Talk:Antiochus IV Epiphanes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Old talk[edit]

Translation seems faulty; "Image of God"? In a polytheistic society?

It was very common to use "theos" as a generic form describing divine things as a whole; also see syncretism. Stan 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Can the opinion of religion about this king not be included?

You'd have to give some source; that is, say which important churchman advanced this interpretation.--Aldux 22:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I quite agree

In reference to the Jews calling Antiochus "the madman" (Epimanes, as a play on Epiphanes), I spent some time looking into the subject about 15 years ago or so and was not able to find any authority for it. Every student of the period "knows" it, but I was not able to find any direct evidence. On the other hand, a contemporary historian (Polybius of Megalopolis, I believe) indicates that Antiochus was called Epimanes by some of his friends because of his "wild and crazy" behavior. Another writer (Livy perhaps, but I am not at all certain) makes the epithet derogatory and puts it in the mouths of his (political) enemies, but not the Jews. It is my opinion that the story as regards the Jews was originated by some religious writer, probably of the 19th century. I'd be happy to see anyone's case on either side of this issue.Opaanderson 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

His attack upon the Hebrews occurred during the Macabeen revolt, documented in I Macabbees and clearly written before the 19th century. -- 14:51, 15 March 2010

Spirit of Revenge[edit]

Revenge for what? it is never made clear. It appears that he sacks jeruslame in revenge against rome, but thats just a guess. Larklight 22:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this statement is not helpful in the slightest, if anything the pillaging of the temple was done out of the need of money not "the spirit of revenge". El Chimpo 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not actually because out of any need for money (although this was a result of sacking the temple). Since his intended attack upon Egypt was thwarted by Rome, he decided that the next best thing was to take his frustrations out on the Hebrews. -- 14:51, 15 March 2010

Book of Daniel[edit]

Can there be no mention of the belief that Epiphanes was predicted in the Book of Daniel?CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed by the Wikipedia editors offended by all things Religious being mentioned.

The Biblical Significance of Antiochus IV Epiphanies is the ONLY reason anyone really cares about him, by Secular standards he was a very unaccomplished pathetic ruler who clearly did nothing more then fail to live up to his Father's Reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, except contrary to the above opinion of Charles, Antiochus, as a ruthless leader, was correctly predicted Daniel....This cannot be denied even by those who are not believers.... -- 14:51, 15 March 2010

Daniel was written in the 1st Century BC, so it doesn't predict anything. It talks about things that happened in the past. This section should be deleted or at least rewritten to stress the real date of Daniel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PublickStews (talkcontribs) 00:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Amazed to see the belief that Daniel was written in the 1st Century BC. Please read Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, book 11, chapter 8, where it is made obvious that the book of Daniel was shown to Alexander as he approached Jerusalem 332 B.C.PeriCH (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Historicist vs Preterist View[edit]

There is compelling evidence to suggest that Antiochus Epiphanes is NOT the little horn of Daniel 8. I am of the opinion that any discussion of him being the little horn should also present the evidence that he is not. It's only fair. The fact that anyone cares about him is most likely purely in view of his potential for fulfilling that part of the prophecy. If there is evidence to suggest that he doesn't fulfill the prophecy then it should, in all fairness, be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

People who view the Prophecy as being ultimately about the person we commonly call "The Antichrist" don't deny Antiochus as being relevant, we believe Antiochus was a precursor of the finale "Antichrist" as OT figures like David and Solomon where precursors of Christ. And the above commenter, the date of Daniel is not universally agreed on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

source for accents[edit]

ænˈtɑi̯əkəs.ɛˈpɪfəniːz I would like to know where the accents for this pronunciation come from. I would have accneted his name, in English, as either An ti' o chus E pi' pha nes or An ti o' chus E pi pha' nes —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • In Greek, the accent goes to "ti" of Antiochus, and in the final syllable of Epiphanes. Greeks actually use punctuation marks to show the correct accent and the name goes like this: "Αντίοχος Επιφανής".

