1Rabbinic literature often depicts the Roman Empire as the last in a succession of four world empires,1 a scheme clearly based on the two visions appearing in the biblical book of Daniel. In chap. 2, the empires are depicted as a statue comprised of different metals, and in chap. 7 they are depicted as a series of beasts rising from the sea. Their downfall is to be followed by everlasting Jewish sovereignty. However, whereas the fourth empire of Daniel’s visions was Greece, rabbinic literature reformulated the scheme so that it represented Rome. Subsequently, the four-empires scheme became an almost conventional way to view and demarcate different historical periods in Jewish thought.2 Thus, for example, following the Muslim conquest, Jewish literature reinterpreted the scheme yet again in order to account for the ascent of the new world power.3

2Yet, Rome is already depicted as the fourth empire in earlier, pre-rabbinic, Jewish texts. This article is devoted to a comparative analysis of these early re-formulations of the four-empires scheme. Before conducting this analysis, however, it should be noted that the idea of the succession of kingdoms or empires is not an exclusively Danielic, or even Jewish, conception – a fact emphasized more than once in scholarship. It can be found in both Eastern – Persian and Babylonian – literature, as well as Western, Greco-Roman, literature. This has naturally given rise to discussions about the origin of the scheme and the direction of influence,4 an important question that lies beyond the scope of the present article.

3Regardless, the employment of the succession scheme in relation to the Roman Empire in Greco-Roman literature is certainly crucial for the current discussion. Therefore, this study will begin with a brief overview of some of the strategies used by Romans to construct their imperial identity, and a discussion of how the utilization of the "four empires" scheme in Greco-Roman literature sometimes served, but at other times undermined, that purpose. This will be followed by a discussion of the significant differences between the Greco-Roman scheme and its Danielic counterpart. These introductory sections will set the stage for the analysis of the pre-rabbinic Jewish uses of the four-empires scheme.

Roman imperialism and the Greco-Roman four-empires scheme

4Scholars have noted various strategies used by ancient Romans (as well as pro-Roman Greeks) to construct their particular imperial identity. Primary among these was to distinguish their empire from previous states and empires, particularly that of the Greeks, and to claim that Rome had obtained universal rule – that is, rule that not only encompassed the entire world, but also may last forever.5 One famous example of this is found in Virgil’s Aeneid (1.278): "For these I set neither bounds nor periods of empire; dominion without end have I bestowed".6

5The scheme of the succession of empires had the potential to serve this purpose: juxtaposing the Roman Empire, and its geographical and chronological extent, to an established set of four earlier empires that had already risen and fallen, could establish the empire’s uniqueness and reinforce the possibility that it would never fall. And, indeed, in some Greco-Roman texts this potential is realized. For example, this seems to be the message of a section in the first book of the Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.2.1-3.5). He writes:

[T]he supremacy of the Romans has far surpassed all those that are recorded from earlier times, not only in the extent of its dominion and in the splendor of its achievements […] but also in the length of time during which it has endured down to our day. For the empire of the Assyrians, ancient as it was and running back to legendary times, held sway over only a small part of Asia. That of the Medes, after overthrowing the Assyrian empire and obtaining a still wider dominion, did not hold it long, but was overthrown in the fourth generation. The Persians, who conquered the Medes, did, indeed, finally become masters of almost all Asia; but when they attacked the nations of Europe also, they did not reduce many of them to submission, and they continued in power not much above two hundred years. The Macedonian dominion, which overthrew the might of the Persians, did, in the extent of its sway, exceed all its predecessors, yet even it did not flourish long, but after Alexander’s death began to decline; for it was immediately partitioned among many commanders from the time of the Diadochi, and although after their time it was able to go on to the second or third generation, yet it was weakened by its own dissensions and at the last destroyed by the Romans. But even the Macedonian power did not subjugate every country and every sea. […]
But Rome rules every country that is not inaccessible or uninhabited, and she is mistress of every sea […] except that part of it which is not navigable; she is the first and the only State recorded in all time that ever made the risings and the settings of the sun the boundaries of her dominion. Nor has her supremacy been of short duration, but more lasting than that of any other commonwealth or kingdom […] From the time that she mastered the whole of Italy she was emboldened to aspire to govern all mankind […] she no longer had as rival any nation either barbarian or Greek; and it is now in my day already the seventh generation that she has continued to hold sway over every region of the world, and there is no nation […] that disputes her universal dominion or protests against being ruled by her.

6Dionysius compares Rome to four earlier empires, asserting the supremacy of the Roman Empire in terms of both territory and duration, implying that it is an entirely different kind of empire and incomparable to its predecessors. Rome is the only empire to rule virtually the entire world and the only to have successfully subjugated every nation on Earth, such that it has no potential rival. Hence, Dionysius seems to imply that the Roman Empire may last forever.7

7In response, literary resistance, or discursive resistance,8 to these pro-Roman strategies of establishing Roman imperialism sought to deny the uniqueness of the Roman Empire. One such resistance strategy, as asserted by Tim Whitmarsh, denied the claim of universal geographical extent of the empire by pointing to its geographical limitations.9 Other strategies denied the very core of the Roman claim to uniqueness. This could be accomplished by utilizing the four-empires scheme to demonstrate that the rise and fall of empires represents the natural course of history;10 it follows that the Roman Empire will meet the same fate as others.11 This skeptical view is perhaps best attested in a story cited by Appian (but commonly assumed to have originated with Polybius) about Scipio following the Roman victory over Carthage. Scipio is said to have reflected upon the rise and fall of cities and empires, especially noting the same four empires mentioned by Dionysius – the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, and Macedonians – expressing fear that the Roman Empire would suffer a similar fate (Appian, Punica 132).12

Between the Greco-Roman and the Danielic schemes

8To properly evaluate the Jewish texts that apply the four-empires scheme to Rome, it is imperative to first note the essential differences between the Greco-Roman and the Danielic schemes. Most apparent, but least important, is that in the Greco-Roman scheme all four empires are named, whereas in Daniel they are not, and that in the Greco-Roman scheme the first empire is identified as Assyria, whereas in Daniel it is Babylonia.13 A more significant difference leads to a clash of Jewish and Roman destinies:14 in the Greco-Roman scheme, the Roman Empire follows the last of the four empires.15 In Daniel, by contrast, the four empires are succeeded by an eschatological – and eternal – Jewish Kingdom. Another difference between the schemes is that, whereas in Greco-Roman thought the rise and fall of kingdoms and empires is generally ascribed to earthly-political factors, such as the strength of the people and the virtue of their constitution, or their deterioration,16 in Daniel, theological factors are at the fore; an empire falls due to its sins.17 Finally, and most importantly in terms of the two corpora’s respective historiosophical perceptions, is in their divergent vantage points. The Greco-Roman authors, whether historians or not, speak of the four empires in retrospect, after they have all risen and fallen, and at a time when the Roman Empire is a reality.18 In Daniel, in contrast, the scheme is presented as fore-knowledge. The seer, Daniel, is depicted as living at the time of the first empire, foreseeing its fall, the rise and fall of three subsequent empires, and the ultimate rise of an eschatological empire of the Jews. Put differently, the purpose of the scheme in Greco-Roman texts is a historical comparison of the present empire to its predecessors, while its purpose in Daniel is the presentation of eschatological knowledge.

9This last characteristic of the Danielic scheme provides potential for a much more subversive application of the scheme to Rome than that afforded by its Greco-Roman counterpart. Namely, the skeptical application of the scheme in Greco-Roman literature merely doubts that the Roman Empire will continue in perpetuity. However, it does not – and inherently cannot – explicitly deny this as a possibility. For example, in Appian’s story mentioned above, while Scipio fears that Rome will fall like previous empires, there is no certainty of such an eventuality. The Danielic scheme, by contrast, offers prophetic certainty; just as the prophecy about the fall of Babylon – and the subsequent two empires – had been fulfilled, so will the prophecy concerning the fall of the fourth empire.

10Having highlighted the differences between the two schemes, I will now address post-Danielic and pre-rabbinic Jewish literature. I begin by raising the historical question: When was the four-empires scheme first applied to Rome in Jewish literature?

Pre-Destruction Jewish literature

11In the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which were composed shortly after the Roman conquest of Judea in 63 BCE, the Romans are depicted as an eschatological enemy that must be defeated for salvation to come (see, e.g., the War Scroll).19 Therefore, given the significant place of the book of Daniel and other Danielic literature in the Qumran library,20 it is only natural to expect that the sect would identify the Roman Empire with Daniel’s fourth empire – as became the trend in later Jewish literature. Indeed, Hertmut Stegemann writes: "And so the Essenes arrived at a new understanding of the book of Daniel. Now they interpreted the fourth and last empire as the Imperium Romanum […]".21

12However, a search of the sectarian scrolls for an explicit or implicit use of or reference to this scheme, whether referring to Rome or not, actually leaves one mostly empty-handed.22 Scrolls that refer to Rome or Romans do not employ a four-kingdoms scheme, but rather employ a different biblical model for their resistance to Rome – the Assyrian model. The siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 701 BCE and the miraculous salvation from it often served as a model for comparison and a source of hope in the Second Temple period.23 It was this model, not the Danielic one, that some sectarian texts applied to Rome.24 The difference between the two models is significant: whereas the four-kingdoms prophecy may more easily be understood as referring to salvation in the distant future,25 the Assyrian model denotes imminent salvation.

13Thus, for example, two Qumran texts – Pesher Isaiah^a (4Q161), frgs. 8-10 and Sefer Ha-Milḥamah (4Q285), frag. 5 – offer similar interpretations of the prophecy regarding the miraculous deliverance from Sennacherib’s siege and the rise of the Davidic messiah, in chaps. 10-11 of Isaiah. Both texts interpret these verses as pertaining to the fall of the Kittim, the sect’s epithet for the Romans.26 In the sect’s own self-perception the end of days was at hand. Accordingly, such pesher texts were applied to the group’s recent past, present, and imminent future.27 The more complete of the two texts, Pesher Isaiah^a, reads as follows:

"[…] and the th]ickets of [the forest will be hacked down ] with an axe, and Lebanon by a mighty one [will fall" (Isaiah 10:34). They are] the Kittim, wh[o] will fa[ll] at the hand of Israel […] [… And the] lofty will be cut down" (Isaiah 10:33). They are the mighty ones of the Kittim. "And the thickets of [the] forest will be hacked down with an axe". Th[ey are] […] for the battle of the Kittim. [ ] "And Lebanon by a mi[ghty one] [will fall". They are the] Kittim, who will be giv[en] into the hand of his great one(s) […] when he flees befo[re Is]rael. […] vacat […] ["There will come forth a shoot from the stu]mp of Jesse and a branch [will grow] out of [his] ro[ots. And] on him [will rest] the spi[rit of] […]" (Isaiah 11:1-5). [The interpretation of the matter concerns the shoot] of David, who will take (his) stand in the lat[ter days …] […] his [ene]my. And God will sustain him with [a mi]ghty [spirit …] and over all the n[ation]s he will rule, and Magog [… al]l the peoples will his sword judge, and when it says, "neither [will he judge by what his eyes see,] nor will he decide by what his ears hear", its interpretation (is) that […] and as they teach him, so will he judge […] (4Q161 8-10 6-28)28

14The Kittim-Romans, who are identified with "the lofty", "the thickets of the forest" and "Lebanon" mentioned by Isaiah, will be hacked down with an axe, and will fall at the hands of "a mighty one". They will be defeated by Israel in battle.29 The messiah, son of David, will assume the throne, and will judge and apparently – according to 4Q285 5 4 – slay the ruler of the Kittim.30

15So, the question remains: what is the earliest attested Jewish use of the scheme in relation to Rome?

16In Jewish literature, we first find the notion of the succession of empires in relation to Rome in the early 1^st century CE, in the writings of Philo of Alexandria. As the relevant passages have been studied extensively by Katell Berthelot,31 I will only quote one such passage and then briefly address some important points:

[…] when the Persians ruled land and sea, who expected that they would fall? And again, when the Macedonians (ruled)? But if anyone had dared to say so, he would most certainly have been laughed at as a fool and a simpleton. And no less necessary a change awaits those nations that opposed them, though they have become illustrious and conspicuous in the meantime; so that those at whom (others) laughed are beginning to laugh (at them), while those who laughed are becoming (an object of) laughter for thinking that things which are by nature mobile and changeable are immobile and unalterable. (Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 4.43; De Iosepho 131-137; Quod Deus sit immutabilis 173-176)

17Although Rome is not explicitly mentioned here, it is quite clearly alluded to. As Berthelot asserts, this shows that Philo expected the Roman Empire to eventually fall. However, Berthelot also notes that Philo nowhere refers to Daniel and is clearly not employing the Danielic scheme. He is rather invoking the common Greco-Roman idea of the rise and fall of empires, although articulating it from his own specific perspective.32 Thus, Philo does not identify the Roman Empire as a fourth or a fifth empire, as he does not employ a specific four or five empires scheme.33 Philo’s point is not to reflect on the history or future of empires, but rather to illustrate the instability and mutability of human reality.34

18It is important to note that the Jews play no part in these passages, neither as a factor in the rise and fall of empires, nor destined to create their own empire in the future. Moreover, the tenor of these passages leads to the conclusion that even if a Jewish empire were to rise sometime in the future, it too would eventually fall.35 Thus, while these passages imply skepticism about the eternity of the Roman Empire, they are not particularly subversive and should certainly not be viewed as "resistance literature".

Post-Destruction Jewish literature

19While the Danielic scheme is not attested in the vast, extant library of Qumran, and Philo only employed the general notion of the succession of empires, near the end of the 1^st century CE – after the Destruction in 70 CE – we find the four-empires scheme concurrently employed by several Jewish texts: the Fourth Sibylline Oracle, the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus, and the apocalyptic works 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.36

20Before examining these texts, it is worth considering why the scheme was apparently only employed during this period and not earlier – despite the apparent early popularity of the book of Daniel. It is of course possible that the scheme was, in fact, employed in earlier texts and that those texts simply have not survived. However, given that we have a considerable collection of Jewish texts from the period, including the Qumran library, in which Daniel was very popular, the fact that the scheme is not attested before the end of the 1^st century CE, and only emerges, suddenly, in several texts dated to approximately the same time (between ca. 80 and 100 CE) should not be dismissed as mere argumentum ex silentio.

21As mentioned at the outset, the four-empires scheme soon became an almost "canonized" Jewish model of viewing history. Perhaps, however, we should not expect to find it employed by Jews in the very early Roman period, and should instead ask the opposite question: why was Daniel’s scheme adopted at all? I would suggest that it would have been unnatural for Jews to adopt the scheme in the early Roman period. Daniel’s scheme, though disguised, clearly ends with Greece, and this is how it was most probably understood by its early readers. Moreover, the Greek domination of Judea ended with the success of the Maccabean revolt and the establishment of the Hasmonean state, which preceded Roman domination. How could a scheme about consecutive foreign powers ruling over Israel be applied in an era immediately following the existence of an independent Jewish kingdom? I suggest that perhaps it was only after a significant amount of time had transpired and/or only after the Destruction, that Roman rule had been in place long enough that the Roman Empire – which was clearly not going anywhere – could be incorporated into Daniel’s scheme of world empires; only then could the eighty-year-long Hasmonean state be "overlooked".37 We can further suggest that a growing Jewish awareness of the Roman claims to uniqueness and universal and eternal rule, and maybe also a growing knowledge of the Greco-Roman scheme itself, may have led the Jews to adopt the scheme and reformulate it as discursive resistance.

The Fourth Sibylline Oracle

22The Sibylline Oracles are a diverse collection of Jewish and Christian texts that were composed over the course of several centuries.38 The attitude of the Jewish oracles to the Roman Empire has been recently examined, at length, by Erich Gruen.39 Although several oracles envision a future destruction of Rome, only the fourth book contains a four-empires scheme.40 This book’s place of composition is uncertain,41 and at least its current version was probably composed shortly after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE, which it mentions. Yet, many scholars suggest that it was originally composed at a much earlier date, during the Hellenistic period, and was perhaps not originally Jewish at all, the reference to the Roman Empire being added by a later Jewish redactor.42 Be that as it may, for my current purposes the final Jewish product from the Roman era is most important. Interestingly, of the sections dedicated to various empires, the description of the Roman Empire is, in fact, the longest and most elaborate.43

23This oracle prophesizes the rise and fall of the Assyrian, Median, Persian, and Macedonian empires (ll. 49-101). These four powers are to be succeeded by a fifth empire – the Roman Empire – which will enslave the world (ll. 102-104). The Sibyl mentions various cities, such as Corinth and Carthage, which will be destroyed (ll. 105-114); it is only at this point that the Jews are first mentioned – the Sibyl describes the destruction of the Temple, a massacre of Jews, and the desolation of their land (ll. 115-123). She then describes the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and its devastation of Italy (ll. 130-134), and explicitly construes it as divine retribution for the Roman affliction of the Jews: "Know then the wrath of the heavenly God, because they will destroy the blameless tribe of the pious" (ll. 135-136).44 After describing various disturbances (ll. 136-151), she goes on to speak of an end-time when God will destroy all of humanity (ll. 152-161). She does, however, leave room for repentance (ll. 162-170, 171-178), and ends with a description of a general resurrection in which all will be judged, and only the pious will remain (ll. 179-192).

24In its scheme, the Sybil names the empires, which are the empires of the prevalent Greco-Roman scheme. Moreover, there is no hint of Daniel.45 Thus, the author clearly used the Greco-Roman scheme. In its current form, this text even agrees with the Roman view that Rome is the fifth empire. However, the Greco-Roman scheme is adapted, and given a more "Jewish" coloring. It is cast as a prophecy – thus clearly undermining the notion of Rome’s eternal empire – and specifically explains Rome’s punishment as a divine consequence of the harm it has inflicted upon the Jews.46 Thus, this text presents Romans and Jews as standing in opposition to each other, and therefore, in my opinion, may indeed be deemed resistance literature or discursive resistance.47 However, as in Philo, Rome’s fall here is not envisioned as coming at the hands of Jews or their messiah, nor is it succeeded by the rise of a Jewish kingdom.48 Thus, while I assert that the text should be seen as resistance literature, it would not have encouraged active resistance.

Flavius Josephus

25Of the various early-Roman period texts that employ the four-kingdoms scheme, the only one whose author is known and which we can date and contextualize with certainty is the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. Josephus was born in 37 CE into a priestly family in Jerusalem. When the Great Revolt broke out in 66, Josephus was appointed commander of the rebels in Galilee, and, with the fall of the Galilean town of Yodfat at the hands of the Romans, in the summer of 67, Josephus surrendered. According to his own account, he was brought before Vespasian and predicted the latter’s future rise to the Principate. At first a prisoner of the Romans, Josephus was released when his "prophecy" came true in 69. He eventually settled in Rome under the auspices of the Flavian emperors and there began his career as a historian. His magnum opus, the Jewish Antiquities, a twenty-book account of Jewish history from Creation up to the eve of the Great Revolt, was completed in 93/94 CE, during the reign of Domitian. In his account of Daniel in that work, Josephus rewrites Daniel’s four-empires scheme to include Rome.

26However, before looking at this text, it is important to look at a passage from another work of Josephus, the Jewish War, which he completed more than a decade earlier. In book 5 of that work, Josephus recounts his own speech delivered to those besieged in Jerusalem, urging them to realize that resistance against the Romans was futile. He argues there: "Fortune [τύχη], indeed, had from all quarters passed over to them [i.e., the Romans], and God who went the round of the nations, bringing to each in turn the rod of empire, now [νῦν] rested over Italy" (Jewish War 5.367). Josephus is not invoking the four-empires scheme here, and nothing he says here definitively points to Daniel – who is never mentioned in the Jewish War – as the inspiration for this notion.49 He is rather employing a general idea of the succession of empires, and while such a notion also exists in Jewish literature (i.e., Ben Sira 10:8), in the context of the Jewish War, it seems more reasonable that he was influenced by the general Greco-Roman notion.50 However, in utilizing this idea here, Josephus inserts God into the scheme51 – a theological notion that is absent from the Greco-Roman formulations. More importantly, he implies that Rome too shall inevitably fall – the rod of empire rests over Italy now, he says, not forever.52 This is quite similar to the Philonic formulations, and, like Philo, Josephus’s formulation here does not afford the Jews a role: they are neither the cause of a future Roman downfall, nor the founders of a future empire. Nevertheless, given that he explicitly refers to Rome, and that the context is the conflict between the Jews and Rome, and considering Josephus’s delicate position – writing in Rome, under the auspices of the Flavians, after having served as a rebel commander in the Great Revolt – this skeptical tone is surprising and perhaps even subversive.

27The passage in Antiquities, by contrast, voices a far more evidently subversive message. It is a retelling of Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue in Daniel 2:

"The golden head was indicating both you and the Babylonian kings who were before you. But the hands and the shoulders signify that your sovereignty is to be destroyed by two kings [i.e., Cyrus of Persia and Darius the Mede]. But a different one from the west wearing bronze [i.e., Alexander the Great] will put down their rule, and yet another like iron will bring its power to an end, and this one will dominate everything because of the nature of iron – for it is stronger than gold and silver and bronze." And Daniel also explained to the king about the stone, yet it seemed to me proper not to recount this, being obligated to record past events and things that have happened but not what is about to happen. But if anyone, anxious for precision, will not be deterred from being curious to the extent of even wishing to learn about the unexplained – what is to happen – let him make the effort to read the book of Daniel. (Jewish Antiquities 10.208-210)53

28Josephus – like his source, Daniel – does not name the empires that succeed Babylon, but clearly implies that the fourth empire, the iron, is Rome.54 However, when he comes to the last part of the prophecy, about the stone that crushes the iron and dominates the world – symbolizing the rise of a future Jewish empire – Josephus cuts the retelling short, presumably because, in his context in Rome, he did not want to explicitly express its subversive meaning. He instead instructs the curious reader to go read Daniel’s text. However, as scholars have noted, Josephus could have omitted the stone from his account altogether. Yet he chose not to, apparently because he nevertheless wanted to convey, however subtly, his anticipation of Rome’s future fall.55 Thus, by implying that Rome is not the fifth empire – a Roman belief of which Josephus was probably aware – but rather the fourth, which was predestined to fall, and by implying that it would be succeeded by a Jewish empire, this text delivers a clearly subversive message, one which could not have been difficult to discern.56 Yet – as we would expect from Josephus – his retelling neither implies imminent salvation, nor encourages active resistance.57

