DESCRIPCIÓN DE LAS SINGULARIDADES NATURALES DEL PARQUE

Structuring Sib. Or. 3 is not an easy task. As we have it, the book is a collection of oracles from different periods and probably different places. There is discontent among scholars how to divide the book. According to the majority of scholars, with the exception of Nikiprowtzky¹⁶⁹, lines 1-92 are not part of the original Third Sibylline Oracle based on the manuscript evidence. It is obvious that lines 93-96 have no connection to lines 1-92 which has led scholars to the assumption that lines 1-92 once marked the ending of a different book, presumably book II whose beginning is recorded in fragment 1 of Theophilus.¹⁷⁰ This assumption is also based on the fact that most manuscripts introduce Sib.Or. 3 as an excerpt

‘from the second logos (λόγος) concerning God’.¹⁷¹ The manuscripts of class ψ insert the note

‘seek the remnants of the second book and the beginning of the third’.¹⁷² The proper beginning of the third book remains lost.

According to Collins, the core of the book can be found in lines 97-349 and 489-829¹⁷³; I follow this division. Buitenwerf regards the remainder of the book as a unit while most scholars believe lines 350-488 to be oracles that may be from one of the ‘original’ Sibyls or at least imitate their style.¹⁷⁴ This notion is derived from the fact that the oracles in question do not contain any distinct Jewish material, such as the stress on the law or the people of God.

166 Justin, Apol. 1.20.1; 44.12; Clement, Strom., 6.5; 43, 1; John Lydus, De Mensibus, 2.4; Lactantius, Epit., 71; 72; 73; Inst. 7.14.16; 7.25.1; 7.14.8-10,16-17; 7.15.19; 7.15.11; 17.16.4-8,10-14; 7.17.9-11; 18.1-3;19.5-9;

7.21.3-7; 7.24.7-9; 7.26.1

167 Cf. Josephus, C. Ap. 1.74-92.

168 Collins, 1984, 375, note v3.

169 Nikiprowetzky, 1970, 60-66.

170 Cf. Kurfeß, 1951, 73, 287; Collins, 1984, 359; Gauger, 1998, 489.

171 Cf. Kurfeß, 1951, 287; Collins, 1984, 359; Gauger, 1998, 489f; Buitenwerf, 2003, 65-91.

172 Collins, 1984, 359.

173 Collins, 2012, 188.

174 Geffcken, 1902a, 13 attributes them to the Erythrean Sibyl which he derives from Lactantius who always refers to the Third Sibyl as the Erythrean Sibyl. Rather than that, a Jewish writer imitates the style of the famous Erythrean Sibyl (cf. Collins, 1974, 28).

21 While Buitenwerf may be going to the extreme by postulating the book is a unit, Lightfoot argues that in the oracles in question reminiscences to the prophets of the Hebrew Bible can be discerned. Most of these oracles are either anti-Hellenistic or anti-Roman. On a pure theological level they do not add anything to what can be observed from the rest of the book.

It is probable that the Sibyl is trying to be more an ‘original’ Sibyl than in those sections where she recasts biblical material more explicitly. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this study to discuss lines 350-488 in detail.¹⁷⁵

Excursus: The anti-Roman oracle in lines 350-380

It has often been observed that the passage in lines 350-380 reflects the anti-Roman attitudes in Asia after the battle of Magnesia in 189 BCE.¹⁷⁶ Since Geffcken's translation the passage is usually dated to the Mithridatic wars.¹⁷⁷ According to Buitenwerf, Sib. Or. 3, or parts of it for that matter (especially 350-366), reflect the situation in Asia (Minor) in the wake of the First Mithridatic War (88-85 BCE). After Sulla had defeated Mithridates in Asia Minor, the rebellious cities were punished with heavy taxes.¹⁷⁸ Rome’s avarice is repeatedly condemned throughout the third book so that the section is not entirely out of place.¹⁷⁹ Considering that the book is a collection as it is, it is no contradiction that the book contains Macedonian as well as anti-Roman oracles from different periods. Lightfoot remarks that 'a long section consists of oracles against places in Asia Minor which may be extracted from Sibyls native to the area, or at least imitate their style'¹⁸⁰. The anti-Roman bias is a topos on its own that is older than Jewish anti-Roman resentments.

