Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem
Daniel R. Schwartz
Dept. of Jewish History, Hebrew University
Note: There are no footnotes in this paper. Click here to clear "notes" window.
4Q248, which was published last year by Magen Broshi and Esther Eshel, has been taken to resolve two issues. In both cases, the text has been connected with a passage in I Maccabees: on the one hand 4Q248 has been taken to confirm that passages story over against that supplied by II Maccabees, and on the other hand that passage in I Maccabees has been taken to show that the term ir hamiqdash, used in 4Q248 as in some other Qumran texts, refers to the temple complex and not to the city of Jerusalem - an oft-debated issue. In what follows, however, we will argue that 4Q248 in fact supports the opposite positions concerning both questions. That is, we will argue that 4Q248 supports II Maccabees date of Antiochus pillage of the Temple, not that given by I Maccabees, and we will argue that proper understanding of the evidence of I and II Maccabees, as well as that of Daniel and Josephus, will lead us to conclude that ir hamiqdash refers, in fact, to the whole city of Jerusalem and not to the Temple. In the time available, I will concentrate more on the first point and be only suggestive concerning the second.
One of the old but still open questions of early Hasmonean history pertains to Antiochus IVs visits to Jerusalem. Everyone agrees that Antiochus twice invaded Egypt and withdrew from it, namely in 170/169 and in 168 BCE, and everyone agrees that on his way back from Egypt he robbed Jerusalem. However, our two main sources, I Macc and II Macc, which each report a visit and looting by the king in Jerusalem, differ as to the dating of the event. I Macc dates the visit to 143 SE, which, virtually all agree, means 170/169 BCE and hence refers the aftermath of Antiochus first invasion of Egypt, but II Macc 5 reports his visit to Jerusalem only after the chapter opens with an explicit reference to Antiochus second invasion of Egypt.
In line with a general scholarly bias in favor of the historical reliability of I Maccabees, most scholars have accepted its dating of Antiochus visit to Jerusalem. As for II Maccabees, most scholars simply rejected it out of hand, but two harmonizing suggestions have also been made. Namely, some scholars, such as Schürer and Abel, have attempted to distinguish two stages in Antiochus first Egyptian campaign, which would allow us to take Second Maccabees reference to the second invasion to refer to part of the first one; more recently, Dov Gera has attempted to deal with the problem by translating e[fodo" as approach. Such a translation would allow us to view Antiochus previous visit in Jaffa, reported in the preceding chapter of II Maccabees (4:21), to be his first approach to Egypt, so Antiochus first campaign to Egypt would be his second approach to that country mentioned in II Macc 5:1. Both of these harmonizing explanations founder, in my opinion, on the fact that e[fodo", in Second Maccabees, plainly means invasion. Thus, for example, chapter 13 begins with an account of an invasion of Judaea by Antiochus Eupator and Lysias, along with thousands and thousands of soldiers, and ends with the statement that so ended Antiochus e[fodo" and his withdrawal (13:26). Or to quote Ettelson: (apart from I Maccabees) The word e[fodo" is found elsewhere in the LXX only in II Macc., where it occurs indeed six times, but always in the hostile sense of inroad, assault.
Hence, there remains a real contradition between First and Second Maccabees. First Maccabees places Antiochus pillage of Jerusalem in 169 BCE and Second Maccabees -- in 168. Of course, an obvious possibility is that Antiochus IV visited Jerusalem after both of his Egyptian campaigns. Indeed, Daniel 11:28-30 seems explicitly to refer to two such visits. However, we cannot simply arrange the account in II Maccabees 5 after the one in I Macc 1, because they both report much the same things about the visit: I Macc gives a long and detailed list of Temple vessels and Temple property which Antiochus stole, while II Macc, although lacking in details, reports that Antiochus entered the Temple and stole holy vessels and dedications. If Antiochus stole the long list of central Temple items in 169, including the golden altar, the table of presentation, the candelabrum and all their ancillary vessels, not to mention all the other vessels and gold he could find, there wouldnt have been much left to take in 168.
