Euer'getes (Εὐεργέτης, a benefactor; see Josephus, War, 3:9, 8; Diod. Sic. 11:26; Xenoph. Anab. 7:6, 38; sometimes Anglicized EVERGETES), a common surname and title of honor (comp. Plato, Gorg. page 506 C, and Stallb. ad loc.) in Greek states, conferred at Athens by a public vote (Demosth. Page 475), and so notorious as to pass into a proverb (Lu 22:25). It was bestowed by states upon those who had conferred benefits upon them, and was taken by several kings. SEE PTOLEMY; SEE ANTIOCHUS.
A king is mentioned by this title in the 2d prologue to Ecclesiasticus, wherein the translator states that, having gone into Egypt in the 38th year of king Euergetes, and been there some time, he found this book by his grandfather, (Ε᾿ν γὰρ τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου βασιλέως παραγενηθεὶς εἰς Αἴγυπτον, καὶ συγχρονίσας, ε῏υρον οὐ μικρᾶς παιδείας ἀφόμοιον). There can be no question that a king of Egypt is here meant; for, though a king of Syria could be intended by this title, Alexander I, Antiochus VII, and Demetrius III being shown by their coins tohave been styled Euergetes, no one of them reigned more than a few years. It is more probable, on prima facie grounds, that an Egyptian Euergetes is here spoken of, if the same discrepancy should not be found. Two of the Ptolemies bore this title: Ptolemy III, always known as Euerzetes, who reigned twenty-five years, B.C. 247-222, and Ptolemy VII (or IX), Euergetes II, more commonly called Physcon, who began to reign jointly with his brother Ptolemy VI (or VI I), Philometor, B.C. 170, and became sole king in B.C. 146, dying in his fifty-fourth year, reckoned from the former date, and the twenty-ninth year of his sole reign, B.C. 117 (Fynes Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, 3:382, 383, 386, 399; Lepsius, Konigsbuch, Synoptische Tafeln, page 9). A great difficulty has arisen in the attempt to decide which of these kings is intended. Everything hinges upon the manner in which the reigns were reckoned. There is no satisfactory evidence for supposing that Euergetes I counted his regnal years from a time before his accession; the evidence of the inscription at Adule, that Fynes Clinton adduces in favor of as high a date as the 27th year, is wholly inconclusive (pages 382, 386); besides, the 27th year is far short of the 38th. To ascertain the official reckoning of the years of Euergetes II, during the latter part of his rule, and thus to determine from what date he then counted his regnal years, we have only to examine the demotic papyai of his reign. From these Dr. Young collected a list of dates which appeared thirty years ago in his posthumous Rudiments of an Egyptian Dictionary. These dates are year 29, 84, 45,46,47 or 43, 52, 53 (pages 27-31). It. is thus proved incontestably that Physcon counted his years from the commencement of his joint reign with Philometor, without any separate reckoning from his accession as sole king of Egypt. The hieroglyphic inscriptions, as we would expect, follow the same reckoning. Thus one of the Apis tablets gives the dates of the 28th, 31st, 51st, and 52d years of this king (Lepsius, The 22d Egyptian Royal Dynasty, transl. by Dr. Bell, page 41). We must not pass by the idea of Jahn (Einleiteng, 2:930 sq.), that the 38th year refers to the translator's age instead of a king's reign. It would be better to suppose an asra. Three seem possible, the man of the Seleucidae, that of Simon the Maccabee, used in Palestine, and the aera of Dionysius used in Egypt. The aera of the Seleucidas began B.C. 312, and its 38th year is therefore too early for the reign of Euergetes I; the aera of Simon the Maccabee began B.C. 143, or a little later, and its 38th year is too late for, the reign of Euergetes II. The aera of Dionysitus commenced B.C. 285 (Lepsius, Kanigsbuch, 1.c.), and its 38th year was therefore the last of Ptolemy II, Euergetes I coming to the throne in the next year. The construction that does not allow the year of the reign of Euergetes to be intejaded, and thus necessitates some such explanation, is certainly the more correct; but as Dr. Davidson, who has laboriously collected upon this question much criticism which We have shown to be needless, observes, we need not here look for correct grammar (Horne's Introd. 1856, 2:1026-1028). With this admission the usual reading cannot be doubted, and the date mentioned would be B.C. 133. Other evidence for the time of the composition of Ecelesiasticus, which, of course, can be approximately inferred from that of the translation, is rather in favor of the second than the first Euergetes. — SEE ECCLESIASTICUS; SEE JESUS, SON OF SIRACH.