^[1] Dan. x. 1.

^[2] Dan. x. 4.

^[3] Ezra i. 1, 5; ii. 2.

^[4] Ibid. iii. 1-6.

^[5] Ezra iii. 8, &c.

^[6] Ibid. iv. 1, 11, 24.

^[7] The vision was seen on the 24th day of the Jewish first month, or month Abib: which was part March , part April. Dan. x. 4.

^[8] Daniel was carried away from Jerusalem, on the first deportation of captive Jews, in the third year of Jehoiakim and first of Nebuchadnezzar. At this time he must have been nearly grown up; as we find him in Nebuchadnezzar’s second year expounding to him his dream of the great quadripartite image: after which there had now elapsed the seventy years and more of the captivity. Dan. 1. 1, 6; ii. 1.

^[9] Dan. ix. 3, &c.

^[10] Dan. ix. 25. Compare Hagg. i. 9.

^[11] Dan. x. 12; “From the first day that thou didst set thy heart to understand,” &c.

^[12] Both in the symbol of the quadripartite image, and that of the four wild beasts, Dan. ii., vii.

^[13] Dan. viii. 5, 6, 21.

^[14] Dan. ix. 25, 26.

^[15] Ibid. verse 27.

^[16] So the Margin. - This is allowed to be a perfectly admissible translation; as much so as that of the English Version, “on the desolate.” So Professor Lee in his Introduction to Eusebius’ Theophania, p. cxiv.

^[17] Ezek. xl., &c. Whether the temple figuratively, or in the sense of a literal building, is not here a question.

^[18] Dan. x. 12, 14; “From the first day that thou didst set thy heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.” - “I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days.”

^[19] “Then I lifted up my eyes, and looked; and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz. His body also was like the beryl; and his face as the appearance of lightning; and his eyes as lamps of fire; and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass; and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.” Dan. x. 5, &.

^[20] Compare on the high priest’s dress, Exod. xxxix. 5, 22.

^[21] See Apoc. i. 13-15, and x. 1, 6.

^[22] Dan. xii. 5-7. - I have drawn out this evidence because neither his appearance in splendour, nor his likeness to man, would of itself distinguish him from a created angel; created angels having sometimes so appeared to men: but only other more peculiar characteristics; whether as regarded the acts, words, or functions ascribed to him. See, for example, In Matt. xxviii. 3, 4, the description of the created angels that attended Christ’s resurrection. - Similarly in Apoc. xiv. 14 he that appeared on the white cloud, like to a son of man, could only be judged from the adjuncts of the vision of Christ. See pp. 8 supra. And so too in Apoc. i. 13.

^[23] Compare Dan. ix. 26: a prophecy of Messiah given Daniel about four or five years before; it being dated in the first year of Darius the Mede, or two years before the first of Cyrus.

^[24] Compare Apoc. x. 1, and my remarks on it Vol. ii. pp. 42, 43, 61, 87.

^[25] Gen. ii. 14. - Wintle places the scene near its confluence with the Euphrates.

^[26] Dan. viii. 16, ix. 21. - It is observable that in the former of these two passages, it was “a man’s voice from between the banks of the Ulai” that directed Gabriel to make Daniel understand the vision then given: just as here the Covenant-Angel stood on the waters of the Hiddekel; while the Angelic attendants were on its banks.

^[27] Dan. x. 13; “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me 21 days; &c.”

^[28] Dan. x. 20; “And now will I return to fight with the Prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the Prince of Grecia shall come.”

^[29] The Jew’s supposed angels to have their distinctive appointments over nations. See Dr. M`Caul’s Kimchi on Zachar. ii. 3. - So too Jerome on Isaiah xv.: “Angeli qui singulis præsunt gentibus.”

^[30] “I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days.” Dan. x. 14.

^[31] Dan. x. 1.

^[32] In this Chapter of my Book I have referred continually to Wintle on Daniel for the Hebrew, as well as to Bishop Newton and Prideaux for the history. They both give copious authorities. - In revising for my 4th Edition I have also compared my explanations throughout with Venema’s; who down to verse 31, takes the same general historic view of the prophecy as Newton, Wintle, and myself.