Tone and style[edit]

Antiochus' humilation at Egypt was followed by the most well-remembered aspect of his policy, namely his confrontation with the Jews, which ignited their uprising under the Maccabean leaders. Aside from their interest for Jewish and Seleucid history, these events are of interest as among the first instances in world history of religious persecution, a hitherto nearly unknown phemomenon which would in coming centuries assume an important role in human affairs.

The tone and style is wrong. Facts first, then perhaps a comment on their significance. "Confrontantion" is too vague. The claim this is "among the first..." requires a citation. To whom does the "their" in "their interest for..." refer to? patsw 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Their="Jews". For the specific historical events see the various Maccabees article. AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Epiphanes does not really mean "Shining one" as a Greek word. AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually in Greek, it means "the one that can be seen easily", or "the glorious one" metaphorically speaking.

"ordering the worship of Zeus as the supreme god"[edit]

I commented out the reference here because it doesn't provide a source, only linking to an unrelated page. If anyone can provide a source, please add it in.--Reahad (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


I've removed Category:Hanukkah per WP:CAT: Articles should be categorized by essential, "defining" features of article subjects, and it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. This article doesn't even mention Hanukkah, and while Antiochus IV Epiphanes was important to the Maccabean Revolt, that revolt (and the subsequent celebrations in memory of the Temple re-dedication) are hardly defining features of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Huon (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian interpretations (Sub-)Section[edit]

This section is rather confusing. I wonder if this could be summarized somehow? I reverted an edit by IP, but I do in part agree with his edit summary comment that the statement there isn't any "evidence to the contrary" present. My impression is that this article would be much improved if this section would be much abbreviated by replacing it with a clean summary of the different interpretations without all the detail. The detailed discussion belongs on a page about the Book of Daniel, not here. --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right -- and anyway, those are the interpretations of some particular individual Christians, not really any kind of established Christian doctrine... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-Jewish sources[edit]

Is there actually any non-Jewish evidence for the persecutions of Antiochus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I would expect Seleucid and Greek sources to cover Antiochus' edicts, possibly Egyptian or even Roman ones. Have you had a look at Polybius? Huon (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


On November 4 User: changed "BC" dates to "BCE" dates with edit summary = "wiki style; minor clarif; ref req". Later User: changed back to "BC" with edit summaries saying things like "... BCE is a new designation to take Jesus out of history and should never be used". On December 3 User:Doug Weller changed back to BCE with no reason given in the edit summary. I have now changed back to BC with edit summary = "WP:ERA. See Talk page = Era". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry, careless of me. As I recall that was an IP hopper and I, quite unusually, didn't leave an edit summary (you can see some in my last 250 contributions) and assumed it was the same issue. This was someone editing both from an account[1] and logged out. I made an assumption that I normally don't make, as I usually check. Consider me trouted. Doug Weller (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You can't be expected to examine every article's history before reverting dubious-looking edits, but thanks for that reply. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

POV and sourcing problem[edit]

The section "Sacking of Jerusalem and persecution of Jews" first hints at the existence of a Hellenized faction of Judaism, but then goes on to take the side of the authors of the Books of Maccabees, which present Antiochus as a persecutor of all Jews. Here (around 14:00) is a modern scholar who presents a much more nuanced view: he presents Hellenization as a dispute within Judaism, and Zeus worship as a syncretistic compromise where Yahweh was reinterpreted as Zeus to appease Greeks and Jews alike. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

One solution would be to preface the text with 'According to the authors of the Books of Maccabees', or 'According to Josephus' as appropriate. Other material can then be added and referenced to the author, unless it has an RS that states it as an accepted academic view. PS Many academics see Zeus as representing Baal, which is why it would be anathema to Yahwists.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we should merge the section with the one after it; that presents a modern view. An introduction discussing the situation would be nice, but I know too little of this history to write one... QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)