The North in Daniel 11 is Turkey not Syria

That is IF it has End Times application at all.  

The most mainstream view among Futurists has been that Daniel 11 up to verse 35 is about the Hellenistic Era, but then 36-45 jumps forward to the End Times and is Antichrist relevant, and then within that is an internal debate on if the "Willful King" who is the subject of those verses is still a King of The North or if the North is a separate entity in verse 40, I was when I held the standard view in the Willful King being separate camp.

I have on this blog broken with Futurist orthodoxy and argued that the Willful King is Augustus Caesar (with the King of the North in verse 40 being Anthony and his Son by Cleopatra who was given the former Seleucid domains).  But I've found on YouTube those who brake with the orthodoxy in the opposite direction have been increasing in popularity, most of them still see some connection to the Hellenistic Kingdoms but see it's leap forward to the "End Times" as being more amorphous.  But those who reject any connection to the Hellenistic era do exist.

So I've decided to play Devil's Advocate with those types as well as the standard view.

The Seleucid Kingdom is by historians sometimes treated as synonymous with "Syria" the same way Ptolemy is with Egypt, so that's why trying to map any part of this chapter onto the borders of the modern Middle East tends to involve identifying the North with Syria.  But at it's greatest extent the Seleucid Empire also controlled almost all of modern Turkey, all of Iraq and Iran, stretched even into Pakistan and Afghanistan, held sway over Lebanon and Jordan and even for a time of course had Israel.

To the Ancient World a Civilization's Capital City was even more important to understanding it's identity then it is in our modern Cosmopolitan way of thinking.  And the Seleucid Kingdom's Capital was Antioch which was still part of Syria during Roman times and in the initial post WWI redrawing of the Middle East was original in the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon but as part of Hatay which became briefly independent and then a province of Turkey.

When one attempts to trace the royal genealogical legacy of the Seleucid Dynasty beyond when the Seleucid Kingdom proper ended, it very heavily involves the Hellenistic ruling dynasties of regions in modern Turkey like Pontus, Commagene, Cappadocia, Pergamon, Galatia and Cilicia. Also two of the cities that housed the Seven Churches in Asia of Revelation were founded or renamed by Seleucid Kings, Laodicea and Thyatira, and most of them were part of that kingdom at some point in their history.

Then there is the view of The Little Horn I've been developing, that it never represented an individual per se, in Daniel 8 it's the Seleucid Empire with the bigger horn it came out of being Ptolemy, then in Daniel 7 it's the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire which was in many ways the legacy of the Seleucid Empire continued.  Then the Ottoman Empire was simply the Byzantine Empire with a change in Religion and Language, and then at the end of WWI what was left of the Ottoman Empire became modern Turkey.

But the Key Argument for the North being Turkey and not Syria in modern geopolitics is the very word "North" itself.  In the Hellenistic Context why was the Seleucid Kingdom the North when it wasn't actually the most northern since there were rivals based in both Macedon and Thrace?  

It's because the Hebrew word translated "North" here is Zaphon which was also the Semitic name of a mountain the Greeks and Romans called Kasios/Casius but is today called Jebel Aqra/Acra.  This mountain was just south of the city of Antioch and Seleucus I Nicator decided to found Antioch where he did after performing a Sacrifice to Zeus on that mountain, at least that was the city's official founding myth.

Today it is officially right on the Syria-Turkey border, but due to Turkey's involvement in the Syrian Civil War it's functionally all under Turkish control.  But also just think about it poetically, the Mountain Named "North" is the Sothern most tip of Turkey.  For the small group who want to throw the Hellenistic Kingdoms out of how to interpret Daniel 11 entirely, this mountain is the only clue we have and it favors Turkey.

And yes the word for "South" in this chapter is also the name of a specific Geographical location, the Negev Desert which was under Ptolemaic Control when the wars between the Ptolemies and Seleucids that Daniel 11 is talking about started.  I think the Ancient definition of the Negev was a bit broader then how it's properly defined today and might have overlapped with The Sinai to include places like Ras Kouroun and so was to some extent still Ptolemaic even after the Seleucids took Judea/Jerusalem.

Seleucia on The Tigris is Babylon of 1 Peter 5:13.

Seleucus Nicator founded Seleucia in 305 BC, in order to quickly make it a Metropolis he forced most of the population of Babylon to resettle there, there is a tablet dated to 275 BC recording this.  It spent very little time as the actual Capitol of the Seleucid Empire, but it did spend most of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC as a larger city then Antioch.

Diogenes of Babylon was a Stoic Philosopher commonly referred to as being "of Babylon" but he was actually born in Seleucia and neither city is where he spent most of his life, he was educated in Athens and obviously mostly lived there during his time as head of the Stoic School based in Athens until he died around 150-140 BC.

1 Maccabees 6:4 and 2 Maccabees 8:20 call a City in Mesopotamia Babylon even though it's population is Macedonian.

In 141 BC the Parthian Empire took it from the Seleucids and made it their western capital, but it remained a fully Hellenistic city.

Josephus's references to the city confirm that even the remaining Jewish diaspora of Babylon were in fact mostly living in Seleucia during the first century.  The Jews of Seleucia and other northern Mesopotamian cities revolted during the Kitos War. That of course was a factor in Trajan destroying the City in it's original form in 117 AD.

Hadrian gave Babylonia back to Parthia however and they then quickly rebuilt Seleucia in a Parthian style.  That version of the city was destroyed by Avidius Cassius during another war between Rome and Parthia in 165 AD.  It then became a Sassanian city commonly called Seleucia-Ctesiphon.  This city became the seat of the leading Bishop of the Ancient Church of The East who was formally called the Patriarch of Babylon.

If people really find it so unlikely Peter was in actual Babylon when he wrote his First Epistle simply because some first century sources make it sound like it was a mostly abandoned ruin already, then Seleucia is probably where he was.  It was home to an important Jewish population and Paul calls Peter the Apostle to The Jews in Galatian 2:8.

The idea that Peter said "Babylon" in place of "Rome" to fool Roman officials who might read the letter is stupid.  

1. He doesn't actually say anything bad about where he is, it's only the negative connotations the name of Babylon often has in the Judeo-Christian mind that makes it seem that way.

2. Roman customs officials would have known where the letter was actually mailed from.  So using an easy to interpret as insulting name instead of the real name would have only caused problems.

If Peter meant by Babylon a city other then the exact same city where Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar ruled, it would have been the one other similar Greek texts were calling Babylon during the Greco-Roman Era due to being the regional capital and largest city of the region called Babylonia.

Ancestry of Charlemagne

= means Siblings who had children together

& means are Siblings but didn't have children together (at least relevent to the line being covered)

+ means had children together but aren't siblings (sometimes are cousins though)

| means are same generation on genealogy but not directly connected

Charlemagne's Descent from Seleucid Dynasty (is different from the line this old post was about).

Seleucus I Nicator + Apama

Antiochus I Soter & Achaeus

Antiochus II Theos = Laodice I

Seleucus II Callinicus & Laodice wife of Mithridates II of Pontus

Antiochus III the Great + Laodice III

Seleucus IV Philopator = Laodice IV

Demetrius I Soter

Demetrius II Nicator + Cleopatra Thea

Antiochus VIII Grypus + Tryphaena

Laodice VII Thea, wife of Mithridates I Callinicus

Antiochus I Theos of Commagene

Mithridates II of Commagene & Athenais of Media Atropatene

Mithridates III of Commagene + Iotapa

Antiochus III of Commagene = Iotapa

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene = Julia Iotapa

Julia Iotapa, wife of Gaius Julius Alexander

Julia Iotapa (Cilician princess)

Julia Quadratilla, wife of Gaius Julius Lupus Titus Vibius Varus Laevillus

Aulus Julius Claudius Charax

Julia, wife of Gaius Asinius Rufus

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus

Gaius Asinius Protimus Quadratus, Proconcul of Achaea

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus Julianus, Proconsul of Asia

Asinia Juliana Nicomacha, wife of Quintus Anicius Faustus

Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Descent through Antiochus Epiphanes himself

Antiochus IV Epiphanes = Laodice IV

Laodice, wife of Mithridates V of Pontus

Mithridates VI of Pontus

Cleopatra of Pontus, wife of Tigranes The Great

[Name Unkown], wife of Mithridates of Media Atropatene

Ariobarzanes I of Media Atropatene

Artavasdes I of Media Atropatene

Mithridates III of Commagene + Iotapa

Antiochus III of Commagene = Iotapa

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene = Julia Iotapa

Julia Iotapa, wife of Gaius Julius Alexander

Julia Iotapa (Cilician princess)

Julia Quadratilla, wife of Gaius Julius Lupus Titus Vibius Varus Laevillus

Aulus Julius Claudius Charax

Julia, wife of Gaius Asinius Rufus

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus

Gaius Asinius Protimus Quadratus, Proconcul of Achaea

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus Julianus, Proconsul of Asia

