Daniel 11:40-45

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.

Pois, além de outras coisas, ele entregou seu palácio, e quase até mesmo sua coroa, aos embaixadores, pelo menos na aparência; porque, na realidade, ele estava tudo menos preparado para fazer concessões aos romanos, e era, de fato, o mais hostil possível a eles" (Polyb. xxxi. 5). Embora, no entanto, Tibério estivesse satisfeito com a sinceridade de Antíoco, as suspeitas do Senado não foram apaziguadas: pois chegaram relatos de outros quadrantes de que ele estava conspirando secretamente com Eumenes de Pérgamo contra os romanos (Polibe.

xxxi. 4 6, 9). Em 166 ele começou a expedição, no decorrer da qual ele encontrou sua morte. Deixando Lísias para assumir o comando de suas províncias entre o Egito e o Eufrates e continuar a disputa com Judas Macabeu, ele atravessou o Eufrates neste ano para o Oriente (1Ma 3:31-37), de acordo comDaniel 11:28, porque ele estava precisando de fundos, e pretendia - tomar os tributos dos países, e reunir muito dinheiro, " de acordo com a declaração condensada no 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 Isaías 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.