^[33] I purpose to subjoin the prophetic text in detached passages; and, beneath, the comment that illustrates them; making such critical remarks on each as may seem to me useful for readers unskilled like myself in Hebrew. I must trust to the courtesy of Hebrew scholars to excuse it, if of these Notes some appear to them to be needlessly particular, or relative to points clear in themselves.

^[34] Wintle; “When he is grown strong through his wealth.”

^[35] On the peculiar suitableness of this phrase to depict the preparations for Xerxes’ expedition into Greece, see my Vol. iii. p. 445, Note 2.

^[36] The sense of against, here given, attaches to the word in 1 Chron. xx. 5; “There was war with the Philistines.” [Editor: We must advert to Albert Barnes’ description of Xerxes’ riches and influence: He goes on to say in part; “He was enabled to do this by his great wealth — collecting and equipping, probably, the largest army that was ever assembled. The expedition of Xerxes against Greece is too well known to need to be detailed here, and no one can fail to see the applicability of this description to that invasion. Four years were spent in preparing for this expedition, and the forces that constituted the army were gathered out of all parts of the vast empire of Xerxes, embracing, as was then supposed, all the habitable world except Greece.”

^[37] öˆw;y; <h3120>. Javan; the usual word for Greece. So in Dan. x. 20, just before: also in Dan. viii. 21, observed on in my Vol. iii. p. 426.

^[38] rm"[; .The same Hebrew verb occurs in the verses 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, (twice,) 17, 20, 21, 25, 31; also xii. 1, 13. In verse 8 it is rendered continue, in verse 15 withstand; in the other cases stand up, as here, or simply stand. Gesenius says it is a word used particularly of a new prince; instancing Dan. viii. 23, as well as xi. 2, 3, 20. - Besides which cases it occurs in verses 11, 13, 14 in the Hiphil form; in verse 14 in the sense of to make to stand, establish, confirm; in verses 11, 13 in that of to stir up, to excite.

^[39] Or, when he shall have stood up.[Editor: Heb.: {5975} `rm"[;]]

^[40] [Editor: We are unable to read the Hebrew print used here; exclusively, or to exclusion of; very much as in Ezod. xii. 37, or Ezra ii. 65: - the word “those” meaning his posterity; the Hebrew rendered posterity, being used as a concrete [a specific].

^[41] Dan. viii. 8; “When he (the Grecian he-goat) was strong the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones,” &c. See my Vol. iii. p. 428. - I observe that Dr. Arnold heads the chapter 36 of his Roman History, a chapter relative to the kingdoms of Alexander’s successors, with this verse of Dan. viii. 8.

^[42] So verse 8; “He [viz. the King of the South] shall carry captive their gods into Egypt;” compared with the notice of the same event in the verse following, “The King of the South shall come into his own kingdom, and return to his own land.”

^[43] The Thrace-Macedonian kingdom of Lysimachus was early overthrown by the first Seleucus, B.C. 281, about twenty years after the battle of Ipsus: and again the Græco-Macedonian kingdom of Cassander was finally overthrown by the Romans, as the result of the battle of Pydna, B.C. 168: whereas Syria was not made a Roman province till B.C. 65; Egypt not till B.C. 30.

^[44] So Jerome, ap. Venema, p. 2.

^[45] The following comprehensive tabular view may be useful of the dates of the successive kings of the Ptolemaic and Seleucidean dynasties, through the century and a half comprehended (as I suppose) in this prophetic sketch. I premise that the date of Alexander the Great’s death in B.C. 323; of that of his half-brother Philip Aridæus, 316; of that of his son Alexander Ægus, by Roxana, 309; a short time after which (the date is generally given 306) the chief Macedonian governors and princes assumed the royal title; - Ptolemy, however, a little before the rest.

^[46] For it was not completed at once, but made at intervals: the Pentateuch first, under Philadelphia; the prophets, it has been thought by learned men, not till perhaps 100 years, or more, after. Hence we can only partially argue from it against the objection first made by Porphyry, and which has been revived of late years by sundry rationalistic writers; as if this prophecy of Daniel was written after the times of the Antiochi and Ptolemies to whose history we refer it.