Asinia Juliana Nicomacha, wife of Quintus Anicius Faustus

Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Herodian Dynasty

Antipater the Idumaean

Herod the Great

Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander

Tigranes VI of Armenia

Gaius Julius Alexander, Ruler of Cetis in Cilicia

Julia Iotapa (Cilician princess)

Julia Quadratilla, wife of Gaius Julius Lupus Titus Vibius Varus Laevillus

Aulus Julius Claudius Charax

Julia, wife of Gaius Asinius Rufus

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus

Gaius Asinius Protimus Quadratus, Proconcul of Achaea

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus Julianus, Proconsul of Asia

Asinia Juliana Nicomacha, wife of Quintus Anicius Faustus

Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Hasmoneans

The Priestly Order of Joarib

Asamoneus

Simeon

John

Mattathias

Simon Thassi

John Hyrcanus

Alexander Jannaeus + Salome Alexandra

Aristobulus II     & Hyrcanus II

Alexander          + Alexandra

Mariamne the Hasmonean, wife of Herod The Great

Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander

Tigranes VI of Armenia

Gaius Julius Alexander, Ruler of Cetis in Cilicia

Julia Iotapa (Cilician princess)

Julia Quadratilla, wife of Gaius Julius Lupus Titus Vibius Varus Laevillus

Aulus Julius Claudius Charax

Julia, wife of Gaius Asinius Rufus

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus

Gaius Asinius Protimus Quadratus, Proconcul of Achaea

Gaius Asinius Nicomachus Julianus, Proconsul of Asia

Asinia Juliana Nicomacha, wife of Quintus Anicius Faustus

Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Late Roman Aristocracy of Gaul

Ferreolus, a Roman Senator

Tonantius Ferreolus (prefect)

Tonantius Ferreolus II

Tonantius Ferreolus III

Ansbert

Arnoald

Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen

Begga, wife of Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Merovingians

Childeric I

Clovis I

Chlothar I

Charibert I

Blithilde, wife of Ansbert

Arnoald

Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen

Begga, wife of Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Bishops of Lyon

Eucherius Bishop of Lyon + Galla

Tullia

Aquilinus

Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Maternal Ancestry of Charlemagne's mother's father

Irmina of Oeren

Bertrada of Prüm

Charibert of Laon

Bertrada of Laon

Charlemagne

I may update this post in the future to add more lines. 

One theory I have that I can't prove, but if true would strengthen the lines I've already looked into is that Erato of Armenia was the mother of Tigranes VI of Armenia.  I think she did marry Tigranes V during his brief reign in Armenia, then after he died did a Levirate marriage with his brother thus becoming the mother of Tigranes VI.

I've also been speculating on the possibility of a connection to the Constantinian Dynasty, cheifly I have a hunch Galla wife of Eucherius of Lyon can be connected to Constantius Gallus through his daughter Anastasia who's mother was Constantina eldest daughter of Constantine The Great.

Now the Cosntantinian Dynasty I speculate may themselves by connected to the Seleucids though Eutropia.  But also if Charlemagne was a potential heir of Constantine that adds legitimacy to his being crowned Western Roman Emperor.

Update:

Charlemagne's descent from the Sceaf

Sceaf

Bedwig

Hwala

Hrathra

itermon

Heremod

Scealdwa

Beaw

Teatwa

Geat

Godwulf

Fin

Firthuwulf

Freawine

Frealaf

Firthuwald

Odin

Sigi

Rerir

Volsung

Sigmund

Sigurd

Gunther

Gondioc

Chilperic II of Burgundy

Clotilda. wife of Clovis I

Chlothar I

Charibert I

Blithilde, wife of Ansbert

Arnoald

Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen

Begga, wife of Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Another Update 

Even more Solid Merovingian descent of Charlemagne.

Childeric I

Clovis I

Chlothar I

Charibert I

Charibert of Hesbaye husband of Wulfgurd

Robert I Bishop of Tours

Lambert I of Hesbaye

Robert II Lord Chanceler of France

Lambert II of Hesbaye

Rotrude of Hesbaye wife of Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Update September 22nd 2023:

More solid Descent from Seleucids, and improves other earlier claims of this post as well.

Seleucus I Nicator + Apama

Antiochus I Soter & Achaeus

Antiochus II Theos = Laodice I

Seleucus II Callinicus & Laodice wife of Mithridates II of Pontus

Antiochus III the Great + Laodice III

Seleucus IV Philopator = Laodice IV

Demetrius I Soter

Demetrius II Nicator + Cleopatra Thea

Antiochus VIII Grypus + Tryphaena

Laodice VII Thea, wife of Mithridates I Callinicus

Antiochus I Theos of Commagene

Mithridates II of Commagene & Athenais of Media Atropatene

Mithridates III of Commagene + Iotapa

Antiochus III of Commagene = Iotapa

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene = Julia Iotapa

Julia Iotapa, wife of Gaius Julius Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlamagne's descent from Caesar Augustus

Octavius Caesar Augustus

Julia The Elder

Julia The Younger

Aemilia Lepida

Junia Lepida

Cassius Lepidus

Cassia Lepida

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus, Ides of March

Gaius Cassius Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus, Consul Suffectus Consul in 30 AD

Cassius Lepidus

Cassia Lepida

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

The Vicar of Christ

The title "Vicar of Christ" as a title for the Bishop of Rome aka The Pope is a major factor in Papal Antichrist arguments, both among Historicists and Futurists who want to make a Papal Antichrist view work within Futurism.  The title in the various ways it's been translated implies being a mortal representative of Christ who has all of Christ's authority.

One Biblical pillar of the argument is viewing the Temple that Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2 as being The Church not a Temple Building, and thus the true "Abomination of Desolation" is a Mortal Human within the Church claiming the authority of Christ.  That is an issue I've discussed a lot in the past and may discus more in the future.

The other is interpreting the term "Antichrist" in John's Epistles as meaning "in place of Christ" rather then "opposed to Christ", thus suggesting "Vicar of Christ" can be viewed as a direct Latin translation of that term.  My looking in the Strongs Concordance at other Biblical Greek words with the anti- preffix shows that it seems to be used with both meanings.  But the context of what John was saying about "Antichrists" and the "spirit of Antichrist" supports the "opposed to Christ" meaning.  Everything John says to define what makes one "an Antichrist" is about what they say Jesus is not rather then what they say they are.

I'm a Futurist who has been trying to be very open minded to forms of Historicism, but all while trying to make it less dependent on specifically the Papal view of The Antichrist.  So what I want to explore here is how the Pope's claimed authority is not the only "Vicar of Christ" heresy within the Church.

The kernel of truth in the Vicar of Christ doctrine is that spiritually Jesus has given some of His Authority to All Believers.  What I consider inherently dangerously heretical (whether or not it's relevant to Bible Prophecy) are two sometimes overlapping extensions of that.
1.  Any individual or group or office within the Church claiming Christ like Authority even over other believers, that's the Doctrine of the Nicolatians.
2.  Using this Authority to justify setting up any kind of Christian Theocracy, Christians seeking to rule over non-believers when Christ's Earthly Kingdom has not yet been inaugurated.

To an extent the Vicar of Christ idea is what justifies all ecclesiastical hierarchy, even Independent Baptists talk about the local Pastor as being an "Under Shepherd".

However the "Divine Right of Kings" doctrine is also based on claiming Kings are Earthly Vicars of Christ.  But contrary to popular opinion forms of that idea predated the Protestant Reformation.  The Biblical basis for the Medieval "Royal Touch" idea was Mark 16, again claiming specifically for the King something every Believer is theoretically capable of.

It used to be for the Eastern Orthodox Church the Eastern Roman Emperor (Byzantine Emperor in many modern history books) was their Vicar of Christ, that's discussed right on the Wikipedia page.  This YouTube Video about Greek Orthodoxy reveals how even today they have the Emperor enthroned within their Churches.  This is really creepy when you remember that claiming Caesar as their King was what those who called for Christ's Crucifixion did.  In the sense that I view the Orthodox Church as Pergamon in Revelation 2-7, that Throne is Satan's Seat.

Even in the Old Testament human kings are viewed as mortals usurping authority that belongs to God, YHWH said through Samuel that Israel was rejecting Him as King when they asked for a Human King like the heathens had.  Some Biblical Kings wound up being decent leaders, but the overall meta-narrative is still Anti-Monarchy.  I personally believe that especially in The Torah "Moloch" should always be translated "King" and "Milcom" should read "Kings", the passages condemning their worship are actually condemning the worship of Human Kings.  This also comes up in Ezekiel 28 and Acts 12 which I've argued elsewhere may be key to understanding what the Abomination of Desolation is.  There is also an anti Monarchy theme to the story of Gideon and his sons.

Some Preterists (and secular scholars) think the Temple Paul was talking about in II Thessalonians 2 was a Temple of the Imperial Cult that existed in the city.  Not every city had any particular Imperial Cult presence (in Asia the two Churches with specific references to Martyrdom in Revelation 2-3 were the two Imperial Cult centers of the Province), archaeologically we know Thessaloniki was an Imperial Cult center, so that could be relevant.  