The author not only imitates the style of the pagan Sibyls but he also adapts non-sibyllistic pagan material. Roman avarice was a theme that was carried on in Asia Minor for centuries.¹⁸¹ The reason for the enduringness of the motif was Rome’s capability of maintaining control in the Mediterranean long after the Hellenistic kingdoms the preceded Rome had faded into memories of a better past.¹⁸² The popularity of the theme is also evident from the Oracle of Hystaspes which is known to us only through citations in Christian literature, most prominently by Lactantius.¹⁸³ The famous predication that the East will conquer the West at the hands of a king from Asia found in Lactantius is attributed to Hystaspes.¹⁸⁴ Lactantius, who quotes the Sibylline

175 The lines in question are discussed in detail by Buitenwerf, 2003, 221-235.

176 Cf. Geffcken, 1902, 8-9; according to Buitenwerf, 2003, 222 n. 10 the oracle in line 350-55 belongs to the time of the Mithridatic Wars as it presupposes Roman dominion over Asia.

177 Between 88 and 63 BCE there were three wars, named after Mithridates VI of Pontus, between the kingdom of Pontus and Rome. Eventually, Rome, under the leadership of Pompey the Great emerged victorious and Mithridates committed suicide. An extant account of the Mithridatic Wars can be found in the account of Appian (Mithridatica), Plutarch, Sull.; Luc. 20 and for modern views Magie, 1950; McGing, 1992. Collins dates the section to the time of Cleopatra which is, however, not convincing. This interpretation essentially rests on the interpretation of the δέσποινα in line 359. However, a personification of Asia is just as a likely candidate.

Collins' assumption that the passage cannot be part of the remainder of the book because it deals with Asian rather than Egyptian affairs is unfounded. From what we have observed there is no particular focus on Egypt in the book at all. Cf. Collins, 1974, 57-62.

178 Buitenwerf, 2003, 222. This has already been suggested by Kippenberg, 1984, 45ff. Cf. also Cicero, Leg.

man. 4.14-19, Plutarch, Luc. 20 and Philo, spec. 3.159f.

179 Cf. lines 179, 188.

180 Lightfoot, 2007, 224.

181 Cf. Sanford, 1950, 35.

182 Sanford, 1950, 28.

183 Justin, 1 Apol. 20.1; 44.12; Clement, Strom., 6.5; 43, 1; John Lydus, De Mensibus, 2.4; Lactantius, Epit., 71; 72; 73; Inst. 7.14.16; 7.25.1; 7.14.8-10,16-17; 7.15.19; 7.15.11; 17.16.4-8,10-14; 7.17.9-11; 18.1-3;19.5-9;

7.21.3-7; 7.24.7-9; 7.26.1

184 ... cuius vastitatis et confusionis haec erit causa, quod Romanum nomen, quo nunc regitur orbis - horret animus dicere, sed dicam, quia futurum est - tolletur e terra et imperium in Asiam revertetur ac rursus oriens

22

Oracles several times, points to the tension between East and West and how it is used in the Sibylline Oracles. The ruin of Rome was predicted and possible also the rule of the East.¹⁸⁵

The Oracle of Hystaspes is commonly believed to be a pseudepigraphic book of Persian origin that has only survived in fragments and that was written by a pagan author sometime between the first century BCE and CE. Flusser, on the other hand, argues that the Hystaspes oracle is a Jewish pseudepigraph rather than a Persian one.¹⁸⁶ If so, the oracle would indeed be closer to the Sibylline Oracles than scholars had previously thought. Lightfoot holds serious reservations against Flusser's claim though.¹⁸⁷ Be that as it may, the Sibyl as well as Hystaspes are closely related to apocalypses wherefore Justin¹⁸⁸ and Clement¹⁸⁹ couple them in that way.

