Commentaria in II Machabaeorum
Thirdly, and most probably, Serarius and Salianus here, and Rupert, Book X De victoria verbi Dei, chapter 16, Michael Medina, Book VI De recta in Deum Fide, chapter 12, and Sigonius, in Book II of Sulpicius, think this to be Antiochus Sidetes, son of Demetrius Soter and brother of Demetrius Nicanor, who, Nicanor having been taken by Arsaces, seized the kingdom of Asia and Syria: for he, as we heard in Book 1, chapter 15, under the high priest Simon, and under John Hyrcanus son of Simon, afflicted the Jews and, according to Josephus, besieged Jerusalem, and John in it; but, pressed by the Parthian war, he made peace with John and the Jews, and took them with him against the Parthians, where he also perished. For Sidetes was reigning at this time, when Epiphanes and his father had long since been put to death.
12. HE (God) MADE THEM GO OUT OF PERSIA—
THAT FOUGHT AGAINST US AND THE HOLY CITY,—namely Jerusalem, which Sidetes besieged, as Josephus testifies. This verse is difficult; for “out of Persia” is not in the Greek in this place, but at the end of the verse in this way: For he made them boil over that fought against us and the holy city, into Persia. Whence Salianus, for “out of Persia,” thinks we should read into Persia, so that the sense is, as if to say: God made Sidetes our enemy, as though boiling over and seething with great forces and ardour, rush into Persia, and there perish. But all the copies have “out of Persia.” Wherefore some give this sense, as if to say: God made Sidetes gather great forces not only from Syria but also from Persia, from the remnants which his brother Demetrius Nicanor, conquered and taken by Arsaces, had left there. Whence it came to pass that, like his brother, he was slain there by the Persians. But this sense does not cohere rightly with what follows: “For when the leader was in Persia,” etc., where his slaughter is narrated.
I say, then: for “made them boil over” the Greek is exebrase, that is, cast out, spat out, vomited out; for the word signifies to cast out, to boil over, to seethe, to overflow, to drive out, and is attributed to the sea, which, in its raging heat, casts shells and corpses on the shore; likewise to the boiling pot which, overflowing, throws out foam and water: whence the remnants of a ship cast on the shore from a shipwreck are so called; likewise the pustules which break out on the lips after sickness. The sense, therefore, is, as if to say: God made Antiochus Sidetes, our enemy, with his seething forces boil forth out of Persia, that is, cast him out like carrion or a corpse, drove him out, vomited him out of Persia; for he brought it about that in Persia, in the temple of Nanea, wishing to plunder it, he was slain by the priests, as follows.
Demetrius; nor Antiochus VI, slain by Tryphon: no other Antiochus therefore remains whose reign agrees best with the time at which this letter was written, except Antiochus surnamed Sidetes. Yet a certain difficulty seems to exclude him, as it does the others.
Porphyry and Eusebius assert that Antiochus Sidetes began to reign in the year 174, that he reigned nine years, and fell in war about the year 189. How, then, could the Jews, in the year 188, present the death of this prince in the letter as a very recent event? Since Prideaux could not resolve this difficulty otherwise, he did not hesitate to approve and follow the opinion of Porphyry and Eusebius, as alone consistent with truth, against the author of the second book of Maccabees. (Concordance of the Old and New Testament, Chronological Table, at the end). But the most learned Erasmus Frohlich, already cited by us before, in the Annals of the Kings and Events of Syria, has shown that Porphyry and Eusebius were involved in manifest error; and in proof he produced two coins bearing the effigy of Antiochus, one struck in the year 183, the other in the year 184, by which they show that Antiochus Sidetes reigned beyond the time assigned by the two historical authors. One of the two coins is inscribed thus:
BASILEOS ANTIOCHOU TYROU HIEROU ASYLOU 184. Of King Antiochus, of Tyre, the sacred asylum, 184. (See the work of Cardinal Wiseman, entitled: Relations between science and revealed religion, lecture 9.)
Therefore “to boil over” signifies three things. First, the great multitude and ardour of the soldiers of Sidetes, namely that like flies or frogs in very great numbers they boiled forth out of water, that is out of Syria and Persia, and invaded Persia, all flocking together from every side to plunder it. Secondly, that in Persia they were slain and died in great number, just as flies and frogs, a little after they are born from the water, are choked and die in the same. Thirdly, that Persia drove them out and cast them out, now made corpses, into tombs and the abyss, as the sea spits out corpses and vomits them on the shore.
