(Α᾿ντίοχος, opponent), the name especially of several of the Syrian kings, whose history, so far.as relates to Jewish affairs, is contained particularly in the Books of the Maccabees, and is predicted with remarkable minuteness in the 11th chapter of Daniel. The name was first borne by one of the generals of Philip, whose son Seleucus, by the help of the first Ptolemy, established himself (B.C. 312) as ruler of Babylon. The year 312 is, in consequence, the era from which, under that monarchy, time was computed, as, for instance, in the Books of Maccabees. 'For eleven years more the contest.in Asia continued, while Antigonus (the "one-eyed") was grasping at universal supremacy. At length, in 301, he was defeated and slain in the decisive battle of Ipsus, in Phrygia. Ptolemy, son of Lagus, had meanwhile become master of Southern Syria, and Seleucus was too much indebted to him to be disposed to eject him by force from this possession. In fact, the first three Ptolemies (B.C. 323-222) looked on their extra- Egyptian possessions as their sole guarantee for the safety of Egypt itself against their formidable neighbor, and succeeded in keeping the mastery, not only of Palestine and Coele-Syria, and of many towns on that coast, but of Cyrene and other parts of Libya, of Cyprus, and other islands, with numerous maritime posts all round Asia Minor. A permanent fleet was probably kept up at Samos (Polyb. 5, 35, 11), so that their arms reached to the Hellespont (5, 34, 7); and for some time they ruled over Thrace (18, 34, 5). Thus Syria was divided between, two great powers, the northern half falling to Seleucus and his successors, the southern to the Ptolemies; and this explains the titles "king of the north" and "king of the south," in the 11th chapter of Daniel. The line dividing them was drawn somewhat to the north of Damascus, the capital of Coele-Syria.
The most compact and unbroken account of the kings of this, the Seleucid or Syrian, dynasty is to be found in Appian's book (De Rebus Syriacis), at the end. A sufficiently detailed statement of the reign of each may be found in Smith's Dict. of Class. Biog. s.v. On the dates, see Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. 3, Appendix, ch. 3 The reigns are as follows:
1. Seleucus I, Nicator, B.C. 312-280.
2. Antiochus I, Soter, his son, 280-261.
3. Antiochus II, Theos, his son, 261-246.
4. Seleucus II, Callinicus, his son, 246-226.
5. (Alexander, or) Seleucus III, Ceraunus, his son, 226-223.
6. Antiochus III, the Great, his brother, 223-187.
7. Sleucus IV, Philopator, his son, 187-176.
8. Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, his brother, 176-164.
9. Antiochus V, Eupator, his son (a minor), 164-162.
10. Demetrius I, Soter, son of Seleucus Philopator, 162-150.
11. Alexander Balas, a usurper, who pretended to be son of Antiochus Epiphanes, and was acknowledged by the Romans, 152-146.
12. Antiochus VI, Dionysus (a minor), son of the preceding. He was murdered by the usurper Trypho, who contested the kingdom till 137.
13. Demetrius II, Nicator, son of Demetrius Soter, reigned 146 - 141, when he was captured by the Parthians.
14. Antiochus VII, Sidetes, his brother, 141-128.
15. Demetrius II, Nicator, a second time, after his release from Parthia, 128-125.
16. Seleucus V, his son, assassinated immediately by his mother, 125.
17. Antiochus VIII, Grypus, his brother, shared his kingdom with the following, 125-96.
18. Antiochus IX, Cyzicenus, his half-brother, 111- 95.
19. Seleucus VI, Epiphanes, eldest son of Antiochus Grypus, kills Antiochus Cyzicenus, 96 - 95.
20. Antiochus X, Eusebes, son of Antiochus Cyzicenus, asserts his claims to his father's share of the dominions, kills Seleucus Epiphanes, and prevails over the successors of the latter, but gives way to Tigranes, 95 - 83.
21. Philip, second son of Antiochus Grypus, succeeds to the claims of his brother Seleucus against Antiochus Eusebes, until the accession of Tigranes, cir. 94 - 83.
22. Antiochus XI, Epiphanes II, his brother, associated with him in the contest in which he lost his life, cir. 94.
23. Demetrius III, Eucerus, his brother, likewise associated with Philip till their rupture, when he was taken prisoner by the Parthians, 94 - 88.
24. Antiochus XII, Dionysius II, his brother, whose cause he took up against Philip, till slain by the Arabians, cir. 88 - 86.
25. Tigranes, king of Armenia, invited to the throne by the Syrians over all the rival claimants, and held it till his overthrow by the Roman general Lucullus, 83 - 69.
26. Antiochus XIII, Asiaticus, son of Antiochus Eusebes, allowed by Lucullus to hold the throne of the Seleucidae till its entire abolition by Pompey, 69 - 65.
The following (Nos. 3; 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, of the above) are the only ones of the name of Antiochus that are important in sacred literature. (See Frohlich, Annales Syric; Vaillant, Seleucidar. Imp.)
1. ANTIOCHUS (II) THEOS (Θεός, god, so surnamed "in the first instance by the Milesians, because he overthrew their tyrant Timarchus," Appian, Syr. 65), the son and successor of Antiochus (I) Soter as king of Syria, B.C. 261. He carried on for several years the war inherited from his father with the Egyptian king, Ptolemy (II) Philadelphus, who subdued most of the districts of Asia Minor, but at length (B.C. 250), in order to secure peace, he married Ptolemy's daughter (Berenice) in place of his wife Laodice, and appointed the succession in the line of his issue by her (Polyb. ep. Athen. 2, 45); yet, on the death of Ptolemy two yeers afterward, Antiochus recalled his former wife Laodice, and Berenice and her son were soon after put to death at Daphne. Antiochus himself died, B.C. 246, in the 40th year of his age (Porphyry, in Euseb. Chronicles Ann. 1, 345), of poison administered by his wife, who could not forget her former divorce (Justin, 27:1; Appian, Syr. 65; Val. Max. 9, 14,1).
The above alliance of Antiochus with Ptolemy, by the marriage of Berenice to the former, is prophetically referred to in Da 11:6, as "the joining of themselves together" by "the king of the south and the king of the north," through "the king's daughter;" and its failure is there distinctly characterized, through the triumph of Laodice over "him that strengthened her," i.e. her husband Antiochus (see Jerome, Comment. in loc.). After the death of Antiochus, Ptolemy Evergetes, the brother of Berenice ("out of a branch of her root"), who succeeded his father Ptol. Philadelphus, exacted vengeance for his sister's death by an invasion of Syria, in which Laodice was killed, her son Seleucus Callinicus driven for a time from the throne, and the whole country plundered (Da 11:7-9; hence his surname "the benefactor"). The hostilities thus renewed continued for many years; and on the death of Seleucus, B.C. 226, after his "return into his own land" (Da 11:9), his sons Alexander (Seleucus) Ceraunos and Antiochus "assembled a great multitude of forces" against Ptol. Philopator, the son of Evergetes, and "one of them" (Antiochus) threatened to overthrow the power of Egypt (Da 11:10).
2. ANTIOCHUS (III) THE GREAT, Seleucid king of Syria, son of Seleucus Callinicus, brother and successor of Seleucus (II) Ceraunus, B.C. 223 (Polyb. 4:40; comp. Euseb. Chronicles Arm. 1, 347; 2, 235; see Goschen, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1831, 4:713). In a war with the weak king of Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator, in order to regain Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, he twice (comp. Polyb. 5,49) penetrated as far as Dura (two miles north of Caeesarea), but on the second occasion he concluded a four-months' truce with his adversary, and led his army back to the Orontes (Polyb. 5,60; Justin, 30:1, 2; Athen. 13:577; comp. Da 11:10). On the breaking out of hostilities again, he drove the Egyptian land-force as far as Zidon, desolated Gilead and Samaria, and took up his winterquarters at Ptolemais (Polyb. 5,63-71). In the beginning of the following year (B.C. 217). however, he was defeated by the Egyptians (Polyb. 5,79, 80. 8286; Strabo, 16:759; comp. Da 11:11) at Raphia (near Gaza), with an immense loss, and compelled to retreat to Antioch, leaving Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine to the Egyptians. Thirteen  years afterward, Antiochus (in connection with Philip III of Macedon, Liv. 31:34) opened another campaign against Egypt, then ruled over by a child. Ptolemy (V) Epiphanes. He had already conquered the three above-named countries, when a war between him and Attalus, king of Pergamus, diverted him to Asia Minor, and in his absence Ptolemy, aided by Scopas, obtained possession of Jerusalem; but, as soon as he had secured peace there, he returned through Coele-Syria, defeated the Egyptian army at Paneas, and obtained the mastery of all Palestine, B.C. 198 (Polyb. 