Galerius the chief architect of the greatest Roman persecution the Church faced, built a Rotunda in Thessaloniki that scholars are still unsure what it was for, the popular theory it was intended to be his Mausoleum though he wound up being buried in Serbia.  At first glance that theory would seem to conflict with a Christ usurper within the Church theory.  But in the future the Roman Emperors did transition from claiming to be Pagan gods to claiming to be the Vicar of the Christian God.  It is connected to the Arch of Galerius which like other Triumphal Arches has imagery that basically Deifies the Emperor for whom it is named.

What's fascinatingly coincidental is how Thessalonica played an important role in that transition.  The Edict that made Christianity the state religion of the Empire is known as the Edict of Thessalonica because that's where it was issued, in fact Theodosius I was also Baptized in Thessalonica by it's local Bishop.  And he turned Galerius's unused Rotunda into a a Church.

Christian Emperors were having Messianic Mojo applied to them even before then however, just look at how Eusebius talked about Constantine.

I made a post focused on the reign of Justinian arguing for the Eastern Roman Empire being The Little Horn of Daniel 7.

One thing kind of well known about the Roman Empire is that all through Antiquity it never officially admitted to being a Monarchy, they adamantly denied that the Emperors were Kings and never formally called them Rex in Latin or Basileus in Greek.  Now it's popular to rather dismissively mock that, but I want to say as an American that I feel it's hypocritical to say obviously the Caesars were Kings but United States Presidents are not.  There were limits on the Emperor's authority, they did often have to fight with the Senate.  Their near Monarchical power came from combining offices that were usually separate under the old Republic.  Princeps is literally the Latin word that President comes from (same with Premier and Prime).  Imperator basically means "Commander in Chief of the military", and the President's Veto power gives him the power of a Tribune of the Plebs.  The only meaningful difference is the U.S. President doesn't serve for life, but they would have if Alexander Hamilton had his way.

What's not so well known is that at a certain point this denial of Kingship stopped.  Emperor Heraclius (who possibly descended from the Armenian Arascid Dynasty and thus the Seleucids) abandoned the title Imperator and took the title Basileus in September of 629 AD, he also took the Persian title "King of Kings".  So he can very literally be called the Eight King of Rome.

Leaving aside the symbolic political significance that had for Rome and looking at the above theological significance in light of what I've talked about in this post.  He was not the first Christian to formally hold a title of Kingship, but none before him ruled a Kingdom nearly as large as his, and none before him ruled Jerusalem or the land of the Seven Churches that Revelation was written to, or Thessalonica.

On December 12th 627 AD Heraclius was wounded in battle at Nineveh but didn't die and then destroyed another important Persian capital. He also made a Covenant with the Jews that he broke in the Spring of 630 AD.

And like Justinian his relationship with the Miaphysite churches was complex.

When Constantinople fell in 1453 AD they had three claimed Emperors in Exile and then a number of states started claiming to be successor states to Constantinople.  The one that's relevant to this discussion of the Eastern Empire however is Russia's Claim, the theological position the Emperor had in the Eastern Orthodox Church wound up being inherited by the Tsars.  Meaning the Orthodox Church didn't cease to have an Emperor serving as their Vicar of Christ till the deaths of Tsar Nicolas II and his family in July of 1918.

I've said before I don't like the logic of the Day=Year theory.  But I shall briefly play Devil's Advocate for it's potential applicability here.  On the Biblical Hebrew Calendar the year that Heraclius proclaimed himself Basileus started in March or April of 629.  If we viewed that as the first year of a calendar, it's 1290th year would have been Spring 1918- March 1919, the year that Tsar Nicolas II died.

The Wikipedia Page for 647 refers to certain events that happened to the Byzantine Empire as "fatally" wounding it.  The actions of Constans II in 658 to early 659 could be viewed as the healing of that "fatal" wound.  1260 years from then takes us to the same time period just discussed, the end and aftermath of WWI.  Tsarist Russia wasn't the only Byzantine successor state to end (or change it's form of government) then, that was also when the Ottoman Empire ceased.  It also ended two successions of Western Emperors in Austria and Germany.

Putin has not formally claimed this aspect of the Tsar's old authority yet.  But his relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church suggests he may want to.

Could The Beast of Revelation 17 possibly be a different Beast?

I've suggested one bold new theory on how Revelation 17 ties into the rest of the book already [And followed up on it in Who Is The Bride of Christ].  Now I have another one.

The parallel imagery of Seven Heads and Ten Horns leads to an assumption that the Beast of Chapter 17 is the same one we saw in Chapter 13.  And references to The Beast made in chapters 14-16 are clearly the Beast out of the Sea.

But The Dragon also had Seven Heads and Ten Horns and that is indisputably a different entity.  The Beast of Chapter 17 also has in common with the Beast out of The Sea over The Dragon being called a Beast.  And also terminology that seems to imply one of the Seven Heads is an individual who has died and been resurrected, but how that idea is communicated is different.  However it is called a Scarlet Beast, which is a variation of the Color Red, so the Revelation 17 Beast is affiliated with the same Color as The Dragon.

References to The Beast of Chapter 13 in other chapters usually mention The False Prophet, or The Mark, or the Image.  But in Chapter 17 it seems to be The Woman, Mystery Babylon, who is serving The False Prophet's function, as a simultaneously religious and economic system.

However Revelation 11's Beast is described with terminology elsewhere used only in Chapter 17, the Beast that Ascends out of the Bottomless Pit/Abyss, and goes into Perdition. 

I've also noted recently that it is strictly speaking the Ten Horns not the Eight King himself who hates and attacks The Harlot.

I've talked a lot on this Blog about the possibility of a Decoy Antichrist, possibly to be identified with The Terrible of The Nations of Ezekiel.  And while I've connected that figure to themes of Revelation like the Kings of The East, I had lacked a clearly specific place for him.  Until within the last month when I thought of this possibility.

However, it then occurred to me, what if they are the same Beast and yet different in terms of which of the Seven Heads is the main Head in mind?

I have laid out already my main view on the Seven Kings.  In identifying them with modern Geopolitical entities, The Lion is Iraq and/or ISIS, the Bear is Iran and perhaps parts of Iraq currently controlled by Iran via the Mahdi Army (the Medes being The Kurds and the Persians being the Shiites).  The four heads of the Leopard are Greece, Macedonia, Turkey and Egypt, and the Fourth Beast/Seventh Head (the one with the Ten Horns) is the European Union.

When we separate the Death and Resurrection imagery of 13 and 17.  Only 13 requires a Mortal Wound, sometimes assumed to specifically be a head wound but that forgets that the use of the word Head is itself symbolic in these chapters.  Meanwhile my argument that the Eight King must be one of the first Five applies solely to Chapter 17.

I feel the one in 13 make most sense if the Resurrection/healing of the Wound itself happens in the End Times, before the eyes of the World.  While the one in 17 I think could maybe have been Resurrected in the past, perhaps in 30 AD (Matthew 27:52-53) as part of fulfilling Daniel 12, but then was sealed in the Abyss.

If The Terrible of The Nations is someone who lived in the Past resurrected in the End Times.  Based on Ezekiel 29&30 the first obvious candidate is Nebuchadrezzar, as I alluded to in my last post.

There are people arguing Nebuchadrezzar is the Antichrist, including a Google Group.  Much of the argument for that is the Terrible of the Nations passages, because they overlook the last part of Ezekiel 30 which identifies the Terrible of The Nations with the one who gives not who receives the Mortal Wound.  And the Prophecy against the Prince (not King) of Tyre in chapter 28 could also back that up.

However, the fact that Daniel 4 depicts Nebuchadrezzar as being Saved I view as a problem with the whole "Goeth into Perdition" detail.  Though perhaps that is less definitive since I'm now pretty much a Universalist, and Nebuchadrezzar wasn't a Church Age believer.  But it still seems odd to me, and I've yet to see a Nebuchadrezzar is the Antichrist argument address Daniel 4.

Nebuchadrezzar was the first of the Seven Kings in my view.  The remaining four of the first five would be Cyrus, Alexander The Great (or maybe a Ptolemy), Antigonus or Demetrius, and a Seleucid King.

Of those I feel inclined to rule out the Ptolemies and maybe also Alexander on the grounds that if a Beast of Revelation is a Pharaoh of Egypt, that is definitely the Revelation 13 Beast.  Also both Cyrus and Alexander I view as like Nebuchadrezzar confirmed to most likely be among the saved, so if that rules him out it maybe rules them out too.

There is not much to Biblically make Antigonos or Demetrius significant.  But if you think The Antichrist is also the Little Horn of Daniel 8, then that makes the Seleucids, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, a pretty strong candidate.  And if the Beast out of the Sea is a Ptolemy, then one of his adversaries being a Seleucid would fit well.

Maybe Daniel 11 isn’t about Antiochus Epiphanes at all

[Update March 2022: I've mostly abandoned this theory for now, but I'm still open to returning to it.]

The Tiburtine Sibyl and The Last Roman Emperor Constans

A Prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl in 380 AD forms the embryo of the Last Roman Emperor tradition.

