Читать книгу A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ - Emil Schürer - Страница 43

CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici. The Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece and Rome, vol. iii., from the CXXIV Olympiad to the death of Augustus. Oxford 1830. 2nd edition, 1851, pp. 310–350.

EWALD, History of Israel, vol. v. Supremacy of the Seleucidae; the Maccabees; the sons of John Hyrcanus, pp. 286–394.

STANLEY, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. Third series. 2nd edition. London 1877. Lect. xlviii.–xlix. pp. 285–396.

NIEBUHR, Vorträge über alte Geschichte, iii. (1851). Also: Historischer Gewinn aus der armenischen Uebersetzung der Chronik des Eusebiut in Klein, Schr. i. 179–304.

FOY-VAILLANT, Seleucidarum imperium sive Historia regum Syriae ad fidem numismatum accommodata. Paris 1681.

FLATHE, Geschichte Macedoniens und der Reiche, welche von macedonischen Königen beherrscht wurden. Bd. ii. (1834). The most complete modern history of the Hellenistic Kingdoms.

FROELICH, Annales compendiarii regum et rerum Syriae numis veteribus illustrati. Viennae 1744, editio altera 1750.

STARK, Gaza und die philistäische Küste. 1852.

A good summary of the sources is given by Clinton.—For the determining of the general chronological framework the chief sources are: 1. The Extract from Porphyry in the Chronicle of Eusebius; 2. Separate statements in the First Book of Maccabees. The Seleucid era, according to which the dates in this book are reckoned, begins probably, not in autumn, but rather in spring of B.C. 312 (see above, § 3. A.). 3. The coins, whose dates have been lucidly collected and arranged by de Saulcy, Mémoire sur les monnaies datées des Séleucides, Paris 1871.

Porphyry, the well-known Neo-Platonic philosopher of the third century after Christ, wrote a chronological world in which he made careful use of the best sources. From, it Eusebius in his Chronicle makes extracts with reference to the history of the Ptolemies (Eusebii Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 159 sq.), and with reference to the Macedonian kings (Eusebii Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 229 sq.). But undoubtedly from, this same source, although Porphyry is not there named, is derived the whole similar paragraph on the history of the Seleucidae (Eusebii Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 247–264). The text of the Chronicle of Eusebius with this passage complete is now extant only in an Armenian translation, first edited by Aucher, Eusebii Chron. vol. i. (1818), translated anew for Schoene’s edition into Latin by Petermann. Fragments of the Greek text are met with in a Parisian manuscript, from which they were published even by Scaliger in the Appendix to his Thesaurus temporum, 1606, and more recently by Cramer, Anccdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis Bibliothecae regiae Parisiensis, vol. ii. (1839) p. 115 sqq. Müller in his Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, iii. 706–717, gives among the fragments of Porphyry, the Armenian and Greek text, together with a historical commentary.

In this passage Porphyry fixes the chronology of the Seleucidae according to the Olympiad era, and indeed in such a way that he takes into account only whole years; hence the year in which a change of kings occurs is reckoned to the one who preceded a full year, while the reign of his successor is made to begin with the following year. Thus, for example, although he makes the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes begin with Olympiad 151. 3, it actually began in Olympiad 151. 2. It is further to be remarked that, in dealing with the frequent appearances of pretenders to the throne, he dates the reign of the successful pretender from the year in which his opponent was overthrown.

From what sources Porphyry has derived his information may be learned from the following statement of Jerome, although its immediate reference is not to Porphyry’s Chronicle, but to his book on Daniel: Ad intelligendas autem extremas partes Danielis multiplex Graecorum historia necessaria est: Sutorii videlicet Callinici, Diodori, Hieronymi, Polybii, Posidonii, Claudii Theonis et Andronici cognomento Alipii, quos et Porphyrius esse sequutum se dicit; Josephi quoque et eorum quos ponit Josephus, praecipueque nostri Livii et Pompeii Trogi atque Justini, qui omnem extraemae visionis narrant historiam (Hieronymus, Praefatio in Danielem, Opp. ed. Vallarsi, v. 621 sq.).