15:20; Appian, Syr. 1; Liv. 30, 19; Joseph. Ant. 12, 3, 3; comp. Da 11:13-16). Ptolemy now formed an alliance with Antiochus, and married his daughter Cleopatra (Polyb. 28:17, 11), who received as a dowry (comp. Da 11:13-16) Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine (Joseph. Ant. 12, 4, 1). Antiochus undertook in the following year a naval as well as land expedition against Asia Minor, in which he subdued the greater part of it, and even crossed the Hellespont into Europe. By this means he became (B.C. 192) involved in a war with the Romans (Liv. 35, 13; Justin, 31, 1), in which, after many reverses, he was finally compelled, by an unfortunate battle at Magnesia, in Lycia (B.C. 190), to conclude a disgraceful treaty, B.C. 189 (Appian, Syr. 33-39; Polyb. 21, 14; Liv. 37, 40, 43, 45, 55; Justin, 21:8; comp, Da 11:18; Da 1 Maccabees 8:6 sq.). SEE EUMENES. He lost his life soon afterward (B.C. 187, in the 36th year of his reign, according to Euseb. Chronicles 2, 35, 235, but after 34 full years, according to Porphyr. Excerpt. 1, 347) in a popular insurrection excited by his attempt to plunder the temple at Elymais, in order to obtain means for paying the tribute imposed upon him by the Romans (Strabo, 16:744; Justin, 32:2; Diod. Sic. Exc. 2, 573; Porphyr. in Euseb. Chronicles Arm. 1, 348; comp. Da 11:19). During the war of Antiochus with Egypt, the Jews and inhabitants of Coele-Syria suffered severely, and the suspense in which they were for a long time kept as to their ultimate civil relations operated injuriously for their interests (Joseph. Ant. 12, 3, 3); but, as the Jews quickly adopted the Syrian party after the battle at Paneas, he granted them not only full liberty and important concessions for their worship and religious institutions (Josephus, Ant. 12, 3, 3, 4), but he also planted Jewish colonies' in Lydia and Phrygia, in order to secure the doubtful fidelity of his subjects there. Two sons of Antiochus occupied the throne after him, Seleucus Pllilopator, his immediate successor, and Antiochus IV, who gained the kingdom upon the assassination of his brother. (See, generally, Fluthe, Gesch. Macedon. 2, 226 sq.)
3. ANTIOCHUS (IV) EPIPHANES (Ε᾿πιφανής, illustrious; comp. Michaelis on 1 Maccabees 1:10, and Eckhel, Doctr. num. I, 3, 223; nicknamed Epimanes, Ε᾿πιμανής, madman, Athen. 10:438 sq.; on coins Theos, Θεός, god, see Frohlich, Annal. tab. 6, 7), a Seleucid king of Syria, second son of Antiochus the Great (Appian, Syr. 45; 1 Maccabees 1:11), ascended the throne on the death of his brother, Seleucus Philopator (on his enumeration, the 11th of the Seleucidae, Da 7:8,24; see Lengerke, Daniel, p. 318 sq.), B.C. 175 (see Wernsdorf, De fide libr. Macc. p. 28 sq.), and attained an evil notoriety for his tyrannical treatment of the Jews (comp. Da 7:8 sq.), who have described him (in the second Book of the Maccabees) as barbarous in the extreme (see Eichhorn, Apokr. p. 265). He had been given as a hostage to the Romans (B.C. 188) after his father's defeat at Magnesia. In B.C. 175 he was released by the intervention of his brother Seleucus, who substituted his own son Demetrius in his place. Antiochus was at Athens when Seleucus was assassinated by Heliodorus. He took advantage of his position, and, by the assistance of Eumenes and Attalus, easily expelled Heliodorus, who had usurped the crown, and himself "obtained the kingdom by flatteries" (Da 11:21; comp. Liv. 41:20), to the exclusion of his nephew Demetrius (Da 7:8). The accession of Antiochus was immediately followed by desperate efforts of the Hellenizinma party at Jerusalem to assert their supremacy. Jason (Jesus; Joseph. Ant. 12, 5, 1; SEE JASON), the brother of Onias III, the high, priest, persuaded the king to transfer the high-priesthood to him, and at the same time bought permission (2 Maccabees 4:9) to carry out his design of habituating the Jews to Greek customs (2 Maccabees 4:7, 20). Three years afterward, Menelaus, of the tribe of Benjamin, SEE SIMON, who was commissioned by Jason to carry to Antiochus the price of his office, supplanted Jason by