Nor indeed is it needed. As regards Daniel’s earlier nine Chapters, there is, 1st, the internal evidence of the language used; in part Chaldee, as by one in Babylonia, and during Babylon’s supremacy; viz. from ch. ii. 4 to the end of ch. vii.; in part Hebrew, of a character most like to that of Daniel’s contemporaries, Ezekiel and Ezra: 2ndly, the evidence of prophecies, the fulfillment of which is demonstrable, reaching far beyond the times of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees; alike those in Dan. ii., vii., which prefigure the history of the Roman empire down to its resolution into ten kingdoms, and subsequent final supersession by the empire of Messiah; and that in Dan. ix. respecting Messiah’s manifestation in humiliation and death, after the 70 hebdomads, or 490 years, from some Persian king’s decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

Then, as regards chaps. x., xi., xii., now specially our subject, we have the evidence, 1st, of the Hebrew language used, still of the same character as before; not that of Greek, as in the post-Malachine Apocryphal books: - 2ndly, that of the all but impossibility of these three chapters being fraudulently inserted into Daniel’s canonical books in the Maccabean, or post-Maccabean times: - 3rdly, that of the absurdity of the idea of a Jew’s forging them, with a view to its appearing a prophecy of Maccabean times; and yet, by its mention of the 1335 days’ period (as well as the 1260 days’), and of Daniel’s standing at the end of them in his lot, and, together with the other just, shining as the sun and stars for ever and ever, furnishing its own refutation, if so applied. All this besides Christ’s own testimony to the genuineness of the whole book of Daniel, as then in the Jewish Old Testament Canon.

^[47]   Wintle translates: “The King of the South, that is, one of his (Alexander’s) princes, shall be strong;” observing that two manuscripts omit the conjunction and, before one of; and that, if retained, it must be taken as only explanatory. Then in the next clause he translates, “Yet shall another exceed him in strength:” instead of “he shall.” - On the other hand the Septuagint translates, “And one of his princes shall be strong above him;” omitting the second connecting and. And Newton thinks that there is manifestly either this redundance, by error of transcription, in the Hebrew text; or an omission of “the king of the north,” after this second and.

But no alteration of the received text seems to me necessary. It only needs that we understand “shall be strong,” from the clause preceding, after “one of his (Alexander’s princes.” And so indeed, I now observe, Venema, p. 3, explains it. It is to be remembered that Ptolemy became King of the South ere Seleucus assumed the royal title; and consequently while he was yet professedly only a governor, governor of Babylon. - We have in this clause an early example of Daniel’s use of pronouns, in reference not to the next immediately preceding noun, but the one before.

[Editor: Albert Barnes writing on this passage; “And one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him The meaning of this passage is, that there would be “one of his princes,” that is, of the princes of Alexander, who would be more mighty than the one who obtained Egypt, or the south, and that he would have a more extended dominion. The reference is, doubtless, to Seleucus Nicator, or the conqueror. In the division of the empire he obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, Susiana, Armenia, a part of Cappadocia, and Cilicia, and his kingdom stretched from the Hellespont to the Indus. See the notes at <270808> Daniel 8:8. Compare Arrian, “Exp. Alex.” vii. 22; Appian, p. 618; and Lengerke, “in loc.” The proper translation of this passage probably would be, “And the king of the south shall be mighty. But from among his princes (the princes of Alexander) also there shall be (one) who shall be mightier than he, and he shall reign,

^[48] Mark, the he and him, in the sense of, “the latter above the former.”

