sefi;g:v. - A Kabbalist walks into a bar, and the

SELEUCIDA SEILEUCIDA
Pelusium and of the island of Cyprus which was now
practically his through the treachery of Ptolemy Macron
(2 Macc. loI3). Antiochus' victorious career in Egypt
came to an abrupt ending. For at this moment the
Roman victory at Pydna (168 B.C.) changed the whole
face of affairs in the East.
Popilius knas, the Roman envoy, a harsh, rude man,
demanded in the name of the senate that Antiochus should
restore his conquests and evacuate Egypt within a set term.
Antiochus asked time for consideration; hut the envoy drew
with his staff a circle round the king and hade him answer
before he stepped beyond it (Pol. 29 27, Livy4512). Antiochus
yielded. ' Like Macedonia in the war just waged by Perseus,
the Seleucida had made in the war regarding Cotlesyria a final
effort to recover their earlier power; hut it is a significant
indica ion of the difference between the two kingdoms, that in
the former case the legions, in the latter the abrupt language of
a diplomatist, decided the controversy' (Momms. Hist. ofRome,
2 309).
It was upon his return to Syria after finding the prize
of Egypt, so nearly within his grasp, thus forever snatched
from him, that Antiochus committed those outrages in
Palestine which earned him the undying hatred of the
Jews, and for which he is pilloried in the books of Daniel
and Maccabees as the very personification of impiety.
Already upon his first return, in 170 B.c., he had
captured Jerusalem, slain and enslaved thousands of
Jews, entered the Holy of Holies, and despoiled the
temple (I Macc. 1 ZOJ 2 Macc. 5 1.3 ; see ANTIOCHUS 2,
JASON, MENELAUS). Now the king determined to
carry through the Hellenisation of Palestine. A royal
edict made the practice of Jewish rites punishable by
death; the temple was dedicated to Zeus Olympios
(168 B.C. See I Macc. 141J, 2 Macc. 61J).l These
persecutions led to the revolt of the Maccabees. The
outbreak of Mattathias at Modin (167 B.C.) seems to
have attracted little attention at the capital. It was not
until the death of Mattathias and the assumption of
leadership of the movement by his son Judas (166 B. c. ),
who defeated several detachments (that of Apollonius,
I M~cc, 310 ; that of Seron, I Macc. 313), that ' his
name came near even unto the king,' and energetic
measures were taken to suppress the insurrection
(I Macc. 327). The general conduct of Yhe operations
was entrusted to LYSIAS (q.~.). 'an honourable man,
and one of the seed royal' (I Macc. 332); but the
victories of Judas at Emmaus and Beth-zur secured the
practical evacuation of the country, and gave opportunity
for the purification and rededication of the Temple
(I Macc. 436f:, 2 Macc. 101J). Antiochus was unable
apparently to direct upon Judea the whole force of the
empire, before which the Jewish national party must
undoubtedly have succumbed. He was engaged
beyond the Euphrates (I Macc. 337), not, as the Jewish
narrative puts it, to 'take the tributes of the countries,
and to gather much money' (I Macc.331). hut more
probably in safe-guarding his frontiers against the growing
power of the Parthians (cp Tac. Hist. 58 : 'rex
Antiochus demere superstitionem et mores Grzecorum
dare adnisus. quominus tzeterrimani gentem in rnelius
mntaret, Parthorum bello prohibitus est ').
The sequence and extent of his operations in this quarter are
unknown. After making an attempt to plunder a temple of
Artemis in ELYMAIS (q.~., see also NANEA), Antiochus died of
disease at Tab= in Persia; some said that he died mad (Pol.
31 11. Appian, SPY.
66); the professedlycircumstantial narratives
of I Macc. 6 13 and 2 Macc. 9 ~ f: are mutually contradictory
and of no historical value (cp in general MACCABEES, FIRST,
f IO, SECOND, Fi 2.L). When, ii fact, we compare the last episode
of this king's life with that of his father, we may well doubt
whether the tradition is not a confusion partly suggested by and
founded upon the nickname Epimanes applied to Antiochus IV.
Wilcken, S.V. ' Antiochus ' in Pauly's Realencyc., ed. Wissowa),
or only two (so 2 Macc. 5 I ; see Mahaffy, Em#. of UePioltmies,
3363). His usurpation of Egypt was marked by the Seleucid
anchor on the copper coins, and also by a new issue of copper
coins with his own name.
1 Perhaps the savage outbreak at Jerusalem upon the second
occasion was +e to pome more personal grievance than mere
resistance to innovations. The nationalists of Palestine may
have heen in part responsible for the delay and failure of his
Egyptia expedition, as Mahaffy suggests, og. cif. 341.
