translated into philosophical resignation whether Platonic or Stoic in origin concerning the order of the world and its inevitable consequcnccs for Rome. In Jewish sources, on the other hand, the fall of Rome incited hope built on confidence in divine justice. However this hope might be expressed, all the Jewish texts reflect the drive for revenge in a nation momentarily conquered but not definitively subdued. The Jews explained their defeat as a consequence of their sins, and submitted to the vcrdict in expectation of better times. The Psalms of Solomon express inspiration comparable with that of the prophetic texts. The victorious enemy, in this instance I'om- pey, was the instrument of divine punishment against the sinful nation: For there rose up against them a man alien to our race. You rewarded them. O God. according to their sins; it happened to them according to their actions. {halnu of Solomon 17. 7b-8) He [God] did this to them according to their sins, so that he abandoned them to the hands of those who prevailed. (Psalms of Solomon 2, 7) In his insane pride, Pompcy claimed all the crcdit for his victory, but it was God who brought someone "from the end of the earth" (8:16) and facilitated his assault by blinding his adversaries: He entered in peace as a father enters his son's house: he set his feet securely. He captured the fortified towers and the wall of Jerusalem, for

God led him in securely while they wavered. He killed their leaders and every (man) wise in counsel: he poured out ihe blood of the inhabitants of Jerusalem like

dirty water. He led away their sons and daughters, those profanely spawned. {[halms of Solomon 8. 18-22) Oncc this instrument, the rod of Divine anger, 19 had fulfilled its purpose, Rome would in turn be punished, while the people of God would return to grace. For the psalmist, this was a certainty, just as Isaiah could predict the fall of Assyria and Jeremiah could foretell the ruin of the destroyers from the North led by Nebuchadnezzar. By the time the second Psalm of Solomon was written the cruel conquering general is no more among the living: And I did not wait long until God showed me his insolence pierced on the mountains of Egypt, more despised than the smallest thing on earth and sea...for he [God] had despised him with contempt. (Pubns of Solomon 2, 26-27) The psalmist hopes here that after the punishment of the sinners, God would despatch his mercy to Israel and deliver it from the pollution of profane enemies (Pss. Sol.17, 45). The arrogant pagan was compared to the mythical Dragon which traditionally symbolised Israel's oppressor, but God would prevent it from "devouring* his people. As we shall see in later chapters, the destiny of Rome would be integrated into the messianic and apocalyptic perspective of other contemporary writings. TTie apocalyptic element was already evident in certain oracles of the Third Sibyl and in the Pesher on Habakkuk. For the Qumran cxegctc, there was no doubt that the Kittim were the "remnant of the peoples" of whom Habakkuk says. Because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you. (lQpHab ii 7-8) If the Kittim were to be identified with the Roman conquerors, the latter constituted the ultimate invader, the last of a line of empires which might include four terms corresponding to those in the visions of the book of Daniel, or even more. The War Scroll confirms that the Kittim arc the enemies of the end of time: they are assimilated "to the lot of Belial," to the "sons of darkness" whose provisional successes temporarily concealed the inevitable downfall which would certainly follow: "And the domination of the Kittim shall give way and iniquity shall be vanquished, leaving no remnant; for the sons of darkness there shall be no escape."40

The Third Sibyl gives two lists of empires destined to succeed each other. These lists do not correspond exactly, but they do contain a point in common which is important for this study since in both eases (11.159-161 and 11. 165-175) the final entry is Rome. Moreover according to II. 192-195, it is clear that this last empire (the fourth in the second list) immediately precedes the coming of the Messianic Age as prophesied in the book of Daniel. Lines 46 to 62 confirm that the Messiah-King will appear "when Rome will also rule over Egypt" (I. 46) and at that time the punishment of Rome will finally be assured. But the Divine wrath which will be seen on the Day of Judgment will extend as well to all the heathen cities (II. 55-60). The listing of all the cities and islands of the Mediterranean region which arc destined for annihilation (II. 341-347) appears as a sort of Hellenic rewording of the prophetic oracles against the nations neighbouring Judaea. The almost unanimous pro-Roman fervour which followed the treaty of 161 B.C.E. fell apart within only a century. Pompeys entry into Jerusalem, and his violations of the sacred Temple in 63 B.C.E. heralded an era of great rancour and desire for revenge. Such sentiments found their way into much of the religious literature of the time, works arising from a variety of sources. Bearing in mind that the Psalms of Solomon arc generally admitted as having originated in Pharisaic circles in Palestine, that the Habakkuk commentary comcs from the Qumran sect, and the Third Sibyl from the Alexandrian Diaspora, wc cannot but appreciate the extent of the animosity harboured against Rome. The leaders of the oppressed nation nonetheless continued to maintain an official friendship with the nation of invaders for as long as it was possible to do so. Jewish hope would assume its ultimate expression in the apocalyptic literature, and reflect the perspective of a conquered people who