Antiochus XII Dionysus (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Antiochus XII Dionysus" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
5th place
5th place
3rd place
3rd place
121st place
142nd place
2nd place
2nd place
11th place
8th place
26th place
20th place
low place
low place
6th place
6th place
low place
low place

academia.edu

archive.org

books.google.com

doi.org

instonebrewer.com

jstor.org

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

wikipedia.org

de.wikipedia.org

  • A letter from a king named Antiochus, regarding the expulsion of all philosophers from the kingdom, is contained in the Deipnosophistae written by the second-century rhetorician Athenaeus.[45] The king wanted the philosophers exiled for corrupting young men; the latter were to be hanged and their fathers investigated. There are indications in the document that this Antiochus ruled during the late Seleucid period; historian Edwyn Bevan, considering the general Seleucid patronage of philosophers, noted that those instructions are "incredible". According to Bevan, this attitude can be explained by the deteriorating fortunes of the kingdom during the late Seleucid period; cities in Syria and Cilicia were asserting their independence, and it would be logical for the king to move against philosophers if they showed signs of "republicanism".[46] Another clue is that the king sent his letter to an official named "Phanias", who seems to have been the highest official in the realm, ordering him to expel the philosophers from the polis and chora (city and its territory).[47][45]
    Bevan did not believe that Antiochus wanted the philosophers expelled from the kingdom, but maybe from one city, perhaps Antioch.[46] But, in the view of historian Jörg-Dieter Gauger [de], the polis and chora designate the whole kingdom since it would have made little sense if they designated one city and its region; the philosophers could have continued their "evil" business in other cities. If one official, Phanias, whom the letter's language indicates that only he had a higher command and was not a mere city commander, can execute the king's instructions in the whole county, then the kingdom's area is not substantial, indicating a period when the Seleucids ruled a contracted Syria.[47] Bevan suggested Antiochus XIII (r. 82–64 BC), while Gauger suggested either Antiochus XII or Antiochus XIII as the king who ordered the philosophers banished.[48][47]
    Franz Altheim considered king Antiochus IV (r. 175–164 BC) to be the king who sent the letter. The document's authenticity is questioned: Ludwig Radermacher considered the letter a Jewish forgery to discredit their enemy Antiochus IV, while Michel Austin, ancient history senior lecturer at the University of St Andrews, did not comment on the historical setting of the letter but doubted its authenticity.[49]
  • The most complete surviving copy of Malalas's work, who wrote in the sixth century, is the Baroccianus Graecus manuscript from the eleventh century, which includes many abbreviations and missing words.[88] Malalas himself used vernacular Greek, making his language sometimes difficult to understand.[89] Different scholars presented their reading of Malalas's chronicles:
    • The reading of Glanville Downey have "Antiochus Dionysus the Leper, father of Cleopatra and Antiochis".[90] Downey noted that Malalas conflated Antiochus XII with his successor Antiochus XIII, who surrendered to the Romans in 64 BC; the Byzantine historian attributed the act of surrender to Antiochus XII. The Greek version of Malalas's work has the name "Antiochus Dionikous" while the older Church Slavonic version has "Antiochus Dionysos".[91] The German translation by Johannes Thurn [de] and Mischa Meier [de] matched Downey's English reading.[92]

    ar.wikipedia.org

    fr.wikipedia.org

    • It is not known if it was Aretas III who defeated Antiochus XII.[56] The identity of the Syrian king's Nabataean enemy is much debated.[74] Albert Kammerer [fr] and Philip C. Hammond used the account of Uranius and asserted that it was Rabbel I.[54] Jean Starcky argued that the Nabataean monarch was Obodas I,[75] whom Maurice Sartre preferred and concluded that he probably did not survive long after his battle with Antiochus XII.[56]

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org