1. Texts on early Greek views of the Jews are conveniently collected by M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1974), 1–96. On Hellenic influence in Palestine, see, most significantly, M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (London, 1974).

2. See, especially, the declarations of Antiochus III; Jos. Ant. 12.138–46. For his successor Seleucus IV, note II Macc. 3.2–3.

3. For sources and discussion of the Fifth Syrian War, see M. Holleaux, Études d'épigraphie et d'histoire grecques (Paris, 1968) 3:317–35; F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford, 1967), 2:523–25, 546–47; and most recently, D. Gera, “Ptolemy, Son of Thraseas, and the Fifth Syrian War,” Anc. Soc. 18 (1987): 63–73.

4. Jos. Ant. 12.138–46. On the authenticity of these decrees, see E. Bickerman, “La Charte séleucide de Jérusalem,” REJ 100 (1935): 4–35; cf. the discussion of V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York, 1959), 82–89. And see now T. Fischer, Seleukiden und Makkabäer (Bochum, 1980), 1–10.

5. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 90–116; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 58–106. One should not, of course, undervalue the continuities of Jewish traditions, as rightly noted by F. Millar, “The Background to the Maccabean Revolution,” JJS 29 (1978): 1–21.

6. Cf. Jos. Ant. 12.237.

7. See Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 80–81; Fischer, Seleukiden und Makkabäer, 6–8.

8. II Macc. 3.1–3.

9. II Macc. 3.4–7.

10. II Macc. 3.8–30. Analysis of the story in E. Bickerman, Studies in Greek and Christian History (Leiden, 1980) 2:159–91; J. Goldstein, II Maccabees (New York, 1983), 198–215.

11. II Macc. 4.1–8; an inaccurate version in Jos. Ant. 12.237. On Antiochus IV's accession, see O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria (Copenhagen, 1966), 38–50; Walbank, Historical Commentary, 3:284–85. To take the monetary transaction as an outright bribe is to adopt the bias of the author of II Maccabees; cf. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 227.

12. II Macc. 4.9: πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὑπισχνεῖτο καὶ ἑτερα διαγράφειν πεντήκοντα πρὸς τοῖς ἑκατόν, ἐὰν ἐπιχορηγηθῇ διὰ τῆς ἐχουσίας αὐτοῦ γυμνάσιον καὶ ἐφηβίαν αὐτῷ συστήσασθαι καὶ τοὺς ἐν `Ιεροσυλύμοις Ἀντιοχεῖς ἀναγράψαι; cf. I Macc. 1.14; Jos Ant. 12.240–41.

13. For the politeuma, see E. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabäer (Berlin, 1937), 59–65. For the polis, see Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 161–69; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 277; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. ed. by G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh, 1973), 1:148. K. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judäa (Göttingen, 1983), 84–92, argues vigorously for the polis but recognizes that only a select number of Jerusalemites would be enrolled as members by Jason and that the continuation of Jewish institutions would produce a hybrid form. A moderate view in E. Will and C. Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellenismos (Nancy, 1986), 117–19.

14. II Macc. 4.11–15; cf. I Macc. 1.14–15; Jos. Ant. 12.241.

15. II Macc. 4.18–23.

16. II Macc. 4.23–24. A garbled version in Jos. Ant. 12.237–38.

17. II Macc. 4.25–50. Whether Andronicus was, in fact, the murderer of Onias III has often been doubted. He is probably the same Andronicus executed by Antiochus in 170 for the slaying of the king's young nephew; DS 30.7.2. This does not itself diminish the likelihood of Andronicus' responsibility for Onias' death. But it does supply a more plausible motive for his own execution. Antiochus was more concerned with affairs of his court than with rivalries in Judaea. Cf. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 469 n. 40; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 45, 141; Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 150 n. 31; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism 2:185–86 n. 142; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 238.

