Daniel 11:1. And as for me, in … I stood up to be a supporter and a stronghold unto him] I myself, also, in the first year of Darius, came forward to support Michael. As soon as ‘Darius the Mede’ (Daniel 5:31, Daniel 9:1) ‘received the kingdom,’ there was need for the defenders of Israel to co-operate on its behalf; and (it seems to be implied) it was through this angelic intervention that the natural hostility of Persia to Israel was turned to friendliness.

I stood up] The Heb. is peculiar, lit. my standing (was). One or two parallels can be quoted (as Jdg 19:9; Job 9:27); but the addition of a letter would give the normal Hebrew for I stood up (עמדתי for עמדי).

a supporter] prop. one holding strongly or firmly: see Isaiah 41:9; Isaiah 41:13; Ezekiel 30:25.

stronghold] Daniel 11:7; Daniel 11:10; Daniel 11:19; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 11:38-39; Isaiah 23:4; Isaiah 23:11 : here in a figurative sense, as often of Jehovah (e.g. Psalm 27:1; Psalm 28:1).

2. And now will I declare truth unto thee] something which will be verified by the event (cf. Daniel 10:21).

The four kings of Persia.

stand up] i.e. arise, as Daniel 8:23, and below, Daniel 11:3-4; Daniel 11:7; Daniel 11:20-21.

three kings] the three kings following Cyrus (Daniel 10:1) are Cambyses (b.c. 529–522), Gaumâta (Pseudo-Smerdis) 522 (for 7 months), and Darius Hystaspis (522–485). Gaumâta, however, might easily be disregarded by the writer: in this case, the third king would be Xerxes (485–465).

in Persia] to, belonging to, Persia: the construction, as Deuteronomy 23:2-3 [3, 4]; Jeremiah 13:13 (see R.V. marg.); and frequently.

the fourth] the fourth, following the ‘three’? or the fourth, including Cyrus (who is reigning at the time, Daniel 10:1), i.e. the last of the ‘three’? The latter interpretation is the more probable one: otherwise, why was not ‘four kings shall stand up’ said? In either case, the fourth king is Xerxes, Gaumâta being counted in the former case but not in the latter. On Xerxes’ wealth and strength, see Hdt. vii. 20–99 (the account of the immense armament prepared by him against Greece).

and when he is waxed strong] The same expression (in the Heb.) as 2 Chronicles 12:1; 2 Chronicles 26:16.

he shall stir up all (in conflict) with, &c.] he will set in motion (Daniel 11:25; Isaiah 13:17; Jeremiah 50:9) all the men and forces of his vast empire. The allusion is to the well-known expedition against Greece, to which Xerxes devoted all his treasures and all his energies, and which ended in the disastrous defeat at Salamis, b.c. 480. The description of Greece as a ‘realm’ or kingdom, is, of course, inexact: Greece, in the age of Xerxes, consisted of a number of independent states, democracies or oligarchies; a Greek ‘kingdom’ did not arise till the days of Philip and Alexander of Macedon.

(2) Daniel 11:2 to Daniel 12:4. The revelation given to Daniel.

This consists of a survey of the history from the beginning of the Persian period down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, followed by a description of the Messianic age, to begin afterwards. The description is brief and general in its earlier part, more detailed in the later parts. The angel first refers briefly to the doings of four Persian kings (Daniel 11:2), and of Alexander the Great (Daniel 11:3), with the division of his empire after his death (Daniel 11:4); then narrates more fully the leagues and conflicts between the kings of Antioch (‘the kings of the north’), and of Egypt (‘the kings of the south’), in the centuries following (Daniel 11:5-20); and finally, most fully of all, describes the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 11:21-45), including his conflicts with Egypt, and the persecution of the Jews (Daniel 11:30 b–39). The death of Antiochus is followed by a resurrection (of Israelites), and the advent of the Messianic age (Daniel 12:1-3). The revelation is intended to shew that the course of history is in God’s hands, and that though it may bring with it a period of trial for His people, this will be followed, at the appointed time, by its deliverance. It is thus designed particularly for the encouragement of those living in the season of trial, i.e. under the persecution of Antiochus; it is accordingly to be ‘sealed up’ by Daniel until then (Daniel 12:4).

As is usual in apocalyptic literature (Enoch, Baruch, 2 Esdras, &c.), no names are mentioned; the characters and events referred to being described in veiled language, which sometimes leaves the interpretation uncertain. The Commentary of Jerome is important in this chapter, on account of its preserving notices from writers no longer extant.

3. Alexander the Great (b.c. 336–323). The writer, passing over the intermediate Persian rulers, hastens to the period when the course of events begins to affect the Jews, limiting what he has to say respecting the whole of the Persian empire, and the founder of the Greek empire, to a single verse in each case.

a warrior king] The regular meaning of gibbôr (‘mighty man’) in Heb.: e.g. 2 Samuel 1:9; 2 Samuel 23:8, 1 Kings 1:8; 1 Kings 1:10, Isaiah 42:13, &c.

do according to his will] carry out whatever he wishes: an expression implying the possession of irresistible and irresponsible power. Cf. Quintus Curtius x. 5, 35, ‘Huius [fortunae] beneficio agere videbatur gentibus quidquid placebat.’ Comp. on Daniel 8:4; and below Daniel 11:16; Daniel 11:36.

4. The disruption of Alexander’s empire, after his death.

when he shall stand up] or, at the time of his standing up. The expression, if correct, will be intended to emphasize the short-lived duration of Alexander’s empire (his reign extended from 336 to 323; his conquests in Asia from 334 to 323). But in view of Daniel 8:8, Grätz’s emendation, ‘when he shall become strong’ (וכעצמו for וכעמדו), is a probable one; the reference will then be to the manner in which Alexander was suddenly struck down in the midst of his successes.

be broken] The word is, no doubt, suggested by Daniel 8:8, where it is used of the ‘great horn,’ which symbolizes Alexander.

toward the four winds of heaven] So also Daniel 8:8. Alexander’s empire, after his death, was broken up; and in the end the four kingdoms of Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy arose upon its ruins (see on Daniel 8:8).

but (it shall) not (belong) to his posterity] Alexander, the conqueror’s youthful son by Roxana, and Herakles, an illegitimate son, were both murdered in 310 or 309, the former by Cassander directly, the latter by Polysperchon at Cassander’s persuasion (Diod. Sic. xix. 105, xx. 28).

nor (be) according to his dominion, wherewith he ruled] The divided kingdom would not, in any of its parts, retain the power and prestige which Alexander enjoyed. Cf. Daniel 8:22, ‘but not with his power.’

pluckt up] The figure is that of a tree: it is common in Jeremiah, as Jeremiah 1:10, Jeremiah 18:7, Jeremiah 31:28.

and (it shall be) for others besides these] besides Alexander’s generals,—with allusion to the independent petty dynasties which arose gradually in Cappadocia, Armenia, and other countries, during the century and a half that followed upon the death of Alexander (Jerome, von Leng., Bevan).

From this point onwards the author confines himself to the kingdoms of the north and of the south, i.e. of the Seleucidae (in Syria), and of the Ptolemies (in Egypt),—these being the two dynasties which during the period that elapsed from the death of Alexander to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, successively dominated Palestine.

5. Ptolemy I. (Lagi), 305–285, and Seleucus I. (Nicator), 312–280.

the king of the south] The ‘south’ (Heb. Negeb), when applied to a particular region, means commonly in the O.T., the southern part of Judah (Genesis 12:9, R.V. marg.); but in this chapter (as in Daniel 8:9) it denotes regularly Egypt, as opposed to Antioch (or Syria), which is signified by the ‘north.’ Ptolemy, son of Lagus, a Macedonian, one of Alexander’s most trusted and capable generals, who distinguished himself especially in his Indian campaigns, succeeded, in the partition of Alexander’s empire which was arranged immediately after his death, in securing for himself Egypt, which he ruled as satrap from b.c. 322 to 305, when he assumed the title of king. He died b.c. 285.

and one of his princes] or captains (2 Kings 9:5, &c.). Seleucus, an officer of Alexander’s ‘companions’ (ἑταῖροι), or distinguished corps of heavy cavalry, received at the convention of Triparadisus, in 321, the wealthy satrapy of Babylonia. Being in 316 taken to account for his administration by Antigonus (who had received in 323 Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia, but increasing in power had presumed to control the provinces as he thought fit), he took refuge with Ptolemy in Egypt. Ptolemy appointed him his general; and he helped him to gain the battle of Gaza in 312. After this he induced Ptolemy to send him with a small force to recover Babylon. He was successful, and regained his satrapy; and the era of the Seleucidae (b.c. 312), by which in later times the Jews reckoned (1Ma 1:10), was fixed by the event.

and he (the latter, Seleucus) shall be strong above him[358] (the former, Ptolemy), and have dominion: his dominion shall be a great dominion] After the final defeat of Antigonus at Ipsus in 301 (which indeed was principally due to the large forces contributed by Seleucus), the empire ruled by Seleucus, reaching from Phrygia, Cappadocia, and Syria, on the W., almost to the Indus on the E., was much more extensive than that of Ptolemy, and commanded much larger resources. Seleucus is called by Arrian (Exped. Alex. vii. 22) the “greatest,” as well as the most “princely-minded,” of Alexander’s successors; and he deserves, more than any of his brother generals, to be regarded as the heir of Alexander. Antioch was founded by him as his capital, b.c. 300.

[358] The reading ‘but one of his captains shall be strong above him’ (LXX., Theod., Meinh., Kamph., Prince) would improve this verse, without altering the sense.

In the distribution of provinces, an ambiguous position was taken by Cœle-Syria, with Phœnicia, and Palestine; and this intermediate region remained a bone of contention between the kings of Syria and Egypt, and in the century and a half which followed the death of Alexander, repeatedly changed hands. At Triparadisus, in 321, Syria was assigned to Laomedon; but Ptolemy got possession of it in 320, only to lose it again in 315 to Antigonus, to recover at least the S. part of it after the battle of Gaza in 312, and to relinquish it a second time to Antigonus in 311. After the battle of Ipsus in 301, Ptolemy, as a matter of fact, obtained Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia; but his right to these provinces became a subject of protracted dispute between the later Ptolemies and Seleucidae. On the one hand, it was alleged that after the victory it had been distinctly agreed that Seleucus should have ‘the whole of Syria’; on the other, it was claimed that Ptolemy Lagi had only joined the coalition against Antigonus on the understanding that he should receive Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia (Polyb. v. 67; cf. also the quotation from Diodorus in Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 66). Upon the whole, during the period here in question, Palestine remained, with short interruptions, in the hands of the Ptolemies till the battle of Paneion in 198, after which it was retained permanently by the kings of Syria.

6. Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus), 285–247, and Antiochus II. (Theos), 261–246.

Antiochus I. (Soter), b.c. 280–261, is passed by in the survey, as a ruler whose reign was of no importance to the Jews. The allusion in Daniel 11:6 is to what happened about b.c. 249. In order to terminate his long wars with Antiochus II. (Theos), Ptolemy Philadelphus gave him in marriage his daughter, Berenice, upon condition that he should divorce his legitimate wife, Laodice, and that his two sons, Seleucus and Antiochus, should renounce all claim to the throne of Syria: in the event of Antiochus and Berenice having issue, Ptolemy hoped in this way to secure Syria as an Egyptian province. After two years, however, Ptolemy died. Antiochus then took back Laodice, and divorced Berenice. Laodice, however, dreading her husband’s fickleness (‘ambiguum viri animum,’ Jerome), and fearing lest he might again evince a preference for Berenice, before long procured his death by poison. She then persuaded her son, Seleucus, to secure the throne for himself by murdering both Berenice and her infant child (Jerome ad loc.; Appian, Syr. 65; Justin xxvii. 1).

at the end of (some) years] 31 years after the death of Seleucus Nicator.

join themselves together] by the matrimonial alliance just described.

and the daughter of the king of the south] Berenice.

come to] in marriage (cf. Joshua 15:18; Jdg 12:9).

to make an agreement] lit. uprightness (Psalm 9:8), or equity (Psalm 98:9), i.e. (here) the equitable adjustment of a dispute. Comp. Daniel 11:17.

but she shall not retain the power of the arm] fig. for, she will not be able to maintain herself against her rival, Laodice. As said above, she was first divorced by Antiochus in favour of Laodice, and afterwards murdered at her instigation.

neither shall he stand] Antiochus, who was murdered by Laodice.

nor his arm] his might will come to an end. Theod., Kamph., Prince, ‘nor his seed’ (זַרְעוֹ for זְרֹעוֹ), referring to Antiochus’ issue by Berenice[359].

[359] Bevan and Marti render the last three clauses, but the arm (fig. for the support afforded by Berenice) shall not retain strength, neither shall his (other) arms (supports) abide (prove effectual),—altering (with Hitz.) the division and punctuation of the last two words.

but she shall be given up] Berenice, put to death at the instigation of Laodice.

they that brought her] either into the marriage, or to Syria. The expression is a vague one. The reference may be (Ewald, Meinh.) to Berenice’s attendants, who accompanied her to Antioch, and met there the same fate as their mistress; it may be (Hitz., Keil) simply to Antiochus (the plural being generic, without reference to the number of persons actually meant; cf. Genesis 21:7, Matthew 2:20); it may even be, more generally, to the ministers of Ptolemy who supported the alliance, and who were ‘given up,’ in the sense of finding their expectations disappointed.

he that begat her and supported (Daniel 11:1) her] Ptolemy Philadelphus (so Ew., Hitz., Keil). Or, he that begat her, and he that obtained (Daniel 11:21) her; i.e. Ptolemy, and Antiochus (so von Leng., Zöckl., Meinh.).

in the times] at the time in question = in those times (R.V.).

7. But one of the shoots (Isaiah 11:1) of her roots] Ptolemy III., Berenice’s brother.

shall stand up in his (Ptolemy II.’s) place] or office, position. So Genesis 40:13; Genesis 41:13; and below, Daniel 11:20-21; Daniel 11:38.

and shall come unto the army] shall place himself at its head, with the object, viz., of attacking Syria.

and shall enter into the stronghold of the king of the north] Seleukeia.

and shall deal with them] viz. as he may find fit, in no friendly manner; the pron. referring to the subjects of Seleucus: cf. Jeremiah 18:23 ‘in the time of thine anger deal thou with them.’

and shall prevail] or shew strength, shew himself strong.

7–9. Ptolemy III. (Euergetes I.), 247–222, and Seleucus II. (Callinicus), 246–226.

Ptolemy Euergetes I., Berenice’s brother, an enterprising and energetic king, in revenge for his sister’s murder, invaded the empire of Seleucus, seized Seleukeia (Polyb. v. 58 end), the fortified port of Antioch (Acts 13:4), and overran the greater part of Seleucus’ Asiatic dominions as far as Babylon. The murder of Berenice had made Seleucus unpopular with his subjects; and had Ptolemy not been called home by an insurrection in Egypt, he would in all probability have made himself master of Seleucus’ entire empire (Justin xxvii. 1). Ptolemy returned, bringing back with him an immense quantity of spoil (cf. Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, pp. 196–200).

8. And also their gods, with their molten images, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold, shall he bring into captivity into Egypt] The custom of carrying off the gods of a conquered nation was common in antiquity: the capture of its gods implied naturally that the nation’s strongest support had passed into the hands of the victors. Cf. Isaiah 46:1-2; Jeremiah 48:7; Jeremiah 49:3. On the present occasion Jerome, following Porphyry, states that Ptolemy brought back with him 40,000 talents of silver and 2,500 precious vessels and images of gods, among the latter being those which Cambyses had carried off from Egypt 280 years before (cf. the Canopus decree, ll. 9–10: Mahaffy, p. 230). In consequence of the recovery of these images, it was said, the Egyptians conferred upon him the title of Euergetes (‘Benefactor’).

precious vessels] lit. vessels of desire: the same expression, 2 Chronicles 32:27; 2 Chronicles 36:10; Hosea 13:15; Nehemiah 2:9; Jeremiah 25:34.

and he shall refrain some years from (R.V.)] i.e. desist from attacking. ‘Refrain’ is lit. stand: cf. in the Heb. Genesis 29:35, 2 Kings 4:6.

9. And he shall come into the kingdom of the king of the south, but he shall, &c.] After two years Seleucus Callinicus succeeded in re-establishing his power in Asia (b.c. 242); but proceeding to march against Ptolemy he was defeated, and obliged to retreat, accompanied by only a few attendants, to Antioch (Justin xxvii. 2), b.c. 240.

10. his sons] Seleucus Ceraunos and Antiochus the Great, the two being grouped together, because (probably) the campaign of Seleucus in Asia Minor was the first stage in an organized plan of hostilities against Egypt.

shall stir themselves up] viz., as the word used implies, for war or combat (cf. ἐρεθίζω): so. Daniel 11:25; Deuteronomy 2:5; Deuteronomy 2:9; Deuteronomy 2:19; Deuteronomy 2:24 [R.V. contend]; 2 Kings 14:10 (properly, ‘Why shouldest thou stir thyself up against—i.e. advance against, challenge—calamity?’).

and he (or it) shall come on] i.e. either Antiochus, or his army (the ‘multitude’ just spoken of). The attack upon Egypt, planned originally by the two brothers, was, after the death of Seleucus, carried out by Antiochus.

and flood up and flow over] viz. in the campaigns of 219 in Cœle-Syria, and of 218 in Palestine (as described above). The words are borrowed from Isaiah 8:8 : the advancing hosts of Antiochus (as in Is. those of the Assyrians) are compared to a flood of waters inundating a land. Cf. Jeremiah 47:2.

and he (or it) shall return] Antiochus, after wintering in Ptolemais, ‘returned’ to the attack upon Egypt in 217.

and they (his forces) shall stir themselves up (advancing) as far as his stronghold] Probably Gaza, which was the most important fortress of Palestine on the south, and a play upon the name of which (עזה) is perhaps intended by the Heb. word here used (מעזה). The strength of Gaza may be estimated by the fact that it resisted Alexander the Great for two months.

10–19. Seleucus III. (Ceraunos), 226–223, and Antiochus III. (the Great), 223–187: Ptolemy IV. (Philopator), 222–205, and Ptolemy V. (Epiphanes), 205–181.

Seleucus Callinicus left two sons, Seleucus Ceraunos and Antiochus. The former succeeded him, but was murdered, after two years, in the course of an expedition in Asia Minor (Polyb. v. 40). Antiochus, who then came to the throne, determined to resume the war with Egypt, hoping, in view of Ptolemy Philopator’s effeminacy and supineness, that an easy task lay before him (Polyb. v. 42)[360]. First, acting on the advice of his friend, the physician Apollophanes, he recovered the important fortress of Seleukeia (Polyb. v. 58–60, see above, on Daniel 11:7); then Theodotus, Ptolemy’s præfect in Cœle-Syria (v. 40), invited him treacherously to take possession of that province, and enabled him further to secure Tyre, Ptolemais, and other neighbouring towns (v. 61). Meanwhile Ptolemy, roused from his lethargy by the loss of Cœle-Syria, had advanced his troops as far as Pelusium; and his ministers, wishing to gain time for further warlike preparations, succeeded in obtaining from Antiochus an armistice for four months. Antiochus accordingly retired for the winter to Seleukeia, leaving garrisons in Phœnicia and Cœle-Syria, which (being ignorant of Ptolemy’s real intentions) he hoped he had now finally secured (v. 62–66). However, in the following spring (218), a large Egyptian army, which had meantime been organized, marched under Nicolaus through Palestine as far as a spot between Lebanon and the sea, where it was met by Antiochus and completely defeated (v. 68–69). After this Antiochus advanced into Palestine, takes Philoteria, Scythopolis (Beth-shean) and Atabyrium, as also Abila, Gadara, and Rabbath-Ammon, on the E. of Jordan, leaves a governor, with 8000 soldiers, in Samaria, and retires into winter-quarters at Ptolemais (v. 70–71).

[360] The events summarized in Daniel 11:10-12 are narrated at length in Polyb. v. 58–71, 79–87 (v. 62–68, 79–87, are translated in Mahaffy, l.c., pp. 250–263).

In the next spring (217) Antiochus and Ptolemy both take the field, with armies of 60,000 or 70,000 men each (v. 79). Ptolemy, starting from Alexandria, advances to within 50 stadia of Raphia (the border-fortress of Palestine, in the direction of Egypt); Antiochus first marches to Gaza, then by slow stages, passing Raphia, to within five stadia of the spot on which the army of Ptolemy was encamped (v. 80). In the battle which ensued (v. 82–85), Antiochus was defeated (with the loss of 10,000 infantry, 300 cavalry, besides 4,000 prisoners), and fell buck upon Gaza, retiring afterwards to Antioch (v. :86). He then sent to Ptolemy to ask terms of peace, which Ptolemy, satisfied with his victory, and with its natural consequence, the recovery of Cœle-Syria, granted for one year (v. 87).

The second part of Daniel 11:12 refers plainly to Ptolemy’s victory at Raphia; but it is impossible to feel certain which of the events just described are referred to in Daniel 11:10 b–12 a. The sequence of events as described in these verses seems, in fact, not to agree with that of the narrative of Polybius.

11. the king of the south] Ptolemy Philopator.

shall be moved with choler (Daniel 8:7), and shall come forth] to meet the advancing army of Antiochus (Daniel 11:10 b). In the narrative of Polybius, however, Ptolemy appears as the first in the field.

11 b–12 a. Very ambiguous. The two alternative explanations are:—

(1) And he (Ptolemy) will raise a great army, and it will be placed under his (Ptolemy’s) command[361],—the fact being mentioned on account of Ptolemy’s unwarlike nature and usual indifference,—(12) and the multitude (the army of Ptolemy) shall lift itself up (viz. to attack: cf. Isaiah 33:10 A.V.), its[362] (or his[363], i.e. Ptolemy’s) heart being exalted, i.e. elated with the prospect of success (von Lengerke, Hitzig, Ewald, Meinhold); (2) And he (Antiochus) will raise a. great army (cf. Daniel 11:13 a), but it will be given into his (Ptolemy’s) hands, (12) and the multitude (the army of Antiochus) shall be carried away (R.V. marg.; cf. for the rend. Isaiah 8:4; Isaiah 40:24; Isaiah 41:16), and[364] his (Ptolemy’s) heart shall be exalted, i.e. elated with the victory (Bev., Behrm., Keil for Daniel 11:11 b, Prince). There are objections to each of these interpretations, both on the score of Heb. usage, and relation to the context, and also on account (see above) of imperfect agreement with the history; but, on the whole, the second is preferable. To be exalted (or lifted up), of the heart, as ch. Daniel 5:20; Deuteronomy 8:14; Deuteronomy 17:20.

[361] ‘Give into the hand,’ as Genesis 32:17; Genesis 39:4, 2 Samuel 10:10.

[362] Heb. text (with no ‘and’).

[363] Heb. text (with no ‘and’).

[364] Heb. marg. (with ‘and’).

set forth] lit. cause to stand up, i.e. raise; so Daniel 11:13.

and he (Ptolemy) shall cause tens of thousands to fall] at the battle of Raphia.

but he shall not be strong] he will gain no permanent advantage in consequence. Ptolemy by his victory recovered Cœle-Syria; but he did not pursue his success further; he again gave way to his natural indolence, and quickly resumed his dissolute life (Polyb. xiv. 12); so that when Antiochus sent to ask for terms of peace, he readily granted them. Justin (xxx. 1) writes of him, ‘Spoliasset regno Antiochum, si fortunam virtute iuvisset.’

13. Twelve years after the battle of Raphia, in 205, Ptolemy Philopator died, leaving a son aged 4 years, who succeeded him on the throne as Ptolemy V. (Epiphanes). Antiochus had meanwhile been gaining the series of successes in Persia, Bactria, Asia Minor, and even in India, which earned him the epithet of the ‘Great.’ Returning from the East, in the same year in which Philopator died, he concluded an alliance with Philip, king of Macedon, for a joint attack upon the infant king of Egypt, and partition of his foreign possessions between them (Polyb. xv. 20; cf. Jer. ad loc.). Details of the war are not known, the part of Polybius’ history which described it being lost. We only learn from Justin (xxxi. 1) that he invaded Phœnicia and Syria; and from Polybius (xvi. 18, 40) that he captured Gaza, after a stout resistance.

shall return, &c.] shall again raise a multitude, greater than the former, with allusion to the forces by which he achieved his successes in Persia and the East. Jerome (quoting probably from Porphyry) speaks of the immense army which he brought back with him from the East.

and he shall come on at the end of the times, (even of) years] after 12 years, at the end of his conquests in Persia, Bactria, &c.

with much substance] the allusion is to the baggage, implements of war, &c., belonging to a well-appointed army. The word used (רכוש) denotes especially such possessions as stores, furniture, implements, &c.: see 1 Chronicles 27:31, 2 Chronicles 20:25 (‘riches’—of an invading army), 2 Chronicles 21:14 (R.V.), 17; Ezra 1:4; Ezra 1:6 (‘goods’).

14. there shall many stand up, &c.] Alluding to Antiochus, to Philip of Macedon, his ally, and also (according to Jerome) to rebellions which broke out in the provinces subject to Egypt, and insurrections in Egypt itself, through dissatisfaction with the haughty and dissolute Agathocles, Ptolemy Philopator’s chief minister and favourite (see Polyb. xv. 25–34 [Mahaffy, pp. 276–287], where a graphic account is given of the assassination of Agathocles in a popular tumult, immediately after the accession of the infant king, Ptolemy V.).

also the children of the violent among thy people shall lift themselves up to establish (the) vision; but they shall be overthrown] The allusion is apparently to a faction among the Jews, who, for the purpose of fulfilling certain prophecies, took the part of Antiochus against Ptolemy, but were unsuccessful.

Antiochus the Great, in the invasion referred to on Daniel 11:13, had, it seems, obtained possession of Palestine: shortly afterwards, however, in 200, the guardian of the young Ptolemy Epiphanes sent Scopas, an Aetolian mercenary, to recover it: he was successful, ‘subdued the nation of the Jews’ (Polyb. xvi. 39 ap. Jos. l. c.), and left a garrison in the citadel at Jerusalem. Within a year or two, as soon as his war with Attalus of Pergamum was over, Antiochus marched against Scopas, and defeated him with great loss at Paneion, by the sources of the Jordan (cf. Polyb. xvi. 18 f.), so that he was obliged to retreat, with 100,000 men, into Sidon, where Antiochus besieged him, and, though Ptolemy sent him assistance, compelled him to surrender (b.c. 198). After this Antiochus recovered Batanaea, Samaria, Abila and Gadara: he then entered Jerusalem, where the people received him gladly, provided his army with food, and assisted him to expel the garrison left in the citadel by Scopas; in return for this friendliness, Antiochus afterwards granted the Jews remission of many taxes, and contributed liberally to both the services and the repair of the Temple[365]. Only Gaza remained loyal to Ptolemy; and withstood a siege from Antiochus rather than join the Syrian side (Polyb. xvi. 40). We do not know particulars: but the allusion in this part of Daniel 11:14 can hardly be to anything except to a party in Jerusalem which (perhaps before the expedition of Scopas: notice Polybius’ phrase ‘subdued,’ as though there had been some rebellion) supported Antiochus, and in some way was broken up.

[365] Jos. Ant. xii. iii. 3 (Mahaffy, p. 293 f.); Jerome on Daniel 8:15; Ewald, Hist. v. 284.

violent] properly, breakers down (or breakers through): the word denotes a robber, Jeremiah 7:11 (‘a den of robbers’); Ezekiel 7:22; Ezekiel 18:10; and is used of a destructive wild-beast, Isaiah 35:9. The author chooses a strong term for the purpose of expressing his disapprobation of a party who were instrumental in bringing Judah under the rule of the Seleucidae, Antiochus the Great being the father of the hated Antiochus Epiphanes.

be overthrown] lit. stumble: see Proverbs 24:16.

15 a. And the king of the north shall come, and throw up earth-works, and take a city of fortifications] Sidon, in which Scopas was shut up, and which Antiochus took (see on Daniel 11:14).

cast up a mount] i.e. throw up (lit. pour out, viz. from the baskets used for collecting the earth) earth-works, the expression often used in the O.T. of a besieging army (2 Samuel 20:15; 2 Kings 19:32; Jeremiah 6:6; Ezekiel 4:2 al.). Mount is simply the old form of mound, the two words being really the same, though now differentiated in meaning. W. A. Wright (Bible Word-Book, s.v.) quotes from North’s Plutarch (1595), Alexander, p. 748, ‘all the army in their armour did cast up a mount of earth fashioned like a tombe.’

15 b–16. The final collapse of the Egyptian power in Syria.

15 b. and the arms of the south shall not stand] shall make no stand (Daniel 11:25; Amos 2:15) against Antiochus. The arm (of the body) is often fig. for strength (Psalm 71:18; Psalm 79:11; Psalm 83:8; Ezra 4:23; Jdt 9:7); here, the plur. is fig. for forces: cf. Daniel 11:22; Daniel 11:31.

and as for his chosen people (i.e. his chosen warriors: cf. Exodus 15:4; Jeremiah 48:15), there shall be no strength (in them) to stand] so the Heb. accents. Scopas, and the three “duces inclyti” (Jerome) sent to assist him, could not resist the forces of Antiochus.

16. But he (Antiochus) that cometh against him (Ptolemy) shall do according to his own will] so greatly will he be superior to him: the phrase, as Daniel 11:3.

stand before him] Daniel 8:4; Daniel 8:7.

shall stand in the beauteous land (the land of Israel: see on Daniel 8:9), with destruction in his hand] aimed, viz., against Egypt; possessed of Palestine (Daniel 11:14), he will ‘stand’ in it, menacing Egypt with ruin. Or (with a change of points), with all of it (the land) in his hand (power) (Bertholdt, Kamph., Prince).

17. And he shall set his face—i.e. purpose, plan (2 Kings 12:17; Jeremiah 42:15; Jeremiah 42:17; Jeremiah 44:12)—to come with the strength, &c.] to advance with all his force against Egypt. Livy (xxxiii. 19) describes how, in the spring of 197, omnibus regni viribus connixus, quum ingentes copias terrestres maritimasque comparasset, Antiochus himself set out with a fleet for the purpose of attacking all the cities on the coast of Cilicia, Lycia, and Caria, which were subject to Ptolemy. He did not actually invade Egypt, nor does the present verse say that he would do so.

and upright ones with him; thus shall he do] the words yield no sense: read, with very slight changes, but shall make an agreement (see Daniel 11:6) with him: so LXX. Theod. Vulg. (cf. R.V. marg.). He did not carry out his intention, but found it convenient to come to terms with Ptolemy (φιλίαν καὶ σπονδὰς πρὸς τὸν Πτολεμαῖον ἐποιήσατο, Jos. Ant. xii. iv. 1). Antiochus had his eye on Asia Minor, and even on Europe: but being opposed by the Romans, he was glad to be on good terms with Egypt; he accordingly betrothed his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy Epiphanes, promising that she should receive as her dowry what was afterwards understood by the Egyptians to be the provinces of Cœle-Syria, Phœnicia, and Palestine, though this was denied before the Roman legates by Antiochus Epiphanes (Polyb. xxviii. 17, who appears to think that Antiochus Epiphanes was right)[366]. The marriage actually took place in the winter of 194–3, Antiochus taking his daughter to Raphia for the purpose (Livy xxxv. 13).

[366] The dowry seems in fact to have been not the provinces themselves, but their revenues (Wilcken [see p. 178 n.]; Mahaffy, p. 306).

Cleopatra’s betrothal is alluded to in Polyb. xviii. 51 end (whence Livy xxxiii. 40): in reply to the Roman legates who were sent to him in 196 at Lysimacheia (in Thrace) to demand (among other things) that he should restore the cities taken from Ptolemy, Antiochus replied that he was on friendly terms with Ptolemy, ‘et id agere se, ut brevi etiam affinitas jungatur.’

and he shall give him the daughter of women] his daughter Cleopatra.

corrupting her] a very improbable rendering: Cleopatra was not (as was the case with many of the queens of the Ptolemies) her husband’s sister; and (Mahaffy, p. 330) she “bears an excellent character in Egyptian history.” Keil renders to destroy her; but Cleopatra, so far as we know, lived happily in Egypt, and died a natural death. The only reasonable rendering is to destroy it,—the pronoun being referred ad sensum to Egypt. Antiochus was not really actuated by friendliness to Egypt; his true motives, no doubt, being (Hitz.) ‘to protect himself against Roman interference, to gain a footing in Egypt, and, if the opportunity should offer, to secure the country for himself.’ In 196, upon a false report of the death of Ptolemy reaching Lysimacheia (below, note), he actually started for the purpose of seizing Egypt (Livy xxxiii. 41).

but it shall not stand, neither be for him (emph.)] his plan will not succeed (cf. for the expression, Isaiah 7:7; Isaiah 14:24), nor turn out to his advantage, but (as is implied by the position of the pron., ‘and not for him shall it be’) to that of another. Jerome writes, ‘Neque enim obtinere potuit Aegyptum: quia Ptolemaeus Epiphanes et duces eius, sentientes dolum, cautius se egerunt, et Cleopatra magis viri partes quam parentis fovit.’ In point of fact, Ptolemy retained the friendship of the Romans, while Antiochus, to his cost (see on Daniel 11:18), lost it.

18. And he shall turn his face to the isles (or coast-lands), and shall take many; but a commander shall cause his reproach to cease to him; nay, he shall even return his reproach unto him] Antiochus cherished ambitious designs towards the West. In 196 most of the cities in Asia Minor submitted to him; in the same year he even crossed the Hellespont and seized the Thracian Chersonese, and in 195 set about organizing it as a satrapy for his son Seleucus. In 192 he landed in Greece, and occupied various places to the N. of the Isthmus of Corinth, but was defeated by the Romans in 191 at Thermopylae, and compelled to retire to Ephesus. The Romans next determined to expel Antiochus from Asia. Immense preparations were made on both sides: in the end, the decisive battle was fought in the autumn of 190, at Magnesia, near Smyrna, and Antiochus’s huge army of 80,000 men was defeated, with enormous loss, by Lucius Cornelius Scipio (Livy xxxvii. 39–44). Antiochus was now obliged to renounce formally all claims to any part of Europe, or of Asia Minor, west of the Taurus, and to submit to other humiliating conditions of peace[367]. His ruin was complete: “never, perhaps,” remarks Mommsen, “did a great power fall so rapidly, so thoroughly, so ignominiously, as the kingdom of the Seleucidae under this Antiochus the Great.” These are the events alluded to in the present verse of Daniel.

[367] See fuller particulars in Livy xxxvii. 39–45, 55; or in Mommsen’s Hist. of Rome, Bk. iii., chap. ix.

turn his face] implying a change of purpose and direction: so Daniel 11:19.

isles (or coast-lands)] Heb. ’iyyîm],—the word used regularly (e.g. Genesis 10:5; Isaiah 11:11) of the islands and jutting promontories (for it includes both) of the Mediterranean Sea. Here it denotes in particular the coasts and islands of Asia Minor and Greece.

a commander] Lucius Cornelius Scipio, at the battle of Magnesia. The Heb. word (ḳâẓîn) means properly a decider (Arab. ḳâḍi), and is used of one who interposes, or acts, with authority: in Joshua 10:24, Jdg 11:6; Jdg 11:11, of a military commander, as here; Isaiah 3:6-7, of a dictator, taking the lead in a civic emergency; of other authorities, civil or military, in Isaiah 1:10; Isaiah 22:3; Micah 3:1; Micah 3:9; Proverbs 6:7; Proverbs 25:15 (all).

his reproach] implied in the defiant attitude adopted by him towards the Romans: not only had he, for instance, attacked many of their allies, but he told their legates at Lysimacheia that they had no more right to inquire what he was doing in Asia, than he had to inquire what they were doing in Italy (Liv. xxxiii. 40).

to him] a dative of reference,—though certainly redundant, after the pron. his; cf. (without a pron.) Jeremiah 48:35; Ruth 4:14.

return] hurl back, and at the same time requite,—viz. by the humiliating repulse at Magnesia, after which, in Appian’s words (Syr. c. 37), men used to say, ἦν βασιλεὺς Ἀντίοχος ὁ μέγας. For the expression, which forms here a climax on ‘make to cease,’ see Hosea 12:14; Nehemiah 4:4 (Heb. 3:36).

19. Then he shall turn his face towards the strongholds of his own land; but he shall stumble, &c.] The end of Antiochus (b.c. 187). After his discomfiture at Magnesia he was obliged to retire east of the Taurus, and confine himself to the ‘strongholds of his own land.’ To meet the heavy fine imposed upon him by the Romans[368] (Polyb. xxi. 14; Livy xxxvii. 45), he had to levy contributions where he could, and deemed sacrilege excusable under the circumstances. Having plundered for this purpose a wealthy temple of Bel in Elymais (Persia), he quickly met, says Diodorus (xxix. 15), τῆς προσηκούσης ἐκ θεῶν κολάσεως, being attacked by the inhabitants and slain (cf. Justin xxxii. 2). The last words of the verse allude to this disastrous enterprise, which brought his life to an end.

[368] 15,000 Eubœan talents; 500 at once, 2500 when the Romans ratified the peace, and 1000 yearly for 12 years.

and not be found] implying complete disappearance: Psalm 37:36; Job 20:8.

20. Seleucus IV. (Philopator), b.c. 187–175.

Antiochus the Great left two sons, Seleucus and Antiochus (Epiphanes), both of whom successively followed him on the throne.

And in his place (Daniel 11:7) shall stand up one that shall cause an exactor to pass through the glory of the kingdom] Seleucus IV. The words are generally considered to allude to an event from the reign of this monarch which affected the Jews. In 2 Maccabees 3 we read, namely, how one Simon, guardian of the Temple, having quarrelled with the high-priest Onias, gave information to Apollonius, governor of Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia, of the treasures contained in the Temple, with the suggestion that they might prove useful to the king: Seleucus thereupon commissioned his chief minister (τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων), see Niese, op. cit. p. 29, to proceed to Jerusalem and appropriate them. Heliodorus accordingly visited Jerusalem for the purpose; but was prevented from carrying it out (according to the author of 2 Macc.) by a supernatural apparition, which appeared to him just as he was on the point of entering the treasury[369]. We are however imperfectly informed as to the events of Seleucus IV.’s reign; and it is possible that the allusion may be of a general kind: Seleucus (below, note) had to pay for nine years an annual sum of 1000 talents to the Romans, which he would naturally exact of his subject provinces; and perhaps the reference may be to the ‘exactor’ who visited Palestine regularly for the purpose[370].

[369] Cf. Ewald v. 292; Stanley, Jewish Church, iii. 287.

[370] Antiochus Epiphanes shortly afterwards sends into Judah an officer called ἅρχων φορολογίας (1Ma 1:29).

an exactor] cf. the cognate verb in 2 Kings 23:35.

the glory of the kingdom] a prophet (Isaiah 13:19) had called Babylon ‘the beauty of kingdoms’; and so here the land of Judah is called ‘the glory of the kingdom’ (viz. of the Seleucidae), their noblest and choicest province. The Heb. in this part of the verse is however unusual; and Bevan, transposing two words, would read, ‘shall stand up an exactor (Seleucus IV. himself), who shall cause the glory of the kingdom (i.e. of his own kingdom) to pass away,’—with allusion to the inglorious reign of Seleucus IV.

but within few days (Genesis 27:44; Genesis 29:20, Heb.) he shall be broken, but not in anger, or in battle] not by a passionate deed of violence, and not in open fight, but (it is implied) in some less honourable way: in point of fact, Seleucus, after an uneventful reign of 12 years, met his death, perhaps by poison, through a plot headed by his chief minister, Heliodorus (Appian, Syr. c. 45 ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς Ἡλιοδώρου). The ‘few days’ may be reckoned either from the mission of Heliodorus, or perhaps from the inception of the plot: in either case the general meaning will be that he would come to a speedy and untimely end.

broken] i.e. ruined; of a person, as Proverbs 6:15; Proverbs 29:1; ch. Daniel 8:25. Cf. Daniel 11:26, below.

in anger] if this is the meaning, the Heb. is very unusual; Behrmann suggests, on the strength of Aramaic analogies (cf. P.S[371] col. 278, bottom), that the expression may perhaps mean openly.

[371] .S. R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus.

21. Antiochus’ accession. Antiochus was the younger brother of Seleucus Philopator; and, in accordance with the terms of the peace concluded by Antiochus the Great with the Romans (p. 175), he had been, for 14 years, one of the Syrian hostages at Rome[372]: Seleucus, in his 12th year had recalled him, sending, to take his place at Rome, his own son Demetrius (a boy aged 11 or 12); and it was while he was at Athens, on his way back to Antioch, that Seleucus was murdered by Heliodorus (above, on Daniel 11:20). Heliodorus aspired naturally to the throne, but was thwarted in his designs by Eumenes, king of Pergamum, and his brother, Attalus, who, as Antiochus was proceeding homewards, met him, unsolicited (ἀπαρακλήτως), with great friendliness, supplied him with money and troops, and so enabled him to secure the throne. An inscription has been recently discovered at Pergamum, recording a vote of thanks passed by the Council and people of Antioch to Eumenes and Attalus for the help thus given by them to Antiochus (see p. 205 f.).

[372] He had been well treated during these years, as he afterwards boasted in a message sent to the Senate (Livy xlii. 6), ‘Ea merita in se senatus fuisse, quum Romae esset, eam comitatem iuventutis, ut pro rege, non pro obside, omnibus ordinibus fuerit.’

And in his place shall stand up a contemptible person] Antiochus IV., called ‘contemptible’ (more lit. despised, Psalm 15:4 (R.V.), Psalm 119:141) on account of his character (p. xxxviii f.), perhaps also in intentional opposition to the title ‘Epiphanes.’ In 1Ma 1:10 he is called a ‘sinful root.’

upon whom had not been conferred the majesty of the kingdom] The phrase, exactly as (in the Heb.) 1 Chronicles 29:25 (‘bestow,’ lit. put), and Numbers 27:20 (A.V., R.V., weakly, ‘honour’). The words, taken in conjunction with the two following clauses, imply that Antiochus had not been generally regarded as the heir to the throne, but that he gained it partly by a coup d’état, partly by address. His nephew, Demetrius, the son of Seleucus Philopator, was the lawful heir; but, as has been just said, he was a child, and also now a hostage at Rome.

but he shall come in (time of) security] i.e. unawares (Daniel 11:24, Daniel 8:25).

by flatteries] or smooth sayings, i.e. plausible representations, the exact nature of which we do not know. Cf. Daniel 8:23, which speaks of his mastery in dissimulation (מבין חידות). The details are unknown to us: but it is quite possible that the support given to Antiochus by Eumenes and Attalus took the Antiochenes by surprise: it would be entirely in accordance with Antiochus’ character that he should afterwards ingratiate himself with the people, and lead them to thank his two friends publicly for the part they had taken in securing him the kingdom. According to Jerome, there was a party in Syria, which supported the claims of his nephew (see on Daniel 11:17), the youthful son of Ptolemy Epiphanes and Cleopatra (afterwards Ptolemy Philometor), and refused to recognize Antiochus until he had disarmed their opposition simulatione clementiae.

Before proceeding further, it will be convenient to give a summary of the chief events of Antiochus Epiphanes’ reign[373].

[373] The principal authorities are Polybius xxvi. 10, xxvii. 17, xxviii. 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, xxix. 1, 11, xxxi. 3, 4, 5, 11; Livy xli. 20, xlii. 6, 29, xliv. 19, xlv. 11, 12; Porphyry (as cited by Jerome on Daniel 11:21 ff.), who states (see p. 622, ed. Bened.) that he follows various Greek authorities, including some now lost. Some uncertainty arises (especially as regards the 1st and 2nd Egyptian expeditions) from the fact that the records (in particular those of Polyb.) are incomplete. Among modern authorities, reference may be made in particular to J. F. Hoffmann, Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, 1873; and U. Wilcken’s art. Antiochus IV., in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encyclopädie (1894).

Antiochus’ first expedition into Egypt (b.c. 170). The death, soon after Antiochus’ accession, in 174 or 173, of his sister, Cleopatra, widow of Ptolemy Epiphanes, was the signal for fresh complications with Egypt. His nephew, Ptolemy Philometor, who was a boy of not more than 15 years old, fell now under the influence of his guardians, the eunuch Eulaeus and a Syrian named Lenaeus, who assured him that, if he would but make the attempt, he would easily recover for Egypt her Syrian possessions. Antiochus, learning through Apollonius, the governor of Cœle-Syria (whom he had sent to attend the enthronement of Philometor), Egyptian feeling towards himself, proceeded to act without further delay. First, with the intention, no doubt, of making himself popular with the Jews, he visited Jerusalem, and received there, at the instance of the Hellenizing high-priest Jason (above, on Daniel 9:26), a magnificent welcome (2Ma 4:21-22). After this, he led his army into Phœnicia (ibid.). Both parties, now that hostilities were actually beginning, sent embassies to Rome, each hoping to enlist the sympathies of the Senate, and each laying the blame of the war upon the other,—Antiochus declaring that he held the Syrian provinces by inheritance from his father Antiochus the Great, and that he was only defending rights which had been unjustly (παρὰ πάντα τὰ δίκαια) attacked, while Ptolemy contended that Antiochus the Great had taken advantage of the youth of his father, Ptolemy Epiphanes, to wrest these provinces from him. Nothing, however, of importance resulted from these embassies, and hostilities continued. In 170 b.c. Antiochus marched into Egypt with a considerable force (1Ma 1:17), defeated Ptolemy’s troops between Pelusium and Mons Casius, and—by some dishonourable means which Polybius censures (xxviii. 7. 16)—obtained possession of the important border-fortress—the claustra Aegypti, as Livy calls it (xlv. 11)—of Pelusium. It was the clemency shewn by Antiochus in the battle near Pelusium—he rode about among his troops, and would not permit them to massacre the defeated Egyptians—that won for him the favour of the Egyptians, and facilitated considerably both his capture of Pelusium, and his subsequent conquest of Egypt (Diod. xxx. 14). After the fall of Pelusium, Eulaeus, it seems, persuaded Ptolemy to abandon his kingdom, and retire to Samothrace (Polyb. xxviii. 17a); but,—apparently on the way thither,—he was intercepted, and fell into his uncle’s hands. According to Jerome, Antiochus now, simulating friendship with his nephew, proceeded to Memphis, where ex more Aegypti he was crowned[374]; and pretending to be acting in Philometor’s interests (puerique rebus se providere dicens), succeeded in occupying the whole of Egypt (cf. 1Ma 1:18-20), an act in which, Jerome adds, tam callidus fuit, ut prudentes cogitationes eorum qui duces pueri erant, sua fraude subverteret[375]. After this Antiochus prepared to return to Syria. Meanwhile, however, disturbances had arisen in Jerusalem. A rumour having been current of the death of Antiochus, Jason, the deposed and exiled high-priest (above, on Daniel 9:26), thought the opportunity a favourable one for recovering his former position; so he attacked Jerusalem with 1000 men, and compelled Menelaus to take refuge in the citadel, but misusing his success for the purpose of slaughtering his own countrymen, was obliged to retire again to the country of the Ammonites (2Ma 5:5-10). Antiochus, hearing of these proceedings, thought Jerusalem was in revolt: so on his return from Egypt, he made a détour through Judaea, and entering the city with his army, massacred many of the inhabitants, penetrated into the sanctuary, and carried away all the sacred vessels, as well as all the other gold and silver that he could find there (1Ma 1:20-24; also, probably with some exaggeration, 2Ma 5:11-17; 2Ma 5:21 : cf. Jos. B. J. i. i. 1)[376]. In all this Antiochus was supported by Menelaus and his other Hellenizing friends among the Jews; indeed, according to Josephus (Ant. xii. Daniel 11:3) they opened the gates of Jerusalem to admit him.

[374] Cf. the coin, No. 4, on the Plate, p. 192.

[375] Hoffmann thinks that the first campaign against Egypt ended at Pelusium, his occupation of Egypt, mentioned above, in Jerome’s condensed account, belonging really to his second campaign.

[376] The statement in 2Ma 5:1 that these events took place on Antiochus’s return from his second expedition into Egypt, appears to be erroneous.

Antiochus’ second expedition into Egypt (b.c. 169). It was probably during Antiochus’ absence from Egypt that Philometor’s younger brother, Ptolemy Physcon (afterwards Euergetes II.), was proclaimed king in Alexandria. This led to Antiochus’ second invasion of Egypt (b.c. 169), in which he gave out that he was acting from the honourable motive of restoring his nephew and ally, Philometor, to his lawful rights[377], while, of course, in reality he was simply playing off one brother against the other with the object of securing all for himself. Having defeated the Egyptian fleet in a naval battle near Pelusium, he marched to Memphis, and then sailed down the Nile towards Alexandria. A little S. of Naukratis he was met by an embassy of Achaeans and others, who came on behalf of Physcon to treat for peace. Antiochus received the envoys courteously, and listened to their arguments. They cast the whole blame for what had occurred upon Lenaeus; and referring to Ptolemy’s youth, and his relationship to himself, entreated the king to lay aside his anger. Antiochus replied, stating at length the grounds on which he claimed Syria: it had been held by Antigonus, the founder of the Syrian empire, it had been afterwards ceded formally by the Macedonian kings to his son, Seleucus, and it had been conquered afresh by his own father, Antiochus the Great: the agreement, by which, as was alleged, it had been granted by Antiochus the Great to Cleopatra as a dowry (above, on Daniel 11:17) he entirely denied. Polybius adds that he convinced all who heard him of the justice of his contention (ὡς δίκαια λέγει). After this, Antiochus sailed on to Naukratis, where he treated the inhabitants graciously, giving to every Greek resident a gold coin. He then proceeded to lay siege to Alexandria. During the siege an embassy of Rhodians approached Antiochus with proposals for peace; but these envoys he cut short in their arguments by remarking that “the kingdom belonged to Ptolemy Philometor, that with him he had long been at peace [viz. since he fell into his hands, after the battle of Pelusium], and they were both friends; if therefore the Alexandrians were prepared to call Philometor back, he would not stand in their way.” We do not know how long the siege of Alexandria continued; but the city must have suffered in it severely; Livy (xliv. 19) narrates how an embassy sent on behalf of Physcon to Rome, made a piteous appeal to the Senate, declaring that unless help were speedily forthcoming, the whole of Egypt would fall into the hands of Antiochus. C. Popillius Laenas, and two other envoys, were accordingly deputed by the Senate to terminate the war between the two kings, and to inform both that, whichever persisted in hostilities would not be regarded by the Romans as their friend or ally. However, before these envoys could reach Egypt, Antiochus, finding himself unable to take Alexandria, withdrew to Syria, leaving Philometor, cui regnum quaeri suis viribus simulabat ut victorem mox aggrederetur (Livy xlv. 11), as nominal king at Memphis, and stationing a strong garrison in Pelusium.

[377] This was the speciosus titulus with the help of which, by means of letters and embassies, he sought to win the sympathy of all the cities of Asia and Greece (Liv. xlv. 11).

Antiochus’ third expedition into Egypt (b.c. 168). The garrison left in Pelusium, the ‘key of Egypt,’ opened Philometor’s eyes: it was evident that Antiochus wished to be in a position to return to Egypt with his army when he pleased, and also that the end of the war between the two brothers would be that the victor, whichever he was, would fall afterwards an easy prey to Antiochus. Accordingly Philometor made overtures of peace to Physcon, which, being seconded by Physcon’s friends, and warmly supported by his sister, Cleopatra, were listened to favourably: before long a reconciliation was effected and Philometor was received into Alexandria (Livy xlv. 11). As Livy drily remarks, if Antiochus’ real object had been to restore Philometor to his throne, he ought to have rejoiced at this reconciliation: in point of fact, however, he was so incensed at it, that he proceeded (b.c. 168) to attack the two brothers with far greater animosity (multo acrius infestiusque) than he had ever displayed towards the one. His fleet he sent on at once to Cyprus; he himself, at the beginning of spring, marched by land through Cœle-Syria towards Egypt. At Rhinocolura, the border-stream of Egypt, he was met by the envoys of Philometor, who endeavoured to appease him by assuring him that their master gratefully recognized that it was by Antiochus’ help that he had regained his kingdom, and that he hoped the king would still continue to be his friend. Antiochus replied that he would recall neither his army nor his fleet unless the whole of Cyprus were ceded to him, as well as Pelusium, and the country about the Pelusiac arm of the Nile; and appointed a day before which Philometor should declare whether he accepted these terms or not. As no answer came within the stipulated time, Antiochus advanced to Memphis, was well received by the people, ‘partly from good-will, partly from fear,’ and then proceeded by leisurely stages to Alexandria. At Eleusis, four miles from Alexandria, he was met by Popillius Laenas and the other Roman legates. He offered Popillius his hand. The Roman held out to him the ultimatum of the Senate, and bade him first read that. Antiochus, having read it, replied that he would consider with his friends what he would do. Popillius, Proverbs cetera asperitate animi (cf. xlv. 10), drew with his staff a circle round the king; and bade him give his answer to the Senate before leaving that circle. Antiochus was taken aback at this unexpected demand; but, after a moment’s hesitation, he replied, ‘I will do what the Senate desires.’ Then Popillius took his proffered hand. Antiochus was obliged to evacuate Egypt by a specified day; the Roman legates then took measures to consolidate the peace between the two brothers, and sailing to Cyprus, obliged the forces of Antiochus (which had already obtained a victory over the Egyptian generals) to retire from the island. Both Philometor and Antiochus afterwards sent flattering and complimentary messages to the Senate (Livy xlv. 13). Thus ended Antiochus’ third expedition into Egypt.

For the subsequent years of Antiochus’ reign, see on Daniel 11:40.

21–45. Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes), 175–164.

22. And the arms of the flood] fig. for opposing forces. The metaphor is a mixed one: for ‘arms,’ cf. Daniel 11:15; for the fig. of the flood, Daniel 11:10; Daniel 11:26; Daniel 11:40; Isaiah 8:8; Isaiah 28:2; Isaiah 28:15; Jeremiah 47:2. The reference is ambiguous: it might of course be to the forces of Ptolemy Philometor; but more probably the domestic or other enemies who opposed Antiochus’ rise to power are meant. According to Jerome there was a party in Syria which favoured the claims of Philometor.

shall be flooded (or swept) away from before him] he will prevail against them.

be broken] cf., of an army, 2 Chronicles 14:12.

and also the prince of the covenant] most probably the high-priest, Onias III., who was deposed from his office by Antiochus in 175, and whose death was at least an indirect consequence of action taken by Antiochus (see above, on Daniel 9:26). The words might, however, be also rendered a confederate prince (cf. Genesis 14:13; Obadiah 1:7; Heb.): the reference would then be to Ptolemy Philometor; but it is an objection to this view that the king of Egypt is regularly throughout the chapter called the ‘king of the south’; nor are the relations which (so far as we know) subsisted between Antiochus and Philometor such as would be described naturally as a ‘covenant’ or ‘league.’

22–24. General description of Antiochus’ character and dealings. The verses have often (from Jerome onwards) been referred to Antiochus’ first Egyptian campaign; but though occurrences in that campaign may be alluded to in them, they cannot, as a whole, be understood naturally as a description of it[378]. Observe also that the ‘king of the south’ is for the first time mentioned explicitly in Daniel 11:25.

[378] The terms in which Jerome (p. 713) describes the campaign (though the facts, he says, are derived from Porphyry) are manifestly coloured by the phraseology of these verses of Daniel.

23. And from the time when he (or any) joins himself unto him—viz. in a league (2 Ch. 30:35, 37; cf. above, Daniel 11:6)—he shall work deceit] he will immediately scheme to overreach his ally. The reference is again ambiguous. The allusion might be specially to Antiochus’ insincere friendship with Philometor, or to the manner in which he treated his allies in general.

and he shall come up] i.e., probably, rise to power (cf. Deuteronomy 28:43). The explanation ‘go up (the Nile to Memphis)’ (Jer. ascendit Memphim) is not natural. (The comma after up in A.V. should be transferred to follow strong.)

with a little (Daniel 11:34) nation] alluding apparently (Bevan) to the partisans of Antiochus, ‘by whose help he was able to rise to power and overcome his rivals.’

24. In (time of) security (Daniel 11:21) and upon the fattest places (cf. Genesis 27:28, Heb.) of the province shall he come] The Heb. is unusually harsh; though the fact in both A.V. and R.V. is most successfully concealed. ‘In security’ is probably accidentally out of place, and should follow ‘come’ (in the Heb. ובמשמני מדינה בשלוה יבוא for בשלוה ובמשמני מדינה יבוא). Cf. Daniel 8:25 (also of Antiochus) ‘and in (time of) security he shall destroy many.’ Again, the allusion is uncertain: it may be to Antiochus’ acquisition of power over Syria; it may be to his attacks upon Judah, or to his invasions of Egypt.

prey and spoil and substance he shall scatter unto them] to his followers, or it may be to his people generally (for the vague use of the pron., cf. Daniel 11:7; Daniel 11:25). The allusion is, no doubt, to Antiochus’ lavish prodigality, in which he differed from most of the previous Syrian kings (‘his fathers,’ and ‘his fathers’ fathers’), who were usually in lack of surplus money. Cf. 1Ma 3:30, ‘and he feared that he should not have enough as at other times for the charges and the gifts which he used to give aforetime with a liberal hand, and he abounded above the kings which were before him’; also his liberality at Naukratis (above, p. 180), and the anecdotes of his lavish gifts to boon-companions, and even to strangers, in Polyb. xxvi. 10. 9–10, and Athen. x. 52 (p. 438). He was also very munificent in gifts to cities and temples, and in public shows (Liv. xli. 20, who cites examples[379]). Naturally, the funds for such purposes were obtained largely from the ‘prey’ and ‘spoil’ of plundered provinces: cf. 1Ma 1:19, ‘and he took the spoils of Egypt,’ iii. 31; Polyb. xxxi. 4. 9 (the cost of the games given by him in rivalry with those of Aem. Paullus in 167, defrayed in part out of the plunder of Egypt).

[379] For instance, he promised and partly bore the cost of, a city-wall at Megalopolis in Arcadia: he contributed largely to the restoration of the temple of Zeus Olympios at Athens; he presented gold vessels to the Prytaneum at Cyzicus, and beautified Delos with altars and statues; and at home he not only made many improvements in his capital, but also, what in Syria was an innovation, gave frequent gladiatorial shows. The words ‘spectaculorum quoque omnis generis magnificentia superiores reges vicit’ (cf. Polyb. xxvi. 10. 11) illustrate especially 1Ma 3:30, cited above.

against fortresses, also, he shall devise his devices] frame warlike plans,—whether successfully, as against Pelusium and the other places in Egypt which he secured (cf. 1Ma 1:19, of his first campaign in Egypt, ‘and they took the strong cities in the land of Egypt’), or unsuccessfully, as against Alexandria (see p. 180): perhaps, more particularly, the latter (‘devise,’—as though ineffectually).

and that, until a time] until the time fixed, in the counsels of God, as the limit of such enterprises: cf. Daniel 11:27; Daniel 11:35.

25. courage] lit. heart: cf. Joshua 2:11; Amos 2:16; Psalm 76:5.

the king of the south] Ptolemy Philometor.

shall be stirred up] shall stir himself up (Daniel 11:10).

a great army … a very great and mighty army] We have no independent evidence as to the relative size of the armies of Antiochus and Philometor. There is however no reason to suppose that the author would not represent correctly what had taken place only two or three years before he wrote.

but he shall not stand, for they shall devise devices against him] In spite of his superior army, Philometor could not maintain the contest, owing to the treachery of his adherents. We cannot say more particularly what is referred to: it is possible that the fortress of Pelusium, and Philometor himself, both fell into Antiochus’ hands by treachery.

25–28. Antiochus’ first Egyptian expedition (b.c. 170).

26. And they that eat of his delicacies (Daniel 1:5) shall break him] some of his courtiers will be his ruin. For the expression, cf. 1 Kings 2:7, ‘those that eat of thy table’; break, as Daniel 11:20. The allusion may be to Eulaeus and Lenaeus, at whose ill-advised suggestion it was that Philometor was first led to think of reconquering Syria, and the former of whom, after the battle of Pelusium, persuaded the king to abandon his country. Ptolemy Macron, also, the very capable (Polyb. xxvii. 12) governor of Cyprus (though this was perhaps later), deserted to Antiochus (2Ma 10:13).

and his army shall overflow] i.e. Antiochus’ army. But the pronouns from Daniel 11:25 b refer all to Philometor: the verb should therefore probably be vocalized as a passive (יִשָּׁטֵף) and his army (Philometor’s) shall be flooded (or swept) away; the word, as Daniel 11:22.

and many shall fall down slain] cf. 1Ma 1:18, ‘and many fell down slain’ (also of Antiochus’ victories in Egypt), where the Greek (except in the tense) is exactly the same as in LXX. and Theod. here.

27. And as for the two kings, their heart (shall be) for mischief; and at one table they shall speak lies] Antiochus and Philometor, after the latter had fallen into his uncle’s hands, were outwardly on friendly terms with one another; but their friendship was insincere, as is expressively shewn by the picture which the writer’s words suggest: sitting and eating at one table, they both in fact spoke lies,—Antiochus, in professing disinterestedness, as though his only object were to gain Egypt for his nephew’s benefit, (cui regnum quaeri suis viribus simulabat, Livy xlv.11), and Philometor in feigning that he believed his uncle’s assurances, and cherished for him gratitude and regard.

but it shall not prosper] The common plan, on which they were supposed to be agreed, the conquest of Egypt, ostensibly for Philometor, in reality for Antiochus.

for the end (remaineth) yet for the time appointed] matters will not yet be settled in Egypt: the end of Antiochus’ doings there belongs still to a time fixed in the future.

It must be admitted that some of the references in Daniel 11:25-27 (esp. in Daniel 11:27) would be more pointed and significant, if they could be supposed to allude to events in the second Egyptian campaign of Antiochus, as well as to events in the first. Upon the chronology adopted above (which is that of most modern historians), this can only be, if the author, neglecting the strict chronological sequence, throws the first two Egyptian campaigns together, and then (Daniel 11:28) proceeds to describe the attack upon Jerusalem. We do not, however, possess any continuous narrative of the events of Antiochus’ reign; nor does there seem to be any express statement that Antiochus returned to Syria, or even that he left Egypt, at the close of what is described above as his ‘first’ Egyptian expedition; hence it is possible that Mahaffy[380] is right in his contention that Antiochus’ first two campaigns (as they are commonly called) were in reality only two stages in one campaign—the first stage ending at Pelusium, and the second embracing the conquest of Egypt, and both belonging to the year b.c. 170. If this view be adopted, the attack upon Jerusalem (Daniel 11:28; 1Ma 1:20-24) will come at the end of what is called above the ‘second’ Egyptian expedition (but thrown back now to b.c. 170)[381], and both that and the ‘first’ Egyptian expedition will be summarized in Daniel 11:25-28 and 1Ma 1:16-19.

[380] Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 494 f., cf. pp. 333–337, 340. So Wellhausen, Isr. und Jüd. Gesch. (1894), p. 203 n. (ed. 3, 1897, p. 246 n.).

[381] An interval of two years between this attack upon Jerusalem, and the persecuting edict of b.c. 168 is required by the dates in 1Ma 1:20 and 1Ma 1:29; 1Ma 1:54.

28. Then] And. A chronological sequence is not expressed in the Heb.; and is perhaps (see the beginning of the last note) not intended by the writer.

he shall return to his own land] in 170, at the close of his ‘first’ Egyptian campaign,—in whatever sense this may be understood (see on Daniel 11:27). The clause anticipates what really took place only after what is described in the two following clauses; and hence, it is repeated, in its proper place, at the end of the verse.

with great substance] the ‘spoils of Egypt’ (1Ma 1:19): the word, as Daniel 11:13; Daniel 11:24. Cf. the allusion in Orac. Sib. iii. 614–5.

against the holy covenant] alluding to Antiochus’ hostile visit to Jerusalem, in which he ‘entered presumptuously into the sanctuary,’ and carried away the golden vessels, and other treasures, belonging to the Temple, besides massacring many of the Jews (1Ma 1:20-24).

and he shall do] in the pregnant sense explained on Daniel 8:12 : R.V. ‘do (his pleasure).’

and return to his own land] 1Ma 1:24; 2Ma 5:21.

29. Antiochus’ ‘third’ Egyptian expedition (b.c. 168).

the time appointed] the time fixed in the counsels of God.

but it shall not be in the latter time as in the former] this expedition will not be as successful as the previous one.

30. For Kitian ships shall come against him] The allusion is to C. Popillius Laenas and the other Roman legates, who, as described above (p. 181), obliged Antiochus, when within sight of Alexandria, to withdraw his forces unconditionally from Egypt. Kittim, properly the Kitians, or people of Kitti (in Phœn. Inscriptions כתי), a well-known town in Cyprus, the Greek Kition; hence in the O.T. the name of the inhabitants of Cyprus, Genesis 10:4; Isaiah 23:1; Isaiah 23:12; somewhat more widely, in Jeremiah 2:10; Ezekiel 27:6, ‘isles (or coast-lands) of the Kitians,’ of the islands and coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. By the later Jews it was used still more generally for any western maritime people (cf. Jos. Ant. i. i. 1); thus in 1Ma 1:1; 1Ma 8:5 it denotes the Macedonians, and here ‘Kitian ships’ means Roman ships (so LXX. καὶ ἥξουσι Ῥωμαῖοι). The expression is suggested by the terms of Balaam’s prophecy in Numbers 24:24 (where, however, it is not certain what exactly is denoted by it).

and he shall be cowed, and return] ‘cowed’ (a rare word: Psalm 109:16, A.V., R.V., badly, ‘broken in heart’), viz. by the summary manner in which Popillius treated him[382]. Cf. the terms used by Polyb. (xxix. 11), ‘Antiochus accordingly withdrew his forces to Syria, βαρυνόμενος καὶ στένων, εἵκων δὲ τοῖς καιροῖς κατὰ τὸ παρόν’; and Livy ‘Obstupefactus tam violento imperio’ (the demand of Popillius).

[382] The word (נכאה) might possibly, however, have here its Syriac sense of rebuked: cf. LXX. ἐμβριμήσονται αὐτῷ, a word which in Matthew 9:30 is represented in the Pesh. by כאא.

have indignation &c.] a stronger expression than was used in Daniel 11:28; he will this time be incensed against it.

and he shall do] viz. his pleasure, as Daniel 11:28.

and he shall return (viz. home to Antioch), ana have regard unto (Daniel 11:37 Heb.) them that &c.] After his return home he will fix his attention upon the apostate Jews, and use them as his agents, for the purpose of carrying out his designs. Shortly before the time of Antiochus there had arisen a party among the Jews, whose object was to Hellenize their nation, and obliterate its distinctive characteristics (1Ma 1:11-15,—in Daniel 11:15 ‘and they made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the Gentiles, and sold themselves to do evil’). Jason, the renegade high-priest (see on Daniel 9:26), was one of the leaders of the movement; and he and others obtained Antiochus’ sanction and authority to construct in Jerusalem a ‘gymnasium,’ or exercise-ground, after the Greek model, and introduce other Greek customs. The result was that Greek fashions became popular; even the priests, we read, neglected the services of the Temple for the purpose of amusing themselves in the palaestra. See 1Ma 1:11-15, 2Ma 4:4-17.

30–39. Antiochus’ retreat from Egypt, (Daniel 11:30 a), and the measures adopted by him shortly afterwards against the Jews (Daniel 11:30 b–39).

31. And arms—i.e. forces (Daniel 11:15; Daniel 11:22)—(coming) from him shall stand up] or (following the interpunction expressed by the Heb. accents), shall stand up at his instance (Isaiah 30:1, Heb.); ‘stand up,’ i.e. be set on foot, organized (cf. in the causative conj. Daniel 11:11). The ‘arms’ are the armed force sent by Antiochus to take possession of Jerusalem (see the next note).

and they shall pollute the sanctuary (even) the stronghold] The Temple at this time was fortified with high walls, which were broken down by the soldiers of Antiochus, but afterwards rebuilt (1Ma 4:60; 1Ma 6:7): hence it is called a ‘stronghold.’ For the facts, see 1Ma 1:29 ff. Apollonius (2Ma 5:24), coming with an armed force, but lulling with friendly words the suspicions of the people, fell upon the city suddenly on a sabbath-day; and having obtained possession of it, took women and children prisoners, demolished many of the houses and fortifications, and strengthening the citadel (which overlooked the Temple), established in it a Syrian garrison. Cf. 1Ma 1:34; 1Ma 1:36-37, ‘And they put there [in the citadel] a sinful nation [the Syrian garrison], transgressors of the law (ἄνδρας παρανόμους), and they strengthened themselves therein.… And it became a place to lie in wait in against the sanctuary (ἔνεδρον τῷ ἁγιάσματι), and an evil adversary unto Israel continually. And they shed innocent blood round about the sanctuary, and defiled the sanctuary’ (comp. Daniel 2:12).

and shall take away the continual (burnt-offering)] cf. Daniel 8:11, where the expression is similar, and the reference is the same. Apollonius had not been long in possession of Jerusalem when Antiochus, wishing to unify his empire, and to assimilate as far as possible its different parts, determined to bring it all under the influence of Hellenic culture; and accordingly issued in Judah instructions to obliterate every trace of the ancient religion. All the Jewish sacrifices were to be abolished in the Temple; sabbaths and other festivals were to be disregarded; ceremonial observances (such as the prohibition to eat unclean food) were to be discontinued; the rite of circumcision was prohibited, under pain of death; books of the law were to be destroyed, and anyone found with them in his possession was to be punished with death. Special commissioners (ἐπίσκοποι) were appointed for the purpose of carrying out these directions. Not only, however, were Jewish institutions to be thrown aside, heathen ones were to take their place; the Temple was to be transformed into a sanctuary of Zeus Olympios (2Ma 6:2), heathen altars and shrines were to be set up, swine’s flesh and unclean beasts were to be sacrificed; and officers were appointed to see that all these injunctions were duly carried out (1Ma 1:41-53). The suspension of the Temple services (to which the words of the present verse allude) began in December, b.c. 168, and continued for rather more than three years (see p. 119).

and they shall set up the abomination that causeth appalment] i.e. the heathen altar erected on the altar of burnt-offering. See 1Ma 1:54, ‘And on the 15th day of Chisleu [December] they builded an abomination of desolation (βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως,—the same expression which is used in the LXX. here) upon the altar,’ and (1Ma 1:59) ‘on the 25th day of the month they sacrificed upon the (idol-) altar (βωμόν), which was upon the altar (of God) (θυσιαστήριον)’: cf. also Daniel 6:7. A statue of Zeus Olympios was most probably associated with the altar[383]. On ‘causeth appalment,’ see on Daniel 8:13; and cf. the parallel passages Daniel 9:27, Daniel 12:11.

[383] Cf. the tradition in the Mishna (Taanith iv. 6 העמיד צלם בהיכל), Euseb. (ap. Sync. 542, 21 καὶ τὸν ναὸν βεβηλοῖ Διὸς Ὀλυμπίου βδέλυγμα ἀναστηλώσας ἐν αὐτῷ), and Jerome (on Daniel 11:31, ‘Jovis Olympii simulacrum’), referred to by Grätz, Gesch. 11. 2, p. 314 f.

In explanation of the somewhat peculiar expression used, an ingenious and probable suggestion has been made by Nestle (ZATW[384] 1884, p. 248; cf. Bevan, p. 293). The Heb. for ‘that causeth appalment’ is shômçm (Daniel 8:13, Daniel 12:11), or mĕshômçm (Daniel 9:27, Daniel 11:31); and according to Nestle, the ‘abomination that causeth appalment’ is a contemptuous allusion to בעל שמים Ba‘al shâmayim (‘Baal of heaven’), a title occurring often in Phœnician, and (with shâmîn for shâmayim) Aramaic inscriptions, and in the Syriac version of 2Ma 6:2 found actually for the Ζεὺς Ὀλύμπιος of the Greek; the altar (with probably the accompanying statue of Zeus) erected by Antiochus upon the altar of burnt offering being termed derisively by the Jews ‘the abomination that causeth appalment,’ the ‘abomination’ being the altar (and image?) of Zeus (Baal), and shômçm being a punning variation of shâmayim[385].

[384] ATW. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1881 ff.

[385] ‘Abomination of desolation’ (Greek versions of Dan., 1Ma 1:54) is not a possible rendering of the Heb. ‘Abomination that maketh desolate’ is possible; and, if correct, must imply that the heathen emblem standing in the court of the Temple was regarded as bringing with it the desertion and desolation of the sanctuary (cf. 1Ma 4:38; and see also above, on Daniel 8:13, and p. 151).

32. And such as do wickedly (Daniel 9:5, Daniel 12:10) against the covenant] the disloyal Jews.

shall he make profane (Jeremiah 23:11)] by abetting them in their designs, he will lead them from bad to worse. In Syr. the root here used acquired the special sense of gentile (e.g. Matthew 6:7; Matthew 18:17, Pesh.), apostate, and represents, for instance, Hellenic, Greek (2Ma 4:10; 2Ma 11:24, Pesh.); and possibly the word may have the definite sense of make apostates here (cf. R.V. pervert).

by flatteries] by specious representations, or promises, pointing out for example the advantages that would accrue to those who renounced their Judaism. Cf. the promises held out (1Ma 2:18) to Mattathias (‘thou and thy house shall be in the number of the king’s friends, and thou and thy sons shall be honoured with silver and gold and many gifts’). Mattathias turned a deaf ear to such inducements; but the prospect of Antiochus’ favour might easily influence men who were less staunch in their convictions.

but the people that do know their God shall shew strength] i.e. exhibit firmness, constancy (cf. Deuteronomy 12:23 ‘be strong, firm, not to eat the blood’; Joshua 1:7; 1 Chronicles 28:7), neither to yield to temptation nor to desert their religion for fear of the consequences. The decree of Antiochus led to numerous martyrdoms, many of the loyal Israelites submitting to death, even with torture, rather than renounce their faith. Cf. 1Ma 1:62 f. ‘And many in Israel were strong (i.e. firm: the Greek word used stands for חזק in 1 Samuel 30:6; Ezra 10:4, and elsewhere), and were fortified (like a strong city,—ὀχυρώθησαν) in themselves, not to eat unclean things (κοινά). And they chose to die, that they might not be defiled with the meats, nor profane the holy covenant; and they died.’

and do] they also will do, or act, in the pregnant sense of the word (cf. on Daniel 8:12), in their cause, not less than the ambitious heathen king (Daniel 8:12; Daniel 8:24, Daniel 11:28; Daniel 11:30) in his.

33. And they that be wise] as the same word is rendered in A.V. of Daniel 12:3; Daniel 12:10. The verb means properly to shew understanding and discernment, such as may lead a man to act judiciously and bring him success; hence it is sometimes rendered prosper, or have good success, &c. See examples of the word in Joshua 1:7-8, 1 Samuel 18:5, Psalm 2:10, Proverbs 10:5; Proverbs 10:19 ‘he that refraineth his lips sheweth understanding,’ i.e. ‘acts judiciously,’ Isaiah 52:13. Here it is used, as a term of approbation, to denote those who, in a time of severe trial, shewed wisdom, by choosing the right course, and strenuously refusing to give up their faith. The name given to the loyal party in the Maccabees is the Hasidaeans, i.e. ḥasîdîm, or ‘godly’: see 1Ma 2:42, ‘Then were gathered together unto them (i.e. unto Mattathias and his friends, who appear to have been the first to assume the aggressive against Antiochus’ decree) a company of Hasidaeans (συναγωγὴ Ασιδαίων), mighty men out of Israel, every one that offered himself willingly (= מִתְנַדֵּב, Jdg 5:2; 2 Chronicles 17:16; Nehemiah 11:2) for the law. And all they that fled from the evils were added to them, and became a stay unto them’; 1Ma 7:13; 2Ma 14:6.

shall cause the many to understand] The ‘wise’ (maskîlîm), the leaders of the patriotic party, will, by their influence and example, teach the masses, especially such as were halting between two opinions, to understand their duty.

yet they shall fall, &c.] alluding to the persecutions and martyrdoms in which many of the loyal Jews perished; see 1Ma 1:60; 1Ma 1:63; 1Ma 2:31-38; 2Ma 6:10-11; 2Ma 6:18-31 (the aged scribe Eleazar), 7 (the mother and her seven sons). ‘Fall,’ here and Daniel 11:34-35, is properly stumble (Daniel 11:14).

many days] viz. till an effectual stand was made by the Maccabees.

34. In the midst of their trials a ‘little help’ will arise, to assist them. The allusion is to the rising of the Maccabees. First of all, Mattathias, either alone or assisted only by his sons, resisted openly Antiochus’ demands, and slew one of the officers sent to enforce them (1Ma 2:15-28): then others gradually joined themselves to him, and carried the resistance further (ib. 1Ma 2:39-48): finally, after Mattathias’ death, his son Judas Maccabaeus carried on the struggle. His first victory was gained over Apollonius, who invaded Judah with a considerable army; and shortly afterwards, Seron, commander of the host of Syria, coming to avenge Apollonius’ defeat, was routed with the loss of 800 men, by Judas at the head of a ‘small company’ (Ἰούδας … ὀλιγοστός), 1Ma 3:10-24. After this, further successes were gained by Judas over Antiochus’ generals Lysias and Gorgias (ib. 1Ma 3:38 to 1Ma 4:35), the result of which was that, by the end of b.c. 165, the Jews recovered possession of Mount Zion, and the Temple was re-dedicated (ib. 1Ma 4:36-37). The occasion was celebrated by a festival, lasting eight days (1Ma 4:59), which was observed annually afterwards, and is referred to in John 10:22 (τὰ ἐγκαίνια).

but many shall join themselves (Isaiah 14:1; Isaiah 56:3) unto them with flatteries] or smooth sayings, i.e. plausible, but insincere, protestations of loyalty. In consequence of the severity shewn by Judas, and the leaders of the patriotic party, many joined them from mere terror, and were ready, if a favourable opportunity offered itself, to turn traitors. On the severity of Judas and the patriots towards the Hellenizing Jews, comp. allusions in 1Ma 2:44; 1Ma 3:5 a, 8, Daniel 6:21-27, Daniel 7:5-7; Daniel 7:24 (where Judas, it is said, ‘took vengeance on the men that had deserted from him’), Daniel 9:23.

35. And some of them that be wise (Daniel 11:33) shall fall, to refine among them (among the people at large), and to cleanse, and to make white] The martyrdom of some of the godly leaders in the struggle would have the effect of testing the faith of the people at large, and of confirming and perfecting the character of those who were loyal. Cf. Daniel 12:10.

to refine] the word means properly to smelt gold or silver ore (or alloy), so as to free the noble metal from impurities; it is then often used figuratively, sometimes of testing, sometimes of purifying, by severe discipline: cf. Isaiah 1:25, ‘and smelt away as with lye thy dross’; Jeremiah 6:29, ‘in vain the smelter smelteth, for the evil are not separated’; Daniel 9:6 ‘Behold, I will smelt them, and try them’; Zechariah 13:9.

1. Silver Tetradrachm. Head of Antiochus, with diadem (in other coins of this type a star is seen distinctly on the forehead: Babelon, Les Rois de Syrie, xii. 3, 4).

Reverse: Apollo, seated on omphalos, holding arrow and bow. Inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΕ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ (‘Of King Antiochus’).

2. Silver Drachm. Head of Antiochus, radiate.

Reverse: Eagle, with closed wings, standing on thunderbolt. Inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ (‘Of King Anthichus, God Manifest’).

3. Silver Tetradrachm. Head of Anthiochus, as Zeus, with laurels.

Reverse: Zeus, wearing himation over shoulder, seated on throne: holds Nike (Victory), who crowns Inscription; and rests on sceptre. Inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ (‘Of King Antiochus, God Manifest, Victory-bearer’).

4. Copper Pentechalcon. Head of Zeus-Serapis, wearing laurel-wreath, ending above in cap of Osiris.

Reverse: Eagle, with closed wings, standing on thunderbolt. Inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ (‘Of King Antiochus, God Manifest’). This coin was struck in Egypt, and illustrates Antiochus’ conquest of that country (cf. Babelon, p. c).

(From casts taken from coins in the British Museum. The descriptions from Gardner’s Coins of the Seleucid Kings of Syria, xi. 2, xii. 13, xi. 9, xii. 11.)

until the time of the end] the fall of the maskîlîm will continue till the final end of the present order of things (Daniel 8:17), which the author pictures as coinciding with the close of Antiochus’ reign (Daniel 11:40).

for (it is) yet for the time appointed] the end has not come yet; it has still to wait for the moment fixed in the counsels of God: cf. Daniel 11:27 end.

36. according to his will] as Daniel 8:4, Daniel 11:3 (of Alexander); Daniel 11:16 (of Antiochus the Great).

magnify himself] Isaiah 10:15. So Daniel 11:37.

above every god] Antiochus acquired a reputation for piety among the Greeks by his splendid presents to temples (cf. on Daniel 11:24); but by the manner in which he patronized, and selected for honour, particular deities (as Zeus Olympios, or Jupiter Capitolinus), he might be said, especially from an Israelitish point of view, to set himself above them all.

Antiochus, moreover, assumed divine honours. This is particularly evident, as Babelon has pointed out[386], on his coins. His best portraits appear to be those on the coins of his early years, which bear simply the inscription ‘King Antiochus.’ At a later period of his reign a star appears on his forehead, implying that he has assumed divine honours. Then in coins with the legend, ‘King Antiochus, God’ (or ‘God Manifest’ [Epiphanes]), the star disappears, but the portrait is idealized, the features approximating in type to those of Apollo. Other coins of the same type exhibit the head surrounded by a diadem with rays,—another mark of divine rank[387]. Lastly, on coins with the legend ‘King Antiochus, God Manifest, Victory-bearer,’ the head approximates even to that of Zeus Olympios, whose distinctive epithet Νικηφόρος (‘Victory-bearer’) the king himself assumes, see also the evidence collected from inscriptions by E. R. Bevan, Journ. of Hellenic Studies, 1900, pp. 26–30, respecting the worship of the Seleucidae in different cities of the East. See the accompanying Plate.

[386] In the instructive Introduction to Les Rois de Syrie (Catalogue of Coins in the National Library at Paris), 1891, p. xcii–iv.

[387] Babelon states that Antiochus Epiphanes is the first Seleucid king who is represented constantly on his coins with a crown of rays.

and against the God of gods (the God of Israel: cf. Daniel 2:47) he shall speak marvellous things] i.e. extraordinary impieties: cf. (also of Antiochus) Daniel 7:8 ‘a mouth speaking great things,’ 25 ‘shall speak words against the Most High.’

until indignation be accomplished] or, be finished, exhausted, i.e. until God’s wrath on Israel has worked itself out. The words are borrowed from Isaiah 10:25. For ‘accomplished,’ see also Ezekiel 5:13; Ezekiel 6:12; Ezekiel 7:8; Ezekiel 13:15; Ezekiel 20:8; Ezekiel 20:21.

for that that is determined shall be done] the Divine decree must take effect. The expression, as in Daniel 9:27 (where see the note), from Isaiah 10:23.

36–39. The presumptuousness and impiety of Antiochus. Many of the older expositors supposed that at this point there was a transition from Antiochus to the future Antichrist, and that Daniel 11:36-45 related exclusively to the latter; but whatever typical significance might be legitimately considered to attach to the character and career of Antiochus as a whole, it is contrary to all sound principles of exegesis to suppose that, in a continuous description, with no indication whatever of a change of subject, part should refer to one person, and part to another, and that ‘the king’ of Daniel 11:36, and ‘the king of the south’ of Daniel 11:45 should be a different king from the one whose doings are described in Daniel 11:21-35. The fact that traits in the N.T. figure of Antichrist are suggested (apparently) by the description in Daniel 11:36-39, does not authorize the inference that these verses themselves refer to Antichrist (cf. the Introd. p. xcvii).

37. And the gods of his fathers he will not regard] The honours paid by him to foreign deities implied a depreciation of the gods of his own country. He was particularly devoted to the cult of Jupiter Capitolinus, or Zeus Olympios. Even before he became king, while halting at Athens on his way home from Rome, he contributed largely to the restoration of the Olympieion in that city; afterwards, he built in Daphne, the suburb of Antioch, a temple to Zeus Olympios, with a colossal statue of the god, modelled on the famous one of Pheidias at Olympia, and began, though he did not live to complete it, a yet more magnificent temple to him in Antioch itself (Livy xli. 20). His coins also exhibit constantly (on the obverse) the head of either Zeus Olympios or Apollo; and, as was just remarked, in those belonging to the latter part of his reign the king himself bears the title Νικηφόρος,—an epithet belonging properly to Zeus.

and neither the desire of women, nor any god, will he regard] The ‘desire of women’ must, from the context, be the designation of some divinity—most probably (Ewald, Bevan) Tammuz, a celebrated Syrian and Phœnician deity, known to the Greeks as Adonis, whose rites were popular among women.

Adonis in the legend was a beautiful youth, the dearly loved spouse of Aphroditè, snatched from her by a cruel fate, and bitterly bewailed by her. The festival of Adonis consisted largely in an imitation of the mourning of Aphroditè, and hence was specially observed by women; cf. Ezekiel 8:14 (where the prophet sees in vision, in the precincts of the Temple, ‘the women weeping for Tammuz’); Jerome on Ez. l. c. ‘plangitur a mulieribus quasi mortuus, et postea reviviscens canitur atque laudatur[388]’; Aristoph. Lysistr. 389 ff.; and Theocritus’ Idyll (xv.) entitled Ἀδωνιάζουσαι, or ‘Women keeping festival to Adonis.’ According to Hippolytus, Refut. Hær. Daniel 11:9, the ‘Assyrians’ (? Syrians) called him the ‘thrice-desired (τριπόθητος) Adonis’: cf. Bion, in his Ἐπιτάφιος Ἀδώνιδος, ll. 24, 58.

[388] Cf. Milton, P. L. 1. 456 ff.:—

Tammuz came next behind,

Whose annual wound in Lebanon allured

The Syrian damsels to lament his fate

In amorous ditties all a summer’s day;

While smooth Adonis from his native rock

Ran purple to the sea—supposed with blood

Of Tammuz yearly wounded. The love-tale

Infected Zion’s daughters with like heat.

nor any god] While there were some gods whom Antiochus honoured by erecting to them costly temples, he was ready enough, if in need of funds, to rob other temples of their treasures. Polybius (xxxi. 4. 10) expressly says that he plundered very many temples (ἱεροσυλήκει δὲ καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ἱερῶν) in order to obtain money for his extravagances. He made an unsuccessful attempt to pillage a wealthy temple in Persia shortly before his death (ib. xxxi. 11; 1Ma 6:1-4 : see below).

38. But in his place he will honour the god of strongholds] it is not certain who is meant by the ‘god of strongholds’: possibly the reference is to some deity (? Mars) of whose worship by Antiochus we have no other notice; more probably, however, the name is simply an alternative designation of Jupiter Capitolinus.

and a god whom, &c.] No doubt, Zeus or Jupiter (cf. on Daniel 11:37). It is true, the first three Seleucidae, as their coins testify, recognized Zeus Olympios,—not, as Behrmann (misunderstanding a sentence of G. Hoffmann, Einige Phön. Inschr., p. 29) states, Zeus Polieus,—as their patron; but Zeus was not, of course, a native Syrian deity.

pleasant things] better, costly things: lit. things desired. Cf. on Daniel 11:8 (‘precious’ cannot be used here; as the word is needed for yěḳârâh, in ‘precious stones’).

39. And he will do to the fortresses of strongholds with (the help of) a foreign god] i.e. will conquer them by his aid. But the Heb. is strange; and the sense obtained connects badly with what follows. Hitz., Meinh., and Bevan, changing a point, render, ‘And he shall procure for the fortresses of strongholds the people of a strange god,’ supposing the reference to be to the heathen soldiers and colonists settled by Antiochus in the citadel in Jerusalem, and other parts, of Judah (1Ma 1:33; 1Ma 3:36; 1Ma 3:45). The rendering ‘procure’ for עשׂה is, however, not very probable here, 2 Samuel 15:1, 1 Kings 1:5, which are quoted in support of it, being hardly parallel. For foreign god (אלוהּ נכר), cf. Genesis 35:4, Jeremiah 5:19 (אלהי), Psalm 81:9 (אל).

strange] i.e. (from Lat. ‘extraneus’) foreign, as regularly in A.V.

he whom he recognizes, will increase glory] his favourites will be loaded by him with honours. ‘Recognize’ (הִכִּיר), as Ruth 2:10 (‘take knowledge of’); Jeremiah 24:5 (‘regard’).

shall cause them to rule over the many, and shall divide land for a price] he will give them posts as governors, and grant them estates—seized, probably, from their rightful owners—for a bribe. An allusion to Antiochus’ methods of government, and to the means by which he filled his empty treasuries; perhaps, also, in particular, to renegade Jews who had been thus rewarded for their apostasy. Jason, and after him Menelaus, both purchased the high-priesthood from Antiochus (2Ma 4:8-10; 2Ma 4:24); and Bacchides (ib. 2Ma 9:25) ‘chose out the ungodly men, and made them lords over the country.’ No doubt other similar instances were known to the author.

40. at the time of the end] The final close of Antiochus’ reign. The expression denotes a period later than that of the persecutions described in Daniel 11:35, which are to last ‘until the time of the end.’

the king of the south] would still be Ptolemy Philometor.

butt with him] or, more exactly, shew himself one that butts, i.e. open a combat with him: the figure, as Daniel 8:4.

and the king of the north, &c.] Antiochus will come against him like a whirlwind (for the figure, cf. Habakkuk 3:14), with a vast armament.

and with many ships] Antiochus possessed a navy, which in his expeditions against Egypt of b.c. 170–168, he used with good effect (cf. p. 180).

enter into the countries] those viz. in his line of march.

overflow, and pass through] like a flood (as Daniel 11:10).

40–45. The end of Antiochus. Antiochus, being attacked by the king of Egypt, will again conduct an expedition into Egypt, passing through Judah on the way; he will gain great successes, till interrupted by rumours from the East and North; and starting from Egypt on a fresh career of conquest and destruction will perish on the way between Jerusalem and the sea-coast. How far the events here described correspond to the reality is a very doubtful point. Our principal authorities mention no expedition into Egypt after the one of b.c. 168. What we know from other sources of the closing events of Antiochus’ life is as follows. In 167 b.c. he instituted at Daphne (near Antioch), in rivalry with those just celebrated by Aem. Paullus in Macedonia, a magnificent series of games, lasting 30 days. Soon after this, the Roman Senate, entertaining suspicions of his loyalty, sent Tiberius Gracchus to ascertain whether their suspicions were well-founded. Antiochus shewed himself quite master of the situation. He “received Tiberius so dexterously and amicably (οὔτως ἐπιδεξίως καὶ φιλοφρόνως) that the latter not only suspected no designs on his part, and could detect no trace of hostility on the score of what had happened at Alexandria, but even condemned those who made such allegations, on account of the extreme courtesy of his reception. For, besides other things, he gave up his palace, and almost even his crown, to the ambassadors, at least in appearance; for in reality, he was anything but prepared to make concessions to the Romans, and was, in fact, as hostile to them as possible” (Polyb. xxxi. 5). Although, however, Tiberius was satisfied of Antiochus’ sincerity, the suspicions of the Senate were not allayed: for reports reached it from other quarters that he was conspiring secretly with Eumenes of Pergamum against the Romans (Polyb. xxxi. 4–6, 9). In 166 he started on the expedition, in the course of which he met his death. Leaving Lysias to take charge of his provinces between Egypt and the Euphrates and to carry on the contest with Judas Maccabaeus, he crossed the Euphrates in this year for the East (1Ma 3:31-37),—according to Daniel 11:28-31, because he was in need of funds, and intended ‘to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money,’ according to the condensed statement in Tac. Hist. Daniel 11:8 to war against the Parthians[389]. It was probably on this expedition that he subjugated Artaxias, king of Armenia, who had revolted (Diod. Sic. xxxi. 17 a, App. Syr. 45). While in Elymais (E. of Babylonia) he attempted unsuccessfully to pillage a temple; and soon afterwards died, after a short illness, at Tabae in Persia (N. of Susa),—according to Polybius (xxxi. 11), ‘becoming mad (δαιμονήσας), as some say,’ in consequence of certain supernatural tokens of the anger of heaven on account of his attempted sacrilege, according to 1Ma 6:5-16 through disappointment and grief at hearing of the successes of the Jews against Lysias (in 2 Maccabees 9, the story of his death is told with legendary additions).

[389] ‘Rex Antiochus, demere superstitionem et mores Græcorum dare adnisus, quo minus teterrimam gentem in melius mutaret, Parthorum bello prohibitus est.’

Porphyry, however, as reported by Jerome in his notes on these verses, does speak of a fourth Egyptian expedition of Antiochus. He says that Antiochus invaded Egypt in his 11th year, passing through Judaea on the way, but not molesting Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites, lest the delay should give Ptolemy time to strengthen his forces; that while fighting in Egypt he was recalled by reports of wars in the North and East; that he accordingly returned, captured Arvad (in Phoenicia), and ravaged Phoenicia, and afterwards proceeded to the East against Artaxias, that, having defeated him, he fixed his tent at a place called Apedno, between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and finally that, after his attempted sacrilege in Persia, he died of grief at Tabae (as stated above). It is true, our accounts of Antiochus’ reign are incomplete, there being large gaps, especially in the parts of both Polybius and Livy which would naturally have contained particulars of his closing years. It is true also that, being, as Polybius tells us, unfriendly to the Romans, he might well have planned another campaign against their ally, Ptolemy[390]. But it is remarkable that no hint of any conquest (Daniel 11:43) of Egypt at this time has come down to us except through Jerome, the more so, since, as Prof. Bevan has remarked (p. 164), Egypt was now under Roman protection, so that an attack upon the country must at once have produced a war with Rome. The statement respecting the wealth of Antiochus in Daniel 11:43, also conflicts with what we know independently respecting his great financial difficulties at the time. And when the account given by Porphyry is examined more closely, it is seen (except in the particulars which we know already from other sources) to be strongly open to the suspicion of being derived from these verses of Daniel. Apart from the statements that it took place in his 11th year (which, as it must have been shortly before his death, was a date easy to fix), and that Arvad was captured by him, it contains nothing which could not have been inferred from the language of Daniel, and indeed is couched largely in the expressions used by Daniel. And the mention of Apedno as the place where he pitched his tent, is based obviously upon a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word found in Daniel 11:45. While, therefore, we are not in a position to deny categorically a fourth Egyptian campaign, the probabilities are certainly against it. Most likely the author draws here an imaginative picture of the end of the tyrant king, similar to the ideal one of the ruin of Sennacherib in Isaiah 10:28-32 : he depicts him as successful where he had previously failed, viz. in Egypt; while reaping the spoils of his victories, he is called away by rumours from a distance; and then, just after he has set out on a further career of conquest and plunder, as he is approaching with sinister purpose the Holy City, he meets his doom.

[390] In Daniel, however, it is to be noted, it is the Egyptian king with whom the attack begins.

41. the beauteous land] the land of Israel, as Daniel 11:16.

shall be overthrown] lit. shall stumble (Daniel 11:14; Daniel 11:19; Daniel 11:33; Daniel 11:35), i.e. be ruined: cf., for the expression, Isaiah 3:8 ‘Jerusalem hath stumbled’ (A.V., R.V., is ruined). The word for ‘many’ is fem.: hence ‘countries’ must be understood from Daniel 11:40, though it is, of course, their inhabitants who are really meant. Bevan, Behrmann, Marti, Kamph., and Prince (with the change of a point) read ‘tens of thousands shall be overthrown’ (cf. Daniel 11:12).

Some countries will, however, escape; in particular, three of Israel’s ancient foes, of whom at least Edom and the Ammonites shewed hostility against the Jews at this time (cf. 1Ma 4:61; 1Ma 5:1-8). Jason, the renegade high-priest, twice found an asylum with the Ammonites (2Ma 4:26; 2Ma 5:7).

escape] be delivered (R.V.). (Escape is needed for a different Heb. word in Daniel 11:42.)

the chief of, &c.] i.e. the principal part of them. Cf., for the word, Numbers 24:20; Jeremiah 49:35; Amos 6:1.

42. stretch forth his hand] viz. to seize them: see Exodus 22:8 (‘put orth his hand upon’), where the verb in the Heb. is the same.

shall not escape] i.e. shall have none to escape; lit. shall not become an escaping body (Genesis 32:8 [9 Heb.]).

43. have power] lit. rule. He will secure great treasure from Egypt: cf. (in 170 or 169) 1Ma 1:19.

and the Libyans and the Ethiopians (shall be) at his steps] i.e. will follow in his train. The Libyans, on the W. of Egypt, and the Kushites (or Ethiopians) on the South, are both mentioned either as helping the Egyptians, or as serving in their army, in Nahum 3:9, the Ethiopians also in Jeremiah 46:9 (cf. Ezekiel 30:4-5). Here they are represented as joining the army of the conqueror.

44. But tidings] or rumours, as the same word is rendered in 2 Kings 19:7 (= Isaiah 37:7), of the tidings which caused Sennacherib to withdraw. So Jeremiah 51:46; Ezekiel 7:26. Lit. something heard. Here, probably, rumours of insurrections, or wars, in the E. and N. of his dominions.

trouble] alarm. See on Daniel 4:5.

and he shall go forth] viz. out of Egypt.

to destroy and utterly to make away many] lit. ‘and to ban (or devote) many.’ The word, which means properly to set apart, seclude, is used primarily of the ban laid upon persons or objects hostile to Israel’s religion (Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 2:34; Deuteronomy 7:2; Deuteronomy 7:25-26; Joshua 6:17-19, &c.)[391]: as this involved generally their destruction, it is often rendered in A.V. utterly destroy (so also in R.V., when applied to persons), though, of course, this rendering expresses only a secondary idea. In the present late passage, however, as in 2 Chronicles 20:23, it is simply a synonym for destroy.

[391] See further the writer’s Commentary on 1 Samuel 15:33, or Deuteronomy 7:2.

45. plant] viz. as a tree: fig. for fix. A late usage: cf. Ecclesiastes 12:11; and see Levy, NHWB[392] iii. 380.

[392] HWB. M. Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, 1876–89.

the tents of his palace] the large and sumptuous tent, or collection of tents, which would form naturally the headquarters of an oriental king[393]. The word for ‘palace’ (appéden) occurs only here in the O.T.: it is a Persian word, denoting properly a large hall or throne-room (see on Daniel 8:1). From Persian it passed into Aramaic,—it is used in the Targ. of Jeremiah 43:10 of the ‘royal pavilion’ which Nebuchadnezzar was to erect in Egypt,—and occurs frequently in Syriac in the sense of ‘palace.’ The present passage shews that it passed similarly into late Hebrew.

[393] Polyaenus (Strateg. iv. iii. 24) describes the spacious and gorgeously decorated tent in which Alexander administered justice whilst in India.

between the seas and the beauteous holy mountain] between the Mediterranean Sea (for the poet. plur., see Jdg 5:17, Deuteronomy 33:19) and the hill of Zion; ‘holy mountain,’ as Psalm 2:6, and frequently; ‘beauteous’ as Daniel 11:16; Daniel 11:41.

and he shall come to his end] Antiochus died actually at Tabae in Persia. It is certainly not said here in so many words that he should meet his end at the spot on which his royal tent was to be pitched; but the connexion between the two parts of the verse naturally implies it: Antiochus is to meet his death in Palestine, the country in which he had committed his greatest crimes, and which he was even now threatening to invade and ravage again. Other prophets also represent the powers hostile to Israel as defeated in proximity to Jerusalem: cf. Ezekiel 39:4, Joel 3:2; Joel 3:12 f., Zechariah 14:2.