However, in Lactantius' further account it seems that the ruin of Rome will only be the beginning of the eschatological age. This can be explained by the fact that Lactantius is eager to harmonise the oracle of Hystaspes with Christian tradition of the Antichrist.¹⁹⁰ It is likely that Lactantius himself is responsible for that amalgamation.¹⁹¹ In the original oracle of Hystaspes, the Asian king would have assumed the role that Lactantius attributes to the king from the north. Hystaspes’s oracle about dominion returning to Asia was transformed by Zoroastrianism and has turned into specific Iranian tradition.¹⁹²

Kurfeß identified a possible reference to the oracle in Phlegon's mirabilia¹⁹³ that speaks of the return of world dominion to Asia.¹⁹⁴ However, none of these references point specifically to Mithridates.¹⁹⁵ Gauger also notes a correspondence between Phlegon's mirabilia¹⁹⁶ and the Sibylline Oracles.¹⁹⁷ In Phlegon's mirabilia the return of Rome's wealth and her captured slaves to Asia is foretold by a scared Roman general.

According to Sanford the oracle originally derives from the time of the Syrian Wars (third/second century BCE).¹⁹⁸ In the Near East, prophecy of doom was a common reaction towards the impelling of Hellenisms.¹⁹⁹ Eddy labels this phenomenon ‘oracular opposition’²⁰⁰. It should be noted though that Eddy’s idea of a pan-oriental

dominabitur atque occidens seruiet. (This will be the cause of the destruction and confusion, that the Roman name, by which the world is now ruled - the mind fears to say it, but I will say it, because it will be - will be returned to Asia, and again the Orient will dominate and the Occident will serve). Lactantius, Inst. 7.15.11.

185 Cf. Lactantius, Inst. 15.11.18. Kocsis, 1962 has already pointed out the topic in the Sibylline Oracles.

186 Cf. Lightfoot, 2007, 80.

187 It is beyond the scope of this study to engage in this discussion. Cf. Lightfoot, 2007, 80 n. 115-116.

188 Justin, 1 Apol. 20.

189 Clement, Strom. 6.5.

190 After the destruction and confusion (vastatitatis et confusionis) there will be civil war and ten kings will divide the earth among themselves. The king from the north will be the strongest and subdue the other nine, including three kings from Asia. The northern king will bring tyranny and and death to mankind. This view derives from the commentaries on the Book of Daniel by Hippolytos and Ireneus. According to chapters 2, 7 and 11 of Daniel the Roman empire will be divided among ten kings (Dan 2:33-41; 7:7 cf. Apc 17:3.12) and three of these (Dan 11:43) will fall prey to the Antichrist who is coming from the North (Dan 11:40). Another tradition must have been that an Asian king would overthrow Rome and return power to the east. Due to that amalgam Lactantius mentions three Asian kings (instead of the Egyptian, Lydian and Ethiopian king in Daniel) who will be overthrown by the king from the north who in turn will become the new master of the East (Lactantius, Inst.

7.16.3).

191 Fuchs, 1968, 33.

192 Kippenberg, 1984, 43.

193 apud Lactantius, Inst. 7.13.11. Recent edition: Kai Brodersen, ed., Das Buch der Wunder: und Zeugnisse seiner Wirkungsgeschichte (Texte zur Forschung 79; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002).

194 Cf. Kurfeß, 1951, 294. Similar prodigies can be found in Tacitus (Hist. 5.13), Sueton (Vesp. 4) and in Josephus (B.J. 6.3).

195 Gauger, 1998, 496.

196 FGH 257, F 36 III.

197 Gauger 1995, 57.

198 Cf. Sanford, 1950, 30.

199 Such as the Bahman Yasht in Persia and the Oracle of Hystaspes, the Potter’s Oracle in Egypt and of course the Book of Daniel in Judah. Cf. Eddy, 1961, 334ff. ‘The master hope of the Hellenistic period was for a return of native kingship’ (Eddy, 1961, 330).

