Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 2:39

"And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee; and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth." — Daniel 2:39 (ASV)

And after you - This must mean “subsequently” to the reign, but it does not mean that the kingdom referred to here would “immediately” succeed his own reign, for that would not be true.

The Medo-Persian empire did not become dominant until many years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. This occurred during the reign of Belshazzar, a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, between whose reign and his grandfather's, the reigns of Evil-merodach and Neriglissar had intervened.

Moreover, since the remainder of the prophecy concerning the image refers to “kingdoms,” and not to individual monarchs, it is clear that this also relates not primarily to Nebuchadnezzar as an individual, but as the head of a kingdom. The meaning is that a kingdom would succeed the one over which he reigned, a kingdom so far inferior that it might be represented by silver as compared with gold.

Shall arise another kingdom - Chaldee, “shall stand up (תקוּם t^eqûm) another kingdom.” This language would denote something different from a succession in the same dynasty, for that would be a mere “continuance of the same kingdom.” The reference is evidently to a change of empire; the language implies that there would be some revolution or conquest by which the existing kingdom would pass away, and another would succeed.

Still, there would be so much similarity in its occupying essentially the same territory that it would be symbolized in the same image that appeared to Nebuchadnezzar. The kingdom referred to here was undoubtedly the Medo-Persian, established by Cyrus in the conquest of Babylon, which continued through the reigns of his successors until it was conquered by Alexander the Great. This kingdom succeeded that of Assyria or Babylon, from 538 B.C. to the overthrow of Darius Codomanus in 333 B.C.

It extended, of course, through the reigns of the Persian kings, who played such an important part in the invasion of Greece, and whose defeats have given immortality to the names of Leonidas, Aristides, Miltiades, and Themistocles, and made the names of Salamis, Thermopylae, Marathon, and Leuctra so celebrated. For a general account of Cyrus, and the founding of the Medo-Persian empire, the reader is referred to the notes at Isaiah 41:2.

Inferior to you - And therefore represented by silver as compared with gold. In what respects it would be inferior, Daniel does not specify, and this can only be learned from “the facts” that occurred in relation to that kingdom.

All that is necessary to confirm the truth of the prophetic description is that it was to be so far inferior as to make the term silver applicable to it when compared with the kingdom of Babylon, represented by gold. The expression would denote that there was a general decline or degeneracy in the character of the monarchs and the general condition of the empire.

There have been different opinions regarding the inferiority of this kingdom to the Babylonian. Calvin supposes that it refers to degeneracy. Geir supposes that it relates to the duration of the kingdom—this one continuing not more than two hundred and forty years, while the other, including the Assyrian, embraced a period of one thousand five hundred years.

Polanus supposes that the meaning is that the Babylonian kingdom had more rest and tranquility, while Junius, Willett, and others understand it as referring to a milder and more humane treatment of the Jews by the Babylonians than by the Persians. Perhaps, however, none of these opinions fully address the circumstances of the case, as they do not furnish as complete an account of the reasons for this inferiority as is desirable. In regard to this, it may be observed:

1. It is not to be supposed that this kingdom was to be in all respects inferior to the Babylonian, but only that it would have certain characteristics that would make it more appropriate to describe it as silver than as gold. In certain other respects it might be far superior, as the Roman, though in the same general line of succession, was in extent and power superior to either, though there was still a reason why that should be represented by iron, rather than by gold, by silver, or by brass.
2. The inferiority did not relate to the power, the riches, or the territorial extent of the Medo-Persian empire, for it embraced, as far as it appears, all that was comprehended in the Babylonian empire, and all in addition that was added by the conquests of Cyrus. In his proclamation to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:2), Cyrus speaks of the extent of his empire in language strongly resembling what is applied to the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar.

   Thus says Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth. Thus also it is said of Ahasuerus (or Astyages, king of Media—a kingdom that constituted a part of the Medo-Persian empire under Cyrus and his successors) that he reigned from India even to Ethiopia, over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces. To the kingdom of Babylon, as he found it when he conquered it, Cyrus of course added the kingdoms of Media and Persia, to the crowns of which he was the heir (see the notes at Isaiah 41:2), and also the various provinces which he had conquered before he came to the throne; that is, Cappadocia, the kingdom of Lydia, and almost the whole of Asia Minor.