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch

294 Ezra and 2 Baruch offer the most elaborate Jewish formulations of the four-empires scheme in the early Roman period, and they both clearly reuse Daniel. These two, relatively contemporaneous, apocalypses were probably originally composed in Hebrew, but only survive in translations. It is widely agreed that both were composed a few decades after the Destruction, around the turn of the 1^st century, in Judea. Although early scholarship tended to view both as mere anthologies, the current consensus is that they are unified wholes – even if they did use previously existing sources. Both try to find some comfort and a way of coping with the disaster of 70 CE, but are disguised as ancient works, written after the destruction of the First Temple, and are ascribed to figures who lived during (Baruch) or after (Ezra) that destruction.58 While both works are mostly focused on theodicy, they both contain eschatological-messianic sections, including one four-empires vision in each. In addition to these general similarities, scholars have pointed to specific points of contact between these two works, leading some to even suggest a direct literary relationship between them,59 and to often ascribe to them similar views and to suggest that they be interpreted along the same lines. Thus, for example, Lester Grabbe writes: "In spite of some small differences, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch seem to hold a very similar view of eschatology, including their image of the Messiah".60 Likewise, Mireille Hadas-Lebel writes: "The consolation borne in the two apocalypses shortly after 70 coincides with the hope that the end of Rome was imminent".61

30But, are the views of these two works really so similar? To answer this question, I will now examine and compare the eschatological views reflected in their respective four-kingdoms visions.

31In chap. 11 of 4 Ezra, Ezra has a vision in which an eagle with twelve wings and three heads rises from the sea and dominates the earth; each one of the twelve wings, and after them each one of the three heads, rules in succession. When only the last head remains, a lion arises; the lion speaks to the eagle, identifies it as the last of the four beasts that God had proclaimed as rulers of the world and admonishes it. The eagle then vanishes. This clearly alludes to the vision of the four beasts of Daniel 7.

32The angel interpreting the vision for Ezra in chap. 12 makes this connection explicitly: "The eagle which you saw coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom which appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel. But it was not explained to him as I now explain it to you" (12.11-12).62 This study cannot go into all the details of this interpretation, but I will mention some points that are important for our topic: the eagle’s reign will be more evil than that of its predecessors – i.e., the previous three empires; the wings and heads represent the kings who will rule it; the three heads represent the three kings who will rule at the end of its days and "shall oppress the earth and its inhabitants more oppressively than all who were before them" (vv. 23-24); and the lion represents the messiah, "who will arise from the posterity of David" (v. 32), and who will judge and destroy "them"63 and deliver the Jewish people. It is noteworthy that – similar to the Qumran pesher texts’ condemnation of Rome (e.g., Pesher Habakkuk 3.4-13) – the eagle is condemned for oppressing humanity in general, not specifically for its maltreatment of the Jews.64

33The basis for this vision and its interpretation is clearly, as already mentioned, Daniel 7. Nevertheless, its scenario – the fall of the foreign empire and the arrival of the Davidic messiah, who will judge and destroy the empire’ leader – resembles the interpretations of Isaiah from Qumran mentioned above.

34The specificity of the allusions in this vision are worthy of note: The eagle clearly represents the Roman Empire,65 and each wing and head represents a specific Roman emperor. The second wing, which is said to rule longer than all the others (v. 15), is clearly Augustus, meaning that the first must be Julius Caesar. Most scholars agree that the three heads represent the Flavian emperors,66 and therefore the book is often dated to Domitian’s reign (81-96) or shortly thereafter.

35Thus, this historical scenario is very specific in its allusions to specific emperors, and, although the modern readers may debate which emperor is denoted by each wing, presumably its immediate audience was meant to recognize and understand the references. Thus this vision sets the end of the Roman Empire, and the coming of a militant Davidic messiah with precision, at a specific historical moment in the recognizable immediate future of its author and audience, shortly after the end of Domitian or slightly later (see vv. 29-30).67 In other words, like the Qumran texts mentioned earlier, this vision in 4 Ezra envisions salvation as imminent (see also 4 Ezra 4:26; 14:11-12, 18).68

36In the relevant vision of 2 Baruch (chaps. 36-37) – which is too long to fully copy or paraphrase here – Baruch sees a great forest, which is uprooted by a fountain that is overflowing from underneath a vine. Only one cedar is left of the forest, but then it too is cast down. The vine proceeds to rebuke it for its wickedness saying:

[Y]ou kept conquering that which did not belong to you, and you did not show compassion to that which did belong to you. And you kept extending your power over those who were far from you, and you kept those who drew near to you in the toils of your wickedness, and you prided yourself always as one that could not be uprooted.69 (36:8)

37At the end of the vision the vine condemns the cedar to destruction, and then Baruch sees it burning while the vine grows.

38The scenario in this vision is similar to that of the vision in 4 Ezra, but the imagery is obviously very different. By contrast, both scenario and imagery are quite similar to those of the Qumran pesher with which we began our analysis. Notable similarities are the cedar which symbolizes Rome or the Roman leader, the arrival of the messiah, and his rebuke, or judgement, of the cedar, followed by a messianic kingdom. Indeed, this vision is constructed from a few biblical passages, including – as some scholars have noted, and Vered Noam has recently reaffirmed70 – the same passages from Isaiah 10-11 that are the subject of the Qumran interpretation. And, like the Qumran texts, but unlike the vision in 4 Ezra, this vision contains no trace of a four-empires scheme. That scheme is only introduced in the vision’s interpretation later in the text.71

39The interpretation (chaps. 39-40) indeed speaks of four kingdoms. The fourth kingdom is likened to "the forests", and the cedar is identified as its last leader. The vine is identified as the messiah, who will convict and punish the last leader and then reign forever. The scenario thus becomes even more similar to that of 4 Ezra: there are four empires; the fourth empire’s rule is much harsher than its predecessors; the messiah arrives, judges and punishes the fourth empire’s last leader; and at the end a Jewish, messianic empire arises. Furthermore, like 4 Ezra (but also like some Qumran texts),72 the Romans are punished for their general wickedness, not specifically their oppression of the Jews.73

40Consequently, while much of the vision’s interpretation in 2 Baruch is faithful to the vision itself, applying the four empires scheme is unwarranted and lacks basis in the text of the vision. The interpretation thus inserts the vision’s scenario and imagery – which is similar to that of the Qumranic interpretation of Isaiah 10-11 – into a Danielic four-empires scheme.

41We have seen that in the Isaianic prophecy and its Qumranic interpretation, as well as in 4 Ezra the redemption is viewed as imminent. But when will salvation come according to 2 Baruch? Unlike 4 Ezra’s imagery of the eagle and its wings and heads, the imagery of a forest and cedar does not provide a clue.

42However, the interpretation of the vision clearly suggests that the fourth kingdom’s rule will not only be harsher than that of its predecessors, but will also last much longer: "and it will rule many times like the forests on the plain, and it will hold fast for times, and will exalt itself more than the cedars of Lebanon" (39:5). Furthermore, verse 39:7 says: "And it will be when the time of its completion is coming, that it should fall has approached,74 then the reign of my messiah will be revealed". In other words, salvation will come in some unforeseeable future. In the meantime, the people are to follow the Torah, as Baruch later instructs them in chap. 44.75

43It should be further noted that whereas 4 Ezra claims an exact understanding of Daniel’s fourth beast, which is left unexplained in Daniel (12:11-12), 2 Baruch does not. In other words, while 4 Ezra seems to claim exact knowledge of the end time and can thus point to a precise time when Rome will fall and the messiah will come, the author of 2 Baruch claims no such knowledge.76 For him, all that is certain is that eventually Rome will fall and the messiah will come; when this will happen remains unknown.

44This difference between the imminence of salvation suggested in 4 Ezra and its non-imminence (which basically means de facto acceptance of Rome in the present) suggested by 2 Baruch,77 is consistent with the difference between the very violent vision of the former and the much calmer vision of the latter. It also accords well with their respective purported visionaries/narrators: Ezra having been a figure from the period of salvation, while Baruch lived through the period of Destruction, a time when salvation was only a distant dream. Moreover, Baruch was a scribe of the prophet Jeremiah, who called for acceptance of foreign domination in his time.

45It is worth noting in this context Vered Noam’s observation. Comparing 2 Baruch to the Qumran texts, but not to 4 Ezra, she concludes that whereas the Qumran texts envision an eschatological but earthly war between Jews and Rome, 2 Baruch envisions "a miraculous heavenly victory over the Romans, with no human involvement".78 It is also significant that, whereas 4 Ezra speaks of a Davidic messiah, even though his source, Daniel, does not, 2 Baruch speaks of a messiah but does not identify him as Davidic,79 even though Isaiah, and its Qumran pesher, explicitly do.

46Consequently, there seems to be a significant contrast between the four-empires visions in these two apocalypses. While 4 Ezra – as well as the earlier Qumran interpretation – proclaimed imminent salvation, and thus kindled millennial anticipation and possibly – whether intended or not – encouraged active resistance to Rome,80 2 Baruch seems to discourage it.81

47As noted above, there is a general consensus that these two apocalypses, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, were composed in Judea between the Great Revolt of 66-73 and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt of 132-135. This being the case, we may have here a testament to an internal Jewish debate taking place almost on the eve of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Like the earlier Qumranic-type interpretation of Isaiah, 4 Ezra encouraged millennial hope, but did so by using Daniel’s four-empires scheme. In contrast, 2 Baruch – whether its author was familiar with 4 Ezra itself or not82 – combined that same four-empires scheme with the Isaianic vision but did so in a way that inverted such millennial connotations and rejected resistance.83 Its author sought to provide solace for the people in the knowledge that Rome would indeed fall, but at the same time, it sought to placate the gathering winds of resistance by promising – like the later rabbinic texts,84 and perhaps also its contemporary Josephus – heavenly salvation in some unforeseeable future.85

Conclusion

48A comparison of the four-empires schemes in Daniel and in Greco-Roman literature allows us to recognize how various Jewish authors employed the scheme in distinctive ways to construct their communities’ relationship with the empire.

49Our earliest post-Roman occupation Jewish texts, the Qumran scrolls, in spite of what one might expect, adopt a different biblical model – the Assyrian model – to assert the imminence of Rome’s downfall. In the early 1^st century CE in Alexandria, Philo employed the general Greco-Roman idea of the succession of empires, in its skeptical, but not particularly subversive, connotation, and did not contrast the empire with the Jews.

50We find various uses of the four-empires scheme as such only at the end of the 1^st century CE and the beginning of the 2^nd. It may have become reasonable or "necessary" for Jews to employ that scheme to account for the Roman Empire only then – after over a century of Roman rule and after the Destruction – perhaps also due to growing acquaintance with the Roman view of the Roman Empire’s eternity and Greco-Roman variations of their similar scheme. Be that as it may, these Jewish uses of the scheme all undermine the perception of Rome’s eternal empire, either by depicting Rome as the fourth, not the fifth, empire, or by claiming prophetic certainty of Rome’s eventual fall, or both.

51Employing the Greco-Roman scheme and even accepting the Roman view that the Roman Empire was the fifth empire, the Fourth Sibylline Oracle nevertheless gives it a particularly Jewish, and even subversive, tone, by casting it as a prophecy, and explaining the future fall of Rome as the Jewish God’s punishment of Rome for the harms it has inflicted on the Jews. It thus constructs its community’s relationship with the empire as one of opposition. However, by ascribing Rome’s future destruction to foreign powers and not envisioning it being supplanted by a Jewish successor, it discouraged active resistance.

52Josephus offers two different formulations: in the 80s, using the general notion of the rise and fall of empires, reminiscent of Philo, and in the 90s, re-interpreting Daniel’s four-empires scheme. Obviously implying Rome’s future downfall, and in the later formulation also indicating that Rome was the fourth, not the fifth, empire, along with the obvious suggestion that a Jewish empire will arise in the future, and given Josephus’s background, these formulations are quite bold and subversive. Yet, by not specifying when and how this will take place, and not positing the empire against the Jews, but rather stating that God has given Rome the rod of empire, Josephus advocates acceptance of the empire in the present.86

53Lastly, the two apocalyptic texts, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, clearly employ Daniel’s scheme and describe similar scenarios, envisioning the fall of Rome and the rise of the messiah, reminiscent of the scenario of the Qumran interpretation of Isaiah. However, their practical implications are contradictory. By grounding the redemption in a recognizable immediate future, 4 Ezra predicts imminent redemption, whereas 2 Baruch, which inserts the seemingly imminent prophecy of Isaiah into the four-empires scheme, does so in a way that undermines hopes of imminent redemption, promising that eventually Rome will fall and the messiah will come. Thus, while 4 Ezra created a millennial atmosphere for its community, and potentially encouraged active rebellion, 2 Baruch discouraged this by promising divine redemption in a distant, unknown future, reminiscent of later rabbinic formulations.