But valuable as the work of Porphyry is, so carefully culled from the best original documents, we ought also to guard against any over-estimation of its worth. His statements about Olympiads are evidently “deductions from calculations of the years of the several reigns” (Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s und seiner Nachbarländer, 1888, p. 77, Anm.), and thus do not possess the weight of immediate traditional testimony.

ANTIOCHUS IV. EPIPHANES, B.C. 175–164

He was the son of Antiochus III. the Great, and brother of Seleucus IV. Philopator, who reigned B.C. 187–175. During the reign of his brother Seleucus he lived as a hostage at Rome. Seleucus procured for him liberty to return to his native land by sending as hostage to Rome his own son Demetrius; but before Antiochus reached home Seleucus had been murdered by Heliodorus. Antiochus then usurped the throne to which by right his nephew Demetrius ought to have succeeded (Appian. Syr. 45).—Antiochus died after a reign of eleven years, in B.C. 164, while engaged in a campaign against the Parthians.

That his reign lasted for eleven years is stated by Porphyry (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 253, 263 sq.), Jerome (ad Danielem, 11. 21 sq.), and Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii. 22). The date of the beginning of his reign is set down by Porphyry as Olympiad 151. 3, and so actually Olym. 151. 2, which is equivalent to B.C. 175–174. This statement is borne out by the fact that the coins also begin with the year 138 of the Seleucid era, which corresponds to 175–174 before Christ. The First Book of Maccabees, on the other hand (chap. 1:10), places the beginning of the reign in the Seleucid year 137, that is, in B.C. 176–175, which can be reconciled with the statement of Porphyry only by supposing that the Seleucid year was reckoned from autumn to autumn, so that Olympiad 151. 2 would begin in the summer of B.C. 175. But if we assume that the First Book of Maccabees counts the year from spring to spring, we shall have to admit the existence of a slight discrepancy.—The death of Antiochus occurred, according to Porphyry, in Olympiad 154. 1, that is, in B.C. 164–163; according to the First Book of Maccabees (6:16), in the Seleucid year 149, which also answers to B.C. 164–163.

The chronology of the Egyptian campaigns of Antiochus, which is of importance also in Jewish history, is still matter of controversy. But according to non-Jewish sources, it is highly probable that they belonged to the period between B.C. 170 and B.C. 168. This is further supported by the fact that the First Book of Maccabees (1:20) makes mention for the first time of an Egyptian campaign in the Seleucid year 143, corresponding to B.C. 170–169, and indeed states precisely that autumn of B.C. 170 was the date of the return from it. Only the Second Book of Maccabees (5:1) disagrees with this by reckoning that campaign the second. But the unreliableness of this document would make the assumption of an earlier campaign in B.C. 171 unjustifiable apart from other evidence. Compare generally on this question: Droysen, De Lagidarum regno, 1831, pp. 56–69, which I have not been able to consult; Jo. Christ. Conr. Hofmann, De bellis ab Antiocho Epiphane adversus Ptolemaeos gestis, Erlangae 1835; Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, pp. 202–208; Stark, Gaza und die philistäische Küste, pp. 430–434; Grimm. Das erste Buch der Maccabäer, p. 15 f.; Joh. Friedr. Hoffmann, Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, 1873, pp. 36–58; Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, ii. 2 (1876), pp. 436–443.

On Antiochus generally, besides the works mentioned above, compare: Ewald, History of Israel, v. 293–306; Stanley, History of the Jewish Church, third series, 1877, pp. 288–302. See also the article in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. der class. Alterthumswissenschaft, and the articles by Wieseler in Herzog, vol. i. pp. 458–463, and by Reuss in Schenkel, Bibellexikon. For further notice, see § 4.

ANTIOCHUS V. EUPATOR, B.C. 164–162

This monarch was the son of Epiphanes. According to Porphyry he began to reign in his twelfth year, but according to Appian. Syr. 46 and 66, when he was only nine years old. From the statement of Porphyry it would seem as if he had been for a year and a half co-regent with his father; but the text is probably corrupt (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 253). During his short reign of only one and a half or two years he was simply a tool in the hand of his field-marshal and guardian Lysias, and was along with him, by the order of his cousin Demetrius, assassinated in B.C. 162.