3. Nor can it be supposed that the kingdom was inferior in regard to wealth, for, in addition to all the wealth that Cyrus found in Babylon, he brought the spoils of his victories; the treasures in the possession of the crowns of Persia and Media, and all the wealth of Croesus, the rich king of Lydia, which he had acquired by conquest. In considering the inferiority of this kingdom, which made it proper that it should be represented by silver rather than by gold, it is to be kept in mind that the representation should embrace the whole kingdom in all the successive reigns, and not merely the kingdom as it was under the administration of Cyrus. Thus regarded, it will comprehend the succession of Persian monarchs until the time of the invasion and conquest of the East by Alexander the Great.

The reign of Cyrus was indeed splendid; and if he alone, or if the kingdom during his administration, were contemplated, it would be difficult to assign a reason why a term should have been given to it implying any inferiority to that of Nebuchadnezzar. The inferiority of the kingdom, or what made it proper to represent it by silver rather than by gold, as compared with the kingdom of Babylon, may have consisted in the following particulars:

1. In reference to the succession of kings who occupied the Persian throne. It is true that the character of Cyrus is worthy of the highest commendation, and that he was distinguished not only as a brave and successful conqueror, but as a mild, able, and upright civil ruler. Xenophon, who wished to portray the character of a model prince, chose Cyrus as the example; and though he has not improbably embellished his character by ascribing to him virtues drawn from his own fancy in some degree, yet there can be no doubt that in the main his description was drawn from life. “The true reason,” says Prideaux (“Connections,” vol. i. p. 252, Ed. Charlestown, 1815), “why he chose the life of Cyrus before all others for the purpose above mentioned” (that of giving a description of what a worthy and just prince ought to be) “seems to be no other than that he found the true history of that excellent and gallant prince to be, above all others, the fittest for those maxims of right policy and true princely virtue to correspond with, which he grafted upon it.” But he was succeeded by a madman, Cambyses, and by a race of kings eminent among princes for folly and crime. “The kings of Persia,” says Prideaux, “were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire.”
2. The kingdom was inferior in reference to the remarkable defeats in the military campaigns that were undertaken. The Assyrian or Babylonian empire was distinguished for the victories by which it carried its arms around the then-known world. The Medo-Persian empire, after the reign of Cyrus, was almost as remarkable for the succession of defeats that have made the period of the world during which the empire continued so well known in history. It is probable that no kingdom ever undertook so many foolish projects in reference to the conquests of other nations—projects so unwisely planned, and that resulted in such signal failures. The successor of Cyrus, Cambyses, invaded Egypt, and his conduct there in carrying on the war was such as to make him be regarded as a madman.

   Enraged against the Ethiopians for an answer they gave him when, under the pretense of friendship, he sent spies to examine their country, he resolved to invade their territory.

   Having come to Thebes, in Upper Egypt, he detached fifty thousand men from his army to go against the Hammonians, with orders to destroy their country and to burn the temple of Jupiter Hammon that stood in it. After marching a few days in the desert, they were overwhelmed in the sands by a strong south wind, and all perished. Meanwhile, Cambyses marched with the rest of his army against the Ethiopians, though he lacked all the means of subsistence for his army, until, having devoured all their beasts of burden, they were constrained to designate every tenth man of the army to be killed and eaten. In these deplorable circumstances, Cambyses returned to Thebes, having lost a great part of his army in this wild expedition (Prideaux’s “Connections,” i. 328).

   It was also during the continuance of this kingdom that the ill-fated expeditions to Greece occurred, when Mardonius and Xerxes poured the millions of Asia on the countries of Greece and met such signal overthrows at Plataea, Marathon, and Salamis.

   Such a series of disasters had never before occurred to invading armies, nor made those who repelled invasion so illustrious. In this respect, there was an evident appropriateness in speaking of this as an inferior or degenerate kingdom.

