Antiochus IV as the Scorned Prince in Dan 11:21

Author(s): Benjamin Scolnic

Source: Vetus Testamentum , 2012, Vol. 62, Fasc. 4 (2012), pp. 572-581
Published by: Brill

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23496679

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23496679?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum

This content downloaded from

181.224.253.212 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:19:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 r Vetus
'‫׳»•יי‬ Testamentum

BRILL Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 572-581 brill.com/vt

Antiochus IV as the Scorned Prince in Dan 11:21

Benjamin Scolnic
Southern Southern Connecticut State University
scolnic@aol.comscolnic@aol.com

Abstract

While most English translations render nbzh in Dan 11:21 as "contemptible, vile, despicable,"
closer examination will demonstrate that this Biblical Hebrew word should be translated as

"spurned, scorned, rejected." Once one understands Dan 11:21 accordingly, other ancient
sources can be brought to show that this verse states, in its own thinly-veiled code, that before
his rise to power, Antiochus IV, son of the late king Antiochus III and brother of the current king
Seleucus IV, had been scorned and had not been given appropriate royal honors. This verse
should be seen as another element in the evaluation of Dan 11 as an accurate and important
historical source for the events surrounding the rise and rule of Antiochus IV.

Keywords
Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, Daniel, translation

While most English translations render nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬in Dan 11:21 as "contempt
ible, vile, despicable,"1 closer examination will demonstrate that this Biblical
Hebrew word should be translated as "spurned, scorned, rejected." Once one
understands Dan 11:21 accordingly, other ancient sources can be brought to
show that this verse states, in its own thinly-veiled code, that before his rise to
power, Antiochus IV, son of the late king Antiochus III and brother of the
current king Seleucus IV, had been scorned and had not been given appropri
ate royal honors and that this rejection may have motivated him to avenge
himself and rise to power by killing those who had scorned him.

" The King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.), American Standard Version (1984), the New Interna
tionaltional Version (1984), the NJV (1985), the New American Standard Bible (1995), the King James
20002000 Bible (2003), the English Standard Version (2001) and the New Living Translation (2007).
This translation is followed by almost all modern commentators; e.g. John J. Collins Daniel
(Minneapolis, 1993), p. 382.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/15685330-12341086

This content downloaded from

181.224.253.212 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:19:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 B.B. Scolnic / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 572-581 573

Most scholars would agree that Daniel 7-12 was written between 168 and
166 and is therefore a remarkably contemporary witness to the reign of the
Seleucid king Antiochus IV (175-164), who is the focus of these chapters. The
authors of Dan 7-12 detest Antiochus IV and insist that despite his display of
power in a violent persecution, this cruel king should be seen in the light of
the Jewish people's ultimate destiny; he is merely one in a long line of foreign
kings who will fall. While the Animal Apocalypse in Enoch 85-9, from the
same period, uses very symbolic language, and 1 and then 2 Maccabees were
written decades later, "Daniel... is a significant historical source, esp. in
chap. 11 ."2 As Ginsberg says, Dan 11:6-30 is "a remarkably accurate account
of the wars and marriages between the dynasty of the north (the Seleucids)
and that of the south (the Lagids) down to the Seleucid Antiochus IV and the
joint Lagid kings Ptolemy VI and VII "3 Dan 11 refers to specific events in
Hellenistic history such as the marriage of Antiochus II Theos to Berenice,
daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, ca. 250 (Dan 11:6), the victory of the
Roman general Lucius Cornelius Scipio over Antiochus III at Magnesia in
190 (Dan 11:18), Antiochus IV's two invasions of Egypt, how he is forced to
withdraw from there by the Romans, and how he desecrates the Temple in
Jerusalem and persecutes Judaism (Dan 11:24-36).
Still, scholars do not seem to have recognized all of the historical elements
in Dan 11 ; this study will attempt to show that Dan 11:21 is an accurate
reflection of the background of the events that brought Antiochus IV to power
in the first place.

