28. Ptolemy IX Soter II, "Lathyrus", Cleopatra III, - Alexander Jannaeus. "

28.  -Daniel Chapter 11, Verse 8.

Ptolemy IX Soter II, "Lathyrus", Cleopatra III, - Alexander Jannaeus. "King of the Jews", and Seleucid Dynasty. BC 107 to BC 64. 

Daniel 11:8. "AND SHALL ALSO CARRY CAPTIVES INTO EGYPT THEIR GODS, WITH THEIR PRINCES, AND WITH THEIR PRECIOUS VESSELS OF SILVER AND OF GOLD; AND HE SHALL CONTINUE MORE YEARS THAN THE KING OF THE NORTH". Here now is a bit more of this continuing picture of North and South kingdoms of the Greeks, Ptolemaic and Seleucid of the Middle East. The first line of verse 8, "AND SHALL "ALSO" CARRY CAPTIVES INTO EGYPT THEIR GODS, WITH THEIR PRINCES, AND WITH THEIR PRECIOUS VESSELS OF SILVER AND OF GOLD". The word "also" in this line joins verse 8 to verse 7, because "also" means -in like manner, in addition too, or further too. So let us now go back to Ptolemy IX "Lathyrus" and his escapades north of Egypt and after the siege and taking of the "fortress" Ptolemais.

The civil war, which raged in Syria and into Palestine, was pursued by "Lathyrus" who went to assist one of the claimants to the Seleucid throne and to openly oppose his mother's allies.

Cleopatra had allied herself with Alexander Jannaeus the Jewish King. Her generals of her army from Egypt were also Jewish, she though aided another pretender to the Syrian throne. The Egyptian princes, namely Alexander II (later to be known as Ptolemy XI) son of Alexander I and Auletes, (later to be known as Ptolemy XII and father of the famous Cleopatra VII) son of Ptolemy "Lathyrus", were sent to the Island fortress of Cos for safe keeping, away from this precarious war and situation, which engulfed North and South. A vast treasure also accompanied them to the fortress of Cos.

(Some historians say Cos was an Aegean Island near Asia Minor. Other historians say this city, or Island Cos, is not that remote island in the Aegean Sea, but a city or island of the same name adjoining Egypt, of which Cos, and the treasures, were laid up by Cleopatra and the Jews). So ominous was the situation of that time that no one was safe!

We must now go back to "Lathyrus", after he finished sieging the fortress of Ptolemais in the North. Where he had left part of his army and the broken alliance he had made with Alexander Jannaeus of Palestine.

Let us return to Josephus and his history of the Antiquities of the Jews and where Ptolemy "Lathyrus" in anger left Ptolemais and went on with half his army to lay Judea waste. Book XIII page 400.

"AND WHEN ALEXANDER UNDERSTOOD THIS TO BE PTOLEMY'S INTENTION, HE ALSO GOT TOGETHER ABOUT FIFTY THOUSAND SOLDIERS OUT OF HIS OWN COUNTRY; NAY AS SOME WRITERS HAVE SAID EIGHTY THOUSAND. HE THEN TOOK HIS ARMY, AND WENT TO MEET PTOLEMY; BUT PTOLEMY FELL UPON ASOCHIS, A CITY OF GALILEE, AND TOOK IT BY FORCE ON THE SABBATH DAY, AND THERE HE TOOK ABOUT TEN THOUSAND SLAVES, AND A GREAT DEAL OF OTHER PREY.

-5- HE THEN TRIED TO TAKE SEPPHORIS, WHICH WAS A CITY NOT FAR FROM THAT WHICH WAS DESTROYED, BUT LOST MANY OF HIS MEN; YET DID HE THEN GO TO FIGHT WITH ALEXANDER; WHICH ALEXANDER MET HIM AT THE RIVER JORDAN, NEAR A CERTAIN PLACE CALLED SAPHOTH, (not far from the River Jordan) AND PITCHED HIS CAMP NEAR THE ENEMY. HE HAD HOWEVER EIGHT THOUSAND IN THE FIRST RANK, WHICH HE STYLED HECATONTOMACHI, HAVING SHIELDS OF BRASS. THOSE IN THE FIRST RANK OF PTOLEMY'S SOLDIERS ALSO HAD SHIELDS COVERED IN BRASS. BUT PTOLEMY'S SOLDIERS IN OTHER RESPECTS WERE INFERIOR TO THOSE OF ALEXANDER, AND THEREFORE WERE MORE FEARFUL OF RUNNING HAZARDS; BUT PHILOSTEPHANUS, THE CAMP-MASTER, PUT GREAT COURAGE INTO THEM, AND ORDERED THEM TO PASS THE RIVER, WHICH WAS BETWEEN THEIR CAMPS. NOR DID ALEXANDER THINK FIT TO HINDER THEIR PASSAGE OVER IT; FOR HE THOUGHT, THAT IF THE ENEMY HAD ONCE GOTTEN THE RIVER ON THEIR BACK, THAT HE SHOULD THE EASIER TAKE THEM PRISONERS, WHEN THEY COULD NOT FLEE OUT OF THE BATTLE: IN THE BEGINNING OF WHICH, THE ACTS ON BOTH SIDES, WITH THEIR HANDS, AND WITH THEIR ALACRITY, WERE ALIKE, AND A GREAT SLAUGHTER WAS MADE BY BOTH THE ARMIES; BUT ALEXANDER WAS SUPERIOR, TILL PHILOSTEPHANUS OPPORTUNELY BROUGHT UP THE AUXILIARIES, TO HELP THOSE THAT WERE GIVING WAY; BUT AS THERE WERE NO AUXILIARIES TO AFFORD HELP TO THAT PART OF THE JEWS THAT GAVE WAY, IT FELL OUT THAT THEY FLED, AND THOSE NEAR THEM DID NOT ASSIST THEM, BUT FLED ALONG WITH THEM. HOWEVER, PTOLEMY'S SOLDIERS ACTED QUITE OTHERWISE; FOR THEY FOLLOWED THE JEWS, AND KILLED THEM, TILL AT LENGTH THOSE THAT SLEW THEM PURSUED AFTER THEM WHEN THEY HAD MADE THEM ALL RUN AWAY, AND SLEW THEM SO LONG, THAT THEIR WEAPONS OF IRON WERE BLUNTED, AND THEIR HANDS QUITE TIRED WITH THE SLAUGHTER; FOR THE REPORT WAS, THAT THIRTY THOUSAND MEN WERE THEN SLAIN. TIMAGENES SAYS THEY WERE FIFTY THOUSAND. AS FOR THE REST, THEY WERE PART OF THEM TAKEN CAPTIVES, AND THE OTHER PART RAN AWAY TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY. 