^[49] Sept. meta ta eth autou’ - i.e. after Selecus’ death. [Editor; Barnes writes on this passage; “And in the end of years In the future periods of the history of these two kingdoms. The event here referred to did not occur during the lives of these two kings, Seleucus Nicator and Ptolemy Soter, but in the reign of their successors, Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antiochus Theos or Theus. The phrase “the end of years” would well denote such a future period. The Vulgate renders it, “after the end of years;” that is, after many years have elapsed. The meaning is “after a certain course or lapse of years.” The word “end” in Daniel xqe <h7093> often seems to refer to a time when a predicted event would be fulfilled, whether near or remote; whether it would be really the “end” or “termination” of an empire or of the world, or whether it would be succeeded by other events. It would be the end of that matter — of the thing predicted; and in this sense the word seems to be employed here. Compare <270817> Daniel 8:17; 11:13 (margin), and <271213> Daniel 12:13. “They shall join themselves together.” Margin, “associate.” The meaning is, that there would be an alliance formed, or an attempt made, to unite the two kingdoms more closely by a marriage between different persons of the royal families. The word “they” refers to the two sovereigns of Egypt and Syria — the south and the north.”]

^[50] The Hebrew word (the Hithpael form of rb"j; to join) is used also 2 Chron. xx. 35, 37; “Jehoshaphat did join himself with Ahaziah:” i.e. in the partnership and alliance of a joint undertaking.

^[51] “Propriè intrasse in domum ejus et thalamum, tanquam sponsa ad sponsum. Verbum enim saepe introeundi potestatem exserit, oppositè ad foras seu exire; et de intimo sumitur ae familiarissimo commercio (e. g. Judg. xii. 9, Cant. i. 4) quale est inter conjuges.” Venema, p. 14.

^[52] Hebr. rv;yme. Literally, “To do or make rectitudes:” so Venema: Lee, to make things straight; Gesenius, to make peace. The latter compares verse 17, where the root rv;yme occurs; and where the Septuagint renders it (more correctly probably then our English translation) euqeia panta met´ autou poihsei: very much as Prof. Lee here. The Greek rendering here is, tou poihsai suvqheav met autou.

Let me suggest the passage 2 Kings x. 15, “Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart,” where the same Hebrew word bb;le occurs; in proof that it is used to express friendliness, as well as moral rectitude. So Aben Ezra explains the present passage, “to make peace between them;” as also the Rabbi Saadiah.

^[53] The same Hebrew word occurs in Dan. x. 8; “I retained no strength.”

^[54] ["wOrz] braciwn, is a word frequent in the Old Testament, both in the singular and plural, to signify, power, whether of an individual, or sometimes of a military head. So ["wOrz,] Job xxii. 8, “a man of arm, or strength;” and Gen. xlix. 24, “The arms (i.e. power) of his hands were made strong by the God of Jacob.” - In Isa. li. 9, and lxii. 8, the double phrase “strength of the arm” (iscuv bracionov, Sept.) is used conjointly, as here. - In subsequent verses of this chapter it is used with verbs thus; (I quote from the Septuagint to avoid the ambiguity of the word arm in English: - ) xi. 15; Kai oi bracionev tou basilewv tou notou ou sthiontai (so the Alexandrine Sept., the Vatican copy omits the ou; ) xi. 22, bpaciovev tou katakluzontov kataklusqhsontai. - Compare Ezek. xxx. 25; Kai eniscuow touv bracioniv basilewv Babulwnov, oi de braciniv Faraw pesountai. - Wintle makes this word the nominative; “The arm shall not retain strength.”

^[55] The Septuagint translates, Kai ou sthetai to sperma autou; reading, with the omission of (the Hebrew ‘and’) and a different punctuation from that of the text of our translators, ["roze, his seed, or children: which I conceive to be the better reading; since otherwise in the phrase “Neither shall he stand, nor his arm,” or power, the last clause is tautologous. So too Wintle. _Boothroyd translates, “Neither shall she stand, nor her seed.” But does the gender admit of this? Venema reads and translates as our English version.

