Dan 11:10 presents textual and historical difficulties. While some scholars favor the Qetiv/og reading of bnw “son”, corresponding to what has been seen as the more historical statement that one son of Seleucus ii, the famous Antiochus iii, fought against the Ptolemaic kingdom, others prefer the reading of bnyv/“sons” with the Qere, Th.-Dan. and the Vulgate, though they have not understood the verse in a meaningful historical fashion. This article attempts to show that recent developments in the study of Hellenistic history in Asia Minor demonstrate that both sons of Seleucus ii, first Seleucus iii and then Antiochus iii, raised large forces for campaigns to restore their father’s kingdom to its former glory. Dan 11:10 becomes an interesting example of the historicity of Dan 11.
Modern critical scholarship sees the historical account of Dan 11:1-34 as a vaticinium ex eventu, a prophecy written c. 165 bc as if it had been foretold in the sixth century.1 As the foundation for the authority of real predictions about the death of Antiochus iv and the fall of the Seleucid kingdom in 11:35-12:13, one would think that this review of the Hellenistic past would be historically accurate. Yet the symbolic and cryptic nature of this passage and its possible ignorance of aspects of the distant past raise questions about the relationship between this text and actual events. While Montgomery calls the author “the Jewish counterpart of Polybius,”2 other commentators such as Jerome say that the text is more concerned at points with summarizing the most important matters than preserving historical detail.3 The accuracy of Dan 11:1-34 seems to improve as it comes closer to the author’s time but can only be determined by close study of every aspect of this intriguing passage.4
As an example, the textual and historical problems of Dan 11:10 present a complicated puzzle for the exegete. The Ketiv of the traditional Hebrew text seems to read, and the Old Greek renders “son” as opposed to “sons” in the Qere, Th.-Dan and the Vulgate. If the reading is “son,” it is only Antiochus iii, the more famous of Seleucus ii’s two sons, who fights the Ptolemies, which would seem to fit what we know about the Fourth and Fifth Syrian Wars (219-217 and 202-195 bc). In the second reading, both sons of Seleucus ii, Antiochus iii and his predecessor and older brother Seleucus iii gather large forces to rebuild the kingdom and fight the Ptolemaic empire; the latter statement, as Montgomery wrote in 1927, is “not proved.”5
There is an impasse between scholars who choose “son” and “sons.” On the basis of the Ketiv, scholars such as Montgomery, Ginsberg, and Hartman and Di Lella support the reading of “son.”6 Goldingay states that this reading is “historically . . . more accurate.”7 Other scholars, such as Driver and Collins, however, translate “sons.”8
I will appeal to arguments based on what we now know from Hellenistic documents to suggest that “sons” was the original reading and that the verse can be so read in a way that is indeed historical.
The Textual Problem
ubnw [uḇānāyw] yiṯgārû we’āśep̱ū hamōn ẖayalīm rabbīm ubā’ bō’ wešāṭap̱ we‘āḇār weyāšōḇ weyiṯgārû [ē]‘ad mā‘ûzō
And his son (s) will stir themselves up, and they will assemble a multitude of military forces, and he will surely come on, and overflow, as he passes through; and he will return and they (he) will stir themselves (himself) up as far as its (his) fortress.
It is difficult to decide between bnw ‘son,’ as in the Ketiv of the traditional Hebrew text as cited here (and the Old Greek; see below), and bnyw ‘sons’ in the Qere (cited here in the brackets) and Theodotion.9 Again, while the Ketiv presents the singular bnw, which would seem to mean “his son” (singular), the traditional Hebrew text gives a Qere gloss of a plural bnyw “sons” and Th.-Dan agrees:
καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ συνάξουσιν ὄχλον δυνάµεων πολλῶν καὶ ἐλεύσεται ἐρχόµενος καὶ κατακλύζων καὶ παρελεύσεται καὶ καθίεται καὶ συµπροσπλακήσεται ἕως τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ
And his sons will assemble a crowd of great forces, and it will advance by going forward and overwhelming. And it will pass through and will remain and will struggle as far as its strength.
This alternate reading seems preferable because the plural subject now fits with the plural verbs yiṯgārû and we’āśep̱ū. The Th.-Dan/Qere reading has the merit of a plural subject and plural verbs, while the Ketiv does not seem to present this agreement. Indeed, it seems that the Th.-Dan/Qere bnyw corrects the text to reach this subject-verb agreement and could be translated:
And his sons will stir themselves up, and they will assemble a multitude of military forces, and he will surely come on, and overflow, as he passes through; and he will return and he will stir himself up as far as his fortress.10
The complication of this reading is in 10a’s relationship to 10b; in 10b, we find a series of four singular verbs ubā’ bō’, wešāṭap̱, we‘āḇār, weyāšōḇ, only to run into the Ketiv plural yiṯgārû towards the end of 10b and wonder about its relation to all those singular verbs. The Qere singular weyiṯgārē “he will stir himself up” would correct this last plural. A possible solution is that the verse moves from the plural ‘sons’ to a singular ‘it,’ the hmvn/‘multitude of forces’ of 10a, or ‘he’, one of the two sons, presumably Antiochus iii.11 Goldstein’s emendation may solve some of the problems: “The seer in Daniel 11:10 may have begun with the plural, speaking of the two sons of Seleucus ii, and gone on in the singular to speak only of Antiochus iii. If so, read ub’ bnw, “and then his one son will come . . .” for the ungrammatical ub’ bw’.”12
On the other hand, a seemingly singular bnw in the Ketiv, while disagreeing with the plural verbs of 10a, does make 10a conform to 10b and its singular verbs (though the plural yiṯgārû is still an issue). og agrees with this Ketiv reading:
καὶ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐρεθισθήσεται καὶ συνάξει συναγωγὴν ὄχλου πολλοῦ καὶ εἰσελεύσεται κατ᾽ αὐτὴν κατασύρων παρελεύσεται καὶ ἐπιστρέψει καὶ παροξυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πολύ
And his son will both be irritated and will gather a gathering of a great crowd. And he will march against it, ravaging. He will pass through and will return and will be greatly provoked.
As in the Ketiv, this translation shares the problem of a singular ‘son’ who “will both be irritated,” which obviously does not make sense.
If both Greek translations base themselves directly on the Hebrew, were they looking at two different Hebrew versions? It may be revealing that Th.-Dan. seems to be reading from a different Hebrew text that does not have yiṯgārû at all. Or, like the Qere, did Th.-Dan. fix the grammatical problem that og simply replicates from the Hebrew? While Th.-Dan. is supposed to be a version striving for “formal equivalence” rather than dynamic translation, it seems that in this case the og is wooden and not really thinking for itself while Th.-Dan is more dynamic.
The Qere readings, Dan 1:4, 3:5, 3:7, 3:10, 3:15, 3:21, 3:29, 8:11, 9:24, 11:12, 11:18, and 11:39 are variant or corrections of minor orthographic errors.13 As Ulrich assumes in his study of the Dead Sea Scrolls containing parts of the Book of Daniel,14 bnw is merely an orthographic variant; it does not use the plene spelling, but it still means “sons.” Bnw, whether written with the mater lectionis or not, means “sons.” This would leave the wooden og translation of the plene as the only witness to bnw “son” and it was itself superseded in the history of Greek transmission of the Bible by Th.-Dan. The reading bnw as “son” may never have been the correct reading to begin with.
Also, contrary to many scholars, ‘history’ may actually be on the side of the plural reading “sons.”
The Hellenistic Historical Evidence
The ancient scholar Porphyry (late third century bc) was the first to attempt a historical interpretation of Dan 11:10:
After the flight and death of Seleucus Callinicus, his two sons, the Seleucus surnamed Ceraunus and the Antiochus who was called the Great, were provoked by a hope of victory and of avenging their father, and so they assembled an army against Ptolemy Philopator and took up arms. And when the elder brother, Seleucus, was slain in Phrygia in the third year of his reign through the treachery of Nicanor and Apaturius, the army which was in Syria summoned his brother, Antiochus the Great from Babylon to assume the throne.15
This is a legitimate attempt to interpret the verse and apply it to the historical situation of 225-223 bc. The sons of Seleucus ii, first Seleucus iii and then Antiochus iii, raised armies with which to confront Ptolemy iii Euergetes and then Ptolemy iv Philopator (though Porphyry thinks it is only the latter, who did not succeed his father until 222). As I will show, Porphyry’s main mistake is that he thinks that Seleucus iii was in Coele-Syria when he was killed and that his brother Antiochus iii was brought from his position in Babylon to Syria to continue the conflict. Porphyry clearly interprets the verse without any special historical knowledge.
If Porphyry is right in his interpretation of Dan 11:10, as the advocates of ‘son’ state, then the verse is wrong historically, for there is no evidence that Seleucus iii ever attacked the Ptolemies in Coele-Syria. As mentioned above, Montgomery writes: “The assumption that hostilities with Egypt occurred in Seleucus’ reign, although corroborated by Jerome, is not proved.”16 We may be much closer now to proving it.
What we know about Seleucus iii’s activities in the two short years of his reign is that he sought to regain Seleucid lands in Asia Minor. Here is our main source, Polybius:
When on the death of Seleucus, father of this Antiochus, his eldest son Seleucus succeeded him, Achaeus in his quality of a kinsman accompanied the king on his expedition across the Taurus . . . For the young Seleucus, immediately on ascending the throne, having learnt that Attalus had appropriated all his dominions on this side of the Taurus hastened there to defend his interests. He crossed the Taurus at the head of a great army, but perished assassinated by the Gaul Apaturius and Nicanor. (Polyb. 4.48)
Montgomery, acknowledging that the versions support the Qere reading “sons,” says that “it is doubtful whether the elder brother was concerned in any operations” and that the preferred reading is “son.”17 Polybius shows him to be wrong. Given this passage in Polybius, Dan 11:10 seems incorrect in implying that Seleucus iii and Antiochus iii, the two sons of Seleucus ii, raised large armies to attack the Ptolemies. It would not be for another four years after Antiochus iii inherits the Seleucid throne in 223 bc that he would turn against Egypt to ignite the Fourth Syrian War in 219.
Furthermore, it would be at least somewhat surprising if the verse were wrong, considering how much of Dan 11 is historically accurate and only more historical as it approaches its own time of composition, 167-165 bc. One wonders if there is another way to read 11:10 and see it as historical.
I will begin with the easier point involving the size of the Seleucid army and then proceed to the much more difficult point to prove, that Seleucus iii attacked the Ptolemies. It is interesting that v. 10 is the first time in Dan 11 that the size of armies is mentioned (“and they will assemble a multitude of military forces”) and that Polybius also makes a point about the size of the army of Seleucus iii (“He crossed the Taurus at the head of a great army”). Since Dan 11 was written in 167-165 and Polybius wrote his Histories decades later, the Daniel author obviously did not know the latter’s work. They also both knew about and emphasized Antiochus iii’s career and the size and variety of his forces. Dan 11:11-13 emphasizes the size of Antiochus iii’s armies at Raphia a few years later in 217, and Polybius presents the details: Antiochus iii’s army was comprised of 62,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry. To give a sense of proportion, Polybius reports that Alexander’s army at the battle of Issus in 333 was 47,126 (Polyb. 12.19). The army certainly was composed of many different forces: from Persia, Persians, Carmanians, Medes, Cissians and Cadusii; from Asia Minor, Cilicians, Cardakes and Lydians. from modern Bulgaria, Agrianians, Thracians, Arabians, Greek mercenaries, Cretans and Neocretans, not to mention the 102 war elephants from India (Polyb. 5.79). Again, Dan 11:10, in referring not only to the size but also the various forces involved speaks of a historical reality.18
Porphyry interprets Dan 11:10 to mean that Seleucus iii brought a large army to Coele-Syria, but this is only because he assumes that this is where he met the Ptolemies. Dan 11:10 does not say that he moved into Coele-Syria, and if we wish to combine Dan 11:10 and the passage in Polybius, we are free to state that Seleucus iii brought a large army and attacked the Ptolemies in Asia Minor.
Dan 11:10a would be correct to say that the two sons of Seleucus ii, Seleucus iii and his successor Antiochus iii “stirred themselves up” and gathered forces for campaigns to rebuild the kingdom. This would certainly mean restoring significant territory in Asia Minor.19 Indeed, there is evidence of Seleucus iii’s campaign and even coinage that he had struck at Phrygia.20 Seleucus iii may have taken the highway through the middle of Anatolia, campaigning for most of two years, ‘flooding’ all the way to western Asia Minor, minting coinage in Phrygia to make the point that he was in control, only to get assassinated there by his own troops.
Given the context in Dan 11 of the struggle between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, the verse would seem to imply that at least part of the fight was waged against the Ptolemies. To support the reading of “sons” in Dan 11:10, we need evidence that Seleucus iii was in conflict with the Ptolemaic kingdom in Asia Minor. We now have such evidence and it can be shown that Seleucus iii, in attempting to regain lands in Asia Minor, would have come into contact with the Ptolemies. Contrary to the impression given by Polybius and other Seleucid narratives and some modern scholars21 but in consonance with the reading of “sons” in Dan 11:10, the Ptolemies were powerful in Asia Minor at this time.22 While Polybius certainly makes it seem that Seleucus iii was only in conflict with Pergamon, recent scholarship and epigraphical discoveries have highlighted what Polybius elsewhere states, that the Ptolemies “stretched out their arm from afar” (Polyb. 5.34.9). As Ma puts it, “the holdings in Asia Minor clearly show how deep inland, from an early date onwards, the long arm of the Ptolemies could reach.”23 The developing record reveals formerly unknown references to Ptolemaic activity and pushed that activity further east and north from south and western Asia Minor.24 We know of many Ptolemaic cities on the South Coast, including some such as Mallos ‘around the bend’ of the Mediterranean from Antioch, not to mention Seleucia Pieria, the seaport of Antioch itself. We have an intriguing text concerning a mission to Asia Minor by Ptolemy iii’s son Magas, showing the extent of the dynasty’s interest in the region.25
What Montgomery said was “not proved” might indeed be true; Seleucus iii, in beginning to restore his kingdom in Asia Minor, must have come into conflict with the Ptolemies.
Yet if we read Dan 11:10 to say that Seleucus iii waged a campaign with a large army, why does it make it seem that he was successful in Asia Minor, when Polybius seems to indicate that he was not? While the fact of his assassination during the conflict in Asia Minor may have been the result of his eventual failures there, he must have had some successes in his campaign of roughly two years re-asserting Seleucid dominance.
Seleucus iii may have been successful against Ptolemaic possessions or cities in their sphere of influence but unsuccessful against Attalids when he reached their area of strength. This conclusion would include both a historical sense of Dan 11:10 and what we know from Polybius and Attalid evidence. McShane claims that, “forces of Attalus repeatedly turned back attempts by Seleucus iii to reestablish Seleucid power north of the Taurus Mountains. Again these victories were celebrated and inscribed on monuments in the city of Pergamum.”26 Now even this evidence concerning Attalid victories is no longer so clear. What were taken to be Attalid victories over Seleucus iii may actually have been victories over his father Seleucus ii.27
What is especially fascinating is Ma’s explanation that we have been at the mercy of the Seleucid narrative, a narrative that was articulated through inscriptions and communications, that purposely omits the Ptolemaic presence in Asia Minor in order to create a “historical” relationship between the Seleucids and various cities in the region that may or may have existed in the real past. Polybius accepts this Seleucid narrative that omits the Ptolemies but the Daniel author does not. Seleucus iii not only campaigned in Asia Minor, which we know, and at least part of his campaign was to fight back against Ptolemaic influence if not against their specific control and possessions. The war may not have been as much for the hearts and minds of the people of Asia Minor as for their respect, awe and deference.
At the very least, Ma’s explanation of how little we know about this period in Asia Minor and about the meaning of empire, of the relative holdings and influence of the Ptolemies, Attalids and Seleucids in this huge and important region, should be both a caution about definitive statements and a license for some reasoned speculation. It may be that in the years 225-223, Asia Minor was very much up for grabs with a large Seleucid army led by its king campaigning against Attalids, independent cities and the Ptolemies, and that this was the prelude of the Fourth Syrian War.
Is Dan 11:10 Based on a Ptolemaic Source?
At the point of Seleucus iii’s assassination in 223, Polybius portrays Antiochus as a teenager who was inexperienced and heavily influenced by Hermeias, the chief minister: “Antiochus was still very young had but a short time previously, on the death of his brother Seleucus, succeeded him in Syria” (Polybius 4.2.5). Eusebius follows Polybius and says: “He was succeeded by his brother Antiochus, whom the army summoned from Babylon.”28 Antiochus at this point may or may not have had a role in the kingdom and may or may not have had a high title like “Viceroy in the East.”29
It is possible that the author of Dan 11 used a Ptolemaic source for historical background.30 If so, since Antiochus iii is a bête noire of this text, the verse may describe Antiochus’s early career in a way that overstates his role, elevating him to a kind of equal of his brother from the point of their father’s death in order to blame him for what were considered unwarranted attacks on Ptolemaic possessions.
On the other hand, Antiochus iii must have been in Babylon for a reason; he may have been gathering great numbers of troops, just as Dan 11:10 indicates. And so there may have been a point, probably 225, when Seleucus iii set out in one direction and his brother the other. In this sense, Dan 11:10 is historically accurate when it states that Seleucus ii had two sons who went in different directions (Seleucus iii to the west, Antiochus iii to the east) and hoped to restore the greatness and breadth of the kingdom. Two sons, equal in this view, set out, but one of them succeeds and the other drops from view. The vision, to paraphrase, says: “I see that king’s two sons, for no good reason but their aggression and naked ambition, will go out to conquer, and one will. . . .”
Why should Dan 11 mention Seleucus iii at all, given his short reign? It is possible that Seleucus iii is referred to for the sake of completeness in recounting the kings in succession. Of the sequence of Seleucid kings in inscriptions such as ogis 245, Seleucus i Nikator (11:5), Antiochus i Soter, Antiochus ii Theos (11:6), Seleucus ii Callinicus (11:7-9), Seleucus iii Keraunnos (as long as we resist the Ketiv reading bnw as a singular ‘son’, v. 10), Antiochus iii (11:10-19), Seleucus iv Philopator (11:20) and Antiochus iv Epiphanes (11:21-45), all except Antiochus i Soter, are mentioned.31
Dan 11:1-35 as a Historical Source
To return to the textual versions: if we admit that the Ketiv bnw does not mean ‘son’ but is either a scribal error or an orthographic variant that leaves out the mater lectionis, we are left with only the og translation that is then fixed or superseded by Th-Dan. Hartman and Di Lella and then Di Lella in his recent review suggest that Theodotion might have been from Asia Minor.32 Collins also articulates this possibility and gives the use of Th.-Dan in Revelation33 and Irenaeus’s testimony that Theodotion was from Ephesus (“Theodotion the Ephesian made a translation”34) as possible indications.35 Since the historical Theodotion lived in 150 ad, perhaps two hundred years after the translation was composed, this is hardly convincing. Still, a translator in the middle of the first century bc, whether from Asia Minor or not, might well have known the history of the Seleucid, Ptolemaic and Attalid kingdoms in the previous century in the important region of Asia Minor. If so, he might have known, as we now do, that both Seleucus iii and then Antiochus iii fought in Asia Minor against the enemies of their kingdom, and translated accordingly.
If this approach is correct, it provides an example of how the author of Dan 11 was very aware of events in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms of his era.36 Every ancient text has its prejudices and motivations, and the deeply theological and pro-Jewish texts Dan 7-12 are certainly not exceptions. Still, Dan 11:1-34 should be considered to be an important contemporary account of Hellenistic history that, in some cases, may be even more reliable than other ancient texts.37
1 This consensus has held steady for over a century, since Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge, 1900); cf. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Phil., 1979), p. 612.
2 James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, icc (New York, 1927), p. 421.
3 Gleason L. Archer, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids, 1958), p. 119; John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis, 1993), p. 377.
6 H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel (New York.: jts, 1948), p. 47; Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab 23 (New York, 1977), p. 258.
7 John E. Goldingay, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Nashville, 1994), p. 277. Lacocque translates “sons” but seems to prefer “son” in his comment, citing Ginsberg and Montgomery (André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, trans. by David Pellauer (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), p. 220.
9 For a recent discussion of the Greek versions of Daniel, see Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception Vol. 2 (Boston, 2002), pp. 573-585. See also T. McLay, The og and Th Versions of Daniel (Atlanta, 1996). Th-Dan is a text that scholars often call “kaige,” a revision or version dated to the first century bc; it is an independent translation rather than a revision of the og.
Filii autem ejus provocabuntur, et congregabunt multitudinem exercituum plurimorum: et veniet properans, et inundans: et revertetur, et concitabitur, et congredietur cum robore ejus.
“But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and like a flood: and he shall return, and be stirred up, and to his fortress.”
12 Jonathan A. Goldstein, “The Tales of the Tobiads,” in Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, Part Three: Judaism before 70 (Leiden, 1975), p. 98.
13 The Ketiv/Qere variations were not included in the margins of any ancient text; instead, they reflect an oral tradition and only at a late stage were put into writing in the Masoretic tradition. For this apparatus in Daniel, see Eugene Ulrich, “Orthography and Text in 4QDana and 4QDanh and in the Received Masoretic Text,” in Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, Thomas H. Tobin, eds. Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins (Lanham, Md., 1990), pp. 29-42.
14 Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception Vol. 2 (Boston, 2002), pp. 586-607.
15 Jerome, p. 123. This extract comes from Porphyry’s polemic, “Against the Christians” and survives because it is cited in Jerome’s commentary on Daniel. See Jacoby, FGrH 260.
18 The correspondingly huge numbers and variety of Ptolemy’s army also are referred to in Dan 11 and reported in detail by Polybius.
19 Seleucus iii wanted to recover those parts of Asia Minor that were lost by his father Seleucus ii Callinicus and his uncle Antiochus Hierax. Between the death of Antiochus ii in 246 and the rise of Antiochus iii in 223, Seleucid power in Asia Minor had collapsed because of a combination of factors including the Third Syrian War, the Brothers’ War and the successes of Attalus i of Pergamon. After his brother’s death, Antiochus iii repeatedly made major efforts to regain Asia Minor with varied but ultimate success, in 223-220, 216-213, 203-201, and 197-196.
20 FGrHist 260 F 32.9; John Ma, Antiochos iii and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford, 2000), p. 55; O. Mørkholm, “Some Seleucid Coins of the Mint of Sardes,” Nordisk Num. Arsskrift (1969), pp. 14-15.
21 An example of a modern scholar who transmits the Seleucid narrative about its history in Asia Minor and never mentions the Ptolemies is Wolfgang Orth, Königlicher Machtanspruch und städtische Freiheit (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 71) (Munich, 1977); cf. Ma, pp. 38-39. Bevan moves in the right direction when he suggests that Seleucus iii’s expedition into Asia Minor was a prelude to an attack on the Ptolemies (Anthony Ashley Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Cambridge, 1892), pp. 177-178).
22 Ma, esp. pp. 39ff. and 382-383; P. Briant, P. Brun and E. Varinlioglu, “Une inscription inédite de Carie et la guerre d”Aristonicos” in A. Bresson and R. Descat (eds.), Les cités d’Asie Mineure occidentale au ii siècle a. C. (Bordeaux, 2001), pp. 241-259; Roger S. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt (Leiden, 1976); Katja Mueller Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistic World (Studia Hellenistica 43) (Leuven, 2006).
