The historical excursus at Daniel 11:2-45 is a key element of the Hebrew Daniel. The original core of the biblical Book of Daniel is the Aramaic material at Daniel 2:4b-7:28. It consists of five court tales and one symbolic vision. Its composition dates to sometime in the Achaemenid period. At a later time, some author (or authors) prefixed a Hebrew-language court tale to this core (Dan 1:1-2a), and appended three Hebrew-language vision-memoirs (Dan 8:1-12:13). The original core is the Aramaic Daniel, and these two additions are the Hebrew Daniel. The chief element of the Hebrew Daniel is the symbolic vision of the ram, the goat, and the goat’s horns at Daniel 8:1-12. The remainder of the Hebrew visions is a commentary on this symbolic prophecy, and the excursus at Daniel 11:2-45 is a critical part of this commentary. Its content parallels the symbolic vision, and it elaborates on its principal elements. This elaboration identifies the Roman emperor as the central figure of the symbolic vision, and its central theme as the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in AM 3830 = 69/70 CE. This fact is remarkable, since radiocarbon dating of the Daniel manuscript 4Q114 (4QDanc) firmly sets the composition of the excursus no later than the early second century BCE.[1] The excursus verifiably predicted events that occurred no less than a century after its composition.

Several features set the excursus apart from the rest of the Hebrew Daniel. The most obvious are its relative detail and clarity. Though much of the Hebrew Daniel addresses actual history, outside the excursus this history consists of broad outlines cloaked in the fictional matrix it shares with the Aramaic Daniel. The excursus, in contrast, is a non-fictional account of specific historical events, and, despite its sometimes-cryptic language, most of these events are recognizable to masters of the relevant history. This view has stood the test of centuries: To contest it only demonstrates ignorance. A literary device marks the bounds of this exceptional clarity, and a blatant, sarcastic remark signals its beginning. That literary device is the resumptive repetition of Daniel 11:1 at Daniel 12:1. Both verses concern an angelic being standing to defend a person or persons. The first angel is the “man dressed in linen,” who stands for “Darius the Mede” in this figure’s first year (Dan 11:1). The second is the archangel Michael, who stands up for the Jewish people after the destruction of the temple (Dan 12:1). The text within these bounds is nonfictional history, and to signal this shift its authors open it with a sarcastic remark: “but now I will tell you the truth” (Heb.: ועתה אמת אגיד לך, Dan 11:2).

The excursus elaborates on the core Hebrew vision at Daniel 8:1-12, and its key element, a final goat horn that destroys the Second Temple. The vision opens with a thrusting ram that dominates the animals around it (Dan 8:2-4). As it does so, a goat with a single, prominent horn appears from the sunset in the west, and tramples the ram (Dan 8:5-7). The goat’s prominent horn then shatters, but four new horns rise to the “four winds of heaven” to replace it (Dan 8:8-9). Another horn then emerges from the first of these four, and it replaces them (Dan 8:9).[2] This horn topples the High Priest, ends the regular burnt offering, and destroys the temple (Dan 8:10-12). The initial commentary on this vision identifies the ram with ancient Iran. It identifies the goat with the ancient West, which it calls “the kingdom of Ionia.” This name references the birthplace of Western thought and the location of the Ionian Revolt. This revolt was the first war in the millennium-long conflict between ancient Iran and the ancient West, a notable theme in the Hebrew Daniel. The goat’s first horn plainly signifies Alexander, and the trampling of the ram his conquest of the Achaemenid Empire. The four horns that replace this first horn signify four Hellenistic successor kingdoms, and the horn that follows them signifies another Western kingdom that destroys the Second Temple. Though the identity of the first horn as Alexander is evident to any student of history, the identities of these four horns and the final horn that replaces them is not. Scholars disagree on their identities, and most interpretations suffer from troubling flaws that become obvious with an awareness of the correct solution.

The main purpose of the excursus is to clarify these identities. The excursus begins with clear parallels to the symbolic vision at Daniel 8:1-12. Like that vision, it opens during the Achaemenid period, and it quickly transitions to the conquests of Alexander and the collapse of his empire (Dan 8:1-8; 11:2-4). It also mentions, like the symbolic vision, four successors to Alexander at the four cardinal directions, but unlike that core vision it identifies two of these successors (Dan 8:8; 11:4). The first is “the king of the south” (Heb.: מלך הנגב), and the second is the “king of the north” (Heb.: מלך הצפון). The excursus identifies the first “king” with Egypt, so this “king of the south” must refer to the kings of Ptolemid Egypt (Dan 11:8,42,43). This alignment is historically correct: Ptolemid Egypt was the first Hellenistic successor kingdom. Ptolemy I Soter established the de facto independence of his Egyptian satrapy in the First War of the Diadochi, only years after the death of Alexander. From these conclusions, the Seleucid identity of the “king of the north” readily follows. The immediate clues to this Seleucid identity are its origin with a Ptolemid commander, and the great size of its initial empire (Dan 11:5). This commander is Seleucus I Nicator, who served Ptolemy for a time as both an admiral and a general. In time Seleucus nonetheless conquered an empire much larger than Egypt, one that extended from Thrace to Bactria. The “king of the north” therefore refers to the kings of the Seleucid Empire.

Further analysis confirms these identities beyond any reasonable doubt. The names themselves make geographic sense from the perspective of Jerusalem. Egypt is roughly to its south, and the core Seleucid territory of Syria is to its north. The brief accounts of war throughout the excursus also align with key conflicts in the histories of the two kingdoms. Daniel 11:6-12 aligns with the Third and Fourth Syrian Wars. Daniel 11:25-28 aligns with the first Seleucid campaign of the Sixth Syrian War. Daniel 11:29-32 aligns with the second campaign, the Seleucid desecration of the Second Temple, and the subsequent Hasmonean Revolt. No serious analysis can contest these readings. From these alignments it is also evident that Daniel 11:13-17 and Daniel 11:18-24 also concern relevant historical events. Despite the notable divergence from its prevailing reconstruction, Daniel 11:13-17 is plainly an account of the Fifth Syrian War. Daniel 11:18-24 likewise describes the Roman-Seleucid War, and the coup of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

The great problem of the excursus is (and has long been) the meaning of its final two passages at Daniel 11:36-45. Traditional views tie these passages to either Antiochus IV or some future Antichrist, but neither view is compelling. The description of the king in these passages does not align with Antiochus IV, the account of whom ends at Daniel 11:32. Likewise, an appeal to future events ignores an obvious fact. This excursus concerns the decline and conquest of Hellenistic Egypt, and any other view commits the fallacy of multiple comparisons. Whether it is accurate or not, the conquest of Egypt at Daniel 11:40-42 must concern the conquest of the Ptolemid state, and it does. The campaign described at Daniel 11:40 matches the Battle of Actium, specifically with its reference to the “many ships” involved in this great naval battle (Heb.: אניות רבות). Likewise, the campaign at Daniel 11:41 matches the subsequent march of Octavian through the Roman east, and his decision not to annex Arab Nabatea.[3] The only detail that challenges this conclusion is the apparent application of the title מלך הצפון to Octavian. The Masoretes pointed this title as melek hǎṣṣāp̄ôn or “the king of the north.” Elsewhere in the excursus, this title refers to the Seleucid kings, and the Roman Octavian was definitively not a Seleucid. The solution to this problem is trivial: The traditional pointing of this title is incorrect. An alternative reading of the consonants is melek hǎṣṣāp̄ûn or “the king of the treasure.” This reading is plausible for at least two reasons. First, the wealth of Egypt was essential to the rise of Octavian as the first Roman emperor (Dan 11:43). Second, it makes sense as a sarcastic play on the title “king of the north.” Octavian, as “the king of the treasure,” successfully conquered the riches of Egypt, something the “king of the north” twice failed to achieve.

The sheer logic of this exegesis is compelling. It aligns Daniel 11:36-39 with Octavian’s hatred of Caesarion, his general distaste for Egyptian religion, his reformation of the Egyptian economy, and the role of Zeus Eleutherios in the imperial cult of Egypt. It ties the epilogue at Daniel 11:43-45 with the historical destruction of the Second Temple, completing the alignment between the excursus and the symbolic vision at Daniel 8:1-12. To this vision it adds substantial meaning and detail, identifying its final horn-king as the Roman emperor. It also makes sense of the excursus as a strict discourse on the decline and conquest of Ptolemid Egypt. The excursus focuses on the four “kings” most relevant to this topic: Ptolemy III, Antiochus III, Antiochus IV, and Octavian. Ptolemid Egypt reached its zenith under Ptolemy III, it lost Coele-Syria to Antiochus III, it almost fell entirely to Antiochus IV, and it was at last conquered by Octavian. The focus on these four men is evident in the chiastic structure of the excursus shown here:

11:2‑5	[A]	Prologue
11:6‑9	[B]	Ptolemy III and Ptolemid Egypt Ascendant
11:10‑12	[C1]	Antiochus III: Failure in the Fourth Syrian War
11:13‑17	[C2]	Antiochus III: Success in the Fifth Syrian War
11:18‑24	[X]	Transition
11:25‑28	[C2]	Antiochus IV: Success in the First Invasion of Egypt
11:29‑35	[C1]	Antiochus IV: Failure in the Second Invasion of Egypt
11:36‑43	[B]	Augustus and Ptolemid Egypt Conquered
11:44‑45	[A]	Epilogue

The purpose of this focus is clear: It identifies the final horn-king in the symbolic vision as Octavian, while excluding the potential alternatives of Antiochus III and Antiochus IV.

The excursus is also a valuable historical source in its own right. From it we may conclude that Antiochus III retained control of inland Coele-Syria after the Fourth Syrian War, and that the Fifth Syrian War began with rebellions in Ptolemid Coele-Syria, rather than a Seleucid campaign. The campaign of Scopas was a response to these rebellions, but it soon expanded to the reconquest of Seleucid Coele-Syria. This led to his desolation of Jerusalem, and the subsequent Seleucid response that turned the war at the decisive Battle of Paneion. The remainder of this one Seleucid campaign then concluded with a siege of Gaza, which fell to Antiochus, completing the Seleucid conquest of Coele-Syria. The excursus also offers significant insights into the death of Seleucus IV Philopator and the rise of Antiochus IV. Evidently, the death of Seleucus was nonviolent (contrary to the account of Appian), and the subsequent coup that installed Antiochus IV was not. The excursus indicates that Antiochus, assisted by the Pergamene kings Eumenes II Soter and Attalus II Philadelphus, defeated a Seleucid army to take the throne beside his nephew, Antiochus the son of Seleucus IV. The description of this coup is also significant because it fails to describe the Attalid kings of Pergamon as the “kings of the west.” This excludes Attalid Pergamon from the four successor kingdoms, which necessarily leaves Antigonid Macedonia and Greek Bactria as the only plausible candidates for the remaining two Hellenistic successor kingdoms. The excursus also supports the thesis that the First Jewish-Roman War was in effect the final phase of the Roman-Parthian War of 58-63, whereby Rome firmly detached Judea from the substantial Jewish presence in the Parthian Empire.

The evident success of this entire exegesis is astounding, because the excursus clearly predates the War of Actium and the destruction of the Second Temple. The oldest extant fragments of the excursus and its narrative preface at Daniel 10:1-11:1 date no later than the second century BCE. These fragments are the remains of the scroll 4Q114 (4QDanc) discovered at Qumran. As of June 2025 a cross-disciplinary research team has radiodated these fragments to 2168 BP with a standard deviation of 15 years.[4] This measurement firmly plants the composition of the excursus no later than the early second century BCE. It corresponds to a two-sigma calendar date range of 355–285 BCE and 230–160 BCE, which means there is a 98.5% chance that 4Q114 dates to no later than 160 BCE. The same measurement also implies that there is less than a 1 in 1021 chance that it dates to 32 BCE or later, and less than a 1 in 1049 chance that it dates to 70 CE or later. In short, the excursus described then-future events at the time of its composition beyond any serious doubt. The fact that another vision in the Hebrew Daniel places the destruction of the Second Temple in the very year it occurred (AM 3830 = 69/70 CE) only underlines this profound fact (Dan 9:24-27).

Apparatus and Organization

This commentary is organized according to the inherent chiastic structure of the excursus. This organization results in nine sections as follows:

11:2‑5	[A]	Prologue
11:6‑9	[B]	Ptolemy III and Ptolemid Egypt Ascendant
11:10‑12	[C1]	Antiochus III: Failure in the Fourth Syrian War
11:13‑17	[C2]	Antiochus III: Success in the Fifth Syrian War
11:18‑24	[X]	Transition
11:25‑28	[C2]	Antiochus IV: Success in the First Invasion of Egypt
11:29‑35	[C1]	Antiochus IV: Failure in the Second Invasion of Egypt
11:36‑43	[B]	Augustus and Ptolemid Egypt Conquered
11:44‑45	[A]	Epilogue

Each of these sections consists of a brief summary, a text section, and an exegesis section.

Each text section has a Hebrew text, an annotated English translation, and translation notes. The Hebrew text is unpointed and without cantillation. Any Qre that alter the consonantal text are shown in square brackets after the relevant Ketib as in: [וישם [וישב. The source of both the Hebrew text and the Qre-Ketib is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Throughout this commentary “Qre” is abbreviated as “Q” and “Ketib” as “K.” The annotated English translation after the Hebrew text is original, and it appears in 11-point, bold font. This font size and style distinguish it from exegetical annotations, which appear in 11-point, plain font between square brackets as in: [Antiochus II Theos]. The translation notes that follow are organized and labeled according to the relevant verse number. Thus, the following notes all apply to different elements of verse 18:

(1) The Q וישם (“and he will fix”) is an unneeded emendation to the style of the text.

(2) The word בלתי is an unusual usage of a rare poetic negative (Joüon §160m).

(3) The juxtaposition of the clauses “But a military commander will end his contempt for him” (Heb.: והשבית קצין חרְפתו לו) and “he will not repay his contempt for him” (Heb.: בלתי חרפתו ישיב לו) likely implies a comparison, expressed here with “just as” (Joüon §174h)

Not all verses have translation notes. The reference grammar for this translation is Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. As shown above, citations of this work are made by section number and subsection letter as in: (Joüon §160m). Such references do not refer to a comment on the specific text in question, but to the general grammatical phenomenon cited. The reference work for textual criticism is the revised and enlarged third edition of Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Citations to this work are made by page number as in: (Tov, 234). As with citations to Joüon and Muraoka, these citations concern the relevant textual phenomenon, not the specific issue at hand. Nowhere does this translation select the Septuagint over the Masoretic Text

Each exegesis section has a similar organization to the translation notes, but the focus of these notes is on the historical meaning of the text, rather than its translation. These notes elaborate on the text with references to various primary and secondary sources, as well as hyperlinks to various web resources, including Wikipedia articles. The reference lexica for both the translation and the exegetical notes are the same. For Hebrew, they are Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), and Francis Brown, et al., Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB). For Greek, the reference lexicon is Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). Actual citations of these lexica are omitted, since the words themselves are sufficient to locate the relevant article.

The citation style of this commentary attempts to maximize clarity without sacrificing utility. The style is based on the recommended formats of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), with notable changes. Most of the history relevant to this commentary is general knowledge that does not require citation. Relevant primary sources are nonetheless cited throughout the commentary as a useful aid to research. Citations of secondary sources are generally limited to the exegesis of Daniel 11:36-45, because of its substantial divergence from traditional views. The exceptions to the general knowledge rule are the details about the Fifth Syrian War and the coup of Antiochus IV for which the excursus itself is the primary historical source. On these points, this commentary challenges alternative views on the basis of the excursus. No citation is therefore possible. To avoid repetition of the information in the bibliography, citations of secondary sources are given in shortened format. Where a specific Hebrew or Greek word is relevant to the exegesis, the notes indicate them like so: “the kingdom of Ionia” (Heb.: את מלכות יון) and “Romans” (Gk.: Ῥωμαῖοι). Wherever the Greek of the Septuagint is cited, the text is from Henry Barclay Swete, The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint. Wherever the Greek of Theodotion is cited, the text is from Henry Barclay Swete, The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Alternative Texts). Abbreviations, including for ancient authors and their works, are shown below in a separate subsection. All secondary sources and reference works are shown below in a bibliography. Though this bibliography includes as references the commentaries of John Collins and John Goldingay, it nonetheless challenges their respective interpretations of the excursus at critical points. Discussion of these differences is omitted for clarity.

The hyperlinks to web resources aim to enhance the accessibility of this work, and their use does not attest to either their accuracy or reliability. Wikipedia is not a scholarly reference, and its content is open to constant change. Readers interested in further study of the history behind the excursus should look to the scholarly works cited in the bibliography below in addition to any cited in the linked web resources. Though many of these sites are not academic, most of them have a scholarly character, particularly Livius.org by the Dutch historian Jona Lendering. Attalus.org is also a well-organized, minimalist, and professional site that eases access to numerous primary sources available on the Internet.

Notes

[1]	Mladen Popović, Maruf A. Dhali, Lambert Schomaker, Johannes van der Plicht, Kaare Lund Rasmussen, Jacopo La Nasa, Ilaria Degano, Maria Perla Colombini, Eibert Tigchelaar, “S2 Radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Appendix for the article: Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis,” PLoS One 20 (2025): 5, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323185.s002.
[2]	The common mistranslation of ומן האחת מהם as “and from one of them” rather than as “and from the first of them” obscures this fact.
[3]	The recognition of the War of Actium in these verses is not novel. It dates no later than 1838, when the Scottish minister James Farquharson published A New Illustration of the Latter Part of Daniel’s Last Vision and Prophecy. Despite this fact, the exegesis presented here in no way depends on Farquharson's work, and this author does not recommend this work as an authoritative source.
[4]	See note 1.

Abbreviations

Ancient Authors

Appian, Syr.	Appian of Alexandria	The Syrian Wars
Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist.	Diodorus Siculus	Bibliotheca historica
Josephus, Ant.	Flavius Josephus	Antiquities of the Jews
Josephus, J.W.	Flavius Josephus	Jewish War
Livy, Ab urbe cond.	Titus Livius	Ab Urbe Condita
Philo, Legat.	Philo of Alexandria	Legatio ad Gaium
Polybius, Hist.	Polybius of Megalopolis	Histories

Bible Translations

LXX	Septuagint
NRSV	New Revised Standard Version

Textual Surveys and Museum Catalogs

AET	Ancient Egyptian Texts (Attalus.org)
BM	British Museum
IG II3,1	Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 3rd edn. Berlin 2012-. Part I
OGIS	Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae
SEG	Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
THI	Translations of Hellenistic Inscriptions (Attalus.org)

Journals and References

BDAG	A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
BDB	Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
HALOT	Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
JEA	Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

Capponi, Livia. Augustan Egypt: the Creation of a Roman Province, Studies in Classics. London: Routledge, 2005.

Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermenia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Dundas, Gregory S. “Augustus and the Kingship of Egypt,” Historia 51 (2002): 433-448..

Elliger, Karl and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997.

Green, Peter. From Alexander to Actium: the Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age, Hellenistic Culture and Society I. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

Grainger, John D. The Syrian Wars, Mnemosyne Supplements 320. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Goldingay, John E. Daniel, World Biblical Commentary 30. Rev. Ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019.

Jackson, Robert B. At Empire’s Edge: Exploring Rome’s Egyptian Frontier. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Josephus, Flavius and William Whiston. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.

Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006.

Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. M. E. J. Richardson. Revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm. Leiden: Brill, 1994-2000.

Mason, Steve. A History of the Jewish War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Popović, Mladen, Maruf A. Dhali, Lambert Schomaker, Johannes van der Plicht, Kaare Lund Rasmussen, Jacopo La Nasa, Ilaria Degano, Maria Perla Colombini, Eibert Tigchelaar. “S2 Radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Appendix for the article: Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis.” PLoS One 20 (2025): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323185.

Pfeiffer, Stefan. “The Imperial Cult in Egypt.” Pages 83-100 in The Oxford handbook of Roman Egypt. Edited by Christina Riggs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571451.001.0001

———. “A Successful Ruler and Imperial Cult.” Pages 429-438 in A Companion to Greco-Roman and Late Antique Egypt: Traditional Religious Life Challenged. Edited by Katelijn Vandorpe. First published March 21, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118428429.ch27.

Skeat, T. C. “Notes on Ptolemaic Chronology: II. ‘The Twelfth Year Which Is Also the First’: The Invasion of Egypt by Antiochus Epiphanes.” JEA 47 (1961): 107-112.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909.

———. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Alternate Texts). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909.

Tov, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed., rev. and enl. Minneapolis, MN : Fortress, 2012.

Ulrich, Eugene. “114. 4QDanc.” Pages 269-277 in Discoveries in the Judean Desert XVI: Qumran Cave 4 XI Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by Emmanuel Tov. Vol. 16 of Discoveries in the Judean Desert. Edited by Emmanuel Tov. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.

Commentary

[A] (2-5) Prologue: From Artaxerxes II to Ptolemy I

Summary

This prologue transitions the excursus from the concealed time of the vision, the third year of Artaxerxes II (402/1 BCE), to the rise of Ptolemid Egypt under Ptolemy I Soter, and its chief antagonist, the Seleucid Empire under Seleucus I Nicator.

Text

2 ועתה אמת אגיד לך הנה עוד שלשה מלכים עמדים לפרס והרביעי יעשיר עשר גדול מכל וכחזקתו בעשרו יעיר הכל את מלכות יון 3 ועמד מלך גבור ומשל ממשל רב ועשה כרצונו 4 וכעמדו תשבר מלכותו ותחץ לארבע רוחות השמים ולא לאחריתו ולא כמשלו אשר משל כי תנתש מלכותו ולאחרים מלבד אלה 5 ויחזק מלך הנגב ומן שריו ויחזק עליו ומשל ממשל רב ממשלתו

2 But now I will tell you the truth: behold, three more kings will stand in Persia [Artaxerxes III, Arses, and Darius III], and the fourth [Darius III] will be far richer than them all. But when he is strong on account of his wealth, the sum will arouse the kingdom of Ionia [the classical West]. 3 So a mighty king will stand [Alexander], and he will rule with a great dominion, and he will do as he pleases. 4 But when he stops, his kingdom will be broken, and it will be parceled out to the four winds of heaven [Ptolemid Egypt, Seleucid Asia, Antigonid Macedonia, and the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom], though not to his posterity [Alexander IV], nor according to the extent to which he ruled. For his kingdom will be uprooted, and for others besides these. 5 And the king of the south [Ptolemy I Soter] will be strong, as well as one of his commanders [Seleucus I Nicator]. He [Seleucus] will grow even stronger than him [Ptolemy], and he will rule a greater dominion [the early Seleucid Empire] than his dominion [Ptolemid Egypt].

(1) “Ionia,” a Greek region of ancient Asia Minor, is a better translation of יון than “Greece.” That יון encompasses Macedonians and Romans in Daniel is evident from the ready alignment between the excursus and actual history.

(2) The NRSV reads יעיר הכל את מלכות יון as “he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.” The origin of this translation may be the Vulgate, which reads it as concitabit omnes adversum regnum Græciæ. This translation is nonetheless improbable. By the standard, unmarked verb-subject-object (VSO) word order of biblical Hebrew, the subject of the verb “arouse” (Heb.: יעיר) is “the sum” (Heb.: הכל), and its object is “the kingdom of Ionia” (Heb.: את מלכות יון). The definite direct object marker את before “the kingdom of Ionia” (Heb.: מלכות יון) also supports this view. A better translation is therefore “the sum shall arouse the kingdom of Ionia.”

(1) The phrase ומן שריו (“and one of his commanders”) exhibits an unusual ellipsis. A more standard construction would include the number one: ואחד מן שריו.

Exegesis

2	(1) The words “but now I will tell you the truth” (Heb.: ועתה אמת אגיד לך) signal that this discourse is an excursus from the fictional matrix of Daniel to literal history. A resumptive repetition about an angel standing up for others defines the limits of this excursus (Dan 11:1; 12:1). (2) The three Persian kings before the conquests of Alexander mentioned in verse 3 (see below) were Artaxerxes III, Arses, and Darius III. This dates the vision to the reign of Artaxerxes II, and identifies the “Cyrus” in the superscription to the vision as Cyrus the Younger (Dan 10:1). (3) The “kingdom of Ionia” (Heb.: מלכות יון) references the goat in the first Hebrew vision, the goat that tramples the ram signifying Persia and destroys the Second Temple (Dan 8:5-12; 21). (4) The “kingdom of Ionia” is the entire classical West, the civilization of the ancient Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans. The literal meaning of יון is “Ionia,” a historical region on the western coast of Anatolia. The term יון in Daniel nonetheless encompasses a wider set of “Greekish” peoples beyond the western boundary of the Achaemenid Empire that includes true Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans. Ionian became an eastern term for “Westerner” because the enduring conflict between ancient Persia and the ancient West began with the Ionian Revolt in 499 BCE. This enduring conflict lasted for more than a millennium, only ending with the Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628 and the Arab Conquests that began in 632 CE.
3	(1) This “mighty king” (Heb.: מלך גבור) is Alexander III of Macedon, who conquered the Achaemenid Empire. This verse therefore indirectly references the goat’s first horn in the first Hebrew vision, which signifies Alexander (Dan 8:5-8; 21).
4	(1) The “four winds of heaven” (Heb.: ארבע רוחות השמים) is an allusion to the four successor horns in the first Hebrew vision (Dan 8:8). The four winds correspond to Egypt (south), Syria (north), the Aegean (west), and Bactria (east). These are the four principal cores of Greek and Macedonian settlement in the Hellenistic era. After his death in 323 BCE, the empire of Alexander disintegrated through a succession of civil wars known as the Wars of the Diadochi. This disintegration continued until the middle of the third century BCE, when the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom asserted its independence from the Seleucid Empire, then based in Syria. (2) His “posterity” (Heb.: אחריתו) likely refers to hypothetical descendants of Alexander, but it may be read as a literal reference to the son of Alexander, Alexander IV.
5	(1) The title “the king of the south” (Heb.: מלך הנגב) refers to the rulers of Hellenistic Egypt, the Ptolemid dynasty. The specific Ptolemid king in view is Ptolemy I Soter. The excursus explicitly identifies the kingdom of the south with Egypt, from which the Ptolemid identity of these kings follows (Dan 11:8,42,43). The clear alignment between the history of this kingdom and Ptolemid Egypt throughout the excursus confirms this conclusion. (2) This text correctly identifies Ptolemid Egypt as the first of the four Hellenistic successor kingdoms identified in the first Hebrew vision (Dan 8:8-9). Ptolemy I established the de facto independence of Hellenistic Egypt through his victory in the First War of the Diadochi. This identification is relevant to the purpose of the excursus, which is to identify the final Western king that destroys the Second Temple in that vision (Dan 8:9-12). That final king somehow emerges from the first Hellenistic successor, and the excursus identifies this emergence as the conquest of Egypt in the War of Actium (Dan 8:9; 11:36-43). (3) Seleucus I Nicator is “the commander” of Ptolemy who comes to rule “a greater dominion.” After Antigonus I Monophthalmus ejected Seleucus from his Babylonian satrapy, Seleucus served Ptolemy as an admiral and general. After the defeat of Demetrius I Poliocertes at the Battle of Gaza, Seleucus returned to Babylon, where he began the Babylonian War. His success enabled him to build the Seleucid Empire, which then extended from Babylon to the border of the Maurya Empire in the east. After the fall of Antigonus at the Battle of Ipsus (301 BCE), Seleucus annexed Syria and eastern Anatolia, while Lysimachus, the warlord of Thrace, annexed western Anatolia. In time Lysimachus also ruled Macedonia itself. Shortly before his own death, Seleucus defeated Lysimachus at the Battle of Corupedium (281 BCE), in which Lysimachus died. This victory theoretically added western Anatolia, Thrace and Macedonia to his realm. For a brief time, he controlled most of Alexander’s former empire, except for the Indus River kingdoms and Egypt. (4) The failure of this verse to identify Seleucus as “the king of the north” is not a meaningless omission. Seleucus himself ruled a “greater dominion” than just “the north,” which does not include Bactria in the “east.” The first true “king of the north” was Antiochus II Theos, who ruled a smaller realm centered on Syria and the Seleucid capital of Antioch (modern Antakya). Though his grandson Antiochus III campaigned in Bactria and won a victory against the Greco-Bactrians at the Battle of the Arius (208 BCE), his war there was ultimately inconclusive. The not infrequent suggestion that he reintegrated the kingdom into the Seleucid Empire is an evident exaggeration.

[B] (6-9) Ptolemy III and Ptolemid Egypt Ascendant

Summary

This section focuses on the zenith of Ptolemid Egypt during the Third Syrian War (246-241). The main figure is Ptolemy III Euergetes, who invaded the Seleucid Empire, captured Seleucia-in-Pieria, and marched as far as Babylon (BCHP 11). It begins with the aftermath of the Second Syrian War (260-253 BCE), the marriage of Berenice Phernephorus to Antiochus II Theos, their eventual divorce, and her subsequent murder. The excursus skips over the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus to the zenith of the state under Ptolemy III because its focus is on the decline and fall of Ptolemid Egypt.

Text

6 ולקץ שנים יתחברו ובת מלך הנגב תבוא אל מלך הצפון לעשות מישרים ולא תעצר כוח הזרוע ולא יעמד וזרעו ותנתן היא ומביאיה והילדה ומחזקה בעתים 7 ועמד מנצר שרשיה כנו ויבא אל החיל ויבא במעוז מלך הצפון ועשה בהם והחזיק 8 וגם אלהיהם עם נסכיהם עם כלי חמדתם כסף וזהב בשבי יבא מצרים והוא שנים יעמד ממלך הצפון 9 ובא במלכות מלך הנגב ושב אל אדמתו

6 After some years, they will become allies, and the daughter of the king of the south [Berenice Phernephorus, daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus] will come to the king of the north [Antiochus II Theos] to conclude an agreement [a marriage treaty that ends the Second Syrian War (260-253 BCE)]. She, however, will not restrain the armed violence [between Egypt and Syria] because he [Antiochus II Theos] will not stand, nor his power [for after the death of Ptolemy II, Antiochus divorced Berenice and returned to Laodice, who murdered him], and she [Berenice] will be given up [to be killed by the allies of Laodice], as well as her attendants, her child, and her supporters in those times. 7 So without the branch from her roots [the son of Berenice] in his office [the Seleucid throne], he [Ptolemy III Euergetes] will stand, and he will come against the [Seleucid] army [during the Third Syrian War (246-241)]. He will enter the stronghold of the king of the north [the port city of Seleucia-in-Pieria], he will act against them, and he will prevail. 8 He will also take their gods, their idols and their beautiful vessels of silver and gold as booty to Egypt, but he will stay away from the king of the north for years. 9 For the king of the south [Ptolemy III] will invade the [Seleucid] kingdom, but he will return to his own land.