The statements as to the length of this reign vacillate between a year and a half and two years; the former period is given by Porphyry in the Summarium (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 263 sq.), and the latter by Josephus in the Antiquities, xii. 10. 1 (Euseb. Chron. ii. 126 sq., ad ann. Abrah. 1852). The beginning and end are determined by the chronology of his predecessor and his successor.—Compare generally: Reuss in Schenkel and Wieseler in Herzog. Also Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography.

DEMETRIUS I. SOTER, B.C. 162–150

Demetrius was the son of Seleucus Philopator. He had been sent by him as hostage to Rome, but fled from thence, and assumed the reins of government in B.C. 162, after having had his cousin Antiochus Eupator assassinated.

In B.C. 153, Alexander Balas took up arms against him as a pretender to the throne. He claimed to be a son of Antiochus Epiphanes, and therefore the legitimate heir of the Syrian throne. Demetrius fell in battle against him in B.C. 150.

The flight of Demetrius from Rome and the consequences resulting from it are very vividly sketched by Polybius, who, as a friend of Demetrius, was personally engaged in the incidents which he narrates (Polybius, xxxi. 12, 19–22). Both Polybius (iii. 5) and Porphyry (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 255, 263 sq.) ascribe to Demetrius a reign of twelve years, while Josephus (Antiq. xiii. 2. 4) allows him only eleven years. Porphyry sets down the commencement of the reign at Olympiad 154. 4, that is really Olym. 154. 3, corresponding to B.C. 162–161; and the First Book of Maccabees (7:1) makes it 151 of the Seleucid era, which also answers to B.C. 162–161. The dated coins extend from 150 to 162 of the Seleucid era, or from B.C. 163–162 to B.C. 151–150. If the number of the year be rightly read as 150, the beginning of the reign must be set down before autumn of B.C. 162, which is reconcilable with the statement in First Maccabees on the supposition that its years are to be understood as spring years.—On the date of the insurrection of Alexander Balas, see below. The common text of Porphyry gives Olympiad 157. 4 as the date of the death of Demetrius. Since this would give him a reign of thirteen years, it is most probably to be read Olympiad 157. 3, corresponding to B.C. 150–149. According to 1 Macc. 10:50 and 57, the death of Demetrius occurred not later than 162 of the Seleucid era, or B.C. 151–150.—Compare on Demetrius generally, the articles in Herzog and Schenkel.

ALEXANDER BALAS, B.C. 150–145

When Alexander had wrenched the government from Demetrius, the son of Demetrius, who also himself bore the name of Demetrius, rose up against him. With this Demetrius II., Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt entered into alliance. Alexander was besieged in Antioch by the Egyptian king, fled to Arabia, and was there treacherously murdered in B.C. 145. On the fifth day after that bloody deed, the head of Alexander was brought to Ptolemy (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 8).

The coins of Alexander bear dates from 160 to 168 of the Seleucid era, that is, from B.C. 153–152 to B.C. 145–144. The First Book of Maccabees (10:1) describes his revolt against Demetrius as having taken place in the Seleucid year 160, or B.C. 153–152; and indeed B.C. 153 must be fixed upon, since it occurred before the Feast of Tabernacles of the year referred to (1 Macc. 10:21).—His reign proper is reckoned by Porphyry and Josephus (Antiq. xiii. 4. 8) at five years. The common text of Porphyry puts down the beginning of it in Olympiad 157. 3, and the end in Olympiad 158. 4. Since this, according to Porphyry’s style of reckoning, would give six years, probably we should read instead of 157. 3, 157. 4, that is really 157. 3, corresponding to B.C. 150–149.—The death of Alexander is placed by the First Book of Maccabees (11:19) in the Seleucid year 167, or B.C. 146–145. Porphyry’s date is Olympiad 158. 4, which corresponds to B.C. 145–144.—Compare on Alexander, the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel.

DEMETRIUS II. NICATOR, B.C. 145–138

ANTIOCHUS VI., B.C. 145–(?). TRYPHO, (?)–138

One of the generals of Alexander, Diodotus, named Trypho, disputed the succession with Demetrius in favour of the youthful son of Alexander, Antiochus VI.

Meanwhile Trypho himself aspired to the throne, had his ward Antiochus murdered, and made himself king. Soon after this, according to other accounts even previously, Demetrius undertook a campaign against the Parthians, in the course of which he was taken prisoner by the Parthians in B.C. 138. But Trypho was defeated by Antiochus VII. Sidetes, the brother of Demetrius, at Dora, then shut up in Apamea, and compelled to end his life by his own hand (Strabo, p. 668; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 2; Appian. Syr. 68).

The revolt of Demetrius against Alexander Balas took place, according to 1 Macc. 10:67, in the Seleucid year 165, or B.C. 148–147, while his reign began in 167 of the Seleucid era, B.C. 146–145 (1 Macc. 11:19). The dates of the coins extend from 167 to 174 Seleucid era, or from B.C. 146–145 to B.C. 139–138.—There are coins of Antiochus VI. from 167 to 170 of the Seleucid era, or from B.C. 146–145 to B.C. 143–142. Coins of Trypho bear the number of the years III. (de Saulcy, p. 42, Mélanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, p. 82 sq.) and IV. (Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins, p. 69). Josephus assigns to the reign of Antiochus VI. a period of four years, and to Trypho a period of three years (Antiq. xiii. 7. 1–2). According to this estimate, the reign of Antiochus would date B.C. 145–141; that of Trypho, B.C. 141–138. This is in agreement with the statement of Porphyry, who gives to Demetrius, before his imprisonment, only a three years’ reign (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 257, 263 sq.), from Olympiad 160. 1, which is really Olym. 159. 4, or B.C. 141–140, to Olympiad 160. 3, or B.C. 138–137. Porphyry evidently reckons the reign of Demetrius as beginning with the displacement by conquest or murder of Antiochus VI. In thorough accord with this, too, is the chronology of the First Book of Maccabees, 13:31, 41, which unhesitatingly assigns the murder of Antiochus by Trypho to the Seleucid year 170, or B.C. 143–142. Finally, it is no serious discrepancy when, in 1 Macc. 14:1, the Parthian campaign of Demetrius is dated from the Seleucid year 172, or B.C. 141–140; while Porphyry, on the other hand, assigns it to Olympiad 160. 2, or B.C. 139–138. In direct contradiction, however, to the foregoing, stands the statement made by many writers (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 11, 7. 1; Appian. Syr. 67, 68; Justin. xxxvi. 1), that Antiochus was not murdered by Trypho before the time of the Parthian campaign of Demetrius, and indeed not till after Demetrius had been taken prisoner. This, however, is in opposition not only to the chronology of the First Book of Maccabees, but also to the circumstance that then there is not left a three or four years’ reign for Trypho, which yet, according to Josephus and the coins, must be admitted. Then Trypho’s death occurs almost contemporaneously with the seizure of Demetrius by the Parthians in B.C. 138. See in next paragraph under Antiochus Sidetes. It therefore seems to me hazardous to assume, with many modern critics, that the last-named authorities should have the precedence over 1 Macc.—Compare on this question, and on Antiochus VI. and Trypho generally: Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, 1793, pp. 269–274. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 331. Müller, Fragmenta hist. Graec. t. ii. p. xx. Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 43–49. Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s, 1888, pp. 51–53. Also the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel.

ANTIOCHUS VII. SIDETES, B.C. 138–128

So long as Demetrius was the prisoner of the Parthians, Antiochus VII. held undisturbed sway in Syria.—In B.C. 129 he undertook a campaign against the Parthians, and in it he met his death in B.C. 128. During the war the Parthian king released Demetrius from his imprisonment, in order that he might seize for himself the government of Syria, and so compel Antiochus to return home.

On the surname Sidetes, compare Porphyry (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 255): in Sida urbe educatus, quapropter Sidetes utique vocabatur. The city Side lies in Pamphylia.—The revolt of Antiochus VII. against Trypho occurred, according to 1 Macc. 15:10, in the year 174 Seleucid, or B.C. 139–138. Porphyry reckons his reign from Olympiad 160. 4, that is really Olympiad 160. 3, or B.C. 138–137. The coins begin with the Seleucid year 174, or B.C. 139–138, and reach down to Seleucid year 184, or B.C. 129–128 (de Saulcy, pp. 44–46).—The beginning of the Parthian campaign cannot, according to Livy, Epit. 59, be placed earlier than B.C. 129, immediately after the consul M. Peperna, whose consulship was in B.C. 130, and immediately before the consul C. Sempronius, whose consulship was in B.C. 129. Porphyry assigns the death of Antiochus, after a nine years’ reign, to Olympiad 162. 4, or B.C. 129–128. According to Justin, xxxviii. 10, it occurred in the winter; according to Diodorus, xxxiv. 15 sq., in spring, therefore in the beginning of B.C. 128. In fact, the coins of Alexander Zabinas (see next paragraph) begin with the Seleucid year 184, or B.C. 129–128.—With these matters of fact in view, some coins of Antiochus, purporting to belong to the Seleucid year 185 and 186, the latter corresponding to B.C. 127–126, have occasioned great difficulties to the historians. Some have disputed the authenticity of their date (so Tôchon d’Annecy, Dissertation sur l’époque de la mort d’Antiochus VII. Evergètes Sidétès, roi de Syrie, sur deux médailles antiques de ce prince, et sur un passage du II livre des Macchabées, Paris 1815, pp. 61–65); others have assumed that even after the death of Antiochus, coins were issued with his name (so Niebuhr, Kleine Schriften, i. 251 f.). The most probable explanation is that the date has only been falsely read (see Nussbaum, Observationes, p. 51).—Compare generally: Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 265–280. Nussbaum, Observationes in Flavii Josephi Antiquitates, 1875, pp. 49–54. Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s, Tüb. 1888, pp. 75–77, who places the death of Antiochus in B.C. 129. Also the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel.

DEMETRIUS II. NICATOR, a Second Time, B.C. 128–125 OR 124 (?)

ALEXANDER ZABINAS, B.C. 128–122 (?)

After a ten years’ imprisonment among the Parthians, as Porphyry relates in Eusebius, Demetrius II. once again became king of Syria. There was soon raised up against him, through the intrigues of Ptolemy Physkon, an anti-king in the person of Alexander Zabinas, who claimed to be a son of Alexander Balas. Demetrius was besieged by him in Damascus, obliged to fly, and murdered as he attempted to land at Tyre.

Coins of Demetrius are in existence which pretend to belong to the period from 180 to 187 of the Seleucid era, or from B.C. 133–132 to B.C. 126–125 (de Saulcy, pp. 51, 52). If the reading is in every case correct, it might be supposed that even during the Parthian imprisonment of Demetrius, coins were issued with his name printed on them (so de Saulcy, p. 55). But the reading is not by any means certain in every instance (Nussbaum, Observationes, p. 52 sq.). There are some which certainly are marked 183–187 of the Seleucid era (Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins, p. 76 sq.; Bunbury, Num. Chronicle, 1883, p. 100 sq.).—Porphyry assigns to Demetrius after his imprisonment a reign of four years. The common text gives as its beginning Olympiad 162. 2, for which we ought certainly to read Olympiad 163. 2, that is really Olympiad 163. 1, or B.C. 128–127; and as the year of his death, Olympiad 164. 1, corresponding to B.C. 124–123. With this it is impossible to reconcile the fact that there exists coins of Antiochus VIII. Grypos, and of Cleopatra, professing to belong to the Seleucid year 187, or B.C. 126–125. Yet here again it may be questioned whether this is the correct reading.—Compare on Demetrius also the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel.—For Alexander Zabinas, Porphyry gives no direct dates. His coins range over the period from 184 to 190 of the Seleucid era, or from B.C. 129–128 to B.C. 123–122 (de Saulcy, p. 57; Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins, pp. 81–84; Bunbury, Num. Chronicle, 1883, p. 103 sq.).

SELEUCUS V., B.C. 125 OR 124 (?)

Seleucus V. succeeded his father Demetrius on the throne; but soon after beginning his reign he was murdered at the instigation of his own mother.

ANTIOCHUS VIII. GRYPOS, B.C. 125 OR 124–113

Antiochus VIII. was the brother of Seleucus. He had still to do battle with the anti-king Alexander Zabinas, but conquered him in the third year of his reign; according to Porphyry, in B.C. 122–121. He then caused Alexander to be executed, as Justin reports, xxxix. 2 (compare also Diodorus, xxxiv. 28). According to Porphyry, Alexander put an end to his own life by poison.

After a reign of eleven years, in B.C. 113, Antiochus VIII. Grypos was driven from the throne by Antiochus IX. Kyrikenos, who was his cousin on the father’s side, his brother on the mother’s side. Antiochus Grypos then withdrew to Aspendos.

The relationship between the two is as follows:—Cleopatra, the daughter of Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt, who had been already the wife of Alexander Balas (1 Macc. 10:58), had separated herself from him and married Demetrius II. Nicator (1 Macc. 11:12). From this marriage sprang Seleucus V. and Antiochus VIII. Grypos. But while Demetrius was detained among the Parthians, Cleopatra married his brother, Antiochus VII. Sidetes (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 1). From this marriage sprang Antiochus IX. Kyrikenos (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 1; Appian. Syr. 68). Porphyry in Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene, i. 260, says: τῷ ὁμομητρίῳ ἀδελφῷ Ἀντιόχῳ καὶ ἀνεψιῷ τὰ ἐκ πατρός.—Compare generally on the genealogy of the Seleucidae the table at the end of vol. ii. of this work.

The period of the reign of Antiochus VIII., down to his expulsion by Antiochus IX., is reckoned by Porphyry at eleven years, from Olympiad 164. 2, that is really Olympiad 164. 1, down to Olympiad 166. 4, or from B.C. 124–123 down to B.C. 113–112.—On the coins Antiochus VIII. appears sometimes as co-regent with his mother Cleopatra, sometimes alone. The coins of the former kind profess to belong to the period between 187 and 192 of the Seleucid era, or between B.C. 126–125 and B.C. 121–120 (de Saulcy, p. 61 sq.). For an account of the discrepancy between this date and that of Porphyry, see above under Demetrius II. and Alexander Zabinas. The proper coins of Antiochus VIII. begin with the Seleucid year 190, corresponding to B.C. 123–122 (de Saulcy, p. 65 sq.).

ANTIOCHUS IX. CYZICENOS, B.C. 113–95

ANTIOCHUS VIII. GRYPOS, B.C. 111–96

For two years Cyzicenos now ruled as sole monarch. But in B.C. 111, Grypos returned and wrested the greater part of Syria from his cousin. Only Coele-Syria remained in the possession of Cyzicenos. Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 260, says: κρατεῖ μὲν αὐτὸς τῆς Συρίας, ὁ δὲ Κυζικηνὸς τῆς Κοίλης. Thus was the kingdom broken up; and the two cousins and brothers engaged in a conflict with one another.

Antiochus Grypos died fifteen years after his return, in B.C. 96, according to Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4, by the hand of an assassin. His rights and claims were heired by his son Seleucus VI. He took up arms forthwith against Antiochus Cyzicenos, and laid siege to him in Antioch. In order to avoid imprisonment during the battle in B.C. 95, Antiochus put an end to his own life (Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron. i. 260).