26 R. B. McShane, The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of Pergamum, (Urbana. 1964), p. 61. See H. Schmitt Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’ der Grossen und zeiner Zeit Historia Einzelschrift 6 (Stuttgart, 1964), pp. 109-11. The important references are Inschr. v. Perg. 35 (ogis 272) and Inschr. v. Perg. 36 (ogis 277).
30 Benjamin Scolnic, “Is Dan 11:1-19 Based on a Ptolemaic Narrative?” jsj (2014): 157-184. See also the following works by Jürgen-Christian H. Lebram: “Apokalyptik und Hellenismus im Buche Daniel: Bemerkungen und Gedanken zu Martin Hengels Buch über ‘Judentum und Hellenismus,’ ” vt 20 (1970): 503-24; “Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Danielforschung,” jsj 5 (1974): 1-33; “König Antiochus im Buch Daniel,” vt 25 (1975): 737-72; “The Piety of the Jewish Apocalypticists,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979 (ed. David Hellholm; Tübingen, 1983), 171-210; and Das Buch Daniel (zbk; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984). And see the brief comment in Stephen B. Reid, Enoch and Daniel: A Form Critical and Sociological Study of the Historical Apocalypses (Berkeley, 1989), 116.
31 I have no explanation for the omission of Antiochus i, especially because he was the Seleucid participant in the First Syrian War (280-279 and 274-271) and the Syrian Wars are such a focus of this chapter. Instead, his reign is obliquely referred to in 11:6 with “at the end of some years” and the narrator goes on to discuss the events of his son Antiochus ii’s reign.
36 For other examples, see my articles: “Antiochus iv as the Scorned Prince in Dan 11:21,” vt 62 (2012): 572-581; “The Milesian Connection: Dan 11:23 and Antiochus iv’s Rise to Power,” vt (2013): 89-98; “When Did Antiochos iv Arrive in Athens?” Hesperia (2014): 123-42; “Antochus iv and the Three Horns in Dan 7,” jhs (2014): 1-28; “Seleucid Coinage in 175-166 and the Historicity of Daniel 11:21-24,” jah (2014): 1-36; (with Tom Davis), “How Kittim Became Rome: Dan 11:30 and the Importance of Cyprus in the Sixth Syrian War,” zaw (2015), forthcoming; “Heliodorus and the Assassination of Seleucus iv according to Dan 11:20 and 2 Macc 3,” jaj (2015): 304-319.
37 I would tentatively suggest another, more literary possibility to the problem of the persons referred to in 11:10, one that I will develop more fully elsewhere. In this historical but also theological and symbolic text, the different kings of the north referred to in 11:5-19 are, in a sense, undifferentiated manifestations of the same mythic figure. Historically speaking, Seleucus ii’s sons Seleucus iii and Antiochus iii attack the Ptolemaic kingdom, but also, in a more mythic mode, the sons of “the king of the north” stir war and the king then attacks his enemies himself, as in this paraphrase: “And his (the king of the north’s) sons will stir themselves up, and they will assemble a multitude of military forces, and he (the king of the north) will surely come on, and overflow, as he passes through; and he will return and they (the sons) will stir themselves up as far as his fortress.”
Montgomery, p. 436.
Driver, p. 169; Collins (1993), p. 378.
Driver, p. 170.
Jonathan A. Goldstein, “The Tales of the Tobiads,” in Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, Part Three: Judaism before 70 (Leiden, 1975), p. 98.
Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception Vol. 2 (Boston, 2002), pp. 586-607.
Montgomery, p. 436.
Montgomery, p. 433.
Ma, p. 41.
See Ma, p. 47.
Hartman and Di Lella, p. 82; Di Lella, p. 596.
Collins, (1993), p. 9.
Collins, (1993), p. 11, n. 97.