Hence, the usual solution today is to assume that while Antiochus indeed visited Jerusalem twice, the story told in II Macc 5 in fact refers to the first visit, so it is only from Daniel that we learn of the second. I emphasize this: just about everyone agrees that he visited Jerusalem twice, and that II Maccabees explicitly claims to be describing the second visit, but due to the similarities between the accounts in both books it is assumed that the dating in II Macc is wrong and it in fact refers to the first visit, as does I Maccabees.
I have three objections to this usual reconstruction. First, the similarity between the two accounts is not, I believe, as great as is usually assumed. For while it is usually assumed that both books say Antiochus perpetrated not only robbery but also a massacre in Jerusalem, during his visit, in fact, I believe, this is reported only by II Maccabees. As I have argued elsewhere, the term phonoktonia in I Macc 1:24 is to be taken not as referring, in accordance with its etymology, to massacre, murderous slaughter, but, rather, as çå_--, in line with Septuagintal usage - impurity, pollution or the like. Indeed, those scholars who translated phonoktonia etymologically have encountered numerous difficulties in making sense of the verse, for it seems to say that Antiochus perpetrated his massacre after he left Jerusalem and returned to his own land, Syria; naturally enough, no one is willing to accept that conclusion. Thus, as you see on the handout [attached below], Hartom felt compelled to change the order of the verbs in the verse, so as to let Antiochus massacre before leaving Jerusalem; Oesterley and others simply omit the massacre, claiming that it should have been mentioned in an earlier verse; Goldstein, Nelis and others solve the problem by playing with the text, or with the tenses, so as to make the reference to massacre refer to an earlier period. None of these solutions is very convincing. Rather, instead of playing with the text or with the tenses, we should realize that -- as Liddell and Scott indicate -- phonoktonia doesnt seem to appear anywhere apart from Jewish translations of Hebrew texts, and we should therefore allow those translations to be our guide; this will lead us to seeing here honef. Thus, if we see here not massacre but, rather, general all-purpose garden variety honef, namely, pollution or impurity or the like, typical of wicked kings, as the naval of Isaiah 32:6, our problem will disappear. Antiochus, as a wicked king, would obviously go on being characterized by honef after leaving Jerusalem, just as much as before; he remained a naval.
So much for the translation of phonoktonia; as I noted, I have devoted a much fuller study to this elsewhere, in article to appear in the ù_úåï ìî/øà åìç/ø äîæøç ä/ãåí. In the present context what is important is that recognizing the term as translating çå_-- leaves us with less reason to assume that both narratives relate to the same event. If previously we thought I Macc, just as II Maccabees, refers to both massacre and robbery, this turns out not to be true. I Maccabees makes no reference to massacre -- which is certainly a major part of the story of II Macc 5. This is our first point against the usual reconstruction.
Second, even without the massacre the account in I Maccabees is very hard to accept. For after reporting that all the central Temple vessels were stolen in 169, it goes on to resume the story with two years later Antiochus sending a new governor to Jerusalem and trouble beginning in the wake of that. Should we really believe, that such a serious attack on the Temple elicited no immediate reaction? Should we really believe that the Temple cult could continue for even a day despite the loss of its most central appurtenances? In contrast, the story in II Maccabees 5 passes directly, and naturally, from the pillage of the Temple to the sending of the new governor and new troubles.
Third, Josephus - a secondary but important source - reports that Antiochus visited Jerusalem twice and places the robbery of the Temple in the context of the second visit. Indeed, it seems that Josephus account of the robbery of the Temple is based on I Maccabees, but nevertheless Josephus placed it in his account of the second visit. True, Josephus does not speak of visits in 169 and 168, as do the Books of Maccabees, but, rather, of visits in 168 and 166, but what is important here is that his account of the second visit is very similar to that in II Maccabees: while his account of the first visit has Antiochus stealing nothing from the Temple and killing only his opponents (a rational and understandable act, however unpleasant), his account of the second visit, just as that in II Maccabees, has Antiochus massacring and enslaving thousands and also robbing the Temple. Indeed, Josephus in para. 251, even distinguishes those killed from those enslaved, in a way very reminiscent of II Macc 5:14.
Josephus, to summarize, reports that Antiochus visited Jerusalem and robbed there twice. This, just as much as Daniel, encourages us to add the narrative in II Macc 5 to the one in I Macc 1. Moreover, Josephus version of Antiochus first visit to the Jerusalem, in ß 247, brings the king into no contact whatsoever with the Temple; Antiochus is said only to have gained control of the city, killed many of his opponents in it, robbed, and departed. The second time, in contrast, Josephus has Antiochus massacring much more generally and not just some of his opponents, and also looting the temple. This reconstruction is more reasonable than that in I Macc 1, as noted, insofar as it doesnt require us to believe that the Jews twiddled their thumbs until the ends of two years time after a major attack on the Temple and removal of its central appurtenances.
Now, if we wonder why, given his usual dependence upon I Maccabees, Josephus nevertheless departed seriously from its story here, moving to 166 BCE events which I Macc puts in 169 BCE, it is difficult to answer. It is enough for us to say, that he must have had a good reason to do so. Either his text of I Macc differed from ours, or he was sure - either due to his own research or due to traditions to which Jerusalemites like him may have had access - that the order was as he presented it. In any case, it does not seem that Josephus knew of or used II Maccabees, although it is possible that they had some sources in common.
So far, then, we have argued that it is likely that Antiochus twice visited Jerusalem and each time robbed in it; that - contrary to I Macc -- it is unlikely that the first time he took all the central Temple property; and that this reconstruction is supported not only by historical probabilities but also by Daniel and by Josephus. Now we get to Qumran.
4Q248, recently published by Magen Broshi and Esther Eshel, is a short text containing ten fragmentary lines. It refers to a king who was - ruled? -- in Egypt and Greece, whatever that means, and who conducted a siege; after that he came to Egypt and sold its dust and came to the Temple City [òéø äî/ãù] and took it with all...; then he turned around in the lands of the Gentiles and returned to Egypt....
This text, as Broshi and Eshel saw, apparently refers to Antiochus two Egyptian campaigns. Now, the text in lines 6-8 is fairly complete:
7 àì òéø äî/ãù åúôùä òí ë[
8åäôê áàøöåú âåéí åùá ìîöøé[í..
It is clear that there is not much space left at the end of line 7. Broshi and Eshel suggest completing the line òí ë[ì àåöøåúéä, and something like that is certainly likely. But it is clear that there is no room to specify the Temple and/or to list any of its appurtenances. So the reference to pillage in Jerusalem after Antiochus first Egyptian campaign seems only to refer to pillage in òéø äî/ãù. Now, as you all know, there has been a longstanding argument concerning the meaning of this term, which appears in the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll and MMT. While many scholars have argued it refers to Jerusalem, the city in which the Temple is found, others, including Larry Schiffman. have argued that it in fact refers to the Temple compound. To tell you the truth, my basic tendency has always been to see òéø äî/ãù as referring to the city of Jerusalem. Thats the most obvious meaning of the Hebrew words -- the city; Which city? The one with the Temple in it -- and it also fits easily the first text in which it appeared: CD 12:1-2. There we read, that sexual relations are forbidden in òéø äî/ãù; I never understood why anyone thought it necessary to forbid such relations within the Temple complex itself. Similarly, when the Temple Scroll (45:11-12) prohibits for three days the entry of a man who has had a seminal emission into ëì òéø äî/ãù àùø àùëéï ùîé áä, I find it difficult to see how anyone could imagine that such a stringent and inclusive law -- ëì òéø äî/ãù -- could be formulated this way if the prohibition did not apply to the city itself, apart from the Temple precincts. Indeed, at 47:9-11 the Temple Scroll prohibits the introduction of impure animal skins into òéø äî/ãù, lest they city and the temple become impure: åìà úèîàå àú äòéø àùø à_åëé îùëï àú ùîé åî/ãùé áúåëä - this clearly shows, I believe, that the author uses òéø the way we do, as the city within which the Temple is found. And the same is shown, finally, by 45:9-10, which provides for a barrier to be erected between the holy Temple and the city - áéï î/ãù ä/åãù ìòéø.
Thus, examination of the allusions to òéø äî/ãù in the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll leads clearly to understanding it as referring to Jerusalem, the city in which the Temple is found. And this, indeed, is a widely held position. Lately, however, the argument has flared up again, due to the evidence of MMT. However, I would sidestep that argument, for the term òéø äî/ãù does not appear in MMT (as we have it); rather, that document is relevant only due to conclusions which might be drawn from its discussion of the identification of îç_åú in Jerusalem - a somewhat dim and only obliquely relevant issue, best left aside. Rather, I would return to our discussion of Antiochus Epiphanes, in connection with 4Q248, where the term ir hamiqdash does indeed appear.