200 Eddy, 1961.

23

Hellenism is a bit of a generalisation and needs to be revised especially in light of the Egyptian evidence that has been uncovered since.²⁰¹ In his account of the Jewish War, Tacitus speaks of a prophecy that circulated among the Jews predicting the return of power to the East and a king coming from Judea.²⁰² A similar prediction can be found in Josephus’ account.²⁰³

It has been suggested that line 350-80 have no Jewish elements to them and are nothing but a copy of a pre-existing oracle. However, scholars have also observed that stylistically the passage is close to the judicial speeches and woe-oracles of the Old Testament prophets.²⁰⁴ According to Aune, the oracle is similar to the prophecy of the downfall of Babylon (=Rome) in Rev 18:21-24 – where Babylon is addressed in the second person in verses 22-23, while the third person in verses 21 and 24 frame the section.²⁰⁵ These similarities to Rev 18 are noteworthy.²⁰⁶

The decisive question is as to why the compiler of the Third Sibyl decided to include this oracle here. It is probable that he was under the impression of Roman dominion in the eastern Mediterranean. The Mithridatic Wars certainly are a terminus ante quem for the oracle in question. However, the focus on Asia also reflects the Sibyls local to the area and the image of the Sibyl as a wanderer so that the oracles in lines 350-488 may very well be later redactional additions.

Scholars other than Buitenwerf and Lightfoot commonly distinguish three stages (see:

History of research for details):

The main corpus (93-349 and 489-829) Oracles against various nations (350-488)

1-96 as a beginning of another book (probably book two)

Line 776 is commonly regarded as a Christian interpolation. In addition to that, line 328, dealing with the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE, must be seen as a later addition. The chunk of Sib. Or. 3 in its present state was probably redacted by the middle of the first century BCE.

It needs to be kept in mind that the book is a collection of oracles by its very nature. The book is certainly not a unit but considering that it is a collection it has to be analysed as a whole and not by its individual parts.

The book can be subdivided by the introduction formulae in lines 162-165, 196-198, 295-300, and 489-491 respectively. This is the most sensible solution as it is the structure that the book itself gives us. According to that, the book can be divided into the following five sections.

201 Cf. Schipper/Blasius, 2006, 295-302. See also the discussion on the Cologne Papyrus (comments on 608-623).

202 ... quae pauci in metum trahebant: pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum litteris contineri eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens profectique Iudaea rerum potirentur… (Tacitus, Hist. 5.13).

203 But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand (Josephus, B.J. 6.312-314, Thackeray, LCL).

204 Aune, 1983, 75; Lightfoot, 2007, 224.

205 Cf. Aune, 1983, 75.

206 Cf. Rev 18:6-7.

24 (0. Now lost beginning)

I. 93-161 II. 162-195 III. 196-294 IV. 295-488 V. 489-829

The individual sections reveal a recurring pattern; judgement and punishment are the results of sin and disobedience to God. The basic sin – be it of the nations or the people of God – is idolatry. The Sibyl therefore condemns and admonishes the nations to turn to God in order to be saved from his judgement. It is thereby the task of the people of God to be moral guides for the nations, since they possess the law of God.

This sin-punishment pattern serves as an element that structures the text. In section I the Tower of Babel is destroyed and men are dispersed because of their arrogance, after that the Titans mark the beginning of the first war until they are destroyed by God. The Titans are represented as nothing but deified mortal kings. Because they fought over who should have world dominion, they were destroyed by God. They first brought war unto mankind. The subject of war is continued throughout the book and is repeatedly condemned. In section II the Greeks and Romans will bring all kinds of woes upon the people because of which they will eventually be destroyed. In section III the people are led to Babylon in captivity because they did not obey the law of God. In section IV the Greeks are in danger because of their idolatry and are contrasted with the people of God. Eventually the Sibyl admonishes the Greeks to abandon their ways and heed the law of God. Those who turn to God and obey his law will be exempt from judgment. Then God will establish his divine dominion for all people, i.e. those who have converted.