3. It was inferior in respect to the growing degeneracy and effeminacy of character and morals. From the time of Xerxes (479 B.C.), “symptoms of decay and corruption were manifest in the empire; the national character gradually degenerated; the citizens were corrupted and enfeebled by luxury; and confided more in mercenary troops than in native valor and fidelity. The kings submitted to the control of their wives, or the creatures whom they raised to posts of distinction; and the satraps, from being civil functionaries, began to usurp military authority” (Lyman, “Hist. Chart.”).
4. The kingdom was inferior due to the gradual weakening of its power from internal causes. It was not only defeated in its attempts to invade others and weakened by the degeneracy of the court and people, but, as a natural consequence, by the gradual lessening of the power of the central government and the growing independence of the provinces. From the time of Darius Nothus (423 B.C.)—a weak, effeminate, and indolent prince—“the satraps of the distant provinces paid only a nominal obedience to the king. Many of them were, in fact, sovereigns over the countries over which they presided, and carried on wars against each other” (Lyman). It was from causes such as these that the power of the kingdom became gradually weakened, and that the way was prepared for the easy conquests of Alexander the Great.

Their successive defeats, and this gradual degeneracy and weakening of the kingdom, show the appropriateness of the description given of the kingdom in the vision and the interpretation—that it would be an inferior kingdom, a kingdom which, in comparison with that of Babylon, might be compared with silver as compared with gold.

Still, it sustained an important relation to the progress of events in regard to the history of religion in the world and had an important bearing on the redemption of humanity. As this is the most important aspect of history, and as it was doubtless with reference to this that its mention is introduced into the sacred Scriptures (and as it is, in fact, often alluded to by Isaiah, and in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and some of the minor prophets), it may be proper, in the most summary way, to allude to some of those things that pertain to the influence of this kingdom on the great events connected with redemption, or to what was done during the continuance of this kingdom for the promotion of the true religion. A full account may be found in Prideaux’s “Connections,” part 1, books iii-vii.

Compare Edwards’ “History of Redemption,” Period I, part vi. The particular things that occurred in connection with this kingdom, bearing on the progress of religion and favorable to its advancement, were these:

1. The overthrow of Babylon, so long the formidable enemy of the ancient people of God.
2. The restoration of the exiles to their own land under the auspices of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1).
3. The rebuilding of the temple under the same auspices, and with the favor of the successors of Cyrus.
4. The preparation of the world for the coming of the Messiah, in the agitations that took place during the continuance of the Persian monarchy; the invasion of Greece; the defeats there; the preparation by these defeats for the coming of Him who was so long promised as the desire of all nations.

Compare Haggai 2:7: And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house (the temple erected under the auspices of Cyrus and his successors) with glory, says the Lord of hosts. There was an appropriateness, therefore, that this kingdom should receive a distinct notice in the sacred Scriptures, for some of the most important events connected with the history of true religion in the world occurred under the auspices of Cyrus and his successors. Perhaps at no period has there been more occasion to recognize the hand of God than in the influences exerted on the minds of those pagan princes, disposing them to be favorable to the long-oppressed children of God.

And another third kingdom of brass - See the notes at Daniel 2:32. The parts of the image that were of brass were the belly and thighs, denoting inferiority not only to the head but also to the part that immediately preceded it—the breast and arms of silver.

It is not, indeed, specified, as in the former case, that this kingdom would be inferior to the previous one; it is only from the position assigned to it in the image, and the inferior quality of the metal by which it is represented, that any inferiority is implied.

There can be no reasonable doubt that by this third kingdom is meant the empire founded by Alexander the Great—the Macedonian empire. It is known to all that he overthrew the Persian empire and established a kingdom in the East, embracing substantially the same territory that had been occupied by the Medo-Persian and the Babylonian empires.