Larry Schiffman, in his most recent discussion of the term, has argued that 4Q248 in fact supports the view that I have rejected, namely, that òéø äî/ãù denotes the Temple precincts, the temenos. Schiffman takes this position because 4Q248 refers to pillage in the Temple City at a time when I Macc speaks of pillage of the Temple itself. Now, if youve been following this lecture, however, youll realize that I would, instead, view 4Q248 as support for the view we have have put forth, which, as Josephus, has the first pillage limited to the city itself and leaving the Temple untouched.
In particular, I would submit that it would totally be out of character for a Qumran writer, or for any apocalpytic writer, to speak only of àåöøåú treasures, or the like, when speaking of temple vessels and appurtenances. Whether or not the vessels are enumerated, as in I Macc, or merely called holy vessels, as in II Macc, treasures is from a totally different world. Apocalyptic writers are not supposed to be upset over the theft of money, and, indeed, the author of 4Q248 doesnt get very upset at the end of line 7; the crisis begins only in line 9, after the king returns to Egypt the second time. This corresponds with Daniel 11, which summarizes the first Jerusalem visit briefly, in verse 28b, and has the crisis, with the long account and the apocalyptic vision, begin with the second visit, in v. 30. Similarly, line 7 of 4Q248, according to the Broshi-Eshel reconstruction, corresponds to Josephus brief reference to the theft of money alone during the first visit, while a much more interesting story begins at the end of line 8,w ith the second campaign to Egypt. Here, as we see from the words _ôõ éã òí ä/åãù at the outset of line 9, which reappears in Daniel 12:7, we have an apocalyptic story parallel to that in the rest of Daniel 11 and 12.
More broadly, we may now pose the following question. It seems likely, that if there were two attacks on Jerusalem which preceded the Hasmonean revolt, the more serious one would be the second one. It would be the one which ticked off the final deterioration into rebellion and persecution. Thus, we have assumed that an attack on individuals, especially if theyre recognized to be enemies of Antiochus IV, would have been less likely to tick off the critical series of events than a looting of the Temple, especially if accompanied by massacre and enslavement. Indeed, thats how Daniel tells the story; so too our 4Q248; the real story begins only with the second visit. And such a reconstruction easily fits II Maccabees too, which has the serious attack on Jerusalem and the Temple coming just before the more serious persecutions and revolt
It seems to me that the only question left to ask is, what would make the author of I Maccabees claim that a serious attack on the Temple failed to elicit any response, and was followed by a period of quiet which was only interrupted two years later when something new happened. At this point we enter the realm of speculation, so Ill be brief, and simply point out that if, as emerges from II Macc 5:11, Antiochus thought the Jews were rebelling against him in 168 BCE, then he was probably right. I assume that Antiochus had enough means at his disposal, probably even prior to his arrival at Jerusalem and certainly upon his arrival there, to know whether there was a rebellion there. So despite the fact that the Diasporan author of II Maccabees wants us to believe it was all a misunderstanding, I would tend to trust Antiochus more. But if so, then we must ask, who rebelled? And the obvious answer is that whoever it was, it wasnt the Hasmoneans. Judah Maccabee is mentioned first only at the end of II Macc 5, and even then only in passing, just as I Macc mentions the Hasmoneans only beginning in ch. 2, in the context of 167 BCE. So we conclude, with Tcherikover, that non-Hasmonean Jews rebelled against Seleucid rule in 168 BCE, and that it was their rebellion which elicited Antiochus massive attack on Jerusalem, the massacre and enslavement of multitudes of Jerusalemites, and the pillage of the Temple.