NbzhNbzhNbzh ‫הזבנ‬

NbzhNbzh ‫ הזבנ‬is the passive participle form of the root bzh ‫ הזב‬and should be
rendered, "spurned, rejected." In Jer. 22:28, nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬is used to describe
Coniah (Jehoiachin), who is a discarded vessel:

Is Is he a rejected broken pot,

This This man Coniah

A A vessel no one wants?

Why Why are he and his offspring thrown out

And cast away to a land they did not know? (NJV)

2‫ י‬J.J. Collins, "Book of Daniel", ABDII, p. 34.

31 H. L. Ginsberg, "Book of Daniel", £/, p. 1281.

This content downloaded from

ff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 574 B. Scolnic / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 572-581

The pot is obviously not 'contemptible.'

Malachi states (Mai 1:7,12) that, as opposed to honoring a father or a mas
ter, the priests scorned God by treating His table with scorn nbzh ‫הזבנ‬.
'Scorned' is the opposite of 'honored;' the altar is the object of neglect. In
Jer. 49:15, the prophet condemns the Edomites: "For I will make you least
among nations, Most despised bzwy ‫ יוזב‬among men." Here, the Edomites are
scorned by the other nations; the point is not that they are 'vile' but that they
will be spurned. The play on words here is that their ancestor Esau spurned
wybzwybz ‫ זיבו‬his birthright (Gen 25:34). In 2 Sam 12:9 and 10, the prophet
Nathan rebukes David for his acts of murder and adultery in the Bathsheba
incident: "Why then have you flouted bzyt ‫ תיזב‬the command of the LORD
and done what displeases Him?... because you spurned Me bztny ‫ ינתזב‬by
taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite and making her your wife." In Ez 17:16,
19, the prophet condemns those who would rebel against the Babylonian king
with whom they had taken an oath and made a covenant: ".. .whose oath he
flouted bzh ‫ הזב‬and whose covenant he broke I will pay him back for flout
ing bzh ‫ הזב‬My pact and breaking My covenant." God will punish those who
spurned these commitments. In Ps 22:25, God does not 'reject' the plea of the
lowly. In Ps 119:141, the righteous man, despite being "belittled and despised"
wnbzhwnbzh ‫הזבנו‬, stays true to the precept of God; though neglected, he does not
neglect the commandments. In Eccl 9:16, "a poor man's wisdom is scorned
bzwyhbzwyh ‫היוזב‬, and his words are not heeded."
That Antiochus is nbzh ‫" הזבנ‬scorned" fits the context of the verse in that it

is parallel to the second half where he was not given the appropriate royal
honors and powers. In the conventional translation, to say that he was a
contemptible man and so was not given royal powers misses the parallelism
and, one might say, is rather amusing; if the Hellenistic kingdoms had deprived
all of their contemptible royals of their power, there would have been no one
to rule.

Hartman and Di Leila are exceptional in their translation of nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬in

Dan 11:21: "The Hebrew nibzeh may mean either "despised" or "despicable."
But here the writer was probably referring objectively to the lowly origin of
this king rather than subjectively to the lowly opinion held of him by the
Jews."4 Hartman and Di Leila are correct that the later opinion of the Jews
about Antiochus is irrelevant and that to translate nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬as 'contemptible'

41 Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Leila, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with
Introduction Introduction and Commentary, AB 23 (New York, 1977), p. 269. Goldingay sees that the second

clause should influence the rendering of nbzh to be "despised" but does not translate accordingly

This content downloaded from

181.224.253.212 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:19:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 B.B. Scolnic / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 572-581 575

is to miss the parallel to the second phrase where he was not given royal honors
and power. I will argue at length below, however, that to be a prince of the
Seleucid kingdom was hardly to be born with a 'lowly origin.'
That nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬here means a 'rejected' man rather than a 'contemptible' one
can be seen in the light of Ginsberg's demonstration that this passage in
Daniel draws heavily on the Suffering Servant texts in Isaiah.5 In Is 53:3, the
Suffering Servant is described as nbzh ‫הזבנ‬, "scorned by men." He is anything
but 'contemptible'; in fact, he is the most moral person in the society. For the
author of Dan 11, the Isaiah passage becomes a prophecy of what would hap
pen in the Maccabaean era. Just as the 'many' evil people in the time of the
prophet scorn the innocent Servant, so the 'many' Jews who collaborate with
Antiochus IV shun and persecute the maskilim, the group with whom the
author of Dan 11 associates. It is thus ironic that the very enemy who will
make the maskilim suffer was himself nbzh ‫הזבנ‬. Perhaps the subtle message is
that this nbzh should not have acted in this fashion, but more likely the use of
the word in Dan 11:21 is simply a reflection of the Suffering Servant passages
that are clearly on this author's mind. The point for the present purpose is that
nbzh nbzh ‫' הזבנ‬scorned' here has the same meaning as in the passage on which
it builds.
Nbzh Nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬as "scorned" seems so clear that one is left to wonder why it has
ever been translated "contemptible." There is one very difficult case, Ps 15:4,
where nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬does seem to mean "contemptible": the verse is usually taken
to mean that for a righteous man, a nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬is one who is abhorrent. But the
passive participle used here in both nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬and nm's ‫ סאמנ‬would seem to
indicate: "A rejected man in his (the righteous man's) eyes is rejected." There
seems to be something elliptical or missing here. Why does the righteous man
not actively reject the contemptible man? Dr. Leslie Wilson suggests that the
humble man rejects his own righteousness because he is so humble in his own
eyes.6 I would add that there might be a play on words here between 'niv ‫ונע‬,
a humble man, and b'ynyw ‫ויניעב‬, "in his eyes." Thus even the one possible
Biblical case of bzh as "contemptible" is at least ambiguous.
In exploring how nbzh came to be translated as "contemptible," a brief sur
vey of ancient Biblical versions is in order. The Greek forms LXX-Daniel and
Theodotion-Daniel differ for Dan 11:21: LXX-Daniel has e\jKaxa(pp6vT|toç,

nor understand the significance of this point (John E. Goldingay, Daniel: A Commentary on the
Book of Daniel,Book of Daniel, (Nashville, 1994), p. 279.

5) H. L. Ginsberg, "The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant", VT3 (1953), pp. 400-404.
6) In an oral communication.

This content downloaded from

181.224.253.212 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:19:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
576 B. Scolnic / 1fetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 572-581

"one who is very despised," and Theodotion-Daniel reads è^onôevœBr), "one

who is set at nought."7 The latter reading means to be spurned and deprived of
all status and the royal prerogatives and is thus suitably parallel to the second
half of the verse. Neither major Greek form has any connotation of "con
temptible/vile."
Vulgate Douay-Rheims has et stabit in loco eius despectus, "And there shall
stand up in his place one despised."8 Despectus is not the best translation of
nibzehnibzeh but does have the merit of being parallel to the second clause of the
verse in which the person is deprived of all royal honors. Vulgate St. Jerome
renders et stabit in loco eius vilissimus, "and there shall stand up in his place one
most vile."9 It seems probable that the conventional English translation of
"contemptible, vile" comes from the latter reading.
Whatever the meaning of nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬in Ps. 15:4 and whatever the history of
its mistranslation, it means "spurned" in Dan 11:21. Nbzh ‫הזבנ‬, from the root
bzhbzh ‫ הזב‬conveys a sense of devaluation, but also is bi-literally related to the
root bzz ‫ זזב‬with the sense of plundering or looting (e.g. Is 8:1, 3).10 Perhaps
nbzh nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬has the nuance of "despoiled," indicating that this prince had been
stripped of his royal insignia, parallel to the second clause.
If Dan 11:21 states that Antiochus IV was scorned and deprived of the
royal insignia, then one may look for another indication of this shunning. He
was the principal hostage in Rome mandated by the Treaty of Apamea (188)
and was released in exchange for Seleucus IV's oldest son Demetrius at some
point in the years 178-175. The scholarly consensus, following a reconstruc
tion of SEG 131, is that he lived in Athens from 178 until 175 when he heard
of the assassination of Seleucus IV." If he did not return to his home but
stayed in exile, the scorning is evident; he had not been invited back to Anti
och. If so, he was rejected by his older brother who did not give him a role in
ruling the Seleucid kingdom.

‫ ׳י‬Both of the readings can be found in Septuaginta vol. XVIpars 2 Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco
eds. J. Ziegler and O. Munnich (Gôttingen, 1999).
81 Nova Vulgata, Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio (Vatican, 1979).
R. Weber (ed.), Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatum versionum (Stuttgart, 1994).
!‫ )״‬I thank Dr. Wilson for this suggestion as well.
111 111 S. V. Tracy, "Greek Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora Third to First Centuries B.C.,"
Hesperia 51 (1982), pp. 60-62.

This content downloaded from

181.224.253.212 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:19:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 B.B. Scolnic / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 572-581 577

The Context of the Spurning

The question remains, "Why was Antiochus IV rejected?" It is possible that

the king, his older brother Seleucus IV, wanted to exclude a potential threat.
Imagine being Seleucus IV. In every generation of your dynasty, a member
of the immediate ruling family was assassinated. The founder of your dynasty,
Seleucus I, was assassinated.12 Your great great-grandfather Antiochus I exe
cuted his elder son and co-ruler Seleucus ca. 267 on the charge of rebellion.13
With the help of his mother, your grandfather Seleucus II Callinicus became
king after the assassination of his father Antiochus II Theos and his second
wife Berenike and her son.14 Your father Antiochus III became king after assas
sination of his older brother, Seleucus III.15 Your father may have killed your
older brother Antiochus, who had been co-king and heir.16
A Seleucid king had good reason to be suspicious of everyone.17 Antiochus III
and then Seleucus IV were extremely careful about any possible heirs or claim
ants to the throne. The premature death of Antiochus Ill's eldest son Anti
ochus and the exile and shunning of Antiochus IV left the field completely
open for Seleucus IV and his line.18
Another possible reason for the shunning may be seen in a fragment from
Agatharchides found in Athenaeus where there may be a hint of the young
Antiochus IV's ambitions. Antiochus III gave his third son, the future Anti
ochus IV, the name Mithridates after he had given the two Seleucid dynastic
names, Antiochus and Seleucus, that is, the names borne by all of the Seleucid

121 Seleucus I Nicator was assassinated in September 280 by Ptolemy Ceraunos, son of Ptolemy I
of Egypt.
131 Pompeius Trogus, Prologues in the Philippic History 26.
14> There seems to have been a plot in which Laodike assassinated Antiochus II (Phylarchos as
cited in Athenaeus 19c (Hegesander), 438c-d (= Phylarchos FGrH81 F 6).
151 Seleucus III was assassinated in Asia Minor by members of his army while on campaign
against Attalus I of Pergamon after just two-three years of rule (225-223).
161 Or so Livy implies (Livy 35.15.2).
171 Dan 11:17 indicates that Antiochus III will give Ptolemy his daughter in marriage in order
to destroy him but that it will not work. Antiochus III sent his daughter (and Seleucus IV's sister)
Cleopatra to be the wife of Ptolemy V. Cleopatra did not carry out her father's plan; instead, she
took up the cause of her new kingdom. This member of the immediate royal family betrayed her
father; the lesson would not have been lost on her brother.
Is) If Seleucus IV sent his oldest son Demetrius to Rome, as Appian (Syr. 45) would have it,
could it be that he did not want an of-age potential heir around, that he much preferred having
only his young child Antiochus as a possible successor in Syria? If so, his plan backfired.

This content downloaded from

181.224.253.212 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:19:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 578 B. Scolnic / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 572-581

monarchs, to his two older sons.19 Mithridates was the son of Laodice, daugh
ter of Mithridates II of Pontus, and thus bore the name of his maternal grand
father. In 197, Antiochus III regained control of Lycia and III sent Mithridates
on a mission there. This fragment concerns the action of Mithridates around
the town of Arycanda.20 Athenaeus cites Agatharchides as follows:

... Agatharchides, in the thirty-fifth book of his European History, says "The Ary
candians of Lycia, who live on the borders of the Limyrians, became involved in
debt through their prodigality and extravagance of living, and being unable to pay
their debts because they were lazy and pleasure-loving, they lent themselves to the
ambitious projects of Mithridates, thinking that they would have as reward aboli
don of their debts."21

The inhabitants of Arycanda give their support to Mithridates. The people of

this area might have pinned their hopes on this prince, thinking that in his
youthful earnest intention to gain a major reputation, he would release them
from debt. What is so interesting here is that Mithridates is said to have "ambi
tious projects." He may have conducted himself in a way that displeased Anti
ochus III and his heir, Seleucus IV. At any rate, Mithridates waged a successful
campaign in Asia Minor and began to make a name in the 190's.
It also is possible that the future Antiochus IV had become suspect because
of the years he had spent as a hostage in Rome from 188-178/175. He may
have acted in a certain way in Rome that made him suspicious to Seleucus IV.
He may have become popular in Rome, as was Demetrius of Macedon (Livy
39.53), a parallel and contemporary Hellenistic principal hostage. Demetrius
was not seen as spurned because he had been sent as a hostage; to be a hostage
in Rome was to play a necessary role. In fact, it was his very popularity that
made him the object of jealousy and led to his death.22 Still, it is possible that
merely by spending so much time in Rome, it seemed to others such as the
author of Dan 11:21 that Antiochus was spurned.

‫ "י‬J. D. Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazeteer, (Leiden, 1997), p. 22; R F. Mittag
AntiochosAntiochos IV. Epiphanes: Einepolitische Biographie, (Berlin, 2006), p. 34.
m Athen. 12.528; FGrH 86 F16.
"‫ י"י‬Trans. C. B. Gulick, London, 1933.
2‫ '־‬For Demetrius and Perseus, see Polybius 23 and Livy 39-40.

This content downloaded from

181.224.253.212 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:19:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 B.B. Scolnic / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 572-581 579

Contrast with Pergamon

In Dan 7:8, 20, 24 and 8:9, Antiochus IV is described as the "small horn"
or the horn that branches off because he is not a son and direct heir of
Seleucus IV.23 But as opposed to Hartman and Di Leilas description of Anti
ochus IV as a "lowly personage,"24 a brother of a king was hardly considered a
secondary personage in the Hellenistic world. Dan 11:10 refers to the military
campaigns of both of the sons of Seleucus II Callinicus:

But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and
one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return,
and be stirred up, even to his fortress.

In the same way, Antiochus III, father of Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV, played
a major role in the kingdom before the death of his older brother Seleucus III
Ceraunus.

The spurning of the future Antiochus IV by Seleucus IV also can be seen

in contrast to the relationship of the Attalid brothers of Pergamon who ruled
at the same point in history. The two dynasties were contemporaneous and
had interrelated destinies; Pergamon was a central force in the events of
Antiochus IV's accession.25
Attalus I and Apollonis were the parents of Eumenes II, Attalus (II), Phile
taerus and Athenaeus. Eumenes II succeeded Attalus I in 197 and ruled until
159. Polybius, describing Attalus Is life, says that "what is more remarkable
than all, though he left four grown-up sons, he so well settled the question of
succession, that the crown was handed down to his children's children without
a single dispute" (Polyb. 18.41). Prior to becoming king, Attalus (II) was
already an accomplished military commander.26 In 182, Attalus fought the

231 This emphasis accents his usurpation of the throne from the legal heir. Since he is not the
rightful king, to oppose him is not the same thing as opposing the rightful king.
241 Hartman and DiLella, p. 269.
251 Esther V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamon, (Ithaca, New York, 1971); Elizabeth Kosmeta
tou, "The Attalids of Pergamon," in Andrew Erskine, éd., A Companion to the Hellenistic World,
(Oxford, 2003), pp. 159-174.
261 Eumenes II collaborated with the Romans to oppose first Macedonian, then Seleucid expan
sion towards the Aegean, leading to the defeat of Antiochus III at the Batde of Magnesia in 190.
When Gnaeus Manlius Vulso started his preparation for the Galatian campaign of 189 by sum
moning the Pergamenes to help, Eumenes was in Rome, so Attalus, acting as regent, took com
mand of the Pergamene army, joining the Roman army with a thousand infantry and five
hundred cavalry (Livy 38.12.7-8, 13.3 and 23.11).