While there can be no doubt that this kingdom is referred to, there can be equally little doubt that the reference is not merely to the empire during Alexander's own reign. Instead, it embraced the whole empire as founded and arranged by him, until it was succeeded by another universal empire—here called the fourth kingdom. The reasons for supposing that the Macedonian empire is referred to here are almost too obvious to require specification. They are as follows:

1. This kingdom actually succeeded that of Medo-Persia, covering the same territory, and, like that one, was then understood to be a universal monarchy.
2. The empire of Alexander is elsewhere more than once referred to by Daniel in the same order, and in such a manner that the meaning cannot be mistaken. Thus, in Daniel 8:21: And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. In Daniel 10:20: and now, said the man who appeared in vision to Daniel (Daniel 2:5), will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come. And in Daniel 11:2-4: and now will I show you the truth. Behold there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all, and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to the kingdom that he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those. Since this kingdom is thus referred to elsewhere by Daniel in the same order, and as destined to act an important part in the affairs of the world, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a reference to it here.
3. It is a circumstance of some importance that the emblem here by which this kingdom is represented, brass, is one that is peculiarly appropriate to the Greeks, and one that could not be applied to any other nation with equal propriety. The Greeks were distinguished for their brazen armor, and the appellation, the brazen-coated Greeks—χαλκοχιτώνες Ἀχαιοὶ (chalkochitōnes Achaioi)—is that by which they were most commonly designated by the ancients (2:47). In accordance with this, Josephus says (“Antiquities,” Book X, Chapter 10, Section 4), τὴν δὲ ἐκεὶνων ἕτερος τις ἀπὸ δύσεως καθαιρήσει χαλκὸν ἠμφιεσμένος (tēn de ekeinōn heteros tis apo duseōs kathairēsei chalkon ēmphiesmenos),—“their empire another shall come from the West, clothed with brass, shall destroy.” These considerations leave no doubt that the kingdom referred to here was the Grecian or Macedonian one, which, under Alexander, obtained dominion over all the East.

Which shall bear rule over all the earth - This is in a sense similar to that of the Assyrian, the Babylonian, and the Medo-Persian empires. This is the common description of the empire of Alexander. He himself commanded that he should be called the king of all the world.

“Accepto deinde imperio, regem se terrarum omnium ac mundi appellari jussit” (Justin, Book 12, Chapter 16, Section 9)—“Having received the empire, he ordered himself to be called the king of all lands and of the world.” Diodorus Siculus says that he received ambassadors from all countries: κατὰ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ἐξ ἀπάσης σχεδόν τῆς οἰκουμένης ἦκον πρέσβεις, κ.τ.λ. (kata de touton ton chronon ex apasēs schedon tēs oikoumenēs ēkon presbeis, etc.)—“At which time, legates came to him from almost the whole habitable world” (Book 17, Chapter 113).

So Arrian (Expedition of Alexander, Book 7, Chapter 15) remarks that “Alexander then appeared to himself, and to those around him, to be lord of all the earth and of the sea”—γῆς τε ἁπάσης καὶ θαλάσσης κύριον (gēs te hapasēs kai thalassēs kurion).

The author of the book of Maccabees gives a similar account of the extent of this kingdom: And it came to pass, after that Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, had overthrown Darius, the king of the Persian and Medes, he fought many battles, and took the strongholds of all, and slew the kings of the earth; and he went through even to the ends of the earth; and took the spoil of many nations; and the earth was quiet before him . The appropriateness of saying that this kingdom bore rule over all the earth is, therefore, apparent.

It embraced, of course, all that was formerly included in the Assyrian and Babylonian empires; all that had been added to that empire by the conquests of Cyrus, and also all that Alexander had added to it by his hereditary dominions and by his conquests in other places. Nearly or quite all the known world, except what was then subject to the Romans (then just a rising power), was under the sway of Alexander.