Now if at this point we return to our last question and ask, why the author of I Maccabees put the sack of the temple in 169 BCE and skipped the events of 168, the answer is now obvious. For the author of I Maccabees was definitely a pro-Hasmonean, and his whole work is a piece of Hasmonean propaganda. Chapter 1 of I Maccabees, correspondingly, is built to present the terrible situation of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, the trials and tribulations which culminate in a total low point at the end of chapter 1 (which concludes and there was a very great wrath upon Israel), followed by an upbeat meanwhile on the other side of town introduction of the Hasmoneans, the family which was meant to bring salvation to Israel (5:62), at the beginning of Chapter 2. In such a context, any admission that there were Jewish patriots who raised the banner of rebellion before the Hasmoneans did would be totally counter-productive - so no such admission was made. But this left the author of I Maccabees with the choice, either to omit the pillage of the Temple or to move it up to 169 - and so, rather than simply omitting such a juicy item and illustration of Antiochus wickedness, he indeed moved it up.
To summarize: one source, I Maccabees, claims Antiochus thoroughly robbed the temple in 169 BCE but that elicited no response; two others - II Maccabees and Josephus -- claim Antiochus robbed the temple later and that brought immediate results. The latter version sounds more reasonable, and the former version is easily explained away as a result of Hasmonean propaganda. Moreover, the version of II Maccabees and Josephus also seems to be supported by Daniel 11 and, now, by 4Q248, which, of course, has much in common with Daniel 11-12.
One of the fondest relics of diasporan historiography is the thesis, that Jews never rebel against the powers that be, so if the Jews are ever persecuted by such powers it must be either because the ruler in question is crazy (e.g. Gaius Caligula) or misled by nasty and self-seeking advisors (e.g. Haman) or by some misunderstanding. Accordingly, the diasporan author of II Maccabees claimed Antiochus attacked Jerusalem due to a misunderstanding: he thought, mistakenly, that the Jews were rebelling. The nationalist author of I Maccabees, in contrast, thought Antiochus attacked Jerusalem because goyyim are wicked and naturally do wicked things. One way or another, both claim that Antiochus attacked his Jewish subjects for no good reason -- a claim which works wonderfully in diasporan historiography. But whatever the facts regarding diasporan history and historiography, ancient and modern, the fact is that the Jews of ancient Jerusalem frequently acted as if they were not in the diaspora, but, rather, entitled to dream of a sovereign Jewish state - and, indeed, some of the relevant sources have long been taken to indicate that that was the case in 168 BCE too. 4Q248 now helps us cement that conviction. That it also helps us to understand better chronology of the early Hasmonean period, and to bolster the historical trustworthiness of II Maccabees, are welcome additional bonuses.
I. Texts Mentioning One Visit:
1. I Macc 1:20-30 (RSV): (20) After subduing Egypt, Antiochus returned in the 143rd year. He went up against Israel and came to Jerusalem with a strong force. (21) He arrogantly entered the sanctuary and took the golden altar, the lampstand for the light, and all its utensils. (22) He took also the table for the bread of the Presence, the cups for drink offering, the bowls, the golden censers, the curtain, the crowns, and the gold decoration on the front of the temple; he stripped it all off. (23) He took the silver and the gold, and the costly vessels; he took also the hidden treasures,which he found. (24) Taking them all, he departed to his own land. He committed deeds of murder and spoke with great arrogance (kai; labw;n pavnta ajph'lqen eij" th'n gh'n aujtou' kai; ejpoivhse fonoktonivan kai; ejlavlhsen uJperhfanivan megavlhn). Israel mourned deeply (kai; ejgevneto pevnqo" mevga) in every community...[poetic lamentation] (29) Two years later the king sent to the cities of Judah a chief collector of tribute, and he came to Jerusalem with a large force. (30) Deceitufully he spoke peaceable words to them, and they believed him; but he suddenly fell upon the city, dealt it a severe blow, and destroyed many people...
2. II Macc 5:1-16 (RSV): (1) About that time Antiochus made his second invasion (e]fodo") of Egypt. (2) And it happened that over all the city, for almost forty days...(4) Therefore all men prayed that the apparition might prove to have been a good omen. (5) When a false rumor arose that Antiochus was dead, Jason took no less than a thousand men and suddenly made an assault upon the city. When the troops upon the wall had been forced back and at last the city was being taken, Menelaus took refuge in the citadel...(11) When news of what had happened reached the king, he took it to mean that Judea was in revolt. So, raging inwardly, he left Egypt and took the city by storm. (12) And he commanded his soldiers to cut down relentlessly every one they met and to slay those who went into the houses. (13) Then there was a killing of young and old, destruction of boys, women, and children, and slaughter of virgins and infants. (14) Within the total of three days eighty thousand were destroyed, forty thousand in hand-to-hand fighting; and as many were sold into slavery as were slain. (15) Not content with this, Antiochus dared to enter the most holy temple in all the world, guided by Menelaus, who had become a traitor both to the laws and to his country. (16) He took the holy vessels with his polluted hands, and swept away with profane hands the votive offerings which other kings had made to enhance the glory and honor of the place...