Of all the false prophecies I view as Antichrist seeds, The Last Roman Emperor is perhaps the most directly like the Biblical Antichrist, being defined as Greek and Roman at the same time, since it developed largely in the Byzantine Empire, it easily reconciles the way Daniel points to both Rome and Greece as the nations the Antichrist will rule.  And in some of the 7th century apocalypses he's said to conquer both Syria and Egypt, which is interesting if you still think Daniel 11:40 is about the Antichrist.

Usually, when dealing with these false prophecies my view is that the Antichrist figure within said Prophecy is in the role of a Decoy Antichrist.  And that is certainly the case with the later elaborations of the Last Roman Emperor tradition.

But this is short, and it's attributed to a pagan Oracle.  Oracles usually give cryptic prophecies, that could have two potentially opposite meanings, or an unexpected meaning that in hindsight should have been obvious.  "A Prophecy that misread could have been"-Yoda, Revenge of The Sith.

So let's look at what this Prophecy says closely.

THE LATIN TIBURTINE SIBYL
Then will arise a king of the Greeks whose name is Constans. He will be king of the Romans and the Greeks. He will be tall of stature, of handsome appearance with shining face, and well put together in all parts of his body. His reign will be ended after one hundred and twelve years. In those days there will be great riches and the earth will give fruit abundantly so that a measure of wheat will be sold for a denarius, a measure of wine for a denarius, and a measure of oil for a denarius. The king will have a text before his eyes that says: "The king of the Romans will claim the whole Christian empire for himself." He will devastate all the islands and the cities of the pagans and will destroy all idolatrous temples; he will call all pagans to baptism and in every temple the Cross of Christ will be erected. "Then Egypt and Ethiopia will be eager to stretch their hands to God." ~ Whoever does not adore the Cross of Jesus Christ will be punished by the sword. When the one hundred and twelve years have been completed, the Jews will be converted to the Lord, and "his sepulchre will be glorified by all." In those days Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell with confidence. At that time the Prince of Iniquity who will be called Antichrist will arise from the tribe of Dan. He will be the Son of Perdition, the head of pride, the master of error, the fullness of malice who will overturn the world and do wonders and great signs through dissimulation. He will delude many by magic art so that fire will seem to come down from heaven. The years will be shortened like months, the months like weeks, the weeks like days, the days like hours, and an hour like a moment. The unclean nations that Alexander, the Indian king, shut up (i.e., Gog and Magog) will arise from the North. These are the twenty-two realms whose number is like the sand of the sea. When the king of the Romans hears of this he will call his army together and vanquish and utterly destroy them. After this he will come to Jerusalem, and having put off the diadem from his head and laid aside the whole imperial garb, he will hand over the empire of the Christians to God the Father and to Jesus Christ his Son. When the Roman empire shall have ceased, then the Antichrist will be openly revealed and will sit in the House of the Lord in Jerusalem. While he is reigning, two very famous men, Elijah and Enoch, will go forth to announce the coming of the Lord. Antichrist will kill them and after three days they will be raised up by the Lord. Then there will be a great persecution, such as has not been before nor shall be thereafter. The Lord will shorten those days for the sake of the elect, and the Antichrist will be slain by the power of God through Michael the Archangel on the Mount of Olives.
Translated from the edition of E. Sackur, Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen. pp. 185—86.

1. It never describes Constans as actually fighting the Antichrist, the enemy he goes to war with is Gog and Magog.

2. Although the Antichrist is mentioned while Constans is still reigning, it's not till after Constans puts down his Crown in Jerusalem that the Antichrist is "openly revealed", and reigns in the House of God in Jerusalem.  Same place we were just told Constans was.

I think this prophecy, even as it's author originally intended, is open to a reading where Constans and The Antichrist are the same individual.  That he will "give up" his authority to beings that present themselves as being God and Jesus but are perhaps actually Satan and The False Prophet.

Constans is an interesting name, it's a diminutive form of Constantine and Constantinius (but a few lesser known Emperors are known by that name exactly).  The seventh century Syrian elaborations on the Last Roman Emperor figure didn't give him a name.  And the Western Catholic tradition of the Great Catholic Monarch removed the Greek affiliation altogether saying he'll descend from Clovis, the Merovingian.  However...

When Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 AD.  Emperor Constantine XI removed his royal garments on the battlefield when he knew it was lost so no one could tell who he was.  After the battle was over the Turks identified a body as his and marched it around the city in victory, but the people failed to recognize it as Constantine.  No body was ever indisputably identified as Constantine.  A rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a marble statue and hid him beneath the wall of Constantinople, and that one day God would revive him to drive out the Turks.  The legacy of this legend remained important to the Greeks ever since, it was rekindled during their War of Independence in the 1800s and lingers to this day.

You may be thinking of course, "How can the same person be both  King of the Greeks and a Prince from the Tribe of Dan?"

Ezekiel 27 speaks of Dan and Javan having a connection.  And indeed Greek mythology speaks of the Danoi.  This further leads to speculation about connecting Dan to the Tutha de Dannan who in Irish mythology came from Northern Europe.  I'm highly skeptical of most British Israelism claims, but the Tribe of Dan is very interesting.

Britam identifies Dan with Denmark (which is the only Britam identification I kinda agree with). The Royal family of modern Greece from George I on are also Danish Royalty by virtue of their direct Pater-lineal descent from Christian IX of Denmark.  Every modern King of Greece (King of the Hellenes as they call themselves) is also officially a Prince of Denmark.  King of the Greeks and Prince of Dan.

I discus the genealogy of George I of Greece and Christian IX of Denmark on a different blog.  That information can be overlapped with my Genealogy of The Antichrist study to show that they descend from the Seleucid Dynasty. as well as probable Merovingian descent from Clovis.  This family is also taking over the British Royal family, involving a few of the lines different people have in different ways sought to connect to the House of David.

The current King in exile is Constantine II and is often called by his supporters Constantine XIII, viewing the modern Greek Kingdom as heir to the Byzantine Empire, and evoking the mythology about Constantine XI.

Constantine II has 4 children, Pavolos the oldest son is the Crown-Prince.  Pavolos has 5 children, 4 of whom were born in the United States.  Princess Maria-Olympia, Prince Constantine-Alexios, and Prince Achileas-Andreas all three of whom were born in New York.  Prince Odysseus-Kimon and Prince Aristidis-Stravos who was born in Los Angeles.

The pieces are in place for some charismatic leader of this royal family to bring together the Byzantine Last Roman Emperor tradition, the Great Catholic Monarch Tradition, and the British Israelite understanding of Messiah Ben-Joseph and/or the Talmudic tradition that says Messiah Ben-David will also be half Danite, like how Samson was half Danite and half Judean.

Modern Greece had 7 Kings when it was a Kingdom.  Now that is certainly not what the 7 Kings of Revelation mainly mean as I've firmly shown elsewhere, but it's interesting how patterns repeat.

Long ago when I hadn't settled on my current view of the 7 heads, when discussing a possible connection to the Kings of Rome, I argued that the 7th reigning a little while might not be about reign length so much as implying being driven from his position rather then reigning till he died as a King normally does.  Which also happened to Constantine II.

From there it is interesting that it was during the reign of the Sixth King that Israel was reestablished in 1948.

Update Feb21st2016: Another option I just considered re-reading the Oracle is maybe the "Antichrist" there is really The False Prophet.

Understanding what Syria means in various Bible references

In all likelihood no use of "Syria" in the King James Bible is exactly synonymous with Modern Syria.

Every time you see Syria in The Old Testament, the Hebrew said Aram, one of the sons of Shem.  Now very early on Aram settled further north, maybe in modern Turkey.  But they had traveled to the Damascus area well before the time of Saul.

The kingdom of Aram was centered around Damascus, but it did not include all or even most of modern Syria.  It's size varied at different times of course.  But it certainly never controlled anything on the other side of the Euphrates River.  And also never anything north of Lebanon.  Pretty much anything between Damascus and modern Syria's borders with Leabanon and Israel and western Jordan had been Aramean territory at times.  And they also sometimes controlled parts of north western Jordan, and possibly extended into the Golan Heights.

Our word Syria comes from Greek usage that was adopted by the Romans.  In origin it derives from Assyria, which is what they called Asshur.  The Assurian Empire at times controlled pretty much all of modern Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Israel, and also parts of Turkey.  The original intent of the word might have been Mesopotamia + Syria = Assyria.

The name became synonymous with the Seleucid Empire to an extent.  At it's greatest extent Seleucus controlled all of what Assyria had and even more of Turkey (almost all of it really) and Iran and into Afghanistan and Pakistan and the very edge of India.

But once Parthia broke off as well as the Hasmonean revolt it shrunk a great deal, many parts of Turkey became independent as did Petra/Nabatea.  For awhile it looked a lot like modern Syria and Iraq plus chunks of Turkey.   In about 150 BC it lost Mesopotamia to Parthia.

Damascus was also independent of the Seleucids for awhile.  Also, Antioch the Seleucid capital is not part of modern Syria but in Turkey.

The Septuagint is likely the origin of thinking of Syria and Aram as synonymous.  I think the Septuagint translators made a bit of a mistake there.