A question has been raised whether this refers merely to the kingdom of Alexander during his own life, or whether it also embraced the succession of dynasties until the conquests of the Romans. That the latter is the correct opinion seems clear from the following considerations:

1. It was true, as we have seen, of the two previous kingdoms specified—the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian—that they embraced not merely the kingdom under any one reigning monarch, but its entire continuance until it was overthrown by one that also had pretensions to a universal empire: the former by the Medo-Persian, and the latter by the Macedonian. It is to be presumed that the same principles of interpretation are to be applied also to the Macedonian kingdom itself, especially as that was also actually succeeded by one that in a still higher sense laid claim to universal empire.
2. This was, in fact, one kingdom. It is true that, on the death of Alexander, the empire which he founded was divided among four of his generals, and also that from that sprang the two reigns: the Seleucidae in Syria, and the Lagidae who reigned in Egypt. But, as Newton has remarked, “their kingdom was no more a different kingdom from that of Alexander, than the parts differ from the whole. It was the same government still continued. Those who governed were still Macedonians. All ancient authors spoke of the kingdom of Alexander and of his successors as one and the same kingdom. The thing is implied in the very name by which they are usually called, the successors of Alexander.’ ‘Alexander being dead,’ says Josephus (Antiquities, Book XI, Chapter 8, Section 7), ‘the empire was divided among his successors.’ ‘After the death of Alexander,’ says Justin (Book XLI, Chapter 4, Section 1), ‘the kingdoms of the East were divided among his successors;’ and he still denominates them Macedonians, and their empire the Macedonian” (Newton, “On the Prophecies,” pp. 189, 190).

In regard to the point previously mentioned concerning the kingdoms of Babylon and Medo-Persia—the relation they sustained to religion, or the methods in which they were made to contribute to its progress in the world, making it appropriate that they should be noticed in the volume of inspiration—it may be remarked that the Macedonian kingdom was also designed, undoubtedly, under an overruling Providence, to contribute to the progress of the great work of human redemption and to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah.

A full statement of what was done under this reign in respect to religion—the most interesting aspect of history—may be seen in Edwards’ “History of Redemption,” pp. 271-275, and in Prideaux’s “Connections,” vol. ii. p. 279 and following. The kingdom referred to here—the Macedonian, represented by the portion of the image that was of brass, and in the vision of the four beasts (Daniel 7) by a leopard that had on its back the wings of a bird, and in Daniel 8:21 by the rough goat—continued from the overthrow of Darius Codomanus by Alexander (333 B.C.) to the conquest of Syria and the East by the Romans under Pompey, about sixty-six years before the birth of the Savior. The principal events during this period affecting the interests of religion, and preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah, were the following:

1. The extensive diffusion of the knowledge of the Greek language. The army of Alexander was mainly composed of Greeks. The Greek language was, of course, what was spoken by the court and in the cities which he founded; the dispatches were in Greek; that language would be extensively cultivated to gratify those in power; and the successors of Alexander were those who used the Greek tongue. The consequence was that the Greek language was extensively spread over the countries subdued by Alexander and governed by his successors. That language became the popular tongue, a sort of universal language understood by the great mass of the people, in a manner not unlike French in Europe at the present day. The effect of this, in preparing for the introduction of the gospel, was seen in two respects:
   1. In facilitating the preaching of the gospel. It is true that the apostles had the gift of tongues, and that, notwithstanding the prevalence of the Greek language, there was occasion for this. However, there is no evidence that this gift was conferred on all the early preachers of the gospel, nor is it certain that those on whom it was conferred were able to make use of it on all occasions. It is not improbable that, in their ordinary labors, the apostles and others were left to rely on their natural endowments and to use the language to which they had been most accustomed.

      As there was, therefore, a common language in most of the countries in which the gospel would be proclaimed, it is evident that the propagation of religion would be greatly facilitated by this. There can be no doubt that it was one of the designs of Providence in permitting the Macedonian conquest thus to prepare the way for the easier and more rapid diffusion of the new religion.

   2. In like manner, this conquest prepared the way for the permanent record of the history of the Savior’s life and the doctrines of religion in the writings of the New Testament. It was evidently desirable, on many accounts, that the records should be made in one language rather than in many; and of all the languages then spoken on the earth, the Greek was the best adapted to such a purpose. It was not only the most polished and cultivated, but it was the most copious, and it was the best fitted to express abstract ideas and accurate distinctions. Probably, with all the improvements since made in the copious Arabic language and in the languages of modern times, there has never been one so well fitted for the purposes of a Divine revelation as Greek.