offering the king a larger bribe, and was himself appointed high-priest, while Jason was obliged to take refuge among the Ammonites (2 Maccabees 4:23-26). From these circumstances, and from the marked honor with which Antiochus was received at Jerusalem very early in his reign (B.C. cir. 173; 2 Maccabees 4:22), it appears that he found no difficulty in regaining the border provinces which had been given as the dower of his sister Cleopatra to Ptol. Epiphanes. He undertook four campaigns against Egypt, in order to possess himself of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, which he had claimed since Cleopatra's death (see the ANTIOCHUS preceding); the first B.C. 171, the second B.C. 170 (2 Maccabees 5:1; 1 Maccabees 1:17 sq.), the third B.C. 169, the fourth B.C. 168. On his return from the second of these campaigns, in the prosecution of which he had overrun the greater part of Egypt, and taken prisoner the Egyptian king, Ptolemy Philometor (comp. Da 11:26), he indulged in the harshest manner of proceedings in Jerusalem, on occasion of the above shameful quarrel among the priests, SEE MENELAUS, which had been carried on by open force of arms (comp. Joseph. Ant. 12, 5, 1), and vented his rage especially on the temple, which he plundered and desecrated with great bloodshed (1 Maccabees 1:20-42; 2 Maccabees 5:1- 23). Being checked by the Romans in his fourth campaign against Egypt, and compelled in a very peremptory manner to retire (Liv. 45:12; Polyb. 29:11; Appian, Syr. 66; Diod. Sic. Exc. Vatic. 31:2; comp. Da 11:29 sq.), he detached (B.C. 167) a body of troops to Jerusalem, who took the city by assault, slaughtered a large part of the inhabitants, and gave up the city to a general sack (1 Maccabees 1:30 sq.; 2 Maccabees 5:24 sq.; comp. Da 11:31 sq.). The Jewish worship in the Temple was utterly broken up and abolished (1 Maccabees 1:43 sq.). At this time he availed himself of the assistance of the ancestral enemies of the Jews (1 Maccabees 4:61; 5:3 sq.; Da 11:41). The decrees then followed which have rendered his name infamous. The Greek religion was forcibly imposed upon the Jews, and there was set up, for the purpose of desecrating (Diod. Sic. Eclog. 34, 1) and defiling the Temple, on the 15th of Kisleu, the "abomination of desolation" [q.v.] (Da 11:31; Da 12:11; Da 1 Maccabees 1:57), i.e. probably a little idolatrous shrine (Joseph. Ant. 12, 5, 4) on the altar of burnt-offerings; the first victim was sacrificed to Jupiter Olympius, on the 25th of the same month. Many timidly submitted to the royal mandate (1 Maccabees 1:43), being already inclined to Gentilism (1 Maccabees 1:12), and sacrificed to the pagan gods (1 Maccabees 1:45); but a band of bold patriots united (comp. Da 11:34) under the Asmonnean Mattathias (q.v.), and, after his death, which occurred shortly afterward, under his heroic son, Judas Maccabeus (q.v.), and, after acting for a long time on the defensive, at length took the open field (1 Maccabees 4), and gained their freedom (comp. Da 9:25 sq.). Meanwhile Antiochus turned his arms to the East, toward Parthia (Tac. Hist. 5,8) and Armenia (Appian, Syr. 45; Diod. ap. Miller, Fragm. 2, 10; comp. Da 11:40). Hearing not long afterward of the riches of a temple of Nanaea ("the desire of women," Da 11:37) in Elymais (1 Maccabees 6:1 sq.; see Wernsdorf, Defide Maccab. p. 58 sq.), hung with the gifts of Alexander, he resolved to plunder it. The attempt was defeated; and, though he did not fall like his father in the act of sacrilege, the event hastened his death. He retired to Babylon, and thence to Tabae in Persia (not in the vicinity of Ecbatana, as in 2 Maccabees 9:3, the traditionary burialplace of this king, see Wernsdorf, ut sup. p. 104 sq.), where he died in the year B.C. 164 (see Hofmann, Weissag. 1, 310), in the twelfth year of his reign (Appian, Syr. 66; Polyb. 21:11; see Wernsdorf, p. 26 sq., 61 sq.; comp. Da 11:8; Da 8:25), the victim of superstition, terror, and remorse (Polyb. 31:2; Josephus, Ant. 12, 8, 1 sq.), having first heard of the successes of the Maccabees in restoring the temple. worship at Jerusalem (1 Maccabees 6:1-16; comp. 2 Maccabees 1:7-17?). "He came to his end, and there was none to help him" (Da 11:45). Comp. Liv. 41:24-25; 42:6; 44:19; 45:11-13; Josephus, Ant. 12, 5, 8. See Jacob ben-Naphtali, מַגַלִּת אִסטיוֹכִס (Mantua, 1557). SEE MACCABEE.
The prominence given to the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes in the Book of Daniel accords with its representative character (Da 7:8,25; Da 8:11 sq.). The conquest of Alexander had introduced the fbrces of Greek thought and life into the Jewish nation, which was already prepared for their operation. SEE ALEXANDER THE GREAT. For more than a century and a half these forces had acted powerfully both upon the faith and upon the habits of the people; and the time was come when an outward struggle alone could decide whether Judaism was to be merged into a rationalized paganism, or to rise not only victorious from the conflict, but more vigorous and more pure. There were many symptoms which betokened the approaching struggle. The position which Judaea occupied on the borders of the conflicting empires of Syria and Egypt, exposed equally to the open miseries of war and the treacherous favors of rival sovereigns, rendered its national condition precarious from the first, though these very circumstances were favorable to the growth of freedom. The terrible crimes by which the wars of "the North and South" were stained, must have alienated the mind of every faithful Jew from his Grecian lords, even if persecution had not been superadded from Egypt first and then from Syria. Politically nothing was left for the people in the reign of Antiochus but independence or the abandonment of every prophetic hope. Nor was their social position less perilous. The influence of Greek literature, of foreign travel, of extended commerce, had made itself felt in daily life. At Jerusalem the mass of the inhabitants seem to have desired to imitate the exercises of the Greeks, and a Jewish embassy attended the games of Hercules at Tyre (2 Maccabees 4:9-20). Even their religious feelings were yielding; and before the rising of the Maccabees no opposition was offered to the execution of the king's decrees. Upon the first attempt of Jason the "priests had no courage to serve at the altar" (2 Maccabees 4:14; comp. 1 Maccabees 1:43); and this not so much from wilful apostasy as from a disregard to the vital principles involved in the conflict. Thus it was necessary that the final issues of a false Hellenism should be openly seen that it might be discarded forever by those who cherished the ancient faith of Israel. The conduct of Antiochus was in every way suited to accomplish this end; and yet it seems to have been the result of passionate impulse rather than of any deep-laid scheme to extirpate a strange creed. At first he imitated the liberal policy of his predecessors, and the occasion for his attacks was furnished by the Jews themselves. Even the motives by which he was finally actuated were personal, or, at most, only political. Able, energetic (Polyb. 27:17), and liberal to profusion, Antiochus was reckless and unscrupulous in the execution of his plans. He had learned at Rome to court power and to dread it. He gained an empire, and he remembered that he had been a hostage. Regardless himself of the gods of his fathers (Da 11:37), he was incapable of appreciating the power of religion in others; and, like Nero in later times, he became a type of the enemy of God, not as the Roman emperor, by the perpetration of unnatural crimes, but by the disregard of every higher feeling. "He magnified himself above all." The real deity whom he recognised was the Roman war-god, and fortresses were his most sacred temples (Da 11:38 sq.; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 4, 340). Confronted with such a persecutor, the Jew realized the spiritual power of his faith. The evils of heathendom were seen concentrated in a personal shape. The outward forms of worship became invested with something of a sacramental dignity. Common life was purified and ennobled by heroic devotion. An independent nation asserted the integrity of its hopes in the face of Egypt, Syria, and Rome. Antiochus himself left behind him among the Jews the memory of a detestable tyrant (נַבזֵה, contemptible, Da 11:21; ίζα ἁμαρτωλός, 1 Maccabees 1:10), although Diodorus Siculus (Eclog. 34) gives him the character of a magnanimous prince (βασιλεὺς μεγαλόψυχος καὶ τὸ ῏ηθος ἣμερος). It cannot, indeed, be denied that the portraitures of the Jewish writers are likely to have been exaggerated, but they could not well have fabricated the facts in the case, while the nature of the reaction (in the times of the Maccabees) shows an intolerable civil pressure preceding; accordingly Antiochus is depicted even in Diodorus (ii. 582 sq.) and other historians as a violently eccentric (almost atrocious) monarch, whose character is composed of contradictory elements (comp. Athen. 10:433). His attempt to extirpate the Jewish religion could certainly hardly have arisen from despotic bigotry, but he probably sought by this means to render the Jews somewhat more tractable, and to conform them to other nations-a purpose to which the predilection for foreign customs, already predominant among the prominent Jews (1 Maccabees 1:12; 2 Maccabees 4:10 sq.), doubtless contributed. The Jews, no doubt, by reason of their position between Syria and Egypt, were subject to many hardships unintentional on the part of Antiochus, and his generals may often have increased the severity of the measures enjoined upon them by him, on account of the usual rigid policy of his government toward foreigners; yet in the whole conduct of Antiochus toward the Jews an utter contempt for the people themselves, as well as a relentless hastiness of disposition, is quite evident. See HORN (Little).
4. ANTIOCHUS (V) EUPATOR (Εὐπάτωρ, having a noble father) succeeded. in B.C. 164. while yet a child (of nine years, Appian, Syr. 66; or twelve years, according to Porphyr. in Euseb. Chronicles Arm. 1, 348), his father Antiochus Epiphanes, under the guardianship of Lysias (Appian, Syr. 46; 1 Maccabees 3:32 sq.), although Antiochus Epiph. on his deathbed had designated Philip as regent and guardian (1 Maccabees 6:14 sq., 55; 2 Maccabees 9:29). Soon after his accession (B.C. 161) he set out with a large army for Judaea (1 Maccabees 6:20), where Lysias already was, but hard pressed by the Jews (1 Maccabees 3:39 sq.; 6:21 sq.). Respecting the route that he took and the issue of the engagement which he fought with Judas Maccabaeus, the accounts do not agree (1 Maccabees 6, and 2 Maccabees 13; comp. Wernsdorf, De fide Maccab. p. 117; Eichhorn, Apokr. p. 265 sq.); that victory, however, was not on the side of Judas, as one of these states (2 Maccabees 13:29, 30), appears evident from all the circumstances. The statement (1 Maccabees 6:47) that the Jews were compelled to retreat on account of the superiority of their enemies, is very probable, and corroborated by Josephus (War, 1, 1, 5; comp. Ant. 12, 9, 5). Antiochus repulsed Judas at Bethzacharia, and took Bethsura (Bethzur) after a vigorous resistance (1 Maccabees 6:31-50). But when the Jewish force in the temple was on the point of yielding, Lysias persuaded the king to conclude a hasty peace that he might advance to meet Philip, who had returned from Persia and made himself master of Antioch (1 Maccabees 6:51 sq.; Joseph. Ant. 12, 9, 5 sq.). Philip was speedily overpowered (Joseph. 1. c.); but in the next year (B.C. 162) Antiochus and Lysias fell into the hands of Demetrius Soter, the son of Seleucus Philopator, who now appeared in Syria and laid claim to the throne. Antiochus was immediately put to death by him (together with Lysias) in revenge for the wrongs which he had himself suffered from Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 7:1 sq.; 2 Maccabees 14:1 sq.; Appian, Syr. 46; Justin, 34:3), after a reign (according to Eusebius) of two (full) years (Polyb. 31:19; Joseph. Ant. 12, 10, 1).
5. ANTIOCHUS (VI), surnamed EPIPHANES DIONYSUS (Ε᾿πιφανὴς Διόνυσος, illustrious Bacchus, on coins, see Eckhel, I, 3, 231 sq.; but THEOS, Θεός, god, by Josephus, Ant. 13, 7, 1), son of Alexander (Balas) king of Syria (Α᾿λέξανδρος Α᾿λεξάνδρου τοῦ νόθου, App. Syr. 68). After his father's death (B.C. 146) he remained in Arabia; but, though still a child (παιδίον, App. 1. c.; παιδάριον νεώτερον, 1 Maccabees 11:54), he was soon afterward brought forward by Diodotus or Trypho (Strabo, 16:752), who had been one of his father's chief ministers at Antioch, as a claimant of the throne against Demetrius Nicator, and (through his generals) quickly obtained the succession by force of arms (1 Maccabees 11:39, 54), B.C. 145-144 (comp. Eckhel, Doctr. Num. I, 3, 231; Justin, 36:1; Appian, Syr. 68). Jonathan Maccabeeus, who joined his cause, was laden with rich presents and instated in the high-priesthood, and his brother Simon was appointed commander of the royal troops in Palestine (1 Maccabees 11:57 sq.). Jonathan now reduced the whole land to subjection from Damascus to Antioch (1 Maccabees 11:62), defeated the troops of Demetrius (1 Maccabees 11:63 sq.), and even successfully repelled a fresh incursion of Demetrius into Palestine (1 Maccabees 12:24 sq.); but hardly was Antiochus established on the throne when Trypho began to put into execution his long-cherished plan of seizing the royal power for himself (1 Maccabees 12:39). In order to this, Trypho first of all advised the young prince to get the powerful Jonathan out of the way, and having succeeded by stratagem in confining him in prison, he soon after (B.C. 143) put him to death (1 Maccabees 12:40 sq.). He then returned to Syria, caused Antiochus to be murdered, and seized upon the crown (1 Maccabees 13:31 sq.; Joseph. Ant. 13, 5, 6; App. Syr. 68; Livy, Epit. 55 [where the decem annos admodum habens is incorrect]; Diod. ap. Miller, Fragm. 2, 19; Just. 36:1).
6. ANTIOCHUS (VII) SIDETES (Σιδήτης, from Sida in Pamphylia, where he was born, Euseb. Cheron. Arm. 1, 349, and not from his great love of hunting, Plutarch, Apophth. p. 34, ed. Lips., comp. ציד), called also EUSEBES (Εὐσεβής, pious, Josephus, Ant. 13, 8, 2); on coins EVERGETES (Εὐεργέτης, benefactor, see Eckhel, Doctr. Num. 3, 235), second son of Demetrius I. After his brother Demetrius (II) Nicator had been taken prisoner (B.C. cir. 141) by Mithridates I (Arsaces VI, 1 Maccabees 14:1), kin, of Parthia, he married Demetrius's sister (wife) Cleopatra, B.C. 140 (Justin. 36:1), recovered the dominion of Syria (B.C. 137, comp. Niebuhr, Kl. Schr. 1, 251) from the atrocious Trypho (Strabo, 14:668), and ruled over it for nine years (1 Maccabees 15:1 sq.). At first he made a very advantageous treaty with Simon, who was now "high-priest and prince of the Jews," but when he grew independent of his help, he withdrew the concessions which he had made, and demanded the surrender of the fortresses which the Jews held, or an equivalent in money (1 Maccabees 15:26 sq.; Josephus, Ant. 13, 7, 3). As Simon was unwilling to yield to his demands, he sent a force under Cendebaeus against him, who occupied a fortified position at Cedron (? 1 Maccabees 15:41), near Azotus, and harassed the surrounding country. After the defeat of Cendebaeus by the sons of Simon and the destruction of his works (1 Maccabees 16:1-10), Antiochus, who had returned from the pursuit of Trypho, undertook an expedition against Judaea in person. In the fourth year of his reign he besieged Jerusalem, and came near taking it by storm, but at length, probably through fear of the Romans, made peace on tolerable terms with John Hyrcanus (Josephus, Ant. 13, 8, 3, 4; comp. Euseb, Chronicles Arm. 1, 349). Antiochus next turned his arms against the Parthians, and Hyrcanus accompanied him in the campaign; but, after some successes, he was entirely defeated by Phraortes II (Arsaces VII), and fell in the battle (Josephus, Ant. 13, 8, 4; Justin. 38:10; Diod. Sic. Exc. Vat. p. 117 sq.), B.C. cir. 127-126 (App. Syr. 68; comp. Niebuhr, Kl. Schrift. 1, 251 sq.; Clinton, F. H. 2, 332 sq.). According to Athenseus (5, 210; 10, 439; 12:540), this king, like most of his predecessors, was inordinately given to the pleasures of the table (comp. Justin. 38:10). See CLEOPATRA 3.