(1) The subject of ועמד (“and he will stand”) is Ptolemy III.

(2) The phrase נצר שרשיה (“the branch from her roots”) refers to a descendant of Berenice (cf. Isa 11:1). In context, this expression refers to her murdered son.

(3) The entire phrase מנצר שרשיה (“from the branch from her roots”) means “on account of the branch from her roots,” which makes כנו an indirect accusative of limitation (Joüon §126g).

(4) This phrase is not the subject of ועמד. It is not a nominative. It is not an ellipsis of אחד מנצר שרשיה (“one from the branch of her roots”). The singular noun נצר does not signify a collection, from which a single member may be taken (cf. Dan 11:5).

(5) The resulting translation of מנצר שרשיה כנו is a causal phrase, roughly meaning “on account of the branch from her roots in regard to his office.” A clearer, more succinct translation is “so without the branch from her roots in his office.”

Exegesis

6	(1) The “king of the south” in this verse is Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the son of Ptolemy I. (2) The “king of the north” in this verse is Antiochus II Theos, the grandson of Seleucus I. Antiochus II was the first true “king of the north,” since the Seleucids lost Parthia and Bactria during his reign. (3) The daughter of the “king of the south” is Berenice Phernephorus. (4) In 252 Berenice married Antiochus II as part of a marriage treaty that ended the Second Syrian War (260-253 BCE). Under this treaty, Antiochus II divorced his first wife Laodice, and repudiated her sons, Seleucus II Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax. (5) When Ptolemy II died in 246, Antiochus II repudiated Berenice, and returned to Laodice. Laodice, in turn, killed Antiochus II, and her allies killed Berenice and her young son.
7	(1) “The branch from her roots” (Heb.: נצר שרשיה) is the son of Berenice. His anticipated succession to the Seleucid throne was the basis of the peace that ended the Second Syrian War. (2) His murder and the resulting disorder prompted Ptolemy III Euergetes to invade Syria, starting the Third Syrian War (246-241). (3) The “stronghold of the king of the north” is Seleucia-in-Pieria. Ptolemy III captured and garrisoned this city during the war. The Ptolemids held it until the beginning of the Fourth Syrian War in 219 (Polybius, Hist. 5.58.1-61.1). Without its port, the Seleucids could not conduct the naval operations needed to sustain a conquest of Israel, and through it a land invasion of Egypt.
8	(1) During the Third Syrian War, Ptolemy III occupied Syria and marched as far as Babylon.
9	(1) Despite this military success, Ptolemy II did not consolidate his conquests into his kingdom, except for Seleucia-in-Pieria. (2) The disorder of the war ensured the loss of Parthia and Greek Bactria to the Seleucids. The Greco-Bactrian kingdom is the unmentioned “king of the east” in this excursus, the fourth of the four successor horns in the first vision (cf. Dan 8:8). These events therefore align in time with the accomplishment of this vision.

[C1] (10-12) Antiochus III: Failure in the Fourth Syrian War

Summary

This section focuses on the Seleucid attempt to wrest Coele-Syria from Ptolemid control in the Fourth Syrian War (219–217 BCE). The main figure is the Seleucid king Antiochus III. It describes the Seleucid defeat at the Battle of Raphia.

Text

10 ובנו [ובניו] יתגרו ואספו המון חילים רבים ובא בוא ושטף ועבר וישב ויתגרו [ויתגרה] עד מעזה [מעזו] 11 ויתמרמר מלך הנגב ויצא ונלחם עמו עם מלך הצפון והעמיד המון רב ונתן ההמון בידו 12 ונשא ההמון ירום [ורם] לבבו והפיל רבאות ולא יעוז

10 Yet his children [Ptolemy IV Philopator and Arsinoë III] will wage war, and they will gather a great multitude of forces, for he [Antiochus III] will once more press hard, overflow, and pass through [Israel as Seleucus I had done]. He will return [to the war against Egypt], and they [the Seleucid multitude] will wage war beyond Gaza [from the perspective of Jerusalem]. 11 But the king of the south [Ptolemy IV] will be furious. He will march, and he will fight against him, against the king of the north [Antiochus III]. He [Ptolemy IV] will muster a great multitude, and the other multitude [of Antiochus III] will be given into his hand [at the Battle of Raphia, modern Rafah]. 12 The other multitude [the Seleucid army] will be carried off because of its overconfidence. He [Antiochus III] will overthrow an immense number, but he will not prevail [because Ptolemy IV and Arsionë III win a decisive victory at Rafia].

(1) The plural Q ובניו (“his children”) is the correct reading. The referents are the children of Ptolemy III Euergetes, Ptolemy IV Philopator and Arsinoë III. The K ובנו (“his son”) follows from a scribal omission of a yod (Tov, 221). The plural number of the Q ובניו also agrees with the plural verb יתגרו (“they will wage war”).

(2) The Q ויתגרה for the K ויתגרו is an unneeded emendation to the style of the written text. The subject of the K ויתגרו is the multitude that Antiochus III gathers, not Antiochus III himself.

(3) The K מעזה (“from Gaza”) has the sense “beyond Gaza.” It refers to the location of the Battle of Rafia (modern Rafah). The construction of the phrase עד מעזה (lit. “as far as beyond Gaza”) is a biblical hapax legomenon, but its meaning is not indiscernible.

(4) The Q מעזו (“his fortress”) erroneously emends the K מעזה (“beyond Gaza”). The K is historically correct, and its unusual but comprehensible grammar favors its authenticity.

(1) The Q ורם is an unneeded emendation to the style of the written text. The K ירום introduces a causal clause juxtaposed to the main clause without a conjunction (Joüon §170a).

Exegesis

(1) The children of Ptolemy III Euergetes are Ptolemy IV Philopator and Arsinoë III.

(2) This “king of the north” is Antiochus III.

(3) Antiochus III began the Fourth Syrian War in 219. He besieged and recaptured the key port city of Seleucia-in-Pieria, which the Ptolemids had held since the Third Syrian War (Polybius, Hist. 5.58.1-61.1). He conquered and garrisoned Gadara, Rabbatamana (Amman), and Samaria (Polybius, Hist. 5.71.3-12), which secured the principal land routes from Antioch to Ptolemais. He pressed the campaign as far as Raphia (modern Rafah).

(1) This verse describes the Battle of Rafia.

(2) Ptolemy and Arsinoë prevailed in the battle (Polybius, Hist. 5.81.1-5.86.11).

(3) The two armies were reportedly immense: Ptolemy and Arsinoë commanded seventy-five thousand troops with five thousand horses and seventy-three elephants; Antiochus commanded sixty-eight thousand with six thousand horses and one hundred and two elephants (Polybius, Hist. 5.79.1-13). It was the largest formal battle since Ipsus. See Peter Green, From Alexander to Actium, Hellenistic Culture and Society I (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 289-290.

(1) After the Ptolemid victory at Raphia, Antiochus III ceased his campaign.

(2) Polybius reports that the Ptolemids resumed control of Gaza and Phoenicia (Polybius, Hist. 5.86.7-87.8). Josephus reports that Antiochus III retained control of Judah (Josephus, Ant. 12.129-132). Historians that advocate a complete Seleucid retreat from Coele-Syria at the end of the war misread (or ignore) Josephus and adopt an expansive reading of Polybius. See John D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 215-216.

[C2] (13-17) Antiochus III: Success in the Fifth Syrian War

Summary

This section focuses on the successful Seleucid attempt to wrest Coele-Syria from Ptolemid control in the Fifth Syrian War (202–195 BCE). The main figure is Antiochus III. It describes the betrothal of Cleopatra I Syra to Ptolemy V Epiphanes.

Text

13 ושב מלך הצפון והעמיד המון רב מן הראשון ולקץ העתים שנים יבוא בוא בחיל גדול וברכוש רב 14 ובעתים ההם רבים יעמדו על מלך הנגב ובני פריצי עמך ינשאו להעמיד חזון ונכשלו 15 ויבא מלך הצפון וישפך סוללה ולכד עיר מבצרות וזרעות הנגב לא יעמדו ועם מבחריו ואין כח לעמד 16 ויעש הבא אליו כרצונו ואין עומד לפניו ויעמד בארץ הצבי וכלה בידו 17 וישם פניו לבוא בתקף כל מלכותו וישרים עמו ועשה ובת הנשים יתן לו להשחיתה ולא תעמד ולא לו תהיה

13 But the king of the north [Antiochus III] will return [to the war], and he [Antiochus III] will raise a greater multitude than the previous [army at the Battle of Raphia], and at the end of those times, even years, he will press hard with a great army and an abundance of supplies. 14 In those times, the masses [of Ptolemid Coele-Syria] will rise against the king of the south [Ptolemy V], and the violent among your people will lift themselves up to establish a vision [against Ptolemy V], yet they will stumble [when Scopas of Aetolia invades Coele-Syria]. 15 But the king of the north [Antiochus III] will advance, and he will erect a siege ramp, and capture a fortified city [Gaza]. The armed forces of the south will not stand [at the Battle of Paneion], not even his [Ptolemy V] elite troops, so he [Ptolemy V] will be powerless. 16 Without anyone to stand against him, the invader [Antiochus III] will do to him [Ptolemy V] as he pleases. Yet he [Antiochus III] will halt in the beautiful land [Israel], though (and) an utter destruction [of Ptolemid Egypt] (ph. a bride [Cleopatra I Syra]) will be in his [Antiochus III] power (his hand). 17 For he [Antiochus III] will resolve to invade [Egypt] with the power of his entire kingdom, so he [Antiochus III] will make an agreement with him [Ptolemy V], and he [Antiochus III] will give to him [Ptolemy V] a beautiful woman [Cleopatra I Syra] to undermine it [Ptolemid Egypt]. And it [Ptolemid Egypt] will not endure, but it will not be his [Antiochus’s].

(1) The clause וכלה בידו has two readings that rest on the multivocality of כלה in the absence of pointing. The reading kālāh means “a total destruction” and kallāh means “a bride.” Both readings make sense within context. If the meaning “a total destruction” is taken, then the translation is “though an utter destruction will be in his power.” If the meaning “a bride” is taken, then the translation is “and a bride will be in his hand.”

Exegesis

13	(1) The “king of the north” is Antiochus III as in the previous passage at Daniel 11:10-12. (2) The “previous” multitude refers to the Seleucid army that fought at the Battle of Raphia (cf. Dan 11:11-12).
14	(1) The “masses” refers to various peoples of Coele-Syria, who (according to this passage) rebelled against Ptolemid rule prior to the Fifth Syrian War (202–195 BCE). This rebellion is plausible. Polybius reports that only Gaza resisted the subsequent Seleucid invasion, which suggests widespread discontent with Ptolemid rule (Polybius, Hist. 16.22a.2-7). The concurrent native rebellion in Egypt is not directly relevant to this passage, so its application to the exegesis of this reference is arbitrary (Polybius, Hist. 15.26.10; THI 264.D; AET 8.13.D). (2) The “violent among your people” refers to Jewish troops that evidently supported the rebellion against the Ptolemids. Jerusalem itself had been under Seleucid rule after the Fourth Syrian War (Josephus, Ant. 12.129-132). (3) The phrase “yet they will stumble” refers to the Ptolemid response under Scopas of Aetolia. Scopas occupied Jerusalem, and marched as far as the Golan (Josephus, Ant. 12.135; Polybius, Hist. 16.39.1). His attack left Jerusalem and the Temple seriously damaged, with many residents of Judah taken captive and enslaved (Josephus, Ant. 12.144). Scopas left an Egyptian garrison in Jerusalem that Antiochus III and his Jewish allies later ejected (Josephus, Ant. 12.138).
15	(1) The “city of fortifications” is Gaza (Polybius, Hist. 16.18.2). This phrase effectively functions as a pronoun, the antecedent of which is the explicit reference to Gaza at verse 10. Antiochus failed to retain Gaza after his defeat at the Battle of Rafia in the Fourth Syrian War, but he reversed this loss in the Fifth Syrian War. Jerome identifies this city as Sidon, to which Scopas fled after his defeat at the Battle of Paneion, but this interpretation is arbitrary (Jerome, Daniel 11:15-16). Gaza is mentioned within the immediate context of the passage, and Sidon is not mentioned. (2) The “elite troops” of Ptolemy refers to the army of Scopas. During the disorder in Coele-Syria, Antiochus III invaded the territory, and defeated Scopas at the Battle of Paneion (Josephus, Ant. 12.129-132; Polybius, Hist. 16.18-19). The defeated troops were trained mercenaries recruited from Greece (Polybius, Hist. 15.25.16-18).
16	(1) The final phrase of this verse admits two translations: “though an utter destruction will be in his power” and “and a bride will be in his hand.” (2) The “bride” is Cleopatra I Syra, whom Antiochus III betrothed to Ptolemy V at the end of the war. (3) Antiochus III ended his campaign with the conquest of Coele-Syria. With Scopas defeated and Gaza captured, the conquest of Ptolemid Egypt was possible for him.
17	(1) This “agreement” is a marriage treaty between Antiochus III and Ptolemy V that ended the war (Polybius, Hist. 18.51.10; Appian, Syr. 1.5; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 28.12). Under this treaty, Antiochus III betrothed his daughter Cleopatra I Syra to Ptolemy V. The treaty confirmed the cession of Ptolemid possessions in Asia Minor to Antiochus III. This verse asserts that the marriage was a failed scheme to undermine Egypt.

[X] (18-24) Transition: Roman-Seleucid War and Rise of Antiochus IV

Summary

This section is a transition from the Egyptian wars of Antiochus III to the Egyptian wars of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It addresses the Roman-Seleucid War (192-188 BCE), the death of Antiochus III (187 BCE), the twelve-year reign of Seleucus IV Philopator, and the accession of Antiochus IV (175 BCE). Seleucus IV and the Roman-Seleucid War only have an indirect relevance to the decline of Ptolemid Egypt, so the excursus addresses them briefly.

Text

18 וישב [וישם] פניו לאיים ולכד רבים והשבית קצין חרְפתו לו בלתי חרפתו ישיב לו 19 וישב פניו למעוזי ארצו ונכשל ונפל ולא ימצא 20 ועמד על כנו מעביר נוגש הדר מלכות ובימים אחדים ישבר ולא באפים ולא במלחמה 21 ועמד על כנו נבזה ולא נתנו עליו הוד מלכות ובא בשלוה והחזיק מלכות בחלקלקות 22 וזרעות השטף ישטפו מלפניו וישברו וגם נגיד ברית 23 ומן התחברות אליו יעשה מרמה ועלה ועצם במעט גוי 24 בשלוה ובמשמני מדינה יבוא ועשה אשר לא עשו אבתיו ואבות אבתיו בזה ושלל ורכוש להם יבזור ועל מבצרים יחשב מחשבתיו ועד עת

18 For he [Antiochus III] will turn his attention to the coastlands [near the Aegean], and he will capture many. But a military commander [Scipio Asiaticus] will end his [Antiochus III] contempt for him [Ptolemy V], just as he [Antiochus III] will not repay his [Scipio Asiaticus] contempt for him [Antiochus III]. 19 For he [Antiochus III] will turn his attention to the fortified cities of his own land [in Elymais], and he will stumble and fall, and he will not be found [a euphemism for death]. 20 Then one [Seleucus IV Philopator] will stand in his office, who turns away a seeker of royal splendor [Antiochus IV Epiphanes], but after a few years he [Seleucus IV] will be broken, yet not due to anger nor in battle. 21 Then a despicable person [Antiochus IV] will stand in his office, even though he was not given royal majesty. He [Antiochus IV] will enter during peace, and he will seize sovereignty through intrigue. 22 Overwhelming military forces [the Seleucid army] will be swept away from before him. They will be broken, as well as an allied prince [Antiochus, son of Seleucus IV]. 23 For after an agreement is made with him [the younger Antiochus], he [Antiochus IV] will act deceitfully. He [Antiochus IV] will rise up, and he [Antiochus IV] will dominate with a small nation [Attalid Pergamon]. 24 During peace and with the richest men of a province [the Attalids Eumenes II Soter and Attalus II Philadelphus], he [Antiochus IV] will invade [Syria]. And he will do what his fathers did not do, nor the fathers of his fathers: He [Antiochus IV] will squander plunder, spoil, and possessions on them [the Attalids] so that he may devise his schemes against fortified cities for a time.

(1) The Q וישם (“and he will fix”) is an unneeded emendation to the style of the text.

(2) The word בלתי is an unusual usage of a rare poetic negative (Joüon §160m).

(1) The participle מעביר here means “one who turns away” (cf. Ps 119:37).

(2) The participle נוגש here has the more limited sense of “a collector” rather than “tax collector” or “official.” The translation “seeker” seems the best English rendering here.

(3) A key reason for both readings is the tie made between this phrase and Antiochus IV in the next verse.

Exegesis

18	(1) This verse is an account of the Roman-Seleucid War. (2) The “coastlands” (Heb.: איים) are the coasts and islands of the Aegean Sea. The specific territories here are Ionia proper, Aeolis, and Thrace. After his success in the Fifth Syrian War (202-195 BCE), Antiochus III annexed these territories on the grounds they were the historic possessions of the Achaemenid Empire, to which he made claim (Appian, Syr. 1.1). (3) The policy of Antiochus III provoked the Roman-Seleucid War, which Antiochus III lost. The “military commander” (Heb.: קצין) is the Roman consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, who defeated Antiochus at the decisive Battle of Magnesia (190/89). (4) The sentence “But a military commander will end his contempt for him, just as he will not repay his contempt for him” (Heb.: והשבית קצין חרְפתו לו בלתי חרפתו ישיב לו) compares the decisive battle at Magnesia with the subsequent death of Antiochus III. His death ended his relevance to the decline and conquest of Ptolemid Egypt, and to the excursus. (5) The Treaty of Apamea (188 BCE) defined the terms of the subsequent peace. Under the treaty, Antiochus III ceded all his territories north of the Taurus Mountains to Rhodes and Attalid Pergamon, both Roman allies. The resulting expansion of the Attalid kingdom preceded the cultural zenith of Pergamon, tying its rise more to the expansion of Rome than the collapse of Alexander’s empire.
19	(1) After the war with Rome, Antiochus III turned his attention to the east, where he died sacking a temple in Elymais (Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 28.3; 29.15; BM 35603). (2) “And he will not be found” (Heb.: ולא ימצא) is a euphemism for the death of Antiochus III.
20	(1) The next Seleucid king is Seleucus IV Philopator. Despite the brevity of this account, he reigned for twelve years. Seleucus did not attack Egypt, so he is irrelevant to the theme of the excursus. (2) The description “one…who turns away a seeker of royal splendor” (Heb.: מעביר נוגש הדר מלכות) refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the brother of Seleucus IV. Verse 21 introduces Antiochus as the one who was “not given royal majesty” (Heb.: הוד מלכות), which refers back to this remark. (3) Other sources do not explain what recognition Antiochus IV sought from Seleucus IV, why he sought it, or why Seleucus IV refused to grant it. History only offers circumstantial evidence for some kind of dispute between the brothers. Despite his release from Roman custody no later than 178 BCE (SEG 32.131), Antiochus lived in Athens until his brother’s death in 175 BCE (Appian, Syr. 9.45). (4) This verse attributes the death of Seleucus IV to an unidentified, non-violent cause. It contradicts Appian, according to whom Heliodorus murdered Seleucus (Appian, Syr. 9.45). Heliodorus was a high Seleucid official, who held the status of “foster-brother” to the king (OGIS 247). After Seleucus IV died, Heliodorus became the regent of the unnumbered Antiochus, the young son of Seleucus IV. The story of his visit to Jerusalem and the miracle he witnessed there is an apocryphal tale of little to no historical value (2 Macc 3:1-4:6).
21	(1) The remainder of this passage addresses the accession of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. (2) The remark that Antiochus IV was “not given royal majesty” refers to an unrecorded dispute between him and his brother Seleucus IV. See exegetical note 20(2) above.
22	(1) Appian records the violent seizure of the throne after the death of Seleucus IV (Appian, Syr. 9.45). This account is similar to his, but Antiochus IV has more agency here than in Appian. (2) The “allied prince” (Heb.: נגיד ברית) is Antiochus, the son of Seleucus IV, the nephew of Antiochus IV (BM 35603).
23	(1) History does not record the agreement between Antiochus IV and his nephew Antiochus, but His regent, Heliodorus, likely represented the younger Antiochus in this negotiation. (2) The “small nation” (Heb.: מעט גוי) that assisted Antiochus IV in his coup was Attalid Pergamon (Appian, Syr. 9.45).
24	(1) The “richest men of a province” (Heb.: משמני מדינה) are Eumenes II Soter and his brother Attalus II Philadelphus, the kings of Pergamon (Appian, Syr. 9.45). A Greek inscription from Athens corroborates their involvement in Antiochus’s coup (IG II3,1 1323). (2) The description of Eumenes II and Attalus II as “the richest men of a province” excludes Pergamon from the four successors to Alexander depicted in the first Hebrew vision (Dan 8:8). If it were, they would be “the kings of the west.”

[C2′] (25-28) Antiochus IV: Success in the First Invasion of Egypt

Summary

This section focuses on the successful Seleucid attempt to reassert control of Coele-Syria in the first phase of the Sixth Syrian War (170-168 BCE). The main figure is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It describes the capture of Pelusium, and the sack of Jerusalem as Antiochus returned from Egypt.

Text

25 ויער כחו ולבבו על מלך הנגב בחיל גדול ומלך הנגב יתגרה למלחמה בחיל גדול ועצום עד מאד ולא יעמד כי יחשבו עליו מחשבות 26 ואכלי פת בגו ישברוהו וחילו ישטוף ונפלו חללים רבים 27 ושניהם המלכים לבבם למרע ועל שלחן אחד כזב ידברו ולא תצלח כי עוד קץ למועד 28 וישב ארצו ברכוש גדול ולבבו על ברית קדש ועשה ושב לארצו

25 Then he [Antiochus IV Epiphanes] will set his power and his heart against the king of the south [Ptolemy VI Philometor] with a large army. And the king of the south will join the battle [at Pelusium] with a large army, great and exceedingly mighty, but he will not succeed because of schemes devised against him [within the Egyptian court]. 26 Those who eat his provisions [courtiers supporting Ptolemy VIII Physcon] will break him [through intrigue], and his army will be overwhelmed. Many slain will fall. 27 As for the two of them, the kings [Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI], their intent will be to do evil [to this Egyptian court faction], and they will speak a lie [that Antiochus IV had acted on behalf of Ptolemy VI] at the same [peace] table. But it will not succeed, because another outcome [to this scheme] will be at the appointed moment [when Antiochus IV invades Egypt a second time]. 28 He [Antiochus IV] will return to his land with great possessions, and his heart will be against the holy covenant [Judaism]. He will attack [Jerusalem], and afterward return to his own land [Syria].

27	(1) The word המלכים (“the kings”) is in apposition to the pronominal suffix in ושניהם (“and the two of them”). The apparent purpose of this apposition is to clarify that Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI are meant, not Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II, who were reigning in Alexandria.

Exegesis

25	(1) Antiochus IV is the antagonist of the “king of the south.” (2) The “king of the south” is Ptolemy VI Philometor. (3) This passage concerns the first campaign of the Sixth Syrian War (170-168 BCE). The war consisted of two campaigns, the first of which was a success and the second a failure. Josephus wrongly conflates the two campaigns into one, and First Maccabees omits the second (Josephus, Ant. 12.243-245; 1 Macc 1:16-17). (4) The key battle of the first campaign occurred near Pelusium on the western border of the Nile Delta. The fragmentary, nonbiblical sources do not describe it, but the battle is not unlikely. See John D. Grainger, Syrian Wars, 296-297. The campaign ended with the siege of Pelusium, which Antiochus IV took by deception after agreeing to a truce (Polybius, Hist. 28.18; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 30.18; Josephus, Ant. 12.243). See also Skeat, 107-112.
26	(1) The persons who “eat his provisions” are supporters of Ptolemy VIII Physcon at the Egyptian court. Here the excursus blames the defeat at Pelusium on court intrigue, rather than the incompetence of the Egyptian regents Eulaios and Lenaios (Polybius, Hist. 27.19; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 30.2-16).
27	(1) After the loss of Pelusium, Antiochus IV occupied all of Egypt except Alexandria. Ptolemy VI soon met with Antiochus IV to negotiate a truce, and as he did so Ptolemy VIII established himself the sole king in Alexandria. Ptolemy VI and Antiochus IV then allied themselves against Ptolemy VIII. Ptolemy VI became an informal client king of Antiochus IV, and Antiochus IV besieged Alexandria. When the Alexandrines agreed to repudiate Ptolemy VIII, Antiochus IV left Egypt, believing that Ptolemy VI now ruled the entire kingdom on his behalf (Polybius, Hist. 28.22). (2) The “appointed moment” is the second campaign of Antiochus IV against Egypt described in the subsequent passage. (3) After Antiochus IV departed Egypt, Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII reconciled, and they repudiated any subordination to Antiochus IV. Their reconciliation eventually led Antiochus IV to launch a second campaign against Egypt.
28	(1) On his return to Syria, Antiochus IV intervened in a dispute between opposing political factions in Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 12.246). One prominent faction sought to abandon Judaism and to Hellenize the city (Josephus, Ant. 12.237-241). The chief members of this faction were the High Priest Menelaus and the Tobiads, a wealthy family of tax farmers (Josephus, Ant. 12.154-236). This faction opened the city gates to Antiochus, after which he plundered their enemies and robbed the Temple (1 Macc 1:20-28; Josephus, Ant. 12.246-247).

[C1′] (29-35) Antiochus IV: Failure in the Second Invasion of Egypt

Summary

This section focuses on the failed Seleucid attempt to conquer Egypt in the second phase of the Sixth Syrian War (170-168 BCE), and the subsequent Jewish-Seleucid Wars and their profound effect on Judaism. The main figure is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It describes the Roman expulsion of Antiochus from Egypt. Roman intervention in the Sixth Syrian War reduced Ptolemid Egypt to the status of a client kingdom, ending any possibility of a Seleucid conquest.

Text

29 למועד ישוב ובא בנגב ולֹא תהיה כראשנה וכאחרנה 30 ובאו בו ציים כתים ונכאה ושב וזעם על ברית קודש ועשה ושב ויבן על עזבי ברית קדש 31 וזרעים ממנו יעמדו וחללו המקדש המעוז והסירו התמיד ונתנו השקוץ משומם 32 ומרשיעי ברית יחניף בחלקות ועם ידְעי אלהיו יחזקו וְעשו 33 ומשכילי עם יבינו לרבים ונכשלו בחרב ובלהבה בשבי ובבזה ימים 34 ובהכשלם יעזרו עזר מעט ונלוו עליהם רבים בחלקלקות 35 ומן המשכילים יכשלו לצרוף בהם ולברר וללבן עד עת קץ כי עוד למועד

29 At the appointed moment [mentioned in verse 27], he [Antiochus IV] will enter the south once more, but it will not be like the previous time [when Antiochus IV nearly conquered Egypt] nor the next [when Octavian conquers Ptolemid Egypt]. 30 For foes [Romans] in Kittim [Macedonia] will come against him [Antiochus IV], and he [Antiochus IV] will withdraw in fear. Then he [Antiochus IV] will denounce the holy covenant [Judaism] once more, and act. For he will heed anew those who forsake the holy covenant [Menelaus and the Tobiads]. 31 Forces from him will rise up, and they will profane the sanctuary stronghold [the Jerusalem Temple]. They will stop the regular burnt offering, and they will make the abomination appalling [establishing idol worship in the temple]. 32 With falsehoods [idols] he will defile those who violate the covenant, but an army [the Hasmonean army] that knows their God will prove themselves strong and act [to restore the temple]. 33 And the [Torah] scholars among the people will give understanding [regarding Jewish law] to the [Jewish] masses, but they [the masses] will suffer for a time by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plunder [from the Hasmonean Revolt to the War of Actium]. 34 And when they [the masses] are made to suffer, they [the scholars] will receive trifling support [from the masses], but many will join them [the scholars] in hypocrisy. 35 Yet some of the scholars [who are honest] will suffer [to teach the Torah] in order to purge them [the masses], to purify, and to cleanse, until a fated time [when the temple is destroyed], when yet more is at the appointed moment.

(1) The word ציים (sg.: צי) is an uncommon term that signifies wild desert animals, wild cats, or even demons (Ps 74:14; Isa 13:21; 23:13; 34:14; Jer 50:39). Here it is used in the metaphorical sense of “foes” (cf. Ps. 72:9, NRSV).

(2) Since it is a place, the word כתים in ציים כתים is an attributive accusative of local determination (Joüon §126h). The translation of ציים כתים is therefore “foes in Kittim.”

(3) The traditional translation of “ships” for ציים originates with the Vulgate, which reads “triremes” (Lat.: trireres). This reading is not incorrect, but “foes” is the simpler alternative, since nothing in the passage calls for the meaning “ships.”

(4) Orthography also favors “foes,” but this evidence is too thin to be decisive. The two certain plurals of the word צי meaning “ship” read צים, with a single yod (Num 24:24; Ezek 30:9).

(5) No clear parallel to the word ציים exists in either the LXX or Theodotion. The LXX has “Romans” (Gk.: Ῥωμαῖοι), and Theodotion has only “Kittim” (Gk.: Κίτιοι).

(1) The conjunction כי has a temporal meaning here, since a time is in view.