      It may have been one design of Providence, in the extensive and accurate cultivation of that language in Greece itself, as well as in its diffusion over the world, that there should be at the time of the introduction of the Christian revelation a medium of permanent record as free from imperfection as language could be. This medium also contained so much permanent and valuable literature that, even after it ceased to be a spoken language, it would be cultivated by the whole literary world, thus furnishing the means of an accurate knowledge of the meaning of the sacred writings.

2. The translation of the Old Testament into the same language was another important event that took place during the continuance of this kingdom, greatly facilitating the introduction and spread of Christianity. The Hebrew language was understood by comparatively few. It ceased to be spoken in its purity after the time of the captivity. In that language, the Scriptures of the Old Testament would have been only slightly diffused in the world.

   By being translated into Greek, however, they became extensively known and furnished a ready and intelligible ground of appeal for the preachers of the new religion when they referred to the prophecies of the Old Testament and the recorded predictions of the Messiah. For a full account of the history of this version, the reader may consult Prideaux’s “Connections,” vol. iii. p. 53 and following. It was made, according to Archbishop Usher, about 277 B.C. The probability is that it was made at different periods and by different hands, as it is executed with widely varying degrees of ability (See Introduction to Isaiah, Section viii).

   I. (1), for a more extended account of this version and its value. There can be no doubt that it contributed much to the diffusion of the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and was an important instrument in preparing the world for the reception of the revelation that would be made by the Messiah.

3. Events of great importance occurred during the continuance of this kingdom in preserving the Jewish people in times of persecution, saving their city and temple from ruin, and their nation from extinction.
   1. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was threatened by Alexander himself. After the siege and capture of Tyre, he became enraged at the Jews for refusing to furnish supplies for his army during the siege, under the plea that they were bound to show allegiance to Darius, and he marched to Jerusalem with the intention to take and destroy it.

      In order to appease him, it is said that Jaddua, the high priest, went out to meet him in his pontifical robes, at the head of a procession of priests, and accompanied by the people in white garments. Alexander was so impressed with the scene that, to the surprise of all, he spared the city and temple. On being asked by Parmenio the reason for this clemency, Alexander said that he had seen this person in a vision, who had directed him to lay aside all anxiety about his contemplated expedition to Asia, and that he had promised that God would give him the empire of the Persians.

      According to the story, Jaddua showed him the prophecies of Daniel and confirmed him by those prophecies in the confident expectation of conquering the East. In view of this, Alexander offered sacrifices in the temple and granted to the Hebrews the freedom of their country and the exercise of their laws and religion (See Prideaux, vol. ii. p. 302 and following; Josephus, “Antiquities,” Book XI, Chapter 8). Whatever fable there may be in this account, it is certain that this city and temple were not destroyed by Alexander, but that in his ravages in the East, he was led, by some cause, to deal with the capital of the Hebrew nation in a manner different from what he did with others.

   2. A remarkable preservation of the Jewish people, of a somewhat similar character and demonstrating the protection of God, occurred during the great persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the successors of Alexander, in the time of the Maccabees (See Prideaux, vol. iii. p. 230, and 2 Maccabees 5:11-27).

      In the times of that celebrated persecution, multitudes of the Jews were slain by Antiochus himself; the city was taken, and the temple defiled. Three years after it was taken by Antiochus (168 B.C.), Apollonius was directed by him to march against the city to vent his wrath on the Jews. When the people were assembled in their synagogues for worship, he unleashed his forces on them, with a command to slay all the men and to take all the women and children captive to be sold as slaves.

      After this, he plundered the city, demolished the houses, and pulled down the walls. Then, with the ruins of the demolished city, he built a strong fortress on the top of an eminence in the city of David, in a place that overlooked the temple, and placed a strong garrison within. From this place, attacks were made on all who went up to the temple to worship; and the temple was defiled with all manner of pollutions until it was deserted and the daily sacrifices ceased. From these calamities and persecutions, the city and the Jewish nation were delivered by the valor of Judas Maccabeus, in the manner detailed in the first book of Maccabees.