[Editor: Barnes reads: -

But she shall not retain the power of the arm The word “retain” here is the same as in <271008> Daniel 10:8, “I retained no strength.” The word “arm” is a word of frequent use in the Old Testament, both in the singular and plural, to denote “strength, power,” whether of an individual or an army. So <182208> Job 22:8, “A man of arm,” that is, “strength;” <014924>Genesis 49:24, “The arms (power) of his hands were made strong by the God of Jacob.” Compare <235109> Isaiah 51:9; 62:8. It is frequently used in this chapter in the sense of “strength,” or “power.” See <271115> Daniel 11:15, 22, 31. This alliance was formed with the hope that the succession might be in her. She was, however, as stated above, with her children, put to death. While queen of Syria, she, of course, had power, and had the prospect of succeeding to the supreme authority. Neither shall he stand The king of the south; to wit, Egypt. That is, he would not prosper in his ambitious purpose of bringing Syria, by this marriage alliance, under his control. Nor his arm What he regarded as his strength, and in which he placed reliance, as one does on his arm in accomplishing any design. The word “arm” here is used in the sense of “help,” or “alliance;” that is, that on which he depended for the stability of his empire.]

^[56] Bishop Newton and Wintle translate, “he whom she brought forth;” therein as Wintle says, “following the marginal reading and the versions:” and so Venema (p. 20)q. v. “Her son.” - The Sept. omits the Mappik; translating h neaniv, the  young woman. Aben Ezra follows a still somewhat different reading; which signifies her mother.

[Editor - Barnes writes: “And they that brought her That is, those who conducted her to Daphne; or these who came with her into Syria, and who were her attendants and friends. Of course they would be surrendered or delivered up when she was put to death.”]

^[57] Venema, 22, translates this, “munimentum ejus, firmiter eam tenens, in temporibus:” explaining it of a strong fortress at Daphne where Berenice took refuge, and which she was by treachery induced to surrender

[Editor: Barnes writes: And he that begat her Margin, “or, whom she brought forth.” The margin expresses the sense more correctly. The Latin Vulgate is, “adolescentes ejus.” The Greek, hJ <3588> neaniv <3494> . So the Syriac. The Hebrew Hd;l]wOhæw] will admit of this construction. The article in the word has the force of a relative, and is connected with the suffix, giving it a relative signification. See Ewald, as quoted by Lengerke, “in loc.” According to the present pointing, indeed, the literal meaning would be, “and he who begat her;” but this pointing is not authoritative. Dathe, Bertholdt, Dereser, DeWette, and Rosenmuller suppose that the reading should be hD;l]yæ <h3207> . Then the sense would be, “her child,” or “her offspring.” Lengerke and Ewald, however, suppose that this idea is implied in the present reading of the text, and that no change is necessary. The obvious meaning is, that she and her child, or her offspring, would be thus surrendered. The matter of fact was, that her little son was slain with her. See Prideaux’s “Connexions,” iii. 120.]

^[58] Wintle, “at the times.”

^[59] Aben Ezra explains this to mean astrologers; an explanation curious and worth observing; if the phrase may bear that sense, in the absence of a word denoting knowledge. In Esther 1. 13 and 1 Chron. xii. 32, they who understand times, hn;yBi [d"y; `t[e, is a periphrases for astrologers: compare Deut. xviii. 10, 14, “one that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter:”) “times” meaning in some places men’s destinies. So Psalm xxxi. 15, “My times are in thy hand: “also 1 Chron. xxix. 30, Job xxiv. 1. - Else he that strengthened her must be taken (one for many) to mean the party that supported Berenice against Laodice, at the time of her being in Syria, including especially her husband. So Wintle.

[Editor: Barnes comments: “And he that stregnthened her in these times It is not known who is here referred to. Doubtless, on such an occasion, she would have some one who would be a confidential counselor or adviser, and, whoever that was, he would be likely to be cut off with her.”

^[60] Historically applied this seems a remarkable and distinctive phrase. Compare Isa. xi. 1; “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.” Her roots means her parentage or ancestry: so a person is indicated who should be of a common stock with her; i.e. a brother, if taken most strictly. Thus Saadiah makes the person meant to be the brother of the king’s daughter before spoken of. - Venema renders the clause; “Stabit ex surculo radicum ejus strips ejus obumbrans:” the Vulgate: “Stabit de germine radicum ejus plantatio:” the Cod. Chris. mentioned by Wintle Futon ek thv pezhv autou as if reading rx, