Daniel 11:27

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 (esp. in Daniel 11:27) would be more pointed and significant, if they could be supposed to allude to events in the secondEgyptian 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 returnedto 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 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.