This content downloaded from

181.224.253.212 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:19:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 580 B. Scolnic / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 572-581

Seleucids, successfully meeting the army of Pharnaces I of Pontus. Attalus

assisted the Romans again in 171, joining Publius Licinius Crassus in Greece
for the Third Macedonian War. Attalus also made frequent diplomatic visits to
Rome, gaining the esteem of the Romans.27
Eumenes was married to Stratonice, daughter of Ariarathes IV, King of
Cappadocia, and was the father of Attalus III (who lived ca. 170-133). When
Eumenes died in 160/159, Attalus II became king and married Eumenes'
widow Stratonice. Attalus II may officially have been a co-regent with
Eumenes II; whatever the legal designations, it was a fact that the brothers had
ruled together for years.28
A brother of the king was a precious asset. Eumenes used his brother Ath
enaeus strategically, marrying him off to Kallipa, former mistress of Perseus,
the last king of Macedonia (Diod. 32.15.5). Athenaeus was one of his king
dom's "most competent diplomats."29
Again, we see the scorning of Antiochus IV very clearly when we contrast
how he was treated with how the Attalid brothers were treated by their older
brother and king. The harmony of the Attalid brothers was famous in the
ancient world. The filial "affection" of the brothers as well as their upbringing
is mentioned by several ancient sources.30 An inscription at Pergamon repre
sents their mother Apollonis as saying that "she always considered herself
blessed and gave thanks to the gods, not for wealth or empire, but because she
saw her three sons guarding the eldest and him reigning without fear among
those who were armed."31 And very relevant to our concerns, a decree of
Antiochus IV praises "king Attalus and queen Apollonis... because of their
virtue and goodness, which they preserved for their sons, managing their edu
cation in this way wisely and well."32 It is fascinating that Antiochus IV would

7‫־‬, When the Romans suspected Eumenes of conspiring with Perseus of Macedon in 167, the
Romans failed in an attempt to convince Attalus to become a rival for the Pergamene throne.
Roger B. McShane, The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of Pergamum, (Urbana, 1964), p. 131,
n. 141.

2'" Elizabeth Kosmetatou, "The Attalids of Pergamon," p. 164; cf. Erich S. Gruen The Hellenistic
World and the World and the Coming of Rome, (Berkeley, 1984), p. 562.

31" Polybius quotes Philip V of Macedonia as saying that the achievements of Eumenes II can be
understood as the results of the cooperative efforts of his brothers (Polyb. 32.11.7). See also
Polyb. 22.20.4-8, Livy 40.8.14, Plut. "Die Fraterno Amore" Moralia 480c.
311 Hansen, The Attalids ofPergamon, p. 45 based on OGIS 308; see M. M. Austin, "The Attalids
of Pergamum" The Hellenistic Worldfrom Alexander to the Roman Conquest, (Cambridge, 2006),
p. 333.
321 Hansen, p. 45.

This content downloaded from

181.224.253.212 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:19:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 B.B. Scolnic / Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 572-581 581

laud the Attalids for their wonderful and virtuous family. His own family
could not have been more different.
Antiochus could have played similar roles to those of the Attalid brothers.
He could have been the natural and legitimate regent when Seleucus IV was
killed, just as Attalus II became king at Pergamon, reigning until the majority
of his older brothers son and heir.
But Antiochus IV, seen by his brother Seleucus IV as dangerously ambitious
or suspect because of his hostage status in Rome, was nbzb ‫הזבנ‬, "spurned," as
Dan. 11:21 states. This verse should be seen as another element in the évalua
tion of Dan. 11 as an accurate and important historical source for the events
surrounding the rise and rule of Antiochus IV. Nbzh ‫ הזבנ‬as "contemptible,"
as found in almost all English translations, does not reflect the significance of
the verse in Hellenistic history.

This content downloaded from

181.224.253.212 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 19:19:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms