The Table of Nations tradition and the map of the Sibyl

The Sibyl’s relation to the Table of Nations can also be seen with regard to her geography.

In the first century CE, Josephus updated the nomenclature of the nations in Genesis 10 to those current in his own days and attributed the change of names to the Greeks.¹²⁹ A three-way division of the world, corresponding to the three continents, and corresponding to the areas occupied by the descendants of Noah's three sons, can be found in both Josephus and Jubilees.¹³⁰The Third Sibyl includes a few formal geographical features common to those in Jubilees and ancient Graeco-Roman geography for that matter: the existence of three

123 Apud Eusebebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.2, Holladay.

124 Wacholder, 1963, 91. Cf. Artap. 1-3 (apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.18.1); Cleodomus-Malchus, FGH 727 F1; Theodotus, FGH 732 F 1.

125 Cf. Holladay, 1983, 157.

126 Wacholder, 1963, 93. Cf. n. 69 there.

127 Ps.-Eupolemus, FGH 724 F 1; Artapanus, FGH 726 F 3.

128 Sib. Or. 1.293-296. Cf. Lightfoot, 2007, 216f.

129 Cf. Ant 1.122ff.

130 Cf. Franxman, 1979, 93-122.

continents namely Asia, Europe and Libya (=Africa); the orientation on the east¹³¹, the merism 'all sea and all land'¹³² to describe the world as a whole; and the references to several seas such as the Oceanus¹³³, Lake Maeotis¹³⁴, the Western Sea¹³⁵, the Tanais River, which is the traditional boundary between Asia and Europe¹³⁶, and the reference to Mount Sinai¹³⁷. It is very probable that the Sibyl’s mental map was, at least to a certain extent, influenced by the Table of Nations tradition. At the same time, its influence was probably not as important as Scott would make us believe. Some of the aspects and nations he links to the Table of Nations seem to be incidental. The division of the earth into three parts is, however, a feature that does not occur in Hesiod's theogony so the Sibyl cannot have copied it from there. Rather it seems likely that the Sibyl modelled the Titanomachy on the distribution of the earth among the sons of Noah in Genesis.

We shall also see that the Sibyl exhibits a universal interest. Time and again she addresses the entire earth (ἵστατο καί µ’ ἐκέλευσε προφητεῦσαι κατὰ πᾶσαν γαῖαν).¹³⁸ The influence of the Table of Nations tradition can also be seen very clearly in the prophecy of universal disasters in Sib. Or. 3.489-544.¹³⁹ The oracle lists various nations known from the Table of Nations according to their arrangement on the compass and on the table. In lines 517-519 she heralds that God will send afflictions on as many nations as inhabit the earth (πᾶσιν γάρ, ὅσοι χθόνα ναιετάουσιν)¹⁴⁰. We can also observe that the Sibyl uses the Greek nomenclature that we know from Josephus’ account.¹⁴¹

131 Cf. Polybius, Hist. 3.37.2; Strabo, Geogr. 1.4.7-8; 2.5.26.

132 Sib. Or. 3.271, 323.

133 Sib. Or. 3.223; equivalent to the sea of Me'at in Jub. 8:27; 9:8.

134 Sib. Or. 3.338.

135 Sib. Or. 3.176; equivalent to the Great Sea in Jub. 8:15; 9:6. In the MT the Mediterranean is called both the Great Sea (cf. Josh 1:4) and the Western Sea (cf. Deut 11:24). Furthermore, the Hebrew word םי means both 'sea' and 'west' (as from a palestinean perspective the sea is to the west).

136 In line 338 the Sibyl predicts that the deep-eddying (βαθυδίνης) Tanais will leave Lake Maeotis. Lake Maeotis is equivalent to the Sea of Me'at in Jub. 8:27; 9:8. The Tanais River is again equivalent to the Tina river in Jub. 8:12.16; 9:8. Curiously enough, the account of the Sibyl states that Tanais will leave Lake Maeotis while the account in Jubilees claims that Tina runs into the sea of Me'at (Jub. 8:12). Apparently, the same geography is presupposed by Sib. Or. 3 and Jub (Scott, 1995, 37 n. 163). In Jubilees and Josephus' version of the Table of Nations, the Tina River is used as boundary between Asia and Europe (Ant. 1.122; Jub. 8.12, 16. 28; 9:8; Strabo, Geogr. 1.4). Tanais is the ancient Greek name for the river Don. Tanais appears in ancient Greek sources as the name of the river and of a city on it, situated in the Maeotian marshes (Herodotus Hist. 4.20-21, Strabo, Geogr.

1.4, 7.1). See also comments on Section IV.

137 Sib. Or. 3.256. However, the Sibyl does not describe it nor Jerusalem and the temple as the centre of the earth.

138 Cf. lines 163-164; 298-299; 491.

139 Cf. Scott, 1995, 39.

140 See comment there.

141 Ant 1.122ff.

2.5 Conclusion: The relativisation of dominion in the past (156-158a) 156 καὶ τότε Τιτάνεσσι θεὸς κακὸν ἐγγυάλιξεν.

157 καὶ πᾶσαι γενεαὶ Τιτάνων ἠδὲ Κρόνοιο 158a κάτθανον.

And then God put the Titans in the hand of evil.

And the whole family of Titan and Cronus died.

The account of the Titanomachy concludes with the end of the Titans and a list of kingdoms that ruled after them. God is imagined as the initiator of events when it says that 'God put the Titans in the hands of evil'. Everything that happens is imagined as being directly (or indirectly) controlled by God. This fits the euhemerism that the Sibyl used earlier. The reign of the Titans did not just end; it was put to an end by God whereas in Hesiod’s theogony it ended with Zeus’ victory over the Titans and the establishment of his dominion over his siblings. To the Sibyl, the Titans were by no means gods but mortal kings, which is why ‘the βασιλ-root recurs obsessively’¹⁴². Euhemerus was so appealing to the author of the Third Sibyl precisely because his own interest was to explain that the Greek gods were human kings.¹⁴³

The Sibyl's aim is to relativise past mythological rule as powerless in comparison to that of God. She makes use of Greek creation myths not to reconcile Greek and Jewish thought but to show the audience, which for now can be assumed as a Greek-speaking Jewish Diaspora community in the Mediterranean rim, that the so called gods of the predominant culture surrounding them are in fact as powerless as any mortal men over against the countenance of God. Throughout the book the Sibyl will substantiate that God is the sole true ruler who will make all warfare cease and manifest his own eternal dominion on earth for the righteous who will survive his judgement.

This section serves as an introduction to the rest of the book while at the same time rooting

‘the [T]hird Sibyl in universal rather than Jewish history’¹⁴⁴. The Sibyl recasts primeval history from Genesis by combining it with the Greek myth of the Titan War. By doing so she is able to show her intended readers that the mighty Greek Titans were powerless against the might of µέγας θεός.¹⁴⁵ In the Sibyl's narrative, the Titans and their dominion are the result of the confusion of tongues at Babel. The world already consisted of divided kingdoms when Titan, Cronus, and Iapetos were kings (107-110) each within their own territory. However when they tried to take each other's territories, God punished them by bringing their reign to

142 Cf. Lightfoot, 2007, 214.

143 Lightfoot, 2007, 214.

144 Collins, 1987, 430.

145 Line 97 cf. 156. See also: Part III: The image of God.

an end. In classical Greek mythology it is Zeus who emerges victorious from the Titanomachy and takes up his position as father of the gods on Mount Olympus. In the Sibyl’s version, Zeus' role is inevitably diminished and none of the Titan kings nor their descendants become sovereign. It is God who is portrayed as the sole ruler to begin with. The notion becomes a recurring theme throughout the book. Kingdoms come and go and most of them will be destroyed at the hands of God who is the only and true sovereign.

The primary concern of the passage is the theme of kingship, it leads straight into the list of kingdoms in lines 158b-161 and in the longer term 'it prepares for the predominant concern of the rest of the book with the final, [eschatological] kingdom'¹⁴⁶. It is the Sibyl’s main concern to anchor herself in universal history by drawing on Greek mythology.¹⁴⁷

We also learn that the Sibyl draws from traditions known from other texts at the turn of the era, e.g. the Τable of Nations as we have it in Jubilees, 1QapGen or Josephus. She also knows of geographical perceptions of her time, such as the division of the earth into three portions, i.e. continents.

In the next section, the Sibyl predicts the things that, from her point of view. are yet to come. Her account of primeval history ends with the ending of the Titan reign and the beginning of war for all mortals. With the divided kingdoms, the tripartite division of the earth and the beginning of war the Sibyl introduces and lays out the horizontal line. The horizontal line is met with the vertical line as God destroys the Titans and makes way for a new generation of kingdoms. In the following passages the Sibyl will continue her survey of the horizontal line in her description of universal history. She starts out with a list of kingdoms and then proceeds to the history of the people of God in particular. When the people of God are entrusted with the law, the vertical line is further defined.

2.6 The World Empires: the beginning universal history (158b-161) 158b... αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα χρόνου περιτελλοµένοιο

159 Αἰγύπτου βασίλειον ἐγείρατο, εἶτα τὸ Περσῶν 160 Μήδων Αἰθιόπων τε καὶ Ἀσσυρίης Βαβυλῶνος, 161 εἶτα Μακηδονίων, πάλιν Αἰγύπτου, τότε Ῥώµης.

Yet when time came around

the kingdom of Egypt rose up, next that of the Persians the Medes, the Ethiopians and that of Assyria Babylon,

then that of the Macedonians, that of Egypt again, then of Rome.

146 Collins, 1974, 26. Cf. Lightfoot, 2007, 214.

147 Cf. Lightfoot, 2007, 218.

Line 158b continues where 158a left off. With the Titans destroyed, lines 158b-161 serve as an epilogue to the Titanomachy. The Sibyl continues her survey of universal history, listing a chain of empires that ruled after the Titans had perished. These kingdoms are all on the horizontal line, there is no mention of divine intervention or interaction. Other than in the book of Daniel, these kingdoms are not established by God.¹⁴⁸

From the point of view of the Sibyl, the Titans were only deified kings. It therefore makes sense that their reign was followed by that of other nations rather than gods. In fact, primeval history as told by the Third Sibyl serves as an introduction to the rest of the book. In lines 199-201 the judgment of the Titans is repeated briefly.¹⁴⁹ According to Scott, the kingdoms listed are arranged according to the tripartite division of the earth among the sons of Gaia and Uranus - or the sons of Noah respectively.¹⁵⁰

The list of kingdoms introduces a new period of time which is evident from the conjunction ἔπειτα (thereafter, then), i.e. sometime soon after the Titans had died. It is expressed in other passages of the book that the Graeco-Macedonians are descendants of the Titans.¹⁵¹ The list of kingdoms serves as a transition from primeval history to the part of history that concerns the Sibyl. The empires listed are Egypt, Persia, Mede, Ethiopia, Babylon/Assyria, Macedonia, Egypt again (πάλιν) and then (τότε) Rome. Rome's position at the end of the list infers that Rome was still the active power at the time that the oracle was written. A clear distinction between Assyria and Babylon more have already been blurred at the time of the Sibyl. In 4 Macc. 13:9 (approximately second century CE)¹⁵², for instance, Daniel and his friends are alluded to as three young Assyrian men.¹⁵³ The book of Daniel, however, is set in Babylon at the time of Nebuchadnezzar.¹⁵⁴ In Sib. 8.7 the phrase Ἀσσυρία Βαβυλών can also be found in a list of kingdoms.¹⁵⁵

148 Cf. Dan 2:44. See also comment on lines 767ff.

149 According to the manuscript reading of line 200 (cf. Buitenwerf, 2003, 195), the Titans will be punished because of their evil deeds against their father Cronus and their mother Rhea for that matter. Line 201 states the reason for their punishment with a οὕνεκα phrase (οὕνεκά τοι δῆσάν τε Κρόνον καὶ µητέρα κεδνήν) - namely the imprisonment of their parents. The Sibyl often makes use of οὕνεκα and τοὕνεκα in connection with ἀντί. Cf.

lines 330-3, 495-503, 601-605 where she adheres to the biblical when-then pattern. Cf. also comment on line 266-7 bellow.

150 Scott (1995, 38) argues that the verb περιτέλλοµαι in line 158 implies a cyclic course of time and therefore a cyclical nature of the reign of the descendants of the sons of Noah according to the sequence Ham, Shem, and Japheth.

151 Cf. lines 202-4, 383, 403.

152 See discussion in deSilva, 2006, xivff.

153 Ἀδελφικῶς ἀποθάνωµεν, ἀδελφοί, περὶ τοῦ νόµου· µιµησώµεθα τοὺς τρεῖς τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσσυρίας νεανίσκους, οἳ τῆς ἰσοπολίτιδος καµίνου κατεφρόνησαν. The adjective ἰσοπολίτιδος poses some difficulties. The LSJ adds the reference to 4 Macc 13:9 with the remark ‘sense unclear’. NRSV renders it as ‘same ordeal’. For discussion see deSilva, 2006, 206f.

154 Dan 1:1.

155 Sib. 8 probably borrows from Sib. 3 here.

The Sibyl draws on the scheme of world empires¹⁵⁶ (which is familiar from the Book of Daniel and was also a propagandistic theme in Graeco-Roman literature) in order to demonstrate that in the end there will be only one divine kingdom, superior to any of the others and God will be its sovereign king.¹⁵⁷

The word used for 'kingdom' is βασίλειον, which in this form only has a single occurrence in Sib.Or. 3 and is equivalent to the more common term βασιλεία.¹⁵⁸ In the preceding passage on the Titans, the root βασιλ- was used extensively. Hence the transition from the Titan War to the list of kingdoms is evident. Human kingship (over against divine kingship) is the central theme of the entire passage.

According to Buitenwerf¹⁵⁹ the second reign of Egypt is that of the Ptolemies.. The author divides the empires periodically assuming one empire at a time. This presumption is obvious from the recurring usage of the word τότε (then) and especially πάλiν (again) in line 161. The second reign of Egypt clearly refers to the Ptolemaic dynasty, which was the last stable dynasty in the Mediterranean during the Roman expansion.¹⁶⁰ This would explain its importance for the author especially in opposition to Rome. The Egyptian king of Greek descent in line 192 is said to be the king of the seventh reign and, would therefore be a Ptolemy since the seventh kingdom is no other than 'that of Egypt again‘.¹⁶¹The assumption that Persia, Mede, Ethiopia and Babylon/Assyria could also have been simultaneous empires is not necessary.¹⁶² The conjunctions τε and καί merely serve as connectors so that no sufficient conclusion can be drawn from them. There is no reason to believe at this point that the empires mentioned are not a chronological sequence.

According to Collins, the division of history into ten periods is a typical Sibylline feature hence he counts ten empires (including that of the Titans and the eschatological one).¹⁶³ Though this is unmistakably true for the other Sibylline books, it is not so explicitly stated in the Third Sibyl. Collins argues that if the kingdom of Cronus is presupposed and the

156 In fact, the theme of empires can be observed throughout the book and plays an important role in the Sibyl's eschatology. The Sibyl’s main concern is the current rulers and the misery they bring upon the people.

The middle section of the book, for instance, is largely devoted to the Roman dominion in the Mediterranean, with special emphasis on Asia Minor, which reflects the situation between the conquest of Pompey in 63 BCE and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE.

157 See comments on lines 767ff.

158 Cf. Panayiotou, 62f. Cf. Sib. Or. 7.205, T. Sim. 8:3, T. Jud. 17:6, 23:1, T. Jos. 9:2, Let. Aris. 1:98, 3 Macc 3:28, Pss. Sol. 17:4, 6. See also the discussion on the terminology in line 767.

159 Cf. Buitenwerf, 2003, 177.

160 Cf. Buitenwerf, 2003, 189.

161 The identity of the seventh king of Egypt has been the matter of debate for the Third Sibyl. For Collins it has been the major argument to locate the text in Egypt. See coments on line 192-195, 314-18, 608-9.

162 Contra Buitenwerf, 2003, 118.

163 Collins, 1984, 354.

messianic kingdom is expected we have a list of 10 rather than eight kingdoms.¹⁶⁴ However if we take the division of the world among Cronus' sons into account, the ten-fold scheme does not hold up. I therefore propose that the actual number of kingdoms is of lesser importance here than in other Sibyls. In addition this enumeration would be incongruent with the seventh king/reign of Egypt. The question is then not why the Sibyl has a certain number of kingdoms but on what grounds she has chosen them.

The closest analogy to the Sibyl’s list is probably the four-fold empire scheme in the Book of Daniel. However, the Sibyl, other than Daniel, does not use the particular number four.

Instead, she lists eight kingdoms. Sibyl exhibits her indebtedness to Daniel with the inclusion of Medes. Daniel, on the other hand, adapted his scheme from Graeco-Roman tradition (see excursus below). The sequence Assyria-Medes is also attested in the book of Tobit (14:4) and that of Assyria, Medes, and Persia in the Testament of Naphtali.¹⁶⁵ The latter is curious as the line of succession is continued by Elamites, Galatians, Chaldeans, and Syrians who each in turn possessed the twelve tribes in captivity. The example from T. Naph. shows that the Sibyl is not alone in expanding the list of succession.

Excursus: The development of the empire scheme

The question arises according to which criteria the Third Sibyl chose the empires she did. The theme itself is common in biblical and Judeo-Christian literature¹⁶⁶, the most prominent example being the four-empire scheme in the book of Daniel (Dan 2 and 7:7) of which the fourth empire will be succeeded by an everlasting divine kingdom. ‘Within the chronological restraintof the Book of Daniel, the fourth kingdom can be no later than that of Greece (despite the long-standing tradition that identified it with Rome, beginning with Josephus’¹⁶⁷. However the idea of such world empires is far older than the Book of Daniel. It can roughly be traced back to the twenty-third century BCE in Mesopotamia. The idea of a rulership that encompassed the entire known world was expressed in Mesopotamia in various royal epithets.¹⁶⁸ By the ninth century BCE the title “ruler of the four regions” had become part of the Assyrian royal title. The claim for world rulership and attaining it went hand in hand with successful military expansion.¹⁶⁹ The episode on Nebukadnezzar's dream about the four empires in Dan 2 - and particularly the 'iron empire' (Dan 2:39) which 'will rule over the entire earth'- reflects the claim of ancient near eastern (and Hellenistic) rulers to world dominion.

Under the influence of the ideas and claims of ancient near eastern rulers, the idea of successive world empires was developed at the beginning of the fifth century BCE and eventually became an ideology. The first threefold scheme (Assyria-Medes-Persia) of this kind can be found in the account of Herodotus (fifth century BCE).¹⁷⁰ In Herodotus'

164 Collins, 1984, 354.

165 T. Naph. 5.8. The Testament of Naphtali lists Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Chaldians, and Syriens. Since Syria appears as the last active power and there is no reference to the persecution under Antiochus IV, the passage can dated between 198 (begin of Seleucid rule in Palestine) and 175 BCE (Antiochus IV). A portion of T. Naph. has also been found in Qumran (4Q215). Cf. Becker, 2001, 25.

166 Cf. 1. En. 89ff; Apoc. El. 1.3; 4 Ezra 11.40; 2 Bar 39.

167 Collins, 1993, 166. Cf. Josephus, Ant 10.209.

168 Wiesehöfer, 2003.

169 Cf. Renger, “Empire, concept of empire,” DNP, n.p. Cited 15^th September 2010. Online:

http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnp_e1221020.

170 Herodotus, Hist. 1.95, 130. Cf. Wiesehöfer, 2003, 391-396.

account only the Persian Empire was able to gain rulership over all of Asia (and, in the process, incorporate the entire territorial heritage of the previous empires) which no kingdom had achieved before. The rise and fall of empires was, however, linked substantially to the moral qualities of the rulers, not dissimilar to the assessment of the

account only the Persian Empire was able to gain rulership over all of Asia (and, in the process, incorporate the entire territorial heritage of the previous empires) which no kingdom had achieved before. The rise and fall of empires was, however, linked substantially to the moral qualities of the rulers, not dissimilar to the assessment of the