Question: Was the period of the defilement of the Temple in Jerusalem, during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes two years (2Maccabees 10:2-3) or three years (1Macc. 1:54 Douay and 1Macc. 4:59)?
Wikipedia: Antiochus IV Epiphanes (/ænˈtaɪ.əkəs ɛˈpɪfəniːz, ˌæntiˈɒkəs/; Ancient Greek: Ἀντίοχος ὁ Ἐπιφανής, Antíochos ho Epiphanḗs, "God Manifest"; c. 215 BC – November/December 164 BC)[1] was a Greek Hellenistic king who ruled the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC. He was a son of King Antiochus III the Great. Originally named Mithradates (alternative form Mithridates), he assumed the name Antiochus after he ascended the throne.[2] Notable events during Antiochus's reign include his near-conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt, his persecution of the Jews of Judea and Samaria, and the rebellion of the Jewish Maccabees.
Antiochus's accession to the throne was controversial, and he was seen as a usurper by some. After the death of his brother Seleucus IV Philopator in 175 BC, the "true" heir should have been Seleucus's son Demetrius I. However, Demetrius I was very young and a hostage in Rome at the time, and Antiochus seized the opportunity to declare himself king instead, successfully rallying enough of the Greek ruling class in Antioch to support his claim. This helped set a destabilizing trend in the Seleucid Empire in subsequent generations, as an increasing number of claimants tried to usurp the throne. After his own death, power struggles between competing lines of the ruling dynasty heavily contributed to the collapse of the Empire.
Antiochus' often eccentric behaviour and capricious actions during his interactions with common people, such as appearing in the public bathhouses and applying for municipal offices, led some of his contemporaries to call him Epimanes (Ἐπιμανής, Epimanḗs, "The Mad"), a wordplay on his title Epiphanes.
Rise to power[edit]
Antiochus, born around 215 BC, was a son of the Seleucid king Antiochus III the Great.[3][4] As a potential successor to the throne, he became a political hostage of the Roman Republic under the terms of the Treaty of Apamea, concluded in 188 BC. After his older brother Seleucus IV Philopator followed their father onto the throne in 187 BC, Antiochus was exchanged for his nephew Demetrius I Soter, the son and heir of Seleucus. After this Antiochus lived in Athens, and was there when his brother was assassinated in 175 BC.
Seleucus was assassinated in September 175 BC by the government minister Heliodorus. Heliodorus proclaimed himself regent afterward, essentially giving himself control of the Government. This arrangement did not last long. With the help of king Eumenes II of Pergamum, Antiochus IV travelled from Athens through Asia Minor and reached Syria by November 175 BC. Seleucus' legitimate heir Demetrius I Soter was still a hostage in Rome, so Antiochus seized the throne for himself, proclaiming himself co-regent with another son of Seleucus, an infant named Antiochus. (Antiochus, son of Seleucus IV would later die in 170 BC, possibly murdered by Antiochus IV).[5][6]
Jewish tradition[edit]
Woodcut depicting Antiochus by Georg Pencz
Antiochus IV is remembered as a major villain and persecutor in the Jewish traditions associated with Hanukkah, including the books of Maccabees and the "Scroll of Antiochus".[29] Rabbinical sources refer to him as הרשע harasha ("the wicked"); the Jewish Encyclopedia concluded that "[s]ince Jewish and heathen sources agree in their characterization of him, their portrayal is evidently correct", summarizing this portrayal as one of a cruel and vainglorious ruler who tried to force on all the peoples of his realm a Hellenic culture, "the true essence of which he can scarcely be said to have appreciated".[30] Whether Antiochus' policy was directed at extermination of Judaism as a culture and a religion, though, is debatable on the grounds that his persecution was limited to Judea and Samaria (Jews in the diaspora were exempt), and that Antiochus was hardly an ideologically motivated Hellenizer. Erich S. Gruen suggests that, instead, he was driven more by pragmatics such as the need to gather income from Judea.[31]
Historiography[edit]
While much of the ancient sources are hostile to Antiochus IV, including non-Jewish ones, some modern historians are sceptical of them as well. The historian Polybius was a friend of Demetrius I, who had little love for his uncle, and was more generally a bit of an elitist, so stories such as those of Antiochus IV frolicking with commoners at taverns may have soured his reputation in antiquity in a way that modern values would find unobjectionable. The historian Dov Gera writes in defence of Antiochus IV that he was a "talented and accomplished politician" and that "the negative portrait of him painted by Polybius was influenced by political considerations of his friends... and should not be trusted."[33]
If you have questions or comments, please click here.
Subjectindex or