صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

invaded Syria. Ptolemy's garrisons had to withdraw; and Syria and Palestine remained for the greater part of the next 14 years in the hands of Antigonus, Ptolemy only recovering them for a few months after his victory at Gaza in 312. In the course of the following years a coalition was formed between Seleucus (the satrap of Babylonia), Lysimachus, Cassander, and Ptolemy, for the purpose of checking the advances of Antigonus; and in 302 Ptolemy took possession of Coele-Syria. In the next year (301) Antigonus met his antagonists at Ipsus (in Phrygia), where he was totally defeated and slain. As a result of the victory, Seleucus became master of Syria; but upon his proceeding to occupy Coele-Syria, Ptolemy remonstrated, averring that he had only joined the coalition on the understanding that Coele-Syria was to be his. Seleucus denied this, declaring that not only had he contributed to the victory far more than Ptolemy (who had not been present at the battle at all), but that after the battle it had been agreed by his colleagues, Lysimachus and Cassander, that he should have the whole of Syria. He consented, however, for the present to waive his claim? The dispute thus remained an open one; but, for the time, the rights of possession remained with Ptolemy.

These repeated occupations of Palestine by foreign armies seem to have been not unaccompanied by hardships for the Jews. On one occasion Ptolemy captured Jerusalem by a sudden attack on the Sabbath, because the Jews refused to fight on that day: he also transported numbers, either as slaves or as compulsory settlers, to Egypt, where, however, recognizing their honesty and fidelity, he employed many in his garrisons, giving them equal rights with the Macedonians in Egypt: after the battle of Gaza, also, many Jews migrated to Egypt voluntarily, attracted partly by the advantages which the country offered them, partly by the kindliness shewn towards them by Ptolemy2. These settlements of Jews in Egypt (which, as we have seen, appear to have begun under Alexander) were the nucleus of

See Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 66 (an extract from Diod. xxi. 5), p. 254 f. (from Polyb. v. 67).

Jos. Ant. xii. i.; c. Ap. i. 22, ii. 4; cf. Mahaffy, pp. 85-90.



what ultimately became an extensive and important Jewish colony

The successors of Ptolemy Lagi were Ptolemy Philadelphus (285—247) and Ptolemy Euergetes I (247—222). Ptolemy Euergetes I, an active, enterprising ruler, in revenge for his sister Berenice's murder (see on xi. 6), began his reign with a war against Syria, attacking it, however, from the sea, and not by land. Among his successes (cf. Dan. xi. 7, 8), he took in 246 Seleukeia, the port of Antioch, which remained in the possession of Egypt for some 26 years. Under both these Ptolemies CoeleSyria and Palestine appear to have continued provinces of Egypt?. The same two rulers were also favourably disposed towards the Jews : Philadelphus figured in Jewish traditionrightly or wrongly—as the royal patron, at whose instance the Law was translated into Greek; and Euergetes, after a successful campaign in Syria, was reported to have offered sacrifices of thanksgiving in the Temple at Jerusalem.

Under Ptolemy (IV) Philopator (222—205), the prosperity of Egypt began to decline. Philopator, who was aged only 24 at his accession, was a dissolute and indolent king, who thought solely of his own pleasures, and was the prey of intriguing courtiers. His great rival was Antiochus (III), the Great (223—187), who almost as soon as he came to the throne, began taking steps to secure Coele-Syria and Palestine (cf. Dan. xi. 10). First, he recovered Seleukeia, which since 246 had been held by an Egyptian garrison. Next Theodotus, the Aetolian, governor of Coele-Syria, despising Ptolemy Philopator for his vices, and mistrusting his court,' betrayed CoeleSyria and Phoenicia to Antiochus (219). An army sent by

1 Cf. Schürera, ii. 499 ff. (8 31); more fully ed. 3, iii. 19

ff. ? For Philadelphus cf. the lines of Theocritus (xviii. 86 f.).

Ναι μην Φοινίκας αποτέμνεται 'Αραβίας τε,

Και Συρίας Λιβύας τε κελαινών τ' Αιθιοπίων. Cf. Mahaffy, p. 130 f.

8 Ewald, Hist. v. 283 ff.; Jos. C. Ap. ii. 4. 5. Philo, in a passage (Vit. Mos. 8 5) quoted by Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 146, passes à warm encomium on Ptolemy Philadelphus.

Ptolemy in 218 for their recovery was defeated by Antiochus near Lebanon. Antiochus now occupied Palestine; but advancing with a large army to meet Ptolemy, was defeated by him with great loss at Raphia, on the border of Egypt, and obliged to retire to Antioch (217; cf. Dan. xi. 11–12). Philopator, in consequence, recovered Coele-Syria and Palestine; and Antiochus, being engaged in wars elsewhere, made no attempt for the time to retrieve his disaster. In 205, however, Philopator died, leaving the throne to his son Ptolemy Epiphanes (205—182), a child four or five years old. Antiochus now formed a league with Philip, king of Macedonia, for the partition of the dominions of Egypt between them (Dan. xi. 13 -14). In 202 he occupied Coele-Syria and Palestine, and took possession of Jerusalem. An Egyptian army was sent under Scopas, an Aetolian condottiere, to recover these provinces; but though successful at first he was in 198 defeated at Paneion (Bâniâs), near the sources of the Jordan, and afterwards, when he had withdrawn to Sidon, obliged to surrender (Dan. xi. 15, 16). From this time onwards, until the Romans interfered, Palestine remained in the undisturbed possession of the kings of Syria. The sufferings of the Jews during these years were considerable: as Josephus says (Ant. XII. iii. 3), whichever side prevailed for the time, their country was burdened by the presence in it of an invading army; and many in addition were either carried off as slaves, or took refuge in flight. In the end, however, the Jews gave their support to Antiochus, welcomed his troops into Jerusalem, and assisted in the ejection of the Egyptian garrison which had been left in the citadel by Scopas. In return for this support, Antiochus, in a letter written to his general Ptolemy, directed many privileges to be granted to them: contributions were to be made, on a liberal scale, towards defraying the expenses both of the regular sacrifices, and of the repair of the Temple, till the country should have recovered its losses (cf. on Dan. xi. 14).

In 193 Antiochus gave the taxes of Coele-Syria and Palestine as a dowry to his daughter, Cleopatra, on her marriage to Ptolemy Epiphanes (Dan. xi. 17). This grant of Antiochus

became before long the occasion of serious disputes between Egypt and Syria, but it made no difference in the position of the two subject provinces: they continued to be held by Syria. Three years afterwards, in 190, Antiochus was utterly defeated at Magnesia by the Romans (Dan. xi. 18): humiliating conditions of peace were imposed; and Antiochus was bound to pay for 12 years an annual fine of 1000 talents, his son Antiochus and other hostages being sent to Rome as security for his observance of the terms of the treaty. In 187 Antiochus was succeeded by his son Seleucus (IV) Philopator (187—175). The reign of this prince was uneventful; the only incident in it which need be here mentioned is the attempt made by him to replenish his empty treasuries by sending his chief minister, Heliodorus, on an abortive mission to pillage the Temple (see on Dan. xi. 20).

Seleucus Philopator was murdered in 175 in consequence of a conspiracy headed by Heliodorus, who aspired to the throne. Heliodorus did not, however, attain his ambition: Antiochus, the brother of Seleucus, after having been for 14 years a hostage in Rome, had just been exchanged for Seleucus' son, Demetrius, and was at Athens on his way home when he heard of his brother's fate: hastening back at once to Antioch, he succeeded, with the help of Eumenes, King of Pergamum, and his brother Attalus, in expelling Heliodorus and securing the throne for himself (cf. Dan. xi. 21, and p. 207 f.).

Antiochus, who afterwards assumed the title Epiphanes', is, in the later chapters of the Book of Daniel, the principal figure. He was a strange character,-a man of ability, though with a taint of folly and madness in his veins. On the one hand he was ambitious, arbitrary, and determined. He laid deep designs, and had a remarkable power of concealing them. During the years spent by him as hostage at Rome, he was well received?, and

1 This title does not mean 'illustrious,' but 'manifest '; and implies that the bearer of it claimed to be a visible god. There was a Ptolemy 'Epiphanes' in Egypt (205–182 B.C.), who was also called Beds étibavns (Mahaffy, pp. 290, 315, 316, 317, &c.). ee below (p. 193) the titles of Antiochus, as borne by him on his coins.

2 Cf. p. 177, note.

[ocr errors]

moved in the best circles of Roman society; the consequence was that he contracted a taste for Western habits and ideas, and also for Western luxuries. He was munificent, and even lavish: he shewed, in Livy's words, a truly “regal mind' in the gifts made by him to Greek cities and temples?: he also greatly improved his capital, Antioch: he added a new quarter to it; he adorned it with numerous copies of the principal masterpieces of Greek sculpture: he erected magnificent temples both in Antioch, and in its suburb Daphne; and even introduced gladiatorial shows (Livy xli. 20). But he courted popularity to an excessive degree. Polybius, in a well-known passage?, describes how, putting off his royal robes, he would wander alone through the streets of Antioch, now discussing questions of art in the goldsmiths' shops, now offering himself as a candidate for some public office, and entreating people to vote for him, while at other times, again, he might be seen making unexpected presents to utter strangers, startling a party of boon companions by rushing in upon them with a band of music, or bathing with the townspeople in the public bath. His behaviour was at times so undignified and extraordinary that men doubted even whether he was altogether sane, and instead of 'Epiphanes' he was called 'Epimanes’ (Madcap). To the Jews, on account of the determined effort made by him to denationalize them and heathenize their religion, he appeared simply as a persecuting tyrant and monster of iniquity; and though other features of his character are alluded to (Dan. viii. 23; xi. 21—30 a, 39), it is this aspect of it which is chiefly delineated in the Book of Daniel (vii. 8, 21, 25; viii. 9-12, 23—25; ix. 26, 27; xi. 28, 30 6-38; xii. 76, 11).

The principal public events in Antiochus's reign referred to in Daniel are (1) his expeditions against Egypt; and (2) his treatment of the Jews. The former may be dealt with briefly here: fuller particulars will be found in the note on xi. 21.


1 Cf. p. 183, note.

XXVI. x. 3 ff. (preserved in Athen. v. 21, p. 193 f.); cf. Athen. X. 52, Diod. xxix. 32. It is translated in Montefiore's Bible for Home Reading, ii. 660 f.

« السابقةمتابعة »