The Roman Province of Syria also never matched modern Syria exactly, it's capital was also Antioch.  It never had anything on the other side of the Euphrates, and also most of the time did not Include Damascus (sometimes Damascus was independent, sometimes it was under Herodian control, Aretas had it when Paul was there).  To an extent it was the base of what the Seleucid Kingdom had declined down to when it fell to Pompey.

After Hadrian put down the Bar-Kochba Revolt he made Judea which he renamed Palestina part of Syria.  Later that again broke off into a separate province.

This is why Daniel 11 never uses Syria as a synonym for the King of The North like it does Egypt for The South.  And why we should be iffy about assuming any possible eschatological application for 36-45 must equal modern Syria or Damascus.  Or of reading references to Syria and Damascus in other prophecies as being about the same as the King of The North.  There is however good reason to see a possible correlation between The Assyrian and the King of The North.

If The Antichrist is the Willful King of Daniel 11:36-45 he is NOT the King of The North.

I.S.I.S. has been observed as starting to look kind of like both ancient Assyria and the Seleucid Empire.  But in order for that to fully work it'll have to take some parts of Turkey.  And that seems highly unlikely.

Since the Captial was often the most important identifying city of a Kingdom in ancient times, it's easy to see why the King of Antioch would be the King of The North from Israel's perspective even though other Hellenistic Kingdoms were further North.  It's directly due North of Israel.

Today Antioch is in Turkey, but it's not Turkey's capital.  So an argument that the King of The North now refers to Turkey would be a complicated one to make.  It's ties to Seleucus are as valid as Syria and Iraq's.  But in Daniel 11:40 the King of The South is taking the lead, Turkey is not likely to let Egypt take the lead in any alliance.

Modern Syria is broken up between at least 4 camps right now.  The Assad government which may not control much outside the immediate vicinity of Damascus does kinda look like Aram right now.  I.S.I.S., The Kurds who don't want anything besides their homeland, and other resistance groups who hate Assad and Isis equally.

The largest city in modern Syria is Aleppo rather then Damascus.  The news confuses me so I honestly have no idea if Aleppo is under I.S.I.S. control or not, but I think it's currently not, but it is definitely an objective of ISIS to take it..  It's near the Turkish border where Antioch is.

Aleppo is possibly around where Aram was at some point before they traveled south and settled in the Damascus area.  Seleucus named the city Beroea, which derived from Boreas, the North Wind in Greek Mythology, which is interesting.

The Hebrew word translated North in Daniel 11 is Zaphon, which is also the name Ugarit texts give Jebel Aqra on the modern Syria-Turkey border south of Antioch.And apparently Seleucus I made the decision to found Antioch where and how he did after praying to Zeus on that very mountain.  So he was truly the King of Zaphon.

Some Old Testament locations that equate to around where Aleppo and Antioch are would be Laish (conquered by Dan in Judges, not to be confused with Leshem, the Dan of the Golan Heights) and Hammath.

Basically the areas where the Denyen of the Egyptian Sea Peoples records and Danuna of the Amarna letters lived.  As well as Yamhad.  Ugarit is also near there.

Could Antiochus Epiphanes claim descent from the Lost Tribes?

I've already talked a lot about the possible familial connections of the Seleucid Dynasty in my three part Genealogy of The Antichrist study.

In light of my recent speculation that the Eight King could be Antiochus Epiphanies himself.  As well as my other speculation that The White Horseman could claim, validly or not, Ephraimite descent and try to claim he's Messiah Ben-Joseph.  This is an interesting speculation.

As I said before, I don't think he'll admit to being the hated Epiphanes, I think it's possible if he is open about being someone from the past, he might claim to be his more fondly remembered father.

I do not necessarily endorse Lost Tribes became Western Europeans theories in general.  But the nature of tribal migrations is complicated.  And Dan certainly had an interesting history.  Also my theory is more about him claiming such a lineage then if it's actually true.

Antiochus Epiphanes is not usually someone advocates of such theories seek to claim.  But I have a different perspective.

The Macedonian Royal family claimed descent, like the Spartans, from the sons of Herakles and through him to Perseus and Andromeda of Joppa and the Danoi.  All allowing possible connections to Dan or Edom.  But the Seleucids have no provable direct connection to the Agrid line however.

The sons of Herakles whom the Spartan and Macedonian royal families claim descent from supposedly intermarried with the leading family of the Dorian tribes.  Some engaged in Lost Tribes related theories have speculated that the Dorians could have a connection to Dor, a port city of Manasseh, one governor of Dor had married a daughter of Solomon.  Dor is also associated with the Tjekker of the Sea Peoples.

The Macedonians were distinct from the other Dorian derived classical Greek nations in also having some Celtic stock to them.   So Oliver Stone was not being completely random casting Irish and Scottish actors as Macedonians in his Alexander The Great film.  The relationship between the Celtic and Cimmerian peoples is complex.

Apama the wife of Seleucus I was the daughter of Spitamenes, a Perisan Satrap.  He had in his ancestry Persian and Median rulers and through them Assyrian ones too.  The mother of Esarhaddon was possibly an Israelite.  Further back there were Assyrian Kings named Asshur-Dan about whom we know little, making me wonder if connections between Assyrian Royalty and the Denyen might have taken place.

The City of Antioch itself is pretty much in the heart of the Danuna/Laish Dan area.

The Crimmerians are at the center of the main Lost Tribes became Europeans theories.  Most critics of the view just point to the obvious connection between the Cimmerians and Gomer son of Japheth, that Bill Cooper documents well in After The Flood.  He covers it in both the Where to Begin chapter and Appendix 3.

Thing is, the name Gomer also appears in Hosea as the name of the prostitute God has Hosea marry who becomes a symbolic type of Ephraim/Israel.  So advocates of the theory suggest using that name could also be a prophecy about a future intermingling of the descendants of Gomer and the Northern Kingdom.

Khumri is how the Assyrians rendered the name of Omri, which they used to refer to the Northern Kingdom in general even well after the House of Omri fell. The basis for connecting the northern Kingdom exiles to the name of the Cimmerians has often been just based on arguing that Khumri could've become Ghumri and Gimri and so on.  That I think is largely what makes it look silly to people.  Though more implausible things have happened in etymology.

Our pre-history of the Cimmerians is pretty speculative, drawing mainly form Herodotus and other heavily contrived Greek accounts.  But a connection between their name and Crimea I do consider likely.

The first appearance of the Cimmerians in Assyrian records is during the reign of Sargon II, dated to about 714 BC.  After the first two main deportations of the Israelites.  At this time they seem to be "In the midst Mannae" a buffer state between Assyrian and Uratu, rather then where they usually were later.  They assisted Sargon in his war with Uratu.  Mannae is mentioned in The Bible as Minni in Jeremiah 51:27.  Their kingdom was located south and east of Lake Urmia.  Firmly within Median territory where many exiles had been taken according to II Kings 17:6.

Later the Cimmerians during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal would become enemies of Assyria, and ally with other traditional enemies of Assyria.  It's not implausible that descendants of exiled Israelites would have been attracted to joining up with the Cimmerians.

The Cimmerian nation at it's greatest extent expanded into many other regions of Turkey, like Pontus and Cappadocia.  In Hellenistic times the Cimmerians who remained in the region were known as the Galatians.  The Hellenistic kingdoms of Galatias, Cappadocia and Pontus royal families intermarried a lot with the Seleucid Dynasdty, as well as Pergamon and Commagene.  The mother of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus.

The Seven Heads and Daniel 7

In the past I've been hostile to viewing the 7 Kings as 7 Kingdoms or Empires rather then a specific succession of individual Kings.  Chris White argues they are 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms.

I'll never be convinced of a model that adds two empires or even one before Nebuchadnezzar.  But my perspective on this changed when I noticed something about how Daniel 7 and the Beast from the Sea in Revelation are compared.

This thesis here could damage a lot of my earlier theories.  But not my over all view of Bible Prophecy.

Seven is also the total number of heads in Daniel 7, 1 Lion, 1 Bear, 4 of the Leopard and the Ten horns are defined as on a head in Daniel 7.  The Beast of Revelation 13 is all four of Daniel 7's beasts merged together.

So we have 7 Kingdoms, each also with one specific of their Kings to single out.  That is how I now look at it.

The 7 kings do NOT each have to be a type of The Antichrist, that is just a made up rule some people have for studying this.  Cyrus is indisputably the Second King in question here, he is never portrayed negatively in Scripture.  In fact he is the only Gentile The Hebrew Bible ever declares a Messiah, and it's God himself saying it to Cyrus in Isaiah 44/45.  Some of them may be types, but they don't all need to be.

In fact even though I've done and may still do a lot of talking about potential types of The Anitchrist on this Blog.  The Biblical endorsement for the concept of types are entirely about Jesus, Paul in Colossians saying everything in the law was a foreshadowing of Jesus that had already been fulfilled, Jesus saying the Volume of The Book is of Him.  There is no Biblical basis for calling ANYONE a type of The Antichrist.

This model has to make Rome the 7th rather then 6th Empire.  How can Rome possibly be yet Future in John's time?  Or be said to have not lasted very long?

The 7 Kings we're are looking for are not rulers or occupiers of Israel/Jerusalem.  Revelation 17 is specifically about Babylon, it's about 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms who ruled Babylon, starting with it's native kingdom.  Daniel 7 is in the Aramaic part of Daniel, the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians of Daniel's time.  And he was in Babylonia when he had this vision.  The four beasts are described as World Empires and all four are, but to the point of view of the Babylonians Daniel first made this Prophecy for, no one truly became a world empire till they conquered their world.

Rome did NOT rule Babylon at any point during the New Testament era or before it. John wrote Revelation at the latest during the reign of Domitian.  The second Emperor after that, Trajan, was the first Roman to take Mesopotamia and Assyria. and it was at the very end of his reign that he did.  Then Hadrian succeeded him, and he pretty much immediately gave them back to Parthia.  So Rome only ever ruled Babylon for a very short time, just a few years.

The ruler of Parthia when John wrote was Pacorus II. (Who's mother was a Greek concubine, further showing he can count as a Greek King, and his father's maternal grandmother had Seleucid ancestry).  When Pacorus died Trajan was already Emperor of Rome.  Later in the 160s AD there was another Roman military incursion into Mesopotamia, but it never reached Babylon, it's focus was on Seleucica.

While it's not a coincidence that the 4 heads of the Leopard are the same number of horns the Notable horn of the Ram breaks into.  I think what they represent specifically here could be sort of different.  We are dealing with four Hellenistic era Kingdoms that ruled Babylon.  The first is Alexander himself, then comes the successors.

I believe Parthia while often thought of as a quasi Persian empire can be looked at as coming out of Alexander's Empire.  He had conquered that region, and by the New Testament period the Arascid Royal Family had Seleucid blood intermingled into them.

Babylon was taken from the Seleucid Empire by Parthia in 150 BC.  It was still firmly Seleucid during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasomonean revolt.

Antigonus and Seleucus Nicator fought over Babylon early on after it was clear Alexander's own Dynasty would not survive.  Eventually Seleucus secured it.

I'm going to consider Ptolemy the true successor to Alexander in this context.  He had Alexander's body buried in the city named after him, an act that secured succession in Macedonian custom, and was possibly a half brother or cousin of Alexander.

The 4 Heads of the Leopard could be viewed as Antigonus in Macedon =The West, Antioch=The North, Alexandria=The South and Parthia=The East.  Thus fitting the Four Winds of Heaven reference in Daniel 11.  Though for that context we could also say the West was the Macedon-Greece homeland which was originally ruled by the Antipards but which the Antigonids took as they lost what was originally allotted to them to Seleucus.

So the 7 King(dom)s of Babylon from Daniel are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander The Great, Antigonus, Seleucid Dynasty, Pacorus of Parthia, and Trajan of Rome.

In the past I firmly argued that I believe The Antichrist's Death and Resurrection must both be in the future.  And I was not comfortable with the theories making him some past King being brought back.

But in light of this, I must be consistent with my clear understanding of Revelation 17's terminology.  "Was, and is not" means the Eight King is one of the first 5, since it defines the present of this message as the 6th.

I still believe the Beast Empire is largely a Revived Roman Empire, but the Little Horn shows up among the ten horns in Daniel 7, distinct from Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the 4 horns.  He's ruling Rome but not as a Roman himself.

I don't believe it has to be someone who died from a head wound.  The doctrine of The Antichrist's Resurrection to me is proven not by the mortal head wound being healed but by his ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and how that theme ties into Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-32, (though fatal sword wound references are there too).

It could be he's already an early example of the second resurrection when he receives the mortal wound, and what amazes people is him surviving something that should have killed him, because he now has a body like a fallen angel.

Alexander The Great is distinct as being in a sense the main King of the Leopard as a whole as well as one of the heads.  I see Daniel 7:12 saying both that the Assyrian, Persian and Greek nations will exist during the Millennium.  And that their main three Kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great, are saved individuals and will exist in The Millennium too.

That only leaves Antigonus and the Seleucids.

Daniel 11:40-45 seems to have The Antichrist as separate from the King of The North.  However, I've explained why I'm no longer certain that even is The Antichrist, and that it might be Augustus.  But if that is the End Times and is The 8th King, it's while he's not a ruler of his original kingdom anymore but of the 10 horns to emerge from Rome.

There is nothing to link Antigonus to the Antichrist, but a lot of reasons to link the Seleucids.  Daniel 8 as well as Epiphanes doing the first Abomination of Desolation, which Jesus clarifies there will be one yet future.

I argued in the past when discussing Daniel 8 that there The Little Horn is the Seleucid dynasty as a whole, not just 1 or 2 individuals.  So unlike others who've argued a thesis similar to what I'm arguing here, I don't necessarily think it's Antiochus Epiphanes himself who is the Seleucid ruler that will ascend out of the Bottomless Pit, but certainly could be.

There are reasons to believe The Antichrist will be someone The Jews accept at first until the Abomination of Desolation happens.  If he's Epiphanes and is known to be Epiphanes, that would be unlikely.  Epiphanes is up there with Hitler and Haman on the most hated by Jews list.

I do think it must be a Seleucid mentioned in Daniel 11, making him a Biblical figure.  Seleucus I might be the candidate to start with, but while important to Seleucid history obviously, what's said of him in Daniel 11 is brief and pales in comparison to some of the others.  But it is interesting that a legend existed in the ancient world that his mother Laodice claimed he was fathered by Apollo.

Three times in Daniel 11 a king is described as "doing according to his will".  One of these is verse 36 which is clearly past the immediate history of Epiphanes already, after the Hasmonean Kingdom has fallen to Rome.  And may or may not be about The Antichrist.  It's first used of Alexander The Great at the start of the chapter.  Between them it's in verse 16.

Verse 16 is during the time of Antiochus III The Great's wars. And usually he is identified by scholars as the one "doing according to his will" there.  But Hippolytus of Rome in his Daniel commentary confusingly says this was an Alexander not known from any other surviving historical sources we have on the period.  He might have gotten confused by how that phrase was earlier affiliated with Alexander The Great, or maybe it's a scribal/copyist error.

It was under Antiochus The Great that Israel was taken from the Ptolemies and became part of the Seleucid Empire.  He is overall remembered fondly by The Jews as recorded by Josephus.  His relationship with them in Daniel 11 seems positive.  He continued Alexander and the Ptolemies general policy of not interfering with their Faith or The Temple.

But Josephus seems to be familiar with only 1 Maccabees and not 2 Maccabees.  2 Maccabees chapter 1 seems to refer to the death of Antiochus III and deems him ungodly.  Some see the benefits Antiochus gave The Temple as having been good for the Priestly class but not really for the common people.

Epiphanes is still the key link this dynasty has to The Antichrist.  It's highly possible he will lie about who he is, even when he first reveals himself to be a resurrected past individual he may lie about exactly who he is. Maybe he'll try to claim he's Elijah or David or Solomon or someone like that.  Or maybe just a simple matter of lying about which Macedonian or Seleucid ruler he is.

Some have agreed that Daniel 11:36-45 can't refer to anything Epiphanes did, yet still feel that the tone of the text wants us to think of him.  This could agree with a notion that he was recorded earlier as the 5th King and 36-45 is about him as the 8th King.

On the notion that we're dealing with a ruler of one of the earlier Kingdoms now ruling/reviving Rome.  Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome, and Polybus said he liked to rule as if he were a Roman.  Maybe he is the ideal person to revive the Roman Empire.

Which would create more options for someone he could claim to be, like Augustus.

But one interesting option is for him to claim to be Constantine XI, the last Byzantine Emperor.  Like all later Byzantine Emperors he was firmly Greek, so Antiochus could remain the same ethnicity and native language.  Constantine XI supposedly died in battle when Constantinople fell to the Turks, but his death was never solidly confirmed.  So a rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a statue and hid him beneath the Gate of Constantinople and would one be awoken to drive to the Turks.  His legacy has remained important among the Greeks, drawing on it during their War of Independence in the 19th Century.

And the legend of his return no doubt became interwoven with the Last Roman Emperor tradition.  The original seed of which, the late 4th century prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl called him a King of The Greeks named Constans.

One argument against the idea that 36-39 could be about Epiphanes is that he was consistent with the religion of his fathers.  However there is also a sense in which Epiphanes did change the religion of the Seleucid Empire, ironically the opposite of the change Augustus later made in Rome.  Apollo had been the favored deity of earlier Seleucids, but Epiphanes downplayed him and was more fond of Zeus.  But it still would be absurd to label Zeus a god "whom his fathers knew not" for any Greek people.

But if Epiphanes returns in the End Days his religion may be different, especially if he comes back after being resurrected and thinking Satan was responsible for it.

He did deify himself, technically the full name he used was Antíochos D' ho Epiphanḗs (Antiochus God Manifest, or Antiochus Zeus Manifest).  I've noticed that while none of the known forms of Epiphanes/Epiphany I've found used in ancient Greek texts have a Greek gemetria value of 666, it isn't difficult to construct a form that does have that value, it seems 1 or 2 letters could make the difference.

Update August 2016: I just argued that the Eight King could be a Ptolemy.

The Four Empires are Assyira-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece-Macedon and Edom-Rome

I want to address a matter of Interpretation on the four world Empires of Daniel 2 and 7. It is popular for skeptics of The Bible (and also certain Preterists) to insist that the four empires were originally meant by the author to be Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece. Rather then the traditional Futurist view of Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece and Rome.  This is absurd to me.

Daniel 5&6 (still part of the Aramaic Daniel) clearly defined Babylon as being succeeded by a dual Medio-Persian Empire "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Which is also what Daniel 8 depicts, The Prophecy is given while Babylon still rules and depicts The Ram coming next "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." And then after that is the He-Goat which is Greece.

Media alone was an important local kingdom for a century or so, but it never conquered Israel or Egypt or Babylon. Using Scripture to Interpret Scripture only Greece can be the Third empire.

The Symbolism also only makes sense that way, The Leopard has four heads which clearly represent the same thing the four horns represent in Daniel 8. Leopards are also animals known for their speed, the Speed with which Alexander conquered his Empire is part of Daniel 8:5's emphasis as well "and touched not the ground" is an idiom of speed. This Greece as the fourth kingdom interpretation tends to require viewing the ten horns of the fourth beast as a succession of Kings, that completely ignores the interpretation the Angel gives.

The strongest Argument any of them make is "The Little Horn". They insist the little horn can't represent different things in 7 and 8 and therefore the fourth Beast of chapter 7 must be the same as the He-Goat of Chapter 8.

Daniel 2-7 are Aramaic Daniel and are focused on the World, Daniel 1 and 8-12 are Hebrew Daniel and are focused on Israel. The Little Horn is the only specific symbol used in both. Both are ultimately in their far finale ultimate fulfillment about "The Antichrist". But Daniel 8 is about how he relates to Israel, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is a good prototype of The Antichrist.

But Daniel 7 is about how he relates to The World, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is not a good prototype, from a secular historical perspective he's very insignificant, pathetic even. He is thought of as the beginning of the end of the Hellenistic era's greatness. Hebrew Daniel also acknowledges elsewhere in Chapter 11 that Epiphanes while foreshadowing the Antichrist's key Sin is overall not a successful enough leader to be him. 11:36 says of The Antichrist "And the king shall do according to his will;". This "do according to his will" phrase is used earlier of both Alexander The Great in verse 3 and Antiochus III Megas in verse 16.  But it's description of Epiphanes in verses 21-32 does not use this phrase. So this phrase helps refute any argument that verse 36 is still talking about Antiochus Epiphanes. As does the fact that this king is NOT the "King of The North" (Syria) but fights a war with him.

Daniel 7 is about The Antichrist's destiny to reunite the Roman Empire, and a near fulfillment for that could be Julius or Augustus Caesar who ended civil wars, or Vespasian-Titus who restored unity after the chaotic year of the Four Emperors, or Constantine who was reuniting Rome when he adopted Christianity, or Jusitnian who tried to reconquer the Western regions. Or latter attempts to create a sort of Revived Empire, like Charlemagne, the various Holy Roman Emperors, Napoleon (and maybe also Louise-Napoleon) or Mussolini.

But also in Daniel 7 the Little Horn arises among the ten, unlike in Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the four.  I believe that at least one layer of symbolism behind The Little Horn is it being the Seleucid Dynasty, but I view this connection as genealogical not geographical.

The annoying thing is that these Atheists and Preterists don't even need to do this to argue Daniel's prophecies were all done by the Hasomnean Revolt (That argument falls apart for many other reasons). During the Maccabees period it was already pretty clear Rome was the fourth Beast. Rome was an Empire long before it ceased to be a Republic, just like America is. Rome in the second century B.C. was very comparable to America in the 20th century A.D. including being Israel's top ally as documented in the books of Maccabees and Josephus.

Polybius who died in 118 B.C. wrote a book called The Rise of The Roman Empire. His starting premise was to document how in only 53 years, from 220 B.C.(around when the Second Punic War began) to 167 B.C. when Rome defeated Macedon's king Perseus, Rome became the master of the known world. Fulfilling a quasi Prophecy by Demetrius of Phalerum that the Macedonian Empire will someday be conquered just as quickly as it rose. That period ends earlier in the same year as Epiphanes' Abomination of Desolation.

Antiochus Epiphanes had also been a hostage in Rome, after Rome defeated his father. And according to the Secular histories about him, early in his reign he was a very Romanized leader.

He would frequently put off his royal robes, and, assuming a white toga, go round the market-place like a candidate, and, taking some by the hand and embracing others, would beg them to give him their vote, sometimes for the office of aedile and sometimes for that of tribune. Upon being elected, he would sit upon the ivory curule chair, as the Roman custom is, listening to the lawsuits tried there, and pronouncing judgement with great pains and display of interest. In consequence all respectable men were entirely puzzled about him, some looking upon him as a plain simple man and others as a madman. His conduct too was very similar as regards the presents he made. Polybius 5-7l

But his relationship with Rome proved more complicated over time. You could almost view him as an analogy for how America keeps supporting Middle Eastern leaders who become our enemies latter, like the Ayatollah in Iran, or Saddam Hussein, or Bin Laden.

Daniel 11's history of the Hellenistic Kingdoms also alludes to it's inevitable conquest by a fourth empire. First in verse 4 after describing the division of Alexander's empire among his successors it goes on to say the Kingdom "shall be plucked up, even for others beside those." That is the summery, more details follow.

Verse 18 alludes to Antiochus III's failed war with Rome. Verse 30 refers to when Antiochus IV Epiphanes was thwarted by Rome on Cyprus. After verse 32 alludes to the Hasmonean revolt, verse 33 says they will inevitably be conquered and taken captive by some other Empire. One could argue the Willful King in verses 36-45 is a Roman conqueror.

Update: As of June 2015 I no longer view the Willful King as The Antichrist but as Augustus Caesar.

Genealogy of The Antichrist: Antiochus to Charlemagne

St. Arnulf of Metz is a 33–generation descendant of Antio-
chos II
Theos
Numbers in each generation follow
Ahnentafel
coding.
Generation 1
1. St. Arnulf of Metz,
maiordomus
in the kingdom of Austrasia
(c.582–16.8.640). He married Dode (–?–), daughter of Arnold of Schelde,
after 611.
Generation 2
2. Bodogisel, ambassador to Byzantium in 589.
Generation 3
4. Mummolin,
maiordomus
in 566 in Neustria.
Generation 4
9. NN. married to Munderic.
Generation 5
19. Artemie, married in 513to Florentinus, bishop of Geneve.
Generation 6
38. Rustique, bishop of Lyon between 494 and 501
Generation 7
76. Rurice de Limoges, bishop of Limoges c. 485-507
Generation 8
152. NN.
Generation 9
304. Adelphius.
Generation 10
609. Anicia, married to Pontius.
Generation 11
1219. Turrenia Anicia Iuliana, married to Quintus Clodius
Hermogenianus Olybrius, consul in 379.
Generation 12
2438. Anicius Auchenius Bassus, prefect in 382 in Rome, mar-
ried to Turrenia Honorata.
Generation 13
4876. Amnius Manius Cæsonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus
Honorius, consul in 334.
Generation 14
9752. Amnius Anicius Iulianus, consul in 322.
Generation 15
19504. Sextus Anicius Faustus, consul in 298.
Generation 16
39009. Asinia Iuliana Nichomacha, married to Quintus Ani-
cius Faustus.
Generation 17
78018. Caius Asinius Nicomachus Iulianus, proconsul in Asia
circa 250.
Generation 18
156036. Caius Asinius Quadratus Protimus, proconsul in A-
khaia circa 220.
Generation 19
312072. Caius Asinius Quadratus, historian, c. 200.
Generation 20
624144. Caius Iulius Asinius Quadratus.
Generation 21
1248288. Caius Iulius Quadratus Bassus, consul in 105, mar-
ried to Asinia Marcella.
Generation 22
2496576. Caius Iulius Bassus, proconsul in Bithynia, 98.
Generation 23
4993152. Caius Iulius Severus, nobleman from Akmoneia in
Galatia.
Generation 24
9986304. Artemidoros, nobleman in Galatia.
Generation 25
19972608. Amyntas, tetrarcus of Trocmes.
Generation 26
39945217. NN., married to Brogitarix, king of Galatia c. 63–50
b.C.
Generation 27
79890435. Berenike, married to Deiotarix I, king of Galatia,
63–41 b.C.
Generation 28
159780871. NN. (daughter).
Generation 29
319561742. Attalos Philometor III, king of Pergamon, 138–133
b.C.
Generation 30
639123485. Stratonike of Kappadokia, married to Eumenes,
king of Pergamon, 197–159 b.C.
Generation 31
1278246970. Ariarathes IV Eusebes Philopator, king of Cap-
padokia, 220–163b.C.
Generation 32
2556493941. Stratonike, married to Ariarathes III.
Generation 33
5112987882. Antiochos II Theos I, king of Syria, 261–246 b.C.,
b. 290 b.C.

I copied the above line of descent from another source, but because other things in that source are bad info I don't want link to it. But this line of decent I have studied generation by generation and it's valid, though a few mistakes might have been made in exactly how it was expressed.  At a certain point it overlaps with my Genealogy of Commanege, Julia the wife of Gaius Julius Quadratus was the daughter of Gaius Julius Alexander and Iotapa daughter of Anitochus IV of Commagene.  From them came the Historian of 200 AD.

Arnulf of Metz's son Ansegisel married Saint Begga, the daughter of Pepin of Landen. They had Pepin of Herstal the father of Charles Martel, the father of Pepin the Short, the father of Charlemagne.

Ansegisel and Begga also had a daughter Clotilda of Heristal who was married to the Merovingian king Theoderic III of of Neustria and Austrasia. Bertrada of Prum was very likely their daughter, she was the mother of Caribert of Laon.  His daughter daughter Bertrada of Laon was the wife of Pepin the Short mentioned above and mother of Charlemagne.

Another note on the above line of descent. Munderic claimed to be a son of Chlodoric the Parricide, who's called that because he murdered his own father, Sigobert the Lame, in order to take his kingdom. Chlodoric acted upon the instigation of Clovis I a rival king of the Salian Franks. After Sigobert's death Clovis then accused Chlodoric of the murder and had him killed in his turn for the crime. In this way Clovis became king of Sigobert's and Chlodoric's lands. Sigobert the lame could be a descendant of Merovee by a line independent of Clovis I.

It is well known that pretty much all modern European Royalty can claim descent from Charlemagne.  And other prominent families too.  It's been claimed in Conspiracy theory circles that almost all Presidents of The United States are descendants of Charlemagne.  I'm not sure how verifiable that claim is.

Charlemagne also as can be shown above had Merovingian ancestry.  So that can tie into theories about how DaVinci Code type claims might be used.  But other means exist to try and give this same European Royalty Davidic Ancestry.
http://www.britam.org/Tribesman/GeneaologyDavid.html
The theories being drawn on here have been discredited by many skeptics.

But it's interesting, between that and the Armenian/Georgian royalty.  We have a lot of people with Seleucid descent and also claims to Davidic descent.

Genealogy of The Antichrist: Descent from Antiquity

This is a family tree I made myself of the royal family of Commagene and placed on my Flickr account

I need to update it. What I know now that I didn't know then was that Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus, listed there as a maternal grandson of Antiochus IV of Commegene and paternal grandson of Tigranes VI of Armenia, had married a woman named Cassia Lepida. Her mother is unknown but her father was Cassius Lepidus, the son of Junia Lepida and Gaius Cassius Longinus, who was Consul suffectus in 30 A.D. (The year I date the Crucifixion) and a direct descendant of the Gaius Cassius Longinus who was one of the assassins of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March 44 B.C. Junia Lepida was a descendant of Augustus's granddaughter Julia the Younger.

Berenicianus and Cassia Lepida had a daughter named Julia Cassia Alexandria who married Gaius Avidius Heliodorus. Their son was Gaius Avidius Cassius who was a brief Roman Usurper of the 2nd Century A.D. He had three children, Avidius Heliodorus, Avidius Maecianus, and Avidia Alexandra.

Tigranes VI of Armenia was of direct pater-lineal descent from Herod The Great and the Hasmoneans as shown in these family trees I made.
Herodian Dynasty
Hasmonean Dynasty

The next two family trees aren't my own, but taken from tyndalehouse, a very good site on the Ptolemaic Dynasty (Which intermarried with the Seleucids) though I disagree with them on some things.
Seleucid Family Tree
Continuation of Seleucid and Ptolemaic Lines

Now there is a new Seleucid-Genealogy website. They disagree with the Tyndale site on some things.  Their different take on the Acheaus line intrigues me.[Now we have to use the Wayback Machine for it.]

"The most complete proposal for a DFA is the Bagratid one. The route starts with Arsaces, the first of the Arsacids, flourishing ca. 250 BC. One of his descendants, king Tiridates III of Armenia, who reigned early in the 4th century, is known to have been ancestor of Nerses the Great. The latter's son Sahak I was the father-in-law of Hamazasp I, an Armenian ruler from the Mamikonian dynasty. Then the line can be traced, though not with certainty, to a much later Mamikonian, Samuel II of Armenia, whose son-in-law was Smbat VIII Bagratuni, Constable of Armenia and forefather of all the living Bagratids. The advantage of this route is that its crucial links (from Arsacids to Gregorids, from Gregorids to Mamikonids, and from Mamikonids to Bagratids) may be corroborated by near-contemporary sources, dating to within a century after the key marriages took place."

 The Above used to be on Wikipedia's Descent from Antiquity page. Wikipedia currently doesn't number any Smbat as VIII, but it's not uncommon for these numberings to be different in different sources.  The Son in Law of Samuel II of Armenia is currently numbered as Smbat VII.  Also the person called Sahak I above is more commonly known as Isaac of Armenia.

Ruben I who founded the Roupenian Dynasty of Armenian Cilicia in the Eleventh Century is generally agreed to have been a Bagratid relative and probably also descended from Smbat.  Later Gabriel of Melitene is believed to be connected either by his wife or mother to Ruben I.  Gabriel's daughter was Morphia of Melitene.

 Tiridates III of Armenia was of direct Pater-lineal descent from Khosrov I of Armenia. Khosrov I was one of the sons born to King Vologases II of Armenia (Vagharsh II) who is also known as Vologases V of Parthia by an unnamed mother. Vologases was of direct pater-lineal descent from Vonones II of Parthia (Who is numbered Vonones I on the Tyndale site's genealogy). He and his brother were the sons of Darius son of Artavasdes of Media by a daughter of Antiochus I Theos of Commanege (another correction I need to make to my genealogy is that daughter was named Athenais not Iotapa). The wife of Darius is an unnamed Arascid princess, who may herself already be descended from earlier intermarriages between the Arascid and Seleucid dynasties.

The Bagratid dynasties have also claimed Davidic Descent.

Maria Taronitissa was probably of Bagratid descent via the Roupenians, she married John Doukas Komnenos a Duke of Cyprus who had descent from Byzantine Emperors. Their daughter Maria Komnene married Amalric I Crusader King of Jerusalem.   All modern claimants to the Crusader King of Jerusalem title are descendants of that marriage.

Amalric's mother Mellisende of Jerusalem had ruled as Queen of Jerusalem.  Her parents were Baldwin II of Jerusalem and his wife Morphia of Melitene who also descended from Armenian nobility.  Another daughter of theirs was Alice of Antioch who married Bohemond II of Antioch and had a daughter, Constance of Antioch.  Constance had a number of children from whom the Princes of Antioch descend, and a daughter, Agnes of Antioch.  Agnes had 6 children, and from them descended all later kings of Hungry, and her daughter Constance of Hungry was the mother of Wenceslaus I of Bohemia.

Mary of Lusignan was the daughter of Hugh I of Cyprus and Alice of Champagne, daughter of Queen Isabella I of Jerusalem, daughter of Aalmric and Maria Komnene.  She is an ancestor of modern British Royalty.

Marie de Lusignan (1215-1251/3)

Hugh, Count of Brienne (1240-1296)

Walter V of Brienne (1278-1311)

Isabella of Brienne (1306-1360), claimant to the Kingdom of Jerusalem

Louis of Enghien (d. 1394)

Marguerite of Enghien (b. 1365) m. John of Luxembourg, Lord of Beauvoir

Peter of Luxembourg, Count of Saint Pol (1390-1433)

Jacquetta of Luxembourg, married Earl Rivers

Elizabeth, Queen of England m. Edward IV

Elizabeth of York m. Henry VII

Elizabeth of York was the mother of Henry VIII, and his Sister who was an ancestor of both parents of King James Stuart VI of Scotland and I of England.

Returning to the subject of the Western branch. Avidius Heliodorus and other descendants of Antiochus IV of Commanege where based in Syria. At least two Syrian based Usurpers during the Crisis of the Third Century are also probably descended form them, Joptainians and one named Seleucus. The entire Aristocracy of Roman Syria (and surrounding regions) from the Second Century onward was Seleucid.

Eutropia was a woman of Syrian origin living in the late Third and early Fourth centuries AD. By her first husband she had Flavia Maximiana Theodora, who married Constantius I Chlorus, and was the mother of all his children except Constantine I. However her much younger daughter by her second husband Fausta married Constantine I. By the mid Fourth Century the entire Constantinian dynasty was descended from Eutropia. I suspect it's through the Constantinians that the Merovingian dynasty (as well as other early Western European dynasties) can be traced back to the Seleucids, but I can't prove it yet.

Update October 2019: The Heraclied Dynasty who ruled the Byzantine Empire for most of the Seventh Century are also speculated to have had Arascid Armenian Descent.