4353
~
Antiochus V., Eupator (164-162 B.c.), son of the
preceding, was either nine or eleven years'old at his
antiochus father's death (Appian, Syr. 46 ; Eus.
v. (164-162 Chr. 1253). In 166 B.C. Antiochus
- ",
Epiphanes, on the eve of his departure
D.V.).
to- the east, appointed Lysias -' to be
over the affairs of the king from the river Euphrates
unto the borders of Egypt, and to bring up his son
Antiochus, until he came again ' (I Macc. 332J ) ; see
LYSIAS. On the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, Lysias
declared Antiochus his son king, with the title Eupator,
' on account of the virtues of his father ' (I Macc. 6 17;
cp Appian, Syr. 46). The young king and his guardian
then led an expedition to the relief of Jerusalem, where
the citadel was hard pressed by Judas Maccabzeus.
The armies met at Beth-zacharias, near Beth-zur, and
Judas was defeated and his brother Eleazar slain
(I Macc. 6&$, Jos. Ant. xii. 94 ; but 2 Macc. 13165,
representing the Jews as victorious, is clearly unhistorical).
The victory of Antiochus enabled him to
invest Jerusalem (I Macc. 6 48J ), and famine was already
doing its work when the king's troops were recalled by
the news that Philip, the foster-brother of Antiochus
Epiphanes (z Macc. 9zg), was approaching Antioch
with an army (I Macc. 6551.). Philip had, in fact,
been appointed by the dying Epiphanes as guardian of
the young Antiochus (I Macc. 655). Peace was made
with the Jews on the terms that ' they shall walk after
their own laws, as aforetime' (I Macc. 659 ; 2 Macc.
1323); but Antiochus in spite of this destroyed the
fortifications of the city and imprisoned the high priest
(I Macc. 662, Jos. Ant. xii. 97). Returning to Syria,
he found no difficulty in expelling Philip from Antioch
(I Macc. 663). In 162 B.c. Antiochus himself was
betrayed, along with Lysias, into the hands of Demetrius,
the son of Seleucus, and rightful heir to the Syrian
throne, and was by him put to death (I Macc. 723, 2 Macc. 14 I$, Polyb.31 I ~ J .
See ANTIOCHUS, 3.
Jos. Ant. xii. 1015).
Demetrius I., Soter (162-150 B. c. ), son of Seleucus
IV. Philopator.
As a boy he had been sent in 175 B.C. to take hisuncle's place
as a hostage in Rome (Polyb. 31 12, I Macc. 1 IO). When his
cousin inherited the crown which his father
11. Demetrius I. Epiphanes had usurped Demetrius who
(162-160 B.G.). had then lived nearly twelve years'prac-
tically a state prisoner in Italy, begged the
Roman Senate to recognise his claim to the Syrian throne, hut
In vain. It suited the Senate better that a mere boy should rule,
rather than one who had reached his twenty-third year. At last
he made his escape in a Carthaginian vessel and landed in Syria
os. Ant. xii. 10 I, z Macc. 14 I). There seems no ground for
:le opinion that the Senate really connived at his escape (so
Holm, Grk. Hist. 4 416 ET).
After putting to death Antiochus V. and Lysias (see
above), the first object of Demetrius was to gain the
recognition of the senate (Polyb. 324J, Diod. 31 29).
It was only after a long time that he gained the grudg-
ing and half-hearted recognition he sought. Timar-
chus, who nnder Antiochus Epiphanes had been satrap
of Babylon (Appian, Syr. 47), revolted, and declared
himself king, and ruled Babylon with an iron hand.
Him Demetrius put down, being given for this service
his title Soter ( ' Saviour ') hy the grateful Babylonians.
The relations of Demetrius with the Jews are sufficiently
set forth elsewhere (DEMETRIUS, I, and in the references
there given).
The foreign policy of Demetrius was not skilful :
indeed it is difficult to see the object at which he aimed.
First, he attempted to get his sister Laodice, the widow
of Perseus, married to Ariarathes 1'. of Cappadocia,
possibly in order to form an anti-Roman league in the
east. Failing in this, he married her himself, and in
revenge encouraged a claimant to the Cappadocian
throne in the person of Orophernes, brother of Ariarathes
(Polyb. 3224). The only result was to raise against
Demetrius the enmity of both Rome and Attalus of
Pergamum (Polyb. 35). Attalus 11. in return supported
the claims of a pretender, Alexander Bala, or Balas, to
4354