7. ANTIOCHUS (VIII) GRYPUS (Γρυπός, from his aquiline nose), and on coins Epiphanes, was the second son of Demetrius Nicator and Cleopatra. After the murder of his brother Seleucus by his mother, she placed him on the throne, as being likely to submit to her dictation, B.C. 125; but with the assistance of Ptolemy Physcon, his father-in-law, he not only succepded in ejecting the usurper Alexander Zebina from Syria (Josephus, Ant. 13, 9, 3), but eventually compelled his mother to drink the poison that in her jealousy she prepared for him, B.C. 120. Eight years afterward a quarrel arose between him and his halfbrother Antiochus Cyzicenus about the succession (Josephus, Ant; 13, 10, 1), causing a protracted civil war that resulted in the partition of the kingdom of Syria between them and their descendants till the Roman conquest. He was assassinated, B.C. 96, in Heracleon, after a reign of 29 years (Josephus, Ant. 13, 13, 4), leaving four sons. (See Justin. 39:1-3; Livy, Epit. 60; Appian, Syr. p. 69; Athen. 12:540.) Most of his coins have his mother's bust together with his own (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. 3, 238). He appears to be the Antiochus Philometor (Φιλομήτωρ, lover of his mother) referred to by Josephus (Ant. 13, 12, 2).
8. ANTIOCHUS (IX) CYZICENUS (Κυζικηνός, from Cyzicus, where he was brought up), and on coins (Eckhel, 3, 241) Philopator (Φιλοπάτωρ, lover of his father), acquired possession of Cole-Syria and Phoenicia (B.C. 111- 96) from his half-brother Antiochus Grypus (q.v.), on whose death he attempted to seize the whole of Syria, but was resisted by Seleucus, eldest son of the latter, by whom he was killed in battle, B.C. 95 (Josephus, Ant. 13, 13, 4). He made an unsuccessful campaign at Samaria, as related by Josephus (ib. 10, 2; War, 1, 2, 7), under the following circumstances: John Hyrcanus, prince and highpriest of the Jews, having besieged the city, the Samaritans invited Antiochus to their assistance. He advanced speedily to help them, but was overcome by Antigonus and Aristobulus, sons of Hyrcanus, who commanded the siege, and who pursued him to Scythopolis; after which they resumed the siege of Samaria, and blocked up the city so closely that the inhabitants again solicited Antiochus. Having received 6000 men from Ptolemy Lathyrus; son of Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, he wasted the lands belonging to the Jews, designing thereby to oblige Hyrcanus to raise the siege of Samaria, but his troops were at last dispersed, and Samaria was taken by storm, and razed by Hyrcanus.
9. ANTIOCHUS (X) EUSEBES (Εὐσεβής, pious), and on coins Philopator, the son of the preceding, whom he succeeded, B.C. 95, and defeated Seleucus of the rival portion of Syria, as well as the two brothers of the latter; but the Syrians, worn out with the continuation of the civil broil, at length offered the crown of all Syria to Tigranes, before whose full accession Antiochus perished in battle with the Parthians (Josephus, Ant. 13, 13, 4).
10. ANTIOCHUS (XI), who also assumed the title of Epiphanes (II), was one of the above-named sons of Antiochus Grypus and brothers of Seleucus, who contended with Antiochus Cyzicenus; he was defeated:and lost his life, B.C. cir. 94 (Josephus, Ant. 13, 13, 4), leaving the contest to his surviving brother Philip. assisted by another brother, Demetrius, till the dispute was finally terminated by Tigranes (q.v.) assuming supreme power of all Syria, thus putting an end to the Seleucid dynasty.
11. ANTIOCHUS (XII), the youngest son of Antiochus Grypus, surnamed likewise Dionysus (II), and on coins (Eckhel, 3, 246) Philopator CALLINICUS (Καλλίνικος, finely victorious), assumed the title of king after his brother Demetrius (see above) had been taken prisoner by the Parthians. He fell in battle against Aretas, king of the Arabians, after a brief exercise of power at Damascus, in opposition to his surviving brother Philip, B.C. cir. 90 (Josephus, Ant. 13, 15, 1).