Exegesis

29	(1) The antagonist of Egypt here is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. (2) The “previous time” is when Antiochus IV first campaigned against Egypt, when he nearly conquered the kingdom. See the previous passage at Daniel 11:25-28. (3) The “next time” is when Octavian conquered Egypt in the War of Actium. See the next passage at Daniel 11:36-42.
30	(1) The literal significance of “Kittim” is the ancient Cypriot city of Kition. Here it is a metonym that refers to the lands near the Aegean Sea, including Macedonia (cf. 1 Macc 1:1). (2) The “foes in Kittim” are the Romans. This interpretation dates back to the LXX, which translates “foes in Kittim” as “Romans” (Gk.: Ῥωμαῖοι). Near the time of this passage, Rome conquered Antigonid Macedonia at the decisive Battle of Pydna, which ended the Third Macedonian War. (3) The Roman Senate opposed the Seleucid invasion of Egypt, and dispatched Gaius Popillius Laenus as an envoy to order Antiochus IV to stop. After pausing to support the Roman war in Macedonia, Popilius proceeded to Egypt, and ordered Antiochus IV to leave the kingdom (Polybius, Hist. 29.27.1-13; Appian, Syr. 14.66; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 31.2.1-2; Livy, Ab urbe cond. 45.11-12). (4) This Roman intervention in the Sixth Syrian War (170-168 BCE) shows that Egyptian independence rested on Roman protection. Ptolemid Egypt effectively became a Roman client kingdom, and began its gradual transformation into a Roman province. See Livia Capponi, Augustan Egypt: the Creation of a Roman Province, Studies in Classics (London: Routledge, 2005), 5-10. (5) After this expulsion, Antiochus IV dispatched military units to Jerusalem, who seized the city. They enslaved the inhabitants, and established a Greek colony (1 Macc 1:29-40).
31	(1) On 15 Kislev 145 SE = December 17, 168, Seleucid forces erected an idol over the altar of burnt offering, causing the regular burnt offering to cease (1 Macc 1:41-64). On 25 Kislev 145 SE = December 27, 168 BCE, they offered sacrifices to the idol (1 Macc 1:42-64).
32	(1) The term “falsehoods” refers to idols. (2) The desecration of the Temple and the attempt to suppress Judaism throughout Judea soon prompted an armed revolt (1 Macc 2:1-3:35; Josephus, Ant. 12.265-297). (3) A family of priests known as the Hasmoneans led the war, and after three years they restored the Temple to Jewish worship (1 Macc 4:36-61).
33	(1) These scholars are experts in Jewish law, not the Hasmoneans themselves. (2) The suffering for a time “with sword and with flame, with captivity and with plunder” refers to the persistent violence that afflicted the Jewish nation from the Sixth Syrian War (170-168 BCE) to the War of Actium. The Seleucid project to Hellenize Judah lasted more than a decade after Antiochus IV first sacked Jerusalem in 143 SE = 170/69 BCE, ending only in 155 SE = 158/7 BCE with the final withdrawal of Bacchides (1 Macc 1:20-9:73). The successful insurgency of Judas Maccabeus only ended its most radical element, the paganization of the temple (1 Macc 3:1-5:68). In the six years after the death of Antiochus IV in 149 SE = 164/3 BCE, the Seleucids mounted five armed campaigns into the province (1 Macc 6:1-9:73). As the Seleucid Empire progressively disintegrated in the Seleucid Dynastic Wars, the Hasmonean insurrection gradually became a kingdom. As it did so, the Jewish kingdom faced various wars with Demetrius II Nicator, Diodotus Tryphon, Antiochus VII Sidetes, Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, and Ptolemy IX Soter (1 Macc 10:67-89; 12:39-53; 15:37-16:10; Josephus, Ant. 13.236-253; 13.276-277; 13.334-355). After the invasion of Ptolemy IX, the kingdom fell into a civil war, during which Demetrius III Eucaerus nearly conquered it (Josephus, Ant. 13.372-383). After the death of Salome Alexandra, a new civil war broke out between her sons Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. This war ended in 63 BCE with the Roman conquest of Jerusalem under Pompey, and the subsequent depredations of Crassus and Cassius (Josephus, Ant. 14.54-79; 14.105-109; 14.120). Antigonus II Mattathias, the son of Aristobulus II, revived the civil war with Parthian assistance, which ended in the Herodian conquest of Jerusalem in 37 BCE (Josephus, Ant. 14.330-369; 14.468-491). Herod thereafter ruled Israel as a Roman client-king, ending the Hasmonean dynasty.
34	(1) These “many” are hypocrites who become Torah scholars, despite the poverty of these scholars during the instability from the Sixth Syrian War to the War of Actium.
35	(1) Despite this hypocrisy, some scholars will nevertheless work for the spiritual good of the Jewish people until the destruction of the Second Temple. (2) The “appointed moment” is the rise of the Roman emperor in the War of Actium, described in the next passage, and the subsequent destruction of the Second Temple.

[B′] (36-42) Augustus and Ptolemid Egypt Conquered

Summary

This section focuses on the king who conquers Ptolemid Egypt, and his conquest of the kingdom in the War of Actium (32-30 BCE). The main figure is Octavian, who became Augustus, the first Roman emperor. It describes his hatred for Caesarion, the last Ptolemid, and his disinterest in Ptolemid religion. It mentions his promotion of Zeus Eleutherios as the principal god of the imperial cult in Roman Egypt. The excursus resumes with the War of Actium, since this war transformed Ptolemid Egypt from a Roman client kingdom into a Roman province.

Text

36 ועשה כרצונו המלך ויתרומם ויתגדל על כל אל ועל אל אלים ידבר נפלאות והצליח עד כלה זעם כי נחרצה נעשתה 37 ועל אלהי אבתיו לא יבין ועל חמדת נשים ועל כל אלוה לא יבין כי על כל יתגדל 38 ולאלה מעזים על כנו יכבד ולאלוה אשר לא ידעהו אבתיו יכבד בזהב ובכסף ובאבן יקרה ובחמדות 39 ועשה למבצרי מעזים עם אלוה נכר אשר הכיר [יכיר] ירבה כבוד והמשילם ברבים ואדמה יחלק במחיר 40 ובעת קץ יתנגח עמו מלך הנגב וישתער עליו מלך הצפון ברכב ובפרשים ובאניות רבות ובא בארצות ושטף ועבר 41 ובא בארץ הצבי ורבות יכשלו ואלה ימלטו מידו אדום ומואב וראשית בני עמון 42 וישלח ידו בארצות וארץ מצרים לא תהיה לפליטה

36 Then the king [Octavian] will do as he pleases. He will exalt himself, and he will regard himself greater than every [Egyptian] god, but he will recount the wondrous deeds of a “god of gods” [Zeus Eleutherios]. And he will succeed as far as a furious destruction [of the Ptolemid dynasty], for what has been determined must happen. 37 Now he [Octavian] will not pay heed to the “gods” of his [Ptolemy XV Caesarion] ancestors [the deified Ptolemids], nor a favorite of women [Isis], nor will he heed any [Egyptian] god because he [Octavian] will regard himself greater than all of them. 38 But on account of his office he will honor a god of fortresses [Zeus Eleutherios]. A god that his [Caesarion] ancestors [Ptolemids] did not know [in worship] he [Octavian] will honor with gold, and with silver, and with precious stones, and with costly items [at the Sebasteion (Caesareum) in Alexandria]. 39 Together with this foreign god he will acquire fortified cities [in Egypt], for whomever he [Octavian] acknowledges will obtain great wealth. He [Octavian] will make them rule over the masses [of Egypt], and he will apportion the land [of Egypt] for gain. 40 For at the fated time, the king of the south [Caesarion] will aggravate him, so the king of the treasure [Octavian] (ph. the king of the north) will storm against him [Caesarion] with riders, horsemen, and with many ships [at the Battle of Actium, fought against the forces of his mother Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator and his step father Mark Antony]. Then he will enter the lands [of the Roman east], sweep over, and pass through. 41 He [Octavian] will even enter the beautiful land [of Israel] as many lands fall. These lands, however, will escape from his power: Edom, Moab, and the best land of the Ammonites [Nabatea]. 42 Yet he [Augustus] will extend his power throughout the lands [of the Roman east], and the land of Egypt will not become an exception.

(1) The participle נפלאות refers to the “wondrous deeds” of a god that inspire worshipful praise. No other usage exists outside the Book of Daniel, and this context does not demand another.

(1) The juxtaposition of the clause אשר הכיר ירבה כבוד with the preceding clause without a conjunction indicates that it expresses cause (Joüon §170b).

(2) The Q יכיר is an unneeded amendment to the style of the K הכיר. The qatal of the K merely expresses a certainty that the yiqtol of the Q does not.

(1) The translation of the title מלך הצפון as “the king of the treasure” is key to the meaning of this passage. Tradition interprets this title as “the king of the north,” but this reading does not match the plainly referenced events of the War of Actium. It implies that the conqueror of Ptolemid Egypt was the ruler of Syria before the war, and Augustus was not. The cause of this problem is the erroneous Masoretic vocalization of הצפון as hǎṣṣāp̄ôn. We may instead read הצפון as hǎṣṣāp̄ûn, meaning “the treasure” (Ezek 7:22, NRSV) . This title for the final king is a pun on the title “king of the north” that contrasts the success of Augustus with the failures of Antiochus III and Antiochus IV. Augustus, who did not rule Syria, conquered the treasure of Egypt, while the actual “kings of the north” failed to accomplish this aim.

Exegesis

36	(1) The king (Heb.: המלך) refers to the final king in the first Hebrew vision, the king who destroys the Second Temple (Dan 8:9-12,23-25). (2) This king is the Roman emperor. The specific emperor here is the first emperor, Octavian, the future Augustus. This identity is evident from his conquest of Ptolemid Egypt (Dan 11:40-42). (3) These “gods” are the gods of Egypt. This reading follows from the immediate context: The topic of this passage is the conquest of Egypt. (4) “He will regard himself greater than every god” refers to that attitude of Augustus toward the Egyptian gods. His Egyptian titulary called him “the King of all the gods.” See Dundas, 445n59. Though this language suggests the Egyptian god Amun, Octavian did not present himself as Amun. He explicitly presented himself as the Greek Zeus Eleutherios. The imperial cult in Egypt was not a co-opted Egyptian cult: It was an entirely new cult, with a separate priesthood and separate temples. See Pfeiffer (2019), 435-438; Capponi, 41-42. (5) The “god of gods” (Heb.: אל אלים) is Zeus Eleutherios, or Zeus the Liberator. Octavian identified himself as Zeus Eleutherios in the imperial cult of Egypt. See Pfeiffer (2019), 436; Dundas, 445n59.
37	(1) “His ancestors” refers to the ancestors of Ptolemy XV Caesar, the “king of the south” at the time of the War of Actium. (2) The “gods of his ancestors” refers to the Ptolemid dynastic cult, in which the members of the Ptolemid dynasty were worshipped together with Alexander. See Pfeiffer (2019), 432. (3) The “favorite of women” is Isis.
38	(1) The “god of fortresses” is also Zeus Eleutherios. (2) The “fortresses” refer to the Egyptian metropoleis of where Octavian established Sebasteia or Caesarea (the temples of the imperial cult). See Pfeiffer (2019), 436. (3) The “gold, and with silver, and with precious stones, and with costly items” refers to the Sebasteion in Alexandria. Philo (as translated by Pfeiffer) describes it so: “Nowhere is there a holy place comparable to the so-called Sebasteion... great and famous, filled with offerings like nowhere else, surrounded with paintings and statues of silver and gold, a vast sacred precinct with covered ambulatories, libraries, rooms, sacred groves, gates, large open spaces, open courts, all decorated in the most extravagant manner” (Philo, Legat. 149-151). See Pfeiffer (2012), 86-87.
39	(1) The “fortified cities” once more refer to the metropoleis of Egypt. See exegesis note 38(2). (2) The purpose of the imperial cult was to make the unseen rule of Augustus tangible to the Egyptian public. It therefore amplified the awe of the visible wealth he provided to those he acknowledged. (3) Octavian reorganized landholding in Egypt to his advantage. He created more private land, yet he also concentrated in his person more power over estates and revenues than the Ptolemid kings ever exercised. The exact details of this reform are debatable, but its occurrence and the power it provided Octavian is not. See Capponi, 97-121.
40	(1) This verse describes the Battle of Actium, and Octavian’s annexation of the Roman east. The battle involved a substantial naval confrontation, so the explicit mention of many ships (Heb.: אניות רבות) is notable.
41	(1) Herod I became a client king of Octavian during this war (Josephus, Ant. 15.187-201; J.W. 1.386-397). (2) ”Edom, Moab, and the best land of the Ammonites” refers to the Nabatean Kingdom, which remained unconquered until its annexation under Trajan. Prior to its annexation, Rome was the suzerain of Nabatea, but Nabatea was not a client kingdom. The only Roman siege of Petra had an inconclusive outcome, and Rome never meddled in the Nabatean succession (Josephus, Ant 14.80-81; J.W. 1.159).
42	(1) Octavian conquered Egypt, ending the Ptolemid dynasty. This conquest was the transitional event that established him as the first Roman emperor.

[A′] (43-45) Epilogue: Augustus to the Fall of Second Temple Jerusalem

This epilogue transitions the excursus from the conquest of Ptolemid Egypt to the destruction of the Second Temple. It aligns the conclusion of the excursus with the conclusion of the first Hebrew vision.

Text

43 ומשל במכמני הזהב והכסף ובכל חמדות מצרים ולבים וכשים במצעדיו 44 ושמעות יבהלהו ממזרח ומצפון ויצא בחמא גדלה להשמיד ולהחרים רבים 45 ויטע אהלי אפדנו בין ימים להר צבי קדש ובא עד קצו ואין עוזר לו

43 Then he [the Roman emperor] will rule over treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt. Yet when the North Africans and the Kushites are within his footsteps, 44 reports from the east [the Parthian Empire] and from the north [Armenia] will terrify him, so he [Nero] will go out, with wrath enough to destroy and to exterminate many [in the Roman-Parthian War of 58-63]. 45 And he [Vespasian] will pitch the tents of his destruction [the Roman army] between the seas [at Jerusalem between the Mediterranean and Dead Seas], against the beautiful holy mountain [the Temple Mount]. And It will come to its end, and no one will save it [at the climax of the First Jewish-Roman War].

(1) The clause ומשל במכמני הזהב והכסף ובכל חמדות מצרים (“then he will rule over treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt”) summarizes the consequence of the conquest described in verses 40-42.

(2) The term לבים refers to the pre-Iron Age Amazigh peoples of North Africa, living west of the Nile Delta. It literally refers to the Libu, an ancient Amazigh tribe that lived to the immediate west of the Nile Delta. The translation “North Africans” attempts to respect this precision without impairing clarity.

(3) The term כשים refers to the Kushites, who lived on the Nile south of the first cataract, the natural southern border of ancient Egypt.

(4) The nominal clause ולבים וכשים במצעדיו (“yet when the North Africans and the Kushites are within his footsteps”) introduces a new topic: the subsequent relations of Rome with other, non-Egyptian peoples. This topic continues through verse 45, so the current versification misplaces this clause in verse 43.

(1) The nominal clause ולבים וכשים במצעדיו (“yet when the North Africans and the Kushites are within his footsteps”) in verse 43 is subordinate to the clause ושמעות יבהלהו ממזרח ומצפון (“reports from the east and from the north shall trouble him”). It is a temporal clause that expresses the time of the reports that trouble the king of the treasure. The word שמעות in this subsequent clause is a buffer between the waw and the verb that indicates simultaneity (Joüon §166a,g).

(2) The adversative meaning in ולבים (“but when the North Africans…”) in verse 43 lies in the lexical contrast between the verb ומשל (“he will rule) in verse 43 and יבהלהו (“will terrify him”) in verse 44.

(1) The translation emends אפדנו “his palace” to אבדנו “his destruction,” as a probable phonetic confusion (Tov, 234). “His destruction” makes more sense in the context of a war.

(2) The antecedent of the pronominal suffixes in ובא עד קצו ואין עוזר לו (“and it will come to its end, and no one will save it”) is הר צבי קדש (“[the] beautiful holy mountain”). This parallels the first Hebrew vision, in which the final horn destroys the temple (Dan 8:9-12).

Exegesis

(1) Here the “king of the treasure” shifts to the Roman emperor in general.

(2) The power of the Roman emperor rested on the control of Egyptian wealth. Command of this wealth enabled Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony to challenge Octavian.

(3) The “Kushites” are the people that lived on the Nile, immediately south of Roman Egypt. After the conquest of Egypt, the Romans fought two wars with the Kushites south of Egypt, one in 25 BCE and another in 22-21 BCE. The second war ended in an agreement that fixed the southern border of Roman Egypt at Hiera Sykaminos, south of the first cataract. See Jackson, 147-150.

(4) The “North Africans” refers to the client kingdom of Mauretania. After Caligula executed Ptolemy of Mauretania (a grandson of Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII) in 40 CE, a revolt broke out in Mauretania that ended into its annexation and division into two provinces: Mauretania Tingitana and Mauretania Caesariensis.

(1) The “north” refers to Roman Armenia.

(2) The “east” refers to the Parthian Empire.

(3) These “reports” refer to the opening events of the Roman-Parthian War of 58-63. After an Iberian prince seized the throne of Armenia from its Roman client king without a serious Roman protest, the Parthian king Vologaeses invaded Armenia, deposed the usurper, and installed his brother Tiridates I. See Mason, 161-162.

(4) This “wrath” refers to the campaign of Corbulo that deposed Tiridates, and installed the Tigranes VI, the great-grandson of Herod, on the Armenian throne. Without Roman consent, Tigranes VI attacked Monobazus II, the Jewish ruler of Adiabene and a Parthian vassal. The war resumed, and after a Roman disaster at Rhandeia, the Romans agreed to accept the accession of Tiridates I if he accepted the status of a Roman client king. The Treaty of Rhandeia of 63 CE formalized this agreement. See Mason, 162-164.

(1) The “beautiful holy mountain between the seas” is the Temple Mount.

(2) The “seas” refer to the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, between which Jerusalem lies.

(3) The “end” of the Temple Mount refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in the First Jewish-Roman War (66-74 CE).

(4) Here the excursus presents the First Jewish-Roman War as the final phase of the Roman-Parthian War of 58-63. This perspective is plausible. Both wars ultimately concerned the forward defense of Egypt, and key military units fought in both wars. Among these units was the Legio XII Fulminata, which suffered humiliation at Rhandeia and annihilation at Beth Horon. Even after the war, the Parthians remained willing to challenge Rome, and the Jewish insurgents were actively seeking their assistance (Josephus, J.W. 6.343). These overtures were not trivial. A century before these wars, Orodes II supported Antigonus II Mattathias against Rome and his uncle Hyrcanus II (Josephus, Ant. 14.330-366; J.W. 1.248-273). Parthian Jews in Adiabene and Babylonia also maintained close religious and financial ties with Jerusalem. Most notable among them was Monozabus II, king of Adiabene and a central figure in the Parthian war. Though he himself did not directly participate in the fighting, his family nonetheless did, most notably at the Battle of Beth Horon (Josephus, J.W. 2.520). See Mason, 163; 459-461.

Preface

Apparatus and Organization

Notes

Abbreviations

Ancient Authors

Bible Translations

Textual Surveys and Museum Catalogs

Journals and References

Bibliography

Commentary

[A] (2-5) Prologue: From Artaxerxes II to Ptolemy I

[B] (6-9) Ptolemy III and Ptolemid Egypt Ascendant

[C1] (10-12) Antiochus III: Failure in the Fourth Syrian War

[C2] (13-17) Antiochus III: Success in the Fifth Syrian War

[X] (18-24) Transition: Roman-Seleucid War and Rise of Antiochus IV

[C2′] (25-28) Antiochus IV: Success in the First Invasion of Egypt

[C1′] (29-35) Antiochus IV: Failure in the Second Invasion of Egypt

[B′] (36-42) Augustus and Ptolemid Egypt Conquered

[A′] (43-45) Epilogue: Augustus to the Fall of Second Temple Jerusalem

Unorthodox Theology