-6- AFTER THIS VICTORY, PTOLEMY OVERRAN ALL THE COUNTRY; AND WHEN NIGHT CAME ON, HE ABODE IN CERTAIN VILLAGES OF JUDEA, WHICH WHEN HE FOUND FULL OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN, HE COMMANDED HIS SOLDIERS TO STRANGLE THEM, AND TO CUT THEM IN PIECES, AND THEN TO CAST THEM INTO BOILING CALDRONS, AND THEN TO DEVOUR THEIR LIMBS AS SACRIFICES. THIS COMMANDMENT WAS GIVEN, THAT SUCH AS LED FROM THE BATTLE, AND CAME TO THEM, MIGHT SUPPOSE THEIR ENEMIES WERE CANNIBALS; AND EAT MEN'S FLESH, AND MIGHT ON THAT ACCOUNT BE STILL MORE TERRIFIED AT THEM UPON SUCH A SIGHT. AND BOTH STRABO AND NICHOLAUS (of Damascus) AFFIRM, THAT THEY USED THESE PEOPLE AFTER THIS MANNER, AS I HAVE ALREADY RELATED. PTOLEMY ALSO TOOK PTOLEMAIS BY FORCE, AS WE HAVE DECLARED ELSEWHERE".

Let us now look at the first few words again of Daniel 11:8 and the peculiar way it is worded, such as; "AND SHALL ALSO CARRY CAPTIVES INTO EGYPT "THEIR GODS". One must remember that we are not unravelling straight out translations of Hebrew, or English, or whatever the case may be. But we are unravelling "visions" or pictures, swirling in Daniel's dreams, or the seer's head or before his eyes. In these pictures are many happenings covered by simple words, which were spoken such a long time ago. So, it is easy for us today with hindsight to say "Ah!" Daniel has left out the word "with" between the words "Egypt" and "their gods", in verse 8. Whereas the "vision" might perhaps be trying to convey other things and not grammatical errors, along with hiding secular and biblical history in those verses over the centuries. Thus, waiting for the "end time" and the fullness of that knowledge to come in, when all will be revealed!

Ptolemy II "Lathyrus" not only fought Cleopatra's army, the Seleucid pretender to that throne and besieged the fortress of Ptolemais in the North, he also laid Palestine to the sword. His fury in doing so made Josephus say, "he laid Judah waste", with this abominable cruelty and his horrid story of inhumanity towards women and children. But let us not imagine that the Jew's were all a holy lot and their hands were clean from treachery and slaughter. The "holy seed" within their midst were very few and far between and it was for their sakes Judah's children lived at all! The Kingdom of Judah under Alexander Jannaeus was not numbered as a holy kingdom, but one of profanity, -or- that which does not profess sanctity towards God Himself. This Kingdom was put to wrong use because it was marked as irreverent, its King, priests and peoples were seeped in the customs of the Greeks and other nations.

Greek religion accompanied the Greeks everywhere they went into the East. Throughout the Seleucid domains, including Palestine, the cult of the Olympian gods coexisted with other local deities. Greek Temples were everywhere from Iran to Phoenicia. Many of the diverse religions of other races were assimilated into the Greek religion identifying the foreign gods with their own. The same thing happened in Greek-Egyptian religion, some of their cult gods were, Mithras of Iran, Marduk and Ishtar of Babylonian lands. Astarte and Hadad in Syria and Phoenicia and Cybele of Anatolia, etc. The Greek Kings themselves were accorded divine honours, as did the Romans and their divine cult. Alexander the Great began the emulation of becoming a god, when he adopted the custom of the east, which began the "royal cults". We have "Soter" of Egypt and the Seleucids, meaning "Saviour". Theos, meaning "god", Epiphanes meaning "appearance of god" etc. The Romans who had become Hellenised also strengthened Greek culture everywhere they went in the East etc.

The Jews professed a form of holiness towards God in the Temple and also practised abominations of the other nations around them. From the Assyrian/Babylonian times to the times of the Greeks the people within their secret closets would have bowed their heads and hearts to other gods. These peoples were thoroughly Hellenised, the very thing that the lineage of the Maccabees fought to overcome. Now under Alexander Jannaeus all was practised without shame. Many of the Jews served the Egyptians in all walks of life and flocked to Egyptian places of learning, as the city of Alexandria was in those days. The "House of Judah" were no strangers to the Egyptians, many nations classed the Jews as a people "out" of the Egyptians.

So, Palestine and its peoples to, were thoroughly involved and Greek culture always looking over their shoulders South towards Greek Egypt, or North to Greek Syria. Secular history is full of ordinary men being worshipped as gods. For example, the sons of Judah under Onias the priest built a Jewish temple in the prefecture of Heliopolis (On), in Egypt, as if they were God fearing sons of the Most High dwelling in Egypt. Yet! They left a lot to be desired. Onias through his own vanity of mind set himself up by building the temple, to fulfil a prophecy in Isaiah 19/18 and 19. Which chapter is applicable to Egypt.- To them, ritual, priests and the temple worship was of more importance than rendering the heart to one's Maker.

When Daniel in Daniel 11:8 speaks of "gods", the word is plural and of course the word means that it can be peoples, or statues which can be used as such, because it is a word meaning to be propitiated by sacrifice or worship. The word gods can be any person or thing exalted too much in one's estimation. Today, we see our own peoples worshipping all sorts of gods, some of the young will choose perhaps a pop singer and worship with lamentations at his graveside when he dies. Some will put all their hopes and desires on a seemingly righteous person, a church, a club, or sport.

Anything that seems right in the eyes of the seeker after assurance! So, it was also to many a Jew out of the land of Palestine during the Ptolemaic times, when they bowed themselves low at the throne of the incestuous, murderous, Ptolemies. Jewish men served as commanders in the Egyptian army of Cleopatra and gave her homage as their Queen. If they were truly the children of Jacob, they could not have served any man or woman in like manner, outside their own allegiance to the God of Israel as King and "His" purpose in the land of Israel.

It is written man cannot have two masters!

So then, Daniel, in this line of verse 8 is saying, that Ptolemy Lathyrus returned to Egypt after he laid Judah's land waste and as Josephus already told us, he took ten thousand slaves alone, from around about Galilee. Apart from over running the army, there to serve the gods of Egypt whether those gods be men or things. The Almighty God through Daniel, put into context in verse 8, exactly what "He" thought of the desires or feelings of these people towards all things Greek or Egyptian. Because Daniel puts emphasis on one word, -their- gods, which the word itself implies, therefore pertaining and belonging to them, being a possessive word. I have told you in another chapter reader, that when the Greek Ptolemies ruled Palestine from 323 BC to 198 BC and the Greek Seleucids there after ruled to Maccabean times. The Egyptian Greeks thoroughly Hellenised Jewish minds and hearts and under the Greek Syrians they took over their bodies, when circumcision was rarely practised in the generations. The Maccabean revolt tried to alter that and succeeded in some places, but it remained entrenched however, because, under the times of Alexander Jannaeus and Ptolemy "Lathyrus", once more Hellenisation comes out of the closet.

In other words, Daniel in the expression "their gods" is pronouncing the "state" to which the peoples of the House of Judah had sunk, during Ptolemy Lathyrus time. We will go now to the remainder of Daniel 11:8 and the words. "WITH THEIR PRINCES, AND WITH THEIR PRECIOUS VESSELS OF SILVER AND OF GOLD". Ptolemy Lathyrus finished off devastating the cities and peoples of the North and he saw that his mother Cleopatra was kept busy with her army, also in the North. He returned into the land of Egypt and not to the island of Cyprus from where he had first sprung his attack in the North. By this move he hoped to regain all Egypt once more and of course being very popular with the people achieved it and he prevailed as Verse 7 stated. Let us read what Flavius Josephus has to say about this. Chapter XIII:- "WHEN CLEOPATRA SAW THAT HER SON WAS GROWN GREAT, AND LAID JUDAH WASTE, WITHOUT DISTURBANCE, AND HAD GOTTEN THE CITY OF GAZA UNDER HIS POWER, SHE RESOLVED NO LONGER TO OVERLOOK WHAT HE DID, WHEN HE WAS ALMOST AT HER GATES, AND SHE CONCLUDED, THAT NOW HE WAS SO MUCH STRONGER THAN BEFORE, HE WOULD BE VERY DESIROUS OF THE DOMINION OVER THE EGYPTIANS; BUT SHE IMMEDIATELY MARCHED AGAINST HIM, WITH A FLEET AT SEA AND AN ARMY OF FOOT ON LAND, AND MADE CHELCIAS AND ANANIAS THE JEWS GENERALS OF HER WHOLE ARMY, WHILE SHE SENT THE GREATEST PART OF HER RICHES, HER GRANDCHILDREN, AND HER TESTAMENT, TO THE PEOPLE OF COS. CLEOPATRA ALSO ORDERED HER SON (Alexander I) TO SAIL WITH A GREAT FLEET TO PHOENICIA; AND WHEN THAT COUNTRY HAD REVOLTED, SHE CAME TO PTOLEMAIS; AND BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF PTOLEMAIS DID NOT RECEIVE HER, SHE BESIEGED THE CITY; BUT PTOLEMY WENT OUT OF SYRIA, AND MADE HASTE INTO EGYPT, SUPPOSING THAT HE SHOULD FIND IT DESTITUTE OF AN ARMY, AND SOON TAKE IT, THOUGH HE FAILED OF HIS HOPES. AT THIS TIME CHELCIAS, ONE OF CLEOPATRA'S GENERALS, HAPPENED TO DIE IN CELESYRIA, AS HE WAS IN PURSUIT OF PTOLEMY. WHEN CLEOPATRA HEARD OF HER SON'S ATTEMPT, AND THAT HIS EGYPTIAN EXPEDITION DID NOT SUCCEED ACCORDING TO HIS EXPECTATIONS, SHE SENT THITHER PART OF HER ARMY, AND DROVE HIM OUT OF THAT COUNTRY; SO WHEN HE WAS RETURNED OUT OF EGYPT AGAIN, HE ABODE DURING THE WINTER AT GAZA, IN WHICH TIME CLEOPATRA TOOK THE GARRISON THAT WAS IN PTOLEMAIS BY SIEGE, AS WELL AS THE CITY; AND WHEN ALEXANDER CAME TO HER, HE GAVE HER PRESENTS, AND SUCH MARKS OF RESPECT AS WERE BUT PROPER, SINCE UNDER THE MISERIES HE ENDURED BY PTOLEMY HE HAD NO OTHER REFUGE BUT HER".

Chapter IV of Book I of Josephus, also affirms that Ptolemy retired from his battles, into Egypt.

We go back now to Daniel's verse 8 and we see that Ptolemy Lathyrus went down into Egypt after devastating the land of Judah, taking many things from that unhappy land, namely princes and precious vessels of silver and gold.

Here now we come a little unstuck, because secular history gives us such little information on this subject and one relies entirely on the words written by Flavius Josephus on his Wars of the Jews, for that information.

Josephus tells us that Ptolemy Lathyrus took many "slaves" from the land of Palestine and "a great deal of other prey". He does not clarify what that prey was, however. To conjecture what this prey was, is the sort of thing I'm entirely against, whilst translating prophecy. I have to rely on "assumption" instead, which is a whirlpool of danger, because assumption has been the "hallmark" of organised and sectarian religions for centuries, who have diverted "truth" to a side road, for assumed fables and have instead given rigid devotion to the interests of a party in religion that they represent. So, for the need of more information on Ptolemy Lathyrus and his devastation in Judah's land, we must "assume" that there was a great deal of prey taken with the Jewish slaves, what Lathyrus took to Egypt with him, were indeed princes, and vessels of silver and gold, as verse 8 of Daniel says. The princes of the land of Judah however, were not only those sons of the royal family, belonging to their unhappy King Alexander Jannaeus and his Queen Alexandria, (called Salome by the Jews), which "princes" were called Aristobulus and Hyrcanus. The "princes" of that land were also the high priesthood, who dominated and ruled that country. Whether as of Aaron's seed, or as the divisions within them such as Pharisee Sadducee or Essenes, etc; Flavius Josephus tells us in the Antiquities of the Jews of the noble birth of these priests, in Book 20 chapter 10.

"AND NOW I THINK IT PROPER AND AGREEABLE TO THIS HISTORY TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF OUR HIGH PRIESTS, HOW THEY BEGAN, AND HOW MANY OF THEM THERE HAD BEEN AT THE END OF THE WAR. IN THE FIRST PLACE THEREFORE, HISTORY INFORMS US THAT AARON, THE BROTHER OF MOSES, OFFICIATED TO GOD AS A HIGH PRIEST, AND THAT AFTER HIS DEATH, HIS SONS SUCCEEDED HIM IMMEDIATELY; AND THAT HIS DIGNITY HATH BEEN CONTINUED DOWN FROM THEM ALL TO THEIR POSTERITY. WHENCE IT IS A CUSTOM OF OUR COUNTRY, THAT NO ONE SHOULD TAKE THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD OF GOD BUT HE WHO IS OF THE BLOOD OF AARON, WHILE EVERYONE THAT IS OF ANOTHER STOCK THOUGH HE WERE A KING, CAN NEVER OBTAIN THAT HIGH PRIESTHOOD. ACCORDINGLY, THE NUMBER OF ALL HIGH PRIESTS FROM AARON, OF WHOM WE HAVE SPOKEN ALREADY, AS OF THE FIRST OF THEM, UNTIL PHANAS, WHO WAS MADE HIGH PRIEST DURING THE WAR BY THE SEDITIOUS, WAS EIGHTY-THREE; OF WHOM THIRTEEN OFFICIATED AS HIGH PRIESTS IN THE WILDERNESS, FROM THE DAYS OF MOSES, WHILE THE TABERNACLE WAS STANDING, UNTIL THE PEOPLE CAME INTO JUDEA, WHEN KING SOLOMON ERECTED THE TEMPLE OF GOD; FOR AT THE FIRST THEY HELD THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD TILL THE END OF THEIR LIFE, ALTHOUGH AFTERWARD THEY HAD SUCCESSORS WHILE THEY WERE ALIVE. NOW THESE THIRTEEN, WHO WERE DESCENDANTS OF TWO OF THE SONS OF AARON, RECEIVED THIS DIGNITY BY SUCCESSION, ONE AFTER ANOTHER; FOR THEIR FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS AN ARISTOCRACY, AND AFTER THAT A MONARCHY, AND IN THE THIRD PLACE THE GOVERNMENT WAS REGAL".

Josephus then goes on to explain through the years, how this royal priesthood fell into the hands of profane Kings as Alexander Jannaeus, etc; He continues the story, which I have condensed.

"EIGHTEEN PRIESTS TOOK THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD AT JERUSALEM FROM KING SOLOMON UNTIL THE DAYS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR, KING OF BABYLON, AND BURNT THE TEMPLE AND REMOVED OUR NATION INTO BABYLON, AND THEN TOOK JOSADEK, THE HIGH PRIEST CAPTIVE. AFTER THE TERM OF 70 YEARS CAPTIVITY UNDER THE BABYLONIANS, JESUS THE SON THE JOSADEK, TOOK THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD, WHEN THEY RETURNED HOME. ANTIOCHUS EUPATOR DEPRIVED ONIAS, WHO WAS ALSO CALLED MENELAUS, OF THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD, AND SLEW HIM AT BEREA, HE PUT JACIMUS INTO THE PLACE OF THE HIGH PRIEST. (Of the stock of Aaron but not of the family of Onias). NOW WHEN JACIMUS DIED THERE WAS NO ONE TO SUCCEED HIM, BUT THE CITY CONTINUED SEVEN YEARS WITHOUT A PRIEST. WHEN THEY HAD BEATEN THE MACEDONIANS IN WAR, APPOINTED JONATHAN TO BE THEIR HIGH PRIEST, WHO RULED OVER THEM FOR SEVEN YEARS. SIMEON HIS BROTHER TOOK THE PRIESTHOOD. SIMEON'S SON HYRCANUS SUCCEEDED HIM. JUDAS WHO WAS ALSO CALLED ARISTOBULUS SUCCEEDED HIM. HIS BROTHER ALEXANDER JANNAEUS WAS BOTH KING AND HIGH PRIEST FOR TWENTY SEVEN YEARS. POMPEY (The Roman) TOOK JERUSALEM BY FORCE AND PUT ARISTOBULUS IN BONDS (Alexander's son) WHO HAD BEEN HIGH PRIEST FOR 3 YEARS. BY THE TIME HEROD BECAME KING, (put there by the Romans) HE MADE CERTAIN MEN PRIESTS, AND NO LONGER OUT OF THE FAMILY OF ASAMONEUS. ARCHELAUS, HEROD'S SON, APPOINTED THE HIGH PRIESTS, AS DID THE ROMANS ALSO. THE NUMBER OF PRIESTS FROM HEROD TO TITUS WHEN HE TOOK THE TEMPLE, WERE IN ALL TWENTY EIGHT. SOME OF THESE WERE POLITICAL GOVERNORS OF THE PEOPLE UNDER THE REIGN OF HEROD. AFTER THE DEATHS OF HEROD AND ARCHELAUS THE GOVERNMENT BECAME AN ARISTOCRACY, AND THE HIGH PRIESTS WERE ENTRUSTED WITH THE DOMINION OVER THE NATION".

As for Flavius Josephus himself, he to, in the setting down of his ancestral tree at the beginning of his "book", Antiquities of the Jews, explains to us his princely line.

"THE FAMILY FROM WHICH I DERIVED IS NOT AN IGNOBLE ONE, BUT HATH DESCENDED ALL ALONG FROM THE PRIESTS; AND AS NOBILITY AMONG SEVERAL PEOPLE IS OF A DIFFERENT ORIGIN, SO WITH US TO BE OF THE SACERDOTAL DIGNITY, IS AN INDICATION OF THE SPLENDOUR OF OUR FAMILY. NOW I AM NOT ONLY SPRUNG FROM A SACERDOTAL FAMILY IN GENERAL, BUT FROM THE FIRST OF THE TWENTY-FOUR COURSES; AND AS AMONG US THERE IS NOT ONLY A CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE FAMILY OF EACH COURSE AND ANOTHER. I AM OF THE CHIEF FAMILY OF THAT FIRST COURSE ALSO; NAY, FURTHER, BY MY MOTHER I AM OF THE ROYAL BLOOD; FOR THE CHILDREN OF ASAMONEUS, FROM WHOM THAT FAMILY WAS DERIVED, HAD BOTH THE OFFICE OF THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD, AND THE DIGNITY OF A KING, FOR A LONG TIME TOGETHER".

So, Daniel the prophet when referring to the "princes" of the land of Judah, most certainly would have taken into account the nobility of the priesthood, whose priests perhaps would have been among the prisoners taken by Ptolemy Lathyrus. The word "prey" which Josephus says were taken in great measure, not only means property, taken from an enemy as spoils of war, it also means a victim or living creatures seized. If Ptolemy Lathyrus murdered women and children and chopped them up which was recorded in history, he certainly wouldn't have battered an eyelid in taking the priests as slaves also.

The prophet Daniel himself, was taken prisoner by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon, who also was of royal, or princely lineage. (Daniel 1:1-3). The precious vessels of silver and gold of which Daniel speaks in verse 8 were no uncommon thing in the land of Judah. Because the Jews possessed great wealth and each town had its treasures for the necessities of worship etc. Though none had the wealth that Jerusalem possessed.

Again, Josephus tells us in chapter 8, Book 13, of cups of gold and silver. Page 393-

"AND WHEN HYRCANUS (John) SENT TO ANTIOCHUS, (Pius) AND DESIRED THERE MIGHT BE A TRUCE FOR SEVEN DAYS, BECAUSE OF THE FESTIVAL, HE GAVE WAY TO HIS PIETY TOWARDS GOD, AND MADE THAT TRUCE ACCORDINGLY. AND BESIDES THAT, HE SENT IN A MAGNIFICENT SACRIFICE, BULLS WITH THEIR HORNS GILDED WITH ALL SORTS OF SWEET SPICES, AND WITH CUPS OF GOLD AND SILVER".

Let us now note some of the treasures, which the Jews possessed in that day and age. We have already read earlier on, how the Jews laid up some of their treasures in the Island of Cos, along with Cleopatra's treasures. Josephus also explains to us in his history how the Jews came by all this treasure and where it was kept. Book 14, chapter 7.

"NOW CRASSUS, (the Roman commander) AS HE WAS GOING UPON HIS EXPEDITION AGAINST THE PARTHIANS, CAME INTO JUDEA, AND CARRIED OFF THE MONEY THAT WAS IN THE TEMPLE, WHICH POMPEY HAD LEFT, BEING TWO THOUSAND TALENTS, AND WAS DISPOSED TO SPOIL IT OF ALL THE GOLD BELONGING TO IT, WHICH WAS EIGHT THOUSAND TALENTS. HE ALSO TOOK A BEAM, WHICH WAS MADE OF SOLID BEATEN GOLD, OF THE WEIGHT OF THREE HUNDRED MINAE, EACH OF WHICH WEIGHED TWO POUNDS AND A HALF. IT WAS THE PRIEST WHO WAS GUARDIAN OF THE SACRED TREASURES, AND WHOSE NAME WAS ELEAZAR, THAT GAVE HIM THIS BEAM, NOT OUT OF WICKED DESIGN, FOR HE WAS A GOOD AND A RIGHTEOUS MAN; BUT BEING ENTRUSTED WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE VEILS BELONGING TO THE TEMPLE, WHICH WERE OF ADMIRABLE BEAUTY, AND OF VERY COSTLY WORKMANSHIP, AND HUNG DOWN FROM THIS BEAM, WHEN HE SAW THAT CRASSUS WAS BUSY IN GATHERING MONEY, AND WAS IN FEAR FOR THE ENTIRE ORNAMENTS OF THE TEMPLE, HE GAVE HIM THIS BEAM OF GOLD AS A RANSOM FOR THE WHOLE, BUT THIS NOT TILL HE HAD GIVEN HIS OATH THAT HE WOULD REMOVE NOTHING ELSE OUT OF THE TEMPLE, BUT BE SATISFIED WITH THIS ONLY, WHICH HE SHOULD GIVE HIM, BEING WORTH MANY TEN THOUSAND SHEKELS. NOW THIS BEAM WAS CONTAINED IN A WOODEN BEAM THAT WAS HOLLOW, BUT WAS KNOWN TO NO OTHERS; BUT ELEAZAR ALONE KNEW IT; YET DID CRASSUS TAKE AWAY THIS BEAM, UPON THE CONDITION OF TOUCHING NOTHING ELSE THAT BELONGED TO THE TEMPLE, AND THEN BRAKE HIS OATH, AND CARRIED AWAY ALL THE GOLD THAT WAS IN THE TEMPLE. AND LET NO ONE WONDER THAT THERE WAS SO MUCH WEALTH IN OUR TEMPLE, SINCE ALL THE JEWS THROUGHOUT THE HABITABLE EARTH, AND THOSE THAT WORSHIPPED GOD, NAY, EVEN THOSE OF ASIA AND EUROPE, SENT THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO IT, AND THIS FROM VERY ANCIENT TIMES. NOR IS THE LARGENESS OF THESE SUMS WITHOUT ITS ATTESTATION; NOR IS THAT GREATNESS OWNING TO OUR VANITY, AS RAISING IT WITHOUT GROUND TO SO GREAT A HEIGHT; BUT THERE ARE MANY WITNESSES TO IT AND PARTICULARLY STRABO AND CAPPADOCIA, WHO SAYS THUS: "MITHRIDATES (king of Parthia) SENT TO COS, AND TOOK THE MONEY WHICH QUEEN CLEOPATRA HAD DEPOSITED THERE, AS ALSO EIGHT HUNDRED TALENTS BELONGING TO THE JEWS". NOW WE HAVE NO PUBLIC MONEY BUT ONLY WHAT APPERTAINS TO GOD; AND IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASIAN JEWS REMOVED THIS MONEY OUT OF FEAR OF MITHRIDATES; FOR IT IS NOT PROBABLE THAT THOSE OF JUDEA, WHO HAD A STRONG CITY AND TEMPLE, SHOULD SEND THEIR MONEY TO COS; NOR IS IT LIKELY THAT THE JEWS WHO ONE INHABITANTS OF ALEXANDRIA SHOULD DO SO NEITHER, SINCE THEY WERE IN NO FEAR OF MITHRIDATES".

So, then we have "assumed" that the "prey" which Ptolemy Lathyrus took with him to Egypt, along with thousands of slaves, were the "priestly" princes and "treasures" which included cups of silver and gold.

Let us now translate the last line of Daniel 11:8. "AND HE SHALL CONTINUE MORE YEARS THAN THE KING OF THE NORTH". Ptolemy "Lathyrus" through all his trials and tribulations in his fight for his "estate" of Egypt, was nevertheless to emerge as the rightful heir to that Kingdom of the south. He was to "prevail", as verse 7 states, over his antagonists no matter who they were, be it Syrian, Cleopatra, the fortress of Ptolemais, or the Jews. (His son and heir -called Aleuts to that Egyptian throne was also to rule, though history has questioned his legitimacy). Even "Lathyrus" granddaughter Cleopatra VII was to reign, which ended that Egyptian throne in the land of the South. For Ptolemy IX Lathyrus to "continue more years than the King of the North" as Daniel states in verse 8, seems to contradict secular history, because history tells us that Ptolemy Lathyrus died in the year 81 BC before Alexander Jannaeus- who died in 77 BC. The Syrian throne of the North was to continue, after a fashion, for a few more years again, after Lathyrus death. So, what is Daniel saying then in verse 8? Daniel is summing up and ending the situation of the powers of these Greek thrones and the meat in that sandwich, Palestine.

One must not forget reader, as I said at the beginning of these verses. -From Alexander the Great's time - the verses are all to do with Egypt's power in that ancient world and it is "their" dynasty we are covering here step by step, from verses 5 to 11, until Rome devours them also. The Roman dragon's tail is slowly sweeping the Greek world away in the Middle East, marching and smashing its way this way and that with its gait so unlike the swiftness to the kill of the Greek Leopard. In Daniel's summing up of the then situation in verse 8, he sees the "fall" of Palestine and its independent monarchy, before, Egypt's demise! And through that particular sentence in Daniel 11:8, we know from here on the Seleucid Kingdom of the North will no longer feature in these verses of biblical history.

Most of the other verses applicable to the North -while Rome dominates, will now mean much further North, with Roman power itself in its many guises. As for Palestine of the north, (from Egypt) the remaining verses to come in Daniel 11 will show step by step how that land was to be rung out and closed to its rightful heirs, the nations of Israel. Palestine no longer to be part of their biblical or secular history, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled and we reach verses 41 of the same chapter. Secular history tells us of the end of the Greek Seleucid dynasty, from the times of their civil war, which had taken Cleopatra III of Egypt and her sons Ptolemy Lathyrus and Ptolemy Alexander I, into that area.

Fighting for the "pretenders" to that throne of their own choices, from 129 BC Greek- Macedonian ruling in the eastern Mediterranean countries, was at the end of their power years. Because the Parthians - Iranians were to declare themselves independent of the Seleucid Empire and bit by bit the various satrapies of the Syrian overlords were lost to them. The Parthians grew very great, moving across Syrian territories, on into Syria itself. The Syrian King Antiochus VII "Sidetes" in 129 BC fell in battle fighting the Parthians, making this branch of Syrian accession lineage to be permanently ended. Thus, leaving the throne up for grabs, which from then on there was no shortage of men attempting to seize that crown. We read more about the threat of the Parthians to the Middle East in verse 10 of Daniel 11. Let us have a quick recap of the Seleucid Kingdom, to get Biblical and Secular history running parallel.

The Seleucid Kingdom lasted from 312 BC- 64 BC. The latter Seleucids having 2 hostile branches of the family. We see these 2 branches in action when we translated verse 6 of Daniel 11 and when Ptolemy VI Philometor and his daughter Cleopatra Thea, went to Ptolemais with a "marriage agreement" between Alexander Balas and Demetrius II Nicator 145 BC. Therefore, from Demetrius I, -162-150 BC- (the son of Seleucus IV ) and Alexander Balas, -150-154 BC (Who claimed to be the son of Antiochus IV Epiphanes) 2 branches were to cause the continued wars, which weakened the Seleucid latter Kingdom and brought about their eventual demise, with their lands falling to the Parthians-Iranians and Romans etc.

The King Antiochus VII Sidetes who Flavius Josephus calls Soter and others called Pius, who fell to the Parthian sword was also the husband of the same Cleopatra Thea, of Daniel 11 verse 6, by whom she had 5 children. The young Kings in verses 6 and 7 of Daniel 11, in the power struggles with Cleopatra, were her sons by Demetrius II, Nicator.

The 2 Greek thrones of Egypt/Syria were so very involved, which makes unravelling them quite mind-boggling!

To continue, with Demetrius II Nicator and the impression he left with the history of Palestine and the Jews. It was under his reign that this Syrian King called for help of Jonathan of the land of Judah, in his efforts to fight Tryphon (Trypho), a usurper for Syrian power and the throne. Jonathan sending 3 thousand soldiers to Antioch to help Demetrius in that city, in return for the withdrawal of Syrian garrisons and troops from Jerusalem and the citadel. The Jews were triumphant in their fight with Tryphon, and Demetrius II kept his crown, but the King went back on his word given to Jonathan and the Jews, his promises proving to be lies. Indeed, he hindered Jonathan on every side. In 145 BC.

Tryphon made the boy Antiochus VI Dionysus King of Syria, which lasted such a short time.

During the time of Simeon, (Jonathan's brother) 142-134 BC Antiochus VII Sidetes, -brother of Demetrius II, sent to Simeon the Maccabee telling him to hand back to Syria his Kingdom of Palestine and acknowledge him as their overlord, or pay tribute, to which Simeon refused, saying the land belonged to their ancestors alone, inflaming Sidetes to a rage. Antiochus VII Sidetes then sent an army against them, which was defeated. He then led another army in 135/4 BC and laid siege to Jerusalem, which ended in much destruction. By this time Simeon had been replaced by his son John Hyrcanus, whom Antiochus made his vassal, nevertheless appointed him high priest.

Antiochus VII Sidetes went on into Parthian territory to restore Seleucid lands to his crown. The Parthians mischievously released Demetrius in 129 BC as a wedge to the Syrian crown but were to kill Antiochus VII Sidetes. Secular history tells us that after Antiochus VII Sidetes in 129 BC once more came his brother Demetrius II Nicator from 129 BC to 125 BC. A Demetrius III a pretender to the Syrian throne, was taken prisoner once more by the Parthian empire, which was then ruled by Mithridates II (123-88 BC). In order that we may double-check the demise of the Syrian throne and perhaps make it a little clearer for you reader? I will make a list of the early Seleucid monarchy and try and make the latter Kingdom rulers a little clearer, which is no easy task, as there were so many of them, covering a short period of time.

Roman power of intervention and occupation of Syria had been going on for many a year. In 65 BC the Romans were restoring order in Syrian lands. In 64 BC Pompey arrived in Damascus, refusing to recognise Antiochus XIII, Rome annexed Syria. Flavius Josephus says, Antiochus Dionysius was the last of the race of the Seleucids, other historians say however that a shadow of another king of that family was Antiochus Asiaticus -or- Commagenes, who reigned and lay hid until Pompey the Roman, turned him out. Daniel in verse 8 and chapter 11, in simple word's has shown us reader, that the Syrian empire would be the first to fall in this triangle of Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Palestine story and the terrible agony of the warring factions it would cause on that stamping ground. Daniel has picked up the thread of this story and cleverly set down in these verses of 6,7and 8 of chapter 11, a continuing story of Cleopatra Thea, "The" King's daughter of the South and the repercussions her union with the 3 Seleucid monarchs would cause; Which would end not only her story, but that of the Seleucid Kingdom.

It is written in this simple manner that we will know for sure, that these translations are correct for these verses. Keeping as it does to the "end years" which verse 6 states and finishing in verse 8 with Syria "the king of the north," falling to Roman power. Daniel 11:9 will take us forward now with Egypt, who will be counted into the Roman arena to the North. Thus making the verses gradually progressing with times and dates of history ever decreasing, as they unravel towards the birth of Christ. Daniel's verses are "milestones" of history and not, - maybe it's this- -or- maybe it's that, as some biblical students would have us believe!

Many biblical scholars quote historians such as Rawlinson time and time again giving error of translations for all these verses to Antiochus Epiphanes and his times. - Or- they quote their own pet theories without noting every word, of every verse, that the "visions" see and write down in fact!

Many scholars even note and assume as correct Flavius Josephus when he says, the "abomination that made desolate" spoken by Daniel, was none other than Antiochus Epiphanes.

Of course, Josephus wrote in the tumultuous times of the Romans and perhaps never dreamed, his words would be read 2,000 years hence. But he was no prophet such as Daniel, Jeremiah etc; Josephus was a Jewish historian under the Romans and under the laws of the Pharisee and he did not even "see" Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish Messiah at all! Yet! That same Jesus told us to "watch" for the "abomination that maketh desolate", take shape into the future, ahead of "His" Imperial Roman times. (Matthew 24:15).

Who would you follow reader? He who dealt in historical fact, written down in all honesty around his times, and before his times, as Josephus did? Or "He" who in words of a prophet, -and not just an historian,- could "see" well into the next 2,000 Years from "His" standpoint, through the eyes of God. That "He" called Jesus, proved "His" visions to be exact in detail, as the centuries rolled on! God's prophets also have proved their visions.

-My Scofield Bible reference, also gives these verses of Daniel chapter 11 and verse 6 to other persons and not what is translated from Daniel's history. They say,

"THE DESCENDANTS AND SUCCESSORS OF PTOLEMY LAGIDAE AND SELEUCUS, NOT THOSE VERY PERSONAGES. THE PREDICTION WAS FULFILLED IN THE MARRIAGE OF BERENICE, DAUGHTER OF PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS, TO ANTIOCHUS THEOS, THIRD KING OF SYRIA BC 285-247". This quick reference of Scofield is only "fluffing" Daniel's visions and is taking no note of the first line of verse 6 when it says,- "AND IN THE END OF YEARS". -Or that "she was given up 3 times". Scofield's reference is for the first part of the Seleucid Kingdom and not the latter part of that same Kingdom. Scofield's reference for verse 7 gives this verse also in error to. "PTOLEMY EUERGETES, BROTHER OF BERENICE, WHO INVADED SYRIA AS DESCRIBED IN VERSES 7 TO 9". Verse 7 is a continuation of verse 6.

Again, Scofield's reference speaks of the earlier kingdom with Ptolemy Euergetes I, 246-221 BC and is another shot in the dark of translating, so to speak. There were so many, many intrigues in these Ptolemaic and Seleucid lands, one can fit almost anything anywhere, but this is not the way Daniel's prophecies work, one "must" adhere diligently to "every word" for absolute historical fact. My Scofield reference goes on to say.

Daniel 11:10-19:- "PROPHETIC FOREVIEW OF THE WARS OF EGYPT AND SYRIA, PALESTINE (verse 17) THE BATTLE GROUND, BC 284-175".

Many verses of Daniel 11:10-19 are of other things such as Titus destroying Jerusalem in AD 70 etc. These quotes are no different from so many, many, different types I have read, from denominations who profess to know truth! Sometimes it is only an exercise from the prophetically unlearned, who haven't laid Israelite foundations correctly and should say they "don't know", what some prophecies mean and leave it at that! Some Bible scholars deceive the contrite heart of men and women who long to know truth, giving lifetime lectures of quotes which do injustice to God's words. Christians must change their ideas!

We ourselves are at the end of Daniel's histories towards the year 2,000 AD and soon the end of man's ruling power! So, let us be honest and sober, dealing in raw fact of "every word" in that book, we are all the "aged" of history faced with atomic annihilation. Let us put our children's fairy stories away and deal with the deaths of the body and spirit, as people full of years, with a lifetime of learning and the getting of wisdom!