18. On the events and chronology of the Sixth Syrian War, see sources and discussion by W. Otto, “Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6 Ptolemäers,” ABAW 11 (1934): 40–81; E. Bickerman, “Sur la chronologie de la sixième guerre de Syrie,” Chron. d'Ég. 27 (1952): 396–403; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 64–101; Walbank, Historical Commentary 3:352–63. A briefer review, with further bibliography, in E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley, 1984), 650–60.

19. Dan. 11.24–31. See L. F. Hartman and A. A. DiLella, The Book of Daniel (New York, 1978), 296–99.

20. A fundamental uncertainty arises over the question of whether dates in I Maccabees, given according to the Seleucid era, follow the Macedonian or the Babylonian calendar. The first year of the former runs from c. October 312 to October 311, the latter from c. April 311 to April 310. The author of I Maccabees may indeed have employed both systems, thus compounding the confusion; cf. Bickerman, Gott der Makkabäer, 155–68; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 160–61; J. Goldstein, I Maccabees (New York, 1976), 21–25, 540–43. Bringmann's recent argument, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung, 15–28, that the author consistently used the Macedonian system, is attractive but unpersuasive.

21. I Macc. 1.20–28; Dan. 11.28; cf. Jos. Ant. 12.249, C. Ap. 2.83–84. The author of I Maccabees sets the event in the year 143, which would translate to October 170 – October 169 by the Macedonian system or April 169 – April 168 by the Seleucid system. Either one would suit a return after the campaign of 169. Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 152–53 n. 37, combines this testimony with that of II Macc. 5.11–21. But the latter is explicitly dated after Antiochus' second departure for Egypt; II Macc. 5.1: τὴν δευτέραν ἄφοδον…εἰς Αἴγυπτον. It will not do to interpret this as “the second phase of the campaign,” Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 128–29, nor to see it as Jason of Cyrene's effort to validate the prophecies of Daniel, Goldstein; I Maccabees, 45–51, II Maccabees, 246–47. This is not, of course, to deny that some elements in II Maccabees do, in fact, refer to the Temple robbery of 169; notably II Macc. 5.15–16, 21. Cf. J. Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees (Oxford, 1954), 67–71. On the chronological problems, see the summary in Will and Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellenismos, 138–41.

22. II Macc. 5.5–10; Jos. Ant. 12.239. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 186–92, argues that Jason's coup was foiled by a rising of the Jewish populace rather than by resistance from Menelaus and his supporters, an attractive hypothesis but unattested and unverifiable. The entire episode is often transferred to 169 on grounds of II Maccabees' reference to the plundering of the Temple in subsequent verses; II Macc. 5.15–16, 21; Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 153. And the coup has even been seen as supplying the motive for Antiochus' return from Egypt in 169; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 249–53. But the contamination of II Macc. 5 with some data that belong to 169 is insufficient to remove the tale of Jason's coup, explicitly placed in Antiochus' second campaign, to that year. Josephus, Ant. 12.240, indicates that Menelaus and the Tobiads went to Antiochus for assistance against Jason, an item accepted as fact by Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 281. But Josephus is here plainly confused, for he has Menelaus petition the Seleucid king for a gymnasium and other Hellenic institutions, a policy actually initiated by Jason seven years earlier; II Macc. 4.7–17.

23. Dan. 11.29–30; II Macc. 5.11–14, 22–23. The intervening lines probably refer to the expropriation of Temple treasures in 169, but it is not impossible that Antiochus extracted yet more cash from that source. II Macc. 5.11 associates Antiochus' rage at Judaea with receipt of word that the land was in rebellion. Whether this refers to Jason's coup or to the whole sequence of events concluding with his ouster cannot be determined.

24. I Macc. 1.29 fixes the time as two years after Antiochus' seizure of the Temple treasury, i.e., 143 of the Seleucid era, probably by Macedonian reckoning from April 167 to April 166. There is no sound reason to place the event in 168, as does Bickerman, Gott der Makkabäer, 161–68; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 188–89. See Goldstein, II Maccabees, 263–64. For Apollonius' title, see II Macc. 5.24. The text of I Macc. 1.29 has him as a chief financial official, but this may be due to a mistranslation of the original Hebrew; F.-M. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées (Paris, 1949), 15; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 211–12.

25. I Macc. 1.29–42; II Macc. 5.24–26; cf. Jos. Ant. 12.248. The thesis of Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 188–89, that a Jewish revolt preceded and prompted Apollonius' appointment, has no textual support.

26. I Macc. 1.33–40; Dan. 11.39; Jos. Ant. 12.252. On the site of the citadel, much disputed, see Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 154–55 n. 39; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 214–19; Will and Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellenismos, 168–69 n. 58. Goldstein, I Maccabees, 123–24, argues that Antiochus' idea stemmed from the example of Roman military colonies. But the Greek institution of a cleruchy or a katoikia supplied a more direct and more appropriate model; see I Macc. 1.38: κατοικία ἀλλοτρίων; cf. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 188–89. The actual ethnic composition of the katoikia remains uncertain; cf. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung, 128; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 106–12; extensive bibliography in Fischer, Seleukiden und Makkabäer, 32–33.

27. I Macc. 1.38; II Macc. 5.27.

28. I Macc. 1.54 places the climactic deed on the 15th of Kislev in 145, i.e., December 167. Bringmann's endeavor, Hellenistische Reform and Religionsverfolgung, 29–40, to set all the preceding events, from Jason's coup through the “abomination of desolation” in 168 is unconvincing. He fails to account for the statement in I Macc. 1.29 that Apollonius' appointment came two years after Antiochus' plundering of the Temple in 169.

29. I Macc. 1.41–43. Cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 284–87. For Goldstein, I Maccabees, 119–21, Antiochus promulgated the edict at the beginning of his reign, without explicit attention to the Jews as such. Dancy, Commentary, 76 dismisses it too summarily as “fantastic.”

30. I Macc. 1.44–51, 56; Jos. Ant. 12.251, 253–54. Antiochus' agent in delivering the message is described as γέροντα Ἀθηναιον in II Macc. 6.1. Whether this means “the old Athenian,” “Geron the Athenian,” “the old Athenaeus,” or “an elder of Athens” need not be decided. On the Samaritans, see Jos. Ant. 12.257–60; elsewhere, II Macc. 6.8.

31. II Macc. 6.2–9.

32. I Macc. 1.54, 1.59; Dan. 11.31; Jos. Ant. 12.253; BJ 1.34; DS 34/5.1. It is not absolutely clear to what the “abomination of desolation” refers; Will and Orieux, Ioudaismos-Hellenismos, 147–51.

33. I Macc. 1.57, 60–64; II Macc. 6.10–11; Jos. Ant. 12.255–56.

34. See, e.g., E. Bevan, The House of Seleucus (London, 1902) 2:162–74; Schürer, History of the Jewish People 1:147–48; SEHHW, 2d ed. 2:703–5; H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte (Munich, 1960), 482.

35. I Macc. 1.41: καὶ ἔγραψεν ὁ βασιλεὺς πάσῃ τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ εἶναι πάντας εἰς λαὸν ἕνα καὶ ἕγκαταλιπεῖν ἑκαστον τὰ νόμιμα αὐτοῦ.

36. II Macc. 6.9: τοὺς δὲ μὴ προαιρουμένους μεταβαίνειν ἐπὶ τά Ἑλληνικὰ κατασφάζειν.

37. II Macc. 11.24: τοὺς Ἰουδαίους μὴ συνευδοκοῦντας τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπὶ τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ μεταθέσει.

38. Jos. Ant. 12.263: ὁτι μηδὲν τοῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐγκλήμασι προσήκουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς Ἑλληνικοῖς ἔθεσιν αἱροῦνται χρώμενοι ζῆν.

39. Tac. Hist. 5.8: rex Antiochus demere superstitionem et mores Graecorum dare adnisus.

40. Polyb. 26.1.10, 29.24.13; Livy, 41.20.5. See, especially, Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 51–63; cf. Walbank, Historical Commentary 3:287–88; E. S. Gruen, Hellenistic World, 189–90.

41. Bickerman, Gott der Makkabäer, 90–92; Dancy, Commentary, 75–76. See now the collection of material and discussion by S. Sherwin-White, A. Kuhrt, and R. J. van der Spek, in A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White, Hellenism in the Near East (Berkeley, 1987), 1–31, 48–52, 57–74.

42. Cf. Dan. 11.37–38; Bevan, House of Seleucus 2:154–55; W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, 3d ed. (Chicago, 1984), 190–91; SEHHW 2:704; Dancy, Commentary, 47.

43. See the evidence and discussion in O. Mørkholm, Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus IV of Syria (Copenhagen, 1963), 7–75; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 130–33; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 284–86; J. G. Bunge, “‘Theos Epiphanes’ in den ersten fünf Regierungsjahren des Antiochos IV Epiphanes,” Historia 23 (1974): 57–85, 24 (1975): 164–88.

44. II Macc. 6.2. Cf. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 272–73. According to Dan. 11.37–38, the deity was not even reckoned among the ancestral gods of the Seleucid house; hence perhaps a blend with the Syrian god—and hardly a means to foster Hellenism. On the nature of the god and his cult, much discussed, see the incisive analysis of Bickerman, Gott der Makkabäer, 92–116; scholarly literature collected by Fischer, Seleukiden und Makkabäer, 35–38. Bickerman's view of the cult as syncretistic and assimilationist is criticized by Millar, “Background,” 12–13, and Will and Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellenismos, 149–51.

45. I Macc. 1.51; Jos. Ant. 12.257–63. A possible exception lies in II Macc. 6.8, referring to extension of the persecution to Jews in the “neighboring Greek cities,” at the instigation of the “citizens of Ptolemais”—or perhaps “of Ptolemy.” On either reckoning, this applies to local circumstances within or in the vicinity of Judaea. It in no way implies extension to the Diaspora. Cf. Abel, Livres des Maccabées, 363–64; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 287.

46. See Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung, 111–40; more briefly in “Die Verfolgung der jüdischen Religion durch Antiochos IV: Ein Konflikt zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus,” Antike und Abendland 26 (1980): 176–90.

47. See above.

48. Livy 42.6.6–7.

49. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung, 126–35.

50. Jos. Ant. 12.384: τοῦτον γὰρ ἄρχαι τῶν κακῶν, πείσαντ' αὐτοῦ τὸν πατέρα τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἀναγκάσαι τὴν πάτριον θρησκείαν καταλιπεῖν.

51. II Macc. 13.4: Λυσίου ὑποδείχαντος τοῦτον αἴτιον εἶναι πάντων τῶν κακῶν.

52. The year of his arrival in Rome is not certain—189 or 188; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 22–23. On his honored status at Rome, see Livy 42.6.9; Asconius 13 Clark.

53. So Goldstein, I Maccabees, 104–60; somewhat modified, with the basic thesis intact, in II Maccabees, 104–12.

54. Goldstein's proposals that Antiochus enjoyed the patronage and friendship of various highly placed Roman political families, I Maccabees, 105–7, are pure speculation.

55. Goldstein attempts to get around this objection by placing Antiochus' general decree inviting conformity at the beginning of the reign and seeing Jason's move as a response to that invitation; I Maccabees, 120–21. This simply multiplies the conjectures and, in any case, undermines the putative link to the Roman experience. Did Antiochus suddenly recall that experience only when Jason proposed to register “Antiochenes”?

56. II Macc. 6.7.

57. Polyb. 26.1 offers the most reliable catalogue of Antiochus' eccentricities. See further Livy 41.20.1–4; DS 29.32, 31.16. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 181–86, questions Polybius' authority here, without compelling reason. The mimicry of the Romans has been taken seriously by some scholars; e.g., Bunge, “`Theos Epiphanes',” 67; Walbank, Historical Commentary, 3:286.

58. See the treatment by Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, passim; in brief, Gruen, Hellenistic World, 647–63.

59. I Macc. 1.11.

60. The classic statement of this position is to be found in Bickerman, Gott der Makkabäer, 117–36, reinforced and expanded by Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 277–309. Other scholars, who do not fully subscribe to this view, nevertheless concur in seeing Hellenization as responsible for the division among the leadership and in interpreting the contest as one between Hellenism and Judaism; e.g., Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 152–74, 193–203; C. Habicht, “Hellenismus und Judentum in der Zeit des Judas Makkabäus,” Jhrb. Heid. Akad. (1974), 97–104. A general discussion of the issue in Will and Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellenismos, 124–26, 149–51.

61. The quotations and summaries provided by Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 131–53, refute his own efforts to see Ben Sira as an opponent of “Hellenistic liberalism.” None of the material makes any direct or indirect statement to that effect. A similar inference by A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom (Cambridge, 1975), 95: “His book…quietly reaffirmed Jewish traditional faith against the temptations of Hellenism.” See now the proper skepticism of Goldstein, in E. P. Sanders, Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (Philadelphia, 1981) 2:72–73. Ben Sira's prayer for deliverance from foreign rule, 36.9–17, is, of course, a different matter.

62. Dan. 11.2–12.3. See Momigliano, Alien Wisdom, 109–12. The reference in 9.27 to Antiochus making alliance with many hardly implies a “Hellenizing party.”

63. II Macc. 4.10: πρὸς τὸν Ἑλληνικὸν χαρακτῆρα τοὺς ὁμοφύλους μετέστησε. 4.13: ἦν δ'οὕτως ἀκμή τις Ἑλληνισμοῦ.

64. II Macc. 6.9: μεταβαίνειν ἐπὶ τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ.

65. II Macc. 11.24: τοὺς Ἰουδαίους μὴ συνευδοκοῦντας τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπὶ τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ μεταθέσει.

66. II Macc. 2.21, 8.1, 14.38.

67. II Macc. 4.9.

68. II Macc. 4.14. It is often asserted that Hellenizing Jews had so far departed from tradition as to compete in the nude and even to undergo some form of reverse circumcision in order to conform to Greek practice. The silence of II Maccabees on this point is potent testimony against it. The most that the author can say is that they wore a Greek-style hat; II Macc. 4.12. So, rightly, Goldstein, in Sanders, Jewish and Christian Self-Definition 2:77–78. The reference in I Macc. 1.15 and Jos. Ant. 12.241 to the concealment of circumcision may perhaps apply to behavior after the repressive measures of 167—which included a ban on circumcision.

69. II Macc. 4.18–20.

70. I Macc. 1.11; cf. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung, 189; Will and Orrieux, Ioudaismos-Hellenismos, 116–19.

71. II Macc. 4.23–50. The fact is noted by Goldstein, I Maccabees, 159, and Millar, JJS 29 (1978): 10–11. Josephus' reference to Menelaus as petitioning Antiochus for a gymnasium is an obvious confusion with Jason; Ant. 12.240–41.

72. II Macc. 13.4.

73. Josephus' statement, Ant. 12.384, is derivative and unreliable. See above.

74. The fact is recorded in a letter by Antiochus IV in 164 to the Jewish council and people: II Macc. 1.27–33. The proper sequence of letters in that collection is disputed; see the discussion in C. Habicht, “Royal Documents in Maccabees II,” HSCP 80 (1976): 1–18. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 418–20, drew the proper conclusions with regard to Menelaus. So also Bringmann, “Verfolgung,” 182.

75. Josephus, Ant. 12.239–40, reports that the Tobiads backed Menelaus, while a majority of Jews supported Jason. Elsewhere, Josephus suggests that conflict in Judaea divided partly along pro-Seleucid and pro-Ptolemaic lines; BJ 1.31–32. That passage, however, is a hodgepodge of confusion. Bringmann, “Verfolgung,” 185, assigns it more weight than it deserves.

76. II Macc. 4.15–16.

77. Dan. 11.30 states only that Antiochus stayed his hand with regard to those Jews who abandoned the holy covenant—not that he was acting on their advice and instigation. That the king took the initiative is clear from Dan. 11.32.

78. II Macc. 5.11: προσπεσόντων δὲ τῷ βασιλεῖ περὶ τῶν γεγονότων διέλαβεν ἀποστατεῖν τὴν Ἰουδαίαν. Cf. Abel, Livres des Maccabées, 352–53. In the view of Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 186–203, Antiochus' anger directed itself not against Jason and his followers, whose coup had already failed, but against a popular rising that had expelled Jason, intimidated Menelaus, and seized control of the situation.

79. Millar, “Background,” 16–17: “There seems no way of reaching an understanding of how Antiochus came to take a step so profoundly at variance with the normal assumptions of government in his time.”

80. Dan. 11.29–31. On the date of the work, see Hartman and DiLella, Book of Daniel, 9–18; Schürer, History of the Jewish People, vol. 3, pt. 1, 245–50.

81. The Septuagint even translates the Hebrew kittim as “Romans.” See further Hartman and DeLella, Book of Daniel, 270–71.

82. For Popillius' intervention, see Polyb. 29.27.1–10; Livy 45.12.3–8; DS 31.2; App. Syr. 66; Just. 34.3.1–4; Cic. Phil. 8.23; Vell. Pat. 1.10.1; Val. Max. 6.4.3; Porphyr. FGrH 260 F50; Plin. NH 34.24; Plut. Mor. 202F. See also, for Egyptian evidence, J. D. Ray, The Archive of Hor (London, 1976), 127–28.

83. Not that Rome herself intended to humiliate Antiochus. Popillius' intervention ended in amicable fashion; Polyb. 29.27.6; DS 31.2.2; Livy 45.12.6; see E. S. Gruen, “Rome and the Seleucids in the Aftermath of Pydna,” Chiron 6 (1976): 76–77. But the perception of a forced withdrawal could do serious damage to Seleucid prestige and authority.

84. Indeed Antiochus soon dispatched a mission to Rome to offer congratulations for Pydna and thus regained Roman favor; Livy 45.13.2–3, 45.13.6.

85. Cf. also Josephus Ant. 12.246, who relates the return from Egypt, through fear of the Romans, directly to the assault on Jerusalem: ὑποστρέψας γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς Αἰγύπτου διὰ τὸ παρὰ Ῥωμαίων δέος ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀντιόχος ἐπὶ τὴν Ἱεροσυλυμιτῶν πόλιν ἐχεστράτευσε.

86. See the texts collected by Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 20–130.

87. Polyb. 30.25–26; DS 31.16. See Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 97–100; J. G. Bunge, “Die Feiern Antiochos' IV. Epiphanes in Daphne im Herbst 166 v. Chr.,” Chiron 6 (1976): 53–71; Walbank, Historical Commentary 3:448–53.

88. The Near Eastern inscription: OGIS 253; improved text by M. Zambelli, “L'ascesa in trono di Antioco IV Epifane di Siria,” Riv. Filol. 88 (1960): 374–80; cf. Bunge “Feiern,” 58–64; S. Sherwin-White, “A Greek Ostracon from Babylon of the Early Third Century B.C.,” ZPE 47 (1982): 65–66. On Antiochus' power, DS 31.17a.

89. DS 31.17a; App. Syr. 45, 66; Porphyr. FGrH 260 F56 (subjugation of Armenia); I Macc. 3.31, 3.37; II Macc. 9.1–2; Jos. Ant. 12.293–97; cf. Polyb. 31.9.1 (campaign in Persis).