To Antiochus IX. Cyzicenos, Porphyry assigns a reign of eighteen years, extending from Olympiad 167. 1, that is really Olympiad 166. 4, down to Olympiad 171. 1, or from B.C. 113–112 down to B.C. 96–95. The coins, indeed, begin as early as 196 of the Seleucid era, or B.C. 117–116 (de Saulcy, p. 72 sq.). If both are correct, it must be assumed that Porphyry, with his date B.C. 113, does not mean the time of the revolt of Cyzicenos, but the time of his decided victory over Grypos. The return of Antiochus VIII. Grypos is set down by Porphyry in Olympiad 167. 2, or B.C. 111–110, and a reign of fifteen years is given him, extending down to Olympiad 170. 4, or B.C. 97–96. Josephus ascribes to Antiochus Grypos altogether a reign of twenty-five years, from B.C. 125–124 down to B.C. 96 (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4).

During the next twelve years, from B.C. 95 to B.C. 83, there now followed an almost unbroken series of conflicts between the five sons of Antiochus Grypos, namely, Seleucus VI., Antiochus XI., Philip, Demetrius III. Eucärus, and Antiochus XII. on the one hand, and the son of Antiochus Cyzicenos, Antiochus X. Eusebes, on the other (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4, 14. 3, 15. 1; Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 259–262; Appian. Syr. 69; and Clinton, pp. 340–342).

The result of these contendings was that Tigranes, king of Armenia, took possession for himself of the kingdom of Syria. His reign over Syria lasted for fourteen years, from B.C. 83 to B.C. 69.

The details, according to Josephus, who is here the most complete in his descriptions, are as follows:—Antiochus X. Eusebes, in order to revenge his father, made war against Seleucus VI., conquered him, and drove him into Cilicia, where he was put to death by the citizens of Mopsuestia on account of his oppressions. Then his brother, Antiochus XI., next took up the conflict against Antiochus Eusebes, but was defeated, and lost his life in the battle. The third brother, Philip, now appeared upon the scene, and entered the lists against Antiochus Eusebes, according to Porphyry, in Olympiad 171. 3, or B.C. 94–93, and succeeded in making himself master of at least a part of Syria, while the fourth brother, Demetrius Eucärus, had seized upon another portion, with Damascus as its capital. Then Antiochus Eusebes, according to Josephus, lost his life in a battle with the Parthians. The two brothers, Philip and Demetrius, now reigned for a long time, each over his own part of Syria. But by and by Demetrius declared war against Philip, besieged him in Beröa, east of Antioch, but was himself taken prisoner, and died in confinement. There were now left only Philip and the youngest brother, Antiochus XII., who continued to fight with one another. But Antiochus fell in a battle against the Arab chief Aretas, who thereupon took possession of Coele-Syria. At last the whole of Syria fell into the hands of Tigranes. According to Appian. Syr. 48, 69, Antiochus X. Eusebes was still alive and reigning when Tigranes seized upon Syria; and indeed, according to Justin, xl. 2, and Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron. i. 262, he was still living when Pompey made an end of the Syrian empire. The latter statement, however, has evidently resulted from a confusion between Antiochus X. Eusebes and Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus, who are both clearly enough distinguished by Appian. But the former is in every respect more probable, since Appian seems here to have used reliable sources. It may then be assumed that Antiochus Eusebes had possession of the greater, Philip and Aretas of the smaller part of Syria, when Tigranes made himself master of the kingdom.

For the chronology of the years B.C. 95–83, the coins afford some important clues (Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins, p. 95 sqq.). Yet we have not materials for determining all the details. There are dated coins of Philip from the Seleucid year 221 down to 229, or from B.C. 92–91 down to B.C. 84–83 (de Saulcy, p. 78); of Demetrius there are some from the Seleucid year 217 down to 224, or from B.C. 96–95 down to B.C. 89–88 (Gardner, Catalogue, p. 101; Eckhel, iii. 245); of Antiochus XII. there is one belonging to the Seleucid year 227, or B.C. 86–85 (Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques, 1883, p. 437). Very puzzling are the coins of Philip which were printed in Antioch, and bear the figures 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 30, purporting to indicate the numbers of the years (de Saulcy, p. 79). If the dates are correctly read, and refer to the years of Philip’s reign, it must be assumed that Philip had been able to maintain his position in Antioch even during the domination of Tigranes. In fact, Porphyry also assumes that Philip lived down to the time of Pompey (Euseb. Chron. i. 262). But according to Diodorus, Fragm. 34 (in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. t. ii. p. 24 sq.), this Philip, who made his appearance at the time of Pompey as a claimant, was a son of our Philip, and so grandson of Antiochus Grypos (see also Müller). We seem therefore to have no alternative but to assume that those numbers signify, not the years of Philip’s reign, but the years of an era that began somewhere about B.C. 113.