13. FOR WHEN THE LEADER HIMSELF WAS IN PERSIA, (as if to say when Antiochus Sidetes, king and leader of the army, invaded Persia,) AND WITH HIM AN ARMY THAT SEEMED INVINCIBLE (in Greek anenantiouton, that is irresistible, which could hardly be resisted), THEY WERE SLAIN (in Greek katekopesan, that is, they were struck down) IN THE TEMPLE OF NANEA,—profane historians disagree with Scripture and among themselves (and therefore not they, but Sacred Scripture is here to be believed) about the manner of the slaying and death of Antiochus Sidetes. For Josephus and Justin, Book XXXVIII, assert that he was slain in battle by the Parthians or Persians. Appian in the Syriaca asserts that, conquered by the Parthians, he killed himself. Aelian, Book X De Animalibus, chapter 34, that he threw himself headlong. Eusebius: “Arsaces the Parthian,” he says, “killed Antiochus.” Others think he was slain by his brother Demetrius, sent back by Arsaces and reclaiming his kingdom. But this disagreement shows that they had nothing certain on this matter, and gave credence to various false rumours of the crowd. Wherefore we must believe Sacred Scripture, which here asserts that he was stoned and slain by the priests in the temple of Nanea when he wished to plunder it.
Moreover, Nanea was a goddess of the Gentiles, who was either Diana, as St. Thomas, Lyranus, Pereira and Pagninus think, in the Hebrew Names: “Nanea,” he says, “is Diana in the Persian language,” or rather Venus, as Serarius and Salianus show from Agathias, Berosus, Clement, Athenaeus, Symmachus, Gyraldus and others; for the Persians worshipped both Venus and Diana; but what follows agrees better with Venus.
14. FOR ANTIOCHUS, AS THOUGH HE WOULD MARRY HER, CAME TO THE PLACE (the temple of Nanea), AND HIS FRIENDS THAT WERE WITH HIM, TO RECEIVE MONEY UNDER THE TITLE OF A DOWRY.—For “as though he would marry” the Greek is synoikesai, that is, to dwell with her as with his wife. Antiochus therefore pretended that he wished to enter marriage with the goddess Nanea, that under this honourable pretext he might plunder her temple, as though he were to receive all its offerings in place of a dowry; but the priests, scenting the fraud and robbery, gave a dowry not of gems but of stones, that is, they stoned and slew him.
Moreover, some ancient kings of old wished to be regarded as earthly gods, and so boasted that they entered marriages with goddesses. Hear Seneca, Book I of the Suasoriae: “The Athenians betrothed Minerva in marriage to Antony; Antony said he would take her, but that by way of dowry he imposed on them a thousand talents.” So Antiochus Gryphus boasted himself husband of the Moon, Numa of Egeria, Anchises of Venus (from whom Aeneas is feigned to have been begotten), Heliogabalus of Urania, Peleus of Thetis; whence some think that from Peleus that rite flowed by which the Venetians yearly on the feast of the Ascension, with solemn rite, a betrothal ring being cast into the sea, espouse to themselves Thetis, that is the sea. Moreover, of these royal marriages with goddesses, Josephus, Plutarch in the life of Marcus Crassus, Xiphilinus, Herodotus, Isocrates and Suetonius are clear witnesses; the latter, in the life of Gaius Caligula, chapter 22, writes that he claimed to be the husband of Venus.
15. AND WHEN THE PRIESTS OF NANEA HAD SET IT OUT (promised to Antiochus Sidetes that they would give him the money for a dowry), AND HE WITH A SMALL COMPANY HAD ENTERED INTO THE COMPASS OF THE TEMPLE (as if to celebrate the sacred rites of the marriage), THEY SHUT THE TEMPLE.
16. WHEN ANTIOCHUS WAS COME IN, AND OPENING THE SECRET ENTRANCE OF THE TEMPLE (in the upper ceiling, or in the walls of the temple, thence) THEY THREW STONES (in Greek: thundering with stones) AND STRUCK DOWN THE LEADER (king Antiochus Sidetes), AND HEWED HIM IN PIECES, AND CUTTING OFF THEIR HEADS THEY CAST THEM OUT,—spreading among his soldiers and the crowd that Sidetes with his men had been struck down and thunderstruck by some god, a rival of Antiochus, who sought the goddess Nanea as his bride, lest they themselves, as the authors of the slaughter, should be slain by the soldiers of Sidetes. And hence such various opinions about the death of Sidetes, as being hidden, spread among the people, which I have recounted from Justin, Appian and others at verse 13.
Therefore the Jews here give thanks to God for the slaying of Sidetes, so great a tyrant and their enemy. Wherefore Scaliger and some others ridiculously write that Antiochus was not slain in the temple of Nanea, but escaped by flight and returned safe to Antioch.
18. THEREFORE WHEREAS WE PURPOSE TO KEEP THE PURIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE ON THE FIVE AND TWENTIETH DAY OF THE MONTH CASLEU,—that is, to celebrate on the 25th of Casleu the feast of the Dedication in memory of the purification and new dedication of the temple made by Judas Maccabeus, 1 Maccabees 4:52.