The introduction formula is one of the literary devices that the author uses to mark the beginning of a new section. Similar formulas can be found in the prophets or the Apocalypse of John. The Sibyl's break-off and resumption draws eclectically on topoi associated with bards and the Muses in early Greek hexameter poetry, and with poetic and oracular inspiration in Plato.²⁰⁷ The formula in 295-299 and the shorter version in 489-491 divide significantly different sections from other oracles. The phenomenon is paralleled in Sib 2.1-5 which is probably modelled on the formulae in book 3.²⁰⁸

Lines 93-161 have to be divided separately as the beginning of the book has been lost.

However, the original beginning probably had an introduction formula as well. It is important

207 Lightfoot, 2007, 443.

208 Lightfoot, 2007, 443.

25 to note that because section I contains accounts of primeval history it is narrated in the aorist and imperfect. Only in section II the Sibyl switches to the future tense. Being a relative of Noah (827), the Sibyl must have lived some time after the flood. This timeframe has to be taken as reference frame for her point of view and is not to be confused with the authors own timeframe. The author wrote at a time when Rome was already the current dominion in the Mediterranean. This is evident from the mentioning of Rome as the last in a chain of Empires.²⁰⁹

Another literary device is the usage of conjunctions such as   ὁπότε, πότε, τότε, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα etc. In Sib. Or. 3 the phrase καὶ τότε + future tense is used to separate one event from another so that it usually introduces a new period.²¹⁰ However, due to the collective character of the book, it is not always possible to find a precise chronological progression within the oracles. Particularly at the end of the book a lot of things happen at once. Some scholars have tried to narrow those events down to a chronological timeline but this introduces far too many inconsistencies. Rather, this lack of chronological narrative should be regarded as a stylistic devise of the Sibyl. This will be explained in detail in the according commentary section.

While the first half of the book is mainly structured by the introduction formulae, the second half of the book, beginning in line 489, is structured by these admonitions. They occur in lines 545-572, 624-651, 732-740, and 762-766. Three out of four are directly addressed at Greece, only the fourth lacks a direct addressee. Whereas in the other three Greece is the fictional addressee of the book, the Sibyl departs from this structure at the end. Chances are that the author wanted to make clear that the Sibyl’s prophecies concern all people now that the book draws to its conclusion. The admonitions structure the sequence of weal and woe.

They are to signify that not only the people of God will be saved but that all people can be provided they turn to God and his law. They discontinue the predictions about judgement on the one hand and the Golden Age on the other.

209 It has been argued by Collins that lines 97-161 stand apart from the remainder of the book and serve as an introduction. To Collins, section I is of particular importance as it contains the reference to the seventh king in lines 192-93 (Collins, 1984, 354). Geffcken, on the other hand, puts lines 194-195 in brackets, thus avoiding the problem of the status of the Jews altogether. Buitenwerf argues that 'the surviving parts of the book can and should be seen as a literary unit' (Buitenwerf, 2003, 124). The book contained (at least) 93-829 and probably fr. i and iii but not 1-92. Buitenwerf suggested that the fragments formed the now lost beginning of the Third Sibyl.

However, this will not be discussed in this study.

210 Sib. Or. 3 uses καὶ τότε δή to refer to 'at that very time' i.e. an event that happens at the same time as another in line 287. However, in her account of primeval history, which is narrated in the past tense, καὶ τότε was used to signify events that happened after another event was concluded. Only when the Sibyl switches to the

210 Sib. Or. 3 uses καὶ τότε δή to refer to 'at that very time' i.e. an event that happens at the same time as another in line 287. However, in her account of primeval history, which is narrated in the past tense, καὶ τότε was used to signify events that happened after another event was concluded. Only when the Sibyl switches to the