This much is known regarding the period of Tigranes: that according to Appian. Syr. 48, 70, and Justin. xl. 1–2 (according to the correct reading), he reigned over Syria fourteen years. The end of his reign, however,—that is, his defeat by Lucullus,—occurred, as is well known from the Roman history, in B.C. 69.

After the defeat of Tigranes by Lucullus, Syria did not all at once fall into the possession of the Romans. Lucullus assigned it to a son of Antiochus Eusebes, who reigned from B.C. 69 to B.C. 65 under the title of Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus. It was Pompey who, on his victorious march through Asia, first made a complete end of the Seleucid dynasty, in B.C. 65 (Appian. Syr. 49, 70; Justin, xl. 2; Clinton, pp. 344–348). Syria now became a Roman province (Plutarch, Pompeius, 39).

Pompey first of all, in B.C. 65, sent his legates from Armenia to Syria, and in B.C. 64 he went himself; but the definite arrangements of Syrian affairs were first settled in B.C. 63–62 (Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 345 sq.; Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln, p. 215 ff.). In B.C. 65 or 64, probably the disturbances broke out of which Diodorus, Fragm. 34 (in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. t. ii. p. 24 sq.), gives an account. Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus sought to maintain his possession of the throne by the aid of Sampsigeram of Emesa. At the same time a struggle was made for a like purpose by Philip, son of King Philip, and grandson of Antiochus Grypos, who sought to support his claims by the assistance of the Arab prince Azizus. But Antiochus was taken prisoner by Sampsigeram, and afterwards put to death, and Philip was able to escape the snares of Azizus only by flight.

By means of this report of Diodorus of the end of Antiochus Asiaticus, we see how utterly groundless was the statement of older scholars, that Antiochus Asiaticus obtained possession of the small kingdom of Commagene, and became the founder of the dynasty of Commagene (see in opposition, Clinton, pp. 346–348). But it is quite true that the dynasty of Commagene had a connection by affinity with the Seleucidae. Consult upon this matter the inscriptions, Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 362; Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 552; Corp. Inscr. Atticarum, t. iii. 1, n. 557; and especially Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. 2, n. 136d, from Ephesus. The latter tells of a βασιλέα Ἀντίοχον Θεὸν Δίκαιον Ἐπιφανῆ Φιλορωμαῖον καὶ Φιλέλληνα, τὸν ἐγ βασιλέως Μιθραδάτου Καλλινίκου καὶ βασιλίσσης Λαοδίκης Θεᾶς Φιλαδέλφου τῆς ἐγ βασιλέως Ἀντιόχου Ἐπιφανοῦς Φιλομήτορος Καλλινίκου. This same Antiochus, with the same genealogy, appears also in an inscription communicated by Puchstein (Puchstein, Bericht über eine Reise in Kurdistan, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1883, p. 49 ff.). The Antiochus to whom both inscriptions refer was undoubtedly a king of Commagene; the other Antiochus, the father of Laodice, was evidently a Seleucid, according to Waddington, Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus; according to Mommsen, Antiochus VIII. Grypos. The latter conjecture is certainly correct, for Antiochus VIII. Grypos is designated on coins Ἐπιφανής, is called by Porphyry and Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 12. 2, Φιλομήτωρ, and the cognomen Καλλίνικος, which Mommsen was not then able to authenticate, has also been since confirmed by an inscription from Delos (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, t. viii. 1884, p. 105 sq.). His daughter Laodice is clearly identical with the Laodice mentioned by Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4 (Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s, 1888, p. 80, Anm.). Compare generally: Mommsen, Die Dynastie von Commagene (Mittheilungen des deutschen archäologischen Institutes in Athen, Bd. i. 1876, pp. 27–39). Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 398 ff.