On translation of I Macc 1:24 (emphases added):
à"ù äøèåí: 'åàçøé àùø ì/ç àú-äëì, òùä äøâ, ãÄáÅø áâàååä øáä åéùá ìàøöå'.
(SIGMA) W. O. E. Oesterley: And having taken everything, he returned to his land. (= Schunk, Dommershausen)
(SIGMA) J. A. Goldstein (Anchor Bible): With all this loot he returned to his own country, having polluted himself with massacres and uttered words of great arrogance'. (= Abel, Laconi, Penna)
(SIGMA) J. T. Nelis: ...en nam alles mee naar zijn land. Voor hij vertrok richtte hij een bloedbad an...
(SIGMA) Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (19409), p. 1949: fonoktonevw pollute with murder or blood - LXX Num. 35:33; Ps. 105(106):38; fonoktoniva - LXX I Macc 1:24; fonoktovno" murdering - Hesychius.
(SIGMA) Hatch-Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint, II, p. 1437: fonoktoniva - I Macc 1:24; fonoktonevw - Num. 35:33 (bis) [åìà úç_éôå àú äàøõ...äåà éç_é-- àú äàøõ], Ps. 105 (106):38 [åúç_-- äàøõ áãîéí]
1QS 4: 9-10 (trans. Charlesworth): But concerning the Spirit of Deceit (these are the principles): greed and slackness in righteous activity...great hypocrisy (åøåá çÉ_--)
éùòéäå ìá à,ä-å: 'äï ìöã/ éîìê îìê åìùøéí ìîùôè éùÉøå...ìà é/øà òåã ì_áì _ãéá, åìëéìé ìà éàîø ùåÉò; ëé _áì _áìä éãáø åìáå éòùä àåï, ìòùåú çÉ_-- åìãáø àì ä' úåòä, ìäøé/ _ôù øòá åîù/ä öîà éçñéø'.
II. Texts mentioning two visits:
1. Daniel 11:28-32 (RSV): (28) And he shall return to his land with great substance, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will, and return to his own land. (29) At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before. (30) For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant. (31) Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. (32) He shall seduce with flattery (éç_é-- áçì/åú) those who violate the covenant...
2. Josephus, Antiquities 12.246-251 (trans. R. Marcus [Loeb Classical Library]): (246) King Antiochus, then, returning from Egypt through fear of the Romans, marched against the city of Jerusalem, and entering it in the 143rd year of the Seleucid reign, took the city without a battle, for the gates were opened to him by those who were of his party. (247) And having become master of Jerusalem in this way, he killed many of those who were in opposition, and taking large sums of money as spoil, he returned to Antioch. (248) Two years later, as it happened, in the 145th year...the king went up to Jerusalem, and by pretending to offer peace, overcame the city by treachery. (249) But on this occasion he did not spare even those who admitted him, because of the wealth of the temple, but through greed -- for he saw much gold in the temple and an array of very costly dedicatory-offerings of other kinds --, and for the sake of taking this as spoil, he went so far as to violate the treaty which he had made with them. (250) And so he stripped the temple, carrying off the vessels of God, the golden lampstands and the golden altar and table and the other altars, and not even forbearing to take the curtains, which were made of fine linen and scarlet, and he also emptied the temple of its hidden treasures, and left nothing at all behind, thereby throwing the Jews into deep mourning (mevga...pevnqo"). (251) Moreover he forbade them to offer the daily sacrifices...and after plundering the entire city, he killed some of the people, and some he took captive together with their wives and children, so that the number of those taken alive came to some ten thousand.
3. M. Broshi & E. Eshel, The Greek King is Antiochus IV (4Q Historical Text = 4Q248), Journal of Jewish Studies XLVIII (1997), pp. 125, 128: [note: not included]