Romans in the Jewish Bible

How far does the Bible extend, historically? Christians will answer to the first century, when Judaea was under Roman occupation. Jews will probably say no, it peters out early in the Second Temple period, when the Romans were still far in the future. But it turns out, on close inspection that that's not actually the case.

The traditional arrangement of constituent books in Judaism has the Bible closing with II Chronicles, with the restoration of the Jews to their land by the Persian Emperor Cyrus; but that's misleading because the books are not arranged in chronological order. The closing three verses of Chronicles are actually the opening three verses of Ezra-Nehemiah, which takes the history several decades into the Second Temple period. But a close inspection of the book of Chronicles reveals that the genealogy of the Davidic line is actually given for six generations after Zerubbavel, who led the return to Zion.

The Book of Daniel is set during the reign of Nebuchadrezzar, who destroyed the first Temple, up to that of Cyrus. However, the prophecies in the second half of the book describe historical events up to the death of the Seleucid emperor Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 BCE. (Like I, Claudius much of the history, as explained in the commentary in the Soncino edition I was reading, reads like a soap opera with added murders). That's still a century and loose change, though, before the arrival of the Romans, in the form of Pompey, on the scene to conquer Judaea. However, it turns out there are a couple of references to the Romans in the Book of Daniel. They're veiled references, though: Daniel is being given a description of the future by the angel Michael, and everyone and everywhere is described in abstract terms—"the king of the south", "the beauteous land", etc—except for two places where the author slips up, naming Egypt in one place, and Edom and Moab in the other.

Daniel 11:18 has the first veiled reference to the Romans:

After this he shall turn his attention to the isles, and shall take many; but a captain will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back on him.

וְיָשֵׂם פָּנָיו לְאִיִּים וְלָכַד רַבִּים וְהִשְׁבִּית קָצִין חֶרְפָּתוֹ לוֹ בִּלְתִּי חֶרְפָּתוֹ יָשִׁיב לוֹ׃

The "he" here is Antiochus III, "the Great", father of the baddy of the Chanukah story; and the passage describes how his attempt to extend his hegemony over the Mediterranean ("the isles") was foiled by the Roman general Lucius Cornelius Scipio at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BCE, a turning point in the rise of Roman power and decline of that of the Seleucid Empire. Scipio was the brother of the Scipio Africanus who had defeated Hannibal Barca, following which the latter fled to the Seleucid Empire. Wikipedia adds:

A popular anecdote regarding the array of the two armies is that Antiochus supposedly asked Hannibal whether his vast and well-armed formation would be enough for the Roman Republic, to which Hannibal tartly replied, "quite enough for the Romans, however greedy they are."

The second reference to the Romans in Daniel is in 11:29–30:

At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter. For the ships of Kittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

לַמּוֹעֵד יָשׁוּב וּבָא בַנֶּגֶב וְלֹא־תִהְיֶה כָרִאשֹׁנָה וְכָאַחֲרוֹנָה׃ וּבָאוּ בוֹ צִיִּים כִּתִּים וְנִכְאָה וְשָׁב וְזָעַם עַל־בְּרִית־קוֹדֶשׁ וְעָשָׂה וְשָׁב וְיָבֵן עַל־עֹזְבֵי בְּרִית קֹדֶשׁ׃

The "he" here is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the baddy of the Chanukah story. In 168 BCE Antiochus led an expedition against Ptolemid Egypt; Wikipedia explains what happened next:

Before reaching Alexandria, his path was blocked by a single, old Roman ambassador named Gaius Popillius Laenas, who delivered a message from the Roman Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies from Egypt and Cyprus, or consider themselves in a state of war with the Roman Republic. Antiochus said he would discuss it with his council, whereupon the Roman envoy drew a line in the sand around him and said, "Before you cross this circle I want you to give me a reply for the Roman Senate"—implying that Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him.

This is the origin of the phrase "a line in the sand" which must not be crossed. Wikipedia continues:

While Antiochus was busy in Egypt, a rumor spread that he had been killed. The deposed High Priest Jason gathered a force of 1,000 soldiers and made a surprise attack on the city of Jerusalem. The High Priest appointed by Antiochus, Menelaus, was forced to flee Jerusalem during a riot. On the King's return from Egypt in 167 BC enraged by his defeat, he attacked Jerusalem and restored Menelaus, then executed many Jews. [...] To consolidate his empire and strengthen his hold over the region, Antiochus decided to side with the Hellenized Jews by outlawing Jewish religious rites and traditions kept by observant Jews and by ordering the worship of Zeus as the supreme god.

...and we all know what happened next.