Again: through the great revolution of Asia, the Hebrews of Palestine were now placed nearly on the frontier of two mighty monarchies ; and it would seem that the rival powers bid against one another for their good will—so great were the benefits showered upon them by the second Ptolemy. Even when a war broke out for the possession of Ccele-Syria, under Antiochus the Great and the fourth Ptolemy (B.C. 2 t8, 217), though the people of JudHa, as part of the battle field and contested possession, were exposed to severe suffering, it was not the worse for their ulti mate prospects. Antiochus at least, when at a later period (B. C. 98) left master of southern Syria, did but take occasion to heap on the Jews 6.nd Jerusalem new honours and exemptions (Joseph. Antiq. xii. 3, 3). In short, in days in which no nation of those parts could hope for political independence, there was none which seemed so likely as the Hebrew nation to enjoy an honourable social and religious liberty.
The Syrian empire, as left by Antiochus the Great to his son, was greatly weaker than that which the first Seleucus founded. Scarcely, in deed, had the second of the line begun to reign (B. c. 280) when four sovereigns in Asia Minor established their complete independence:—the kings of Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Pergamus. In the next reign— that of Antiochus Theos— the revolt of the Parthians under Arsaces (B. C. 250) was followed speedily by that of the distant pro vince of Bactnana. For thirty years together the Parthians continued to grow at the expense of the Syrian monarchy. The great Antiochus passed a life of war (B.C. 223-187). In his youth he had to contend against his revolted satrap of Media, and afterwards against his kinsman Achmus, in Asia Minor. We have already noticed his struggles in Ccele-Syria against the Ptolemies. Besides this, he was seven years engaged in successful cam paigns against the Parthians and the king of Bactriana ; and, finally, met unexpected and staggering reverses in war with the Romans, so that his last days were inglorious and his resources thoroughly broken. Respecting the reign of his son, Seleucus Philopator (n.c. 187-176), we know little, except that he left his kingdom tributary to the Romans (Livy, xlii. 6) [see also SELEUCUS PHILOPATOR]. In Daniel, xi. 20, he is named a 9rii ser of taxes, which shews what was the chief direction of policy in his reign. De Wette renders the words rather differently (` der einen eintreiber die Krone des Reiches [ Juda.a] durchziehen least'), yet perhaps with the same general meaning. Selcucus having been assassinated by one of his courtiers, his brother Antiochus Epiphanes hastened to occupy the vacant throne, although the natural heir, Demetrius, son of Seleucus, was alive, but a hostage at Rome. In Daniel, xi. 21, it is indi cated that he gained the kingdom by flatteries; and there can be no doubt that a most lavish bribery was his chief instrument. According to the description in Livy (xli. 20), the magnificence of his largesses had almost the appearance of insanity.
A prince of such a temper and in such a position, whose nominal empire was still extensive, though its real strength and wealth were departing, may naturally have conceived, the first moment that he felt pecuniary need, the design of plundering the Jewish temple. At such a crisis, the advantage of the deed might seem to overbalance the odium incurred; yet, as he would convert every Jew in his empire into a deadly enemy, a second step would become necessary—to crush the power of the Jews, and destroy their national organization.
The design, therefore, of prohibiting circumcision and their whole ceremonial, would naturally ally itself to the plan of spoliation, without supposing any previous enmity against the nation on his part. Just then, however, a candidate for the high-priest hood gaNte an impetus to this course of events, by setting the example of assuming Greek manners in the hope of gaining the king's favour ; as is narrated in the ist book of Maccabees. We have written enough to skew how surprising to the Jews must have been the sudden and almost incredible change of policy on the part of the rulers of Syria ; and how peculiarly aggravated enmity Antiochus Epiphanes must in any case have drawn on himself. Instead of crushing his apparently puny foes, he raised up heroes against himself [MACCABEES], who, helped by the civil wars of his successors, at length achieved the deliverance of their people ; so that in the I7oth year of the SeleucidH (B.c. 143) their independence was formally acknowledged, and they began to date from this period (r Macc. xiii. 42) as a new birth of their nation. Whether Antiochus Epiphanes committed all the atrocities alleged in the second book of Maccabees may be doubted ; but having started amiss, with no principle to guide or restrain him, it is certain that he was capable of adding cruelty to iniquity, to whatever amount the necessity of the moment might prompt. The intensity of Tacitus's hatred of the Jews is lamentably displayed in his remarks on this king, Hist. v. 8: ' Rex Antiochus, demere superstitionem et mores Grmcorum dare adnixus, quominus teterrimam genteel in melbas mzitaret, Parthorum bello prohibitus est.' The change of policy, from conciliation to cruel persecution, which makes the reign of Epiphanes an era in the relation of the Jews to the Syrian monarchy, has perhaps had great permanent moral results. It is not impossible that perseverance in the conciliating plan might have sapped the energy of Jewish national faith ; while it is certain that persecution kindled their zeal and cemented their unity. Jerusalem, by its sufferings, became only the more sacred in the eyes of its absent citizens ; who vied in replacing the wealth which the sacri legious Epiphanes had ravished. According to Macc. vi. 1-16, this king died shortly after an attempt to plunder a temple at Elymais ; and Josephus follows that account. Appian (Syr. 66) adds that he actually plundered it. Strabo, how ever (xvi. I), and Justin (xxxii. 2) tell the story of Antiochus the Great, and represent him as losing his life in the attempt. Polybius and Diodorus decide nothing, as the fragments which notice the deed ascribe it merely to ' the king Antiochus.' Nevertheless, Josephus appeals to Polybius as agreeing with him ; and the editors of Polybius so understand the matter. On the whole, it would appear that this attempt is rightly assigned to Epiphanes : it is not likely to have been two events, though the stories do not agree as to the name of the deity of the temple. We ought, how ever, to add, that Winer (Real-If(erterbuch) is dis posed to believe that father and son both ended their lives with the same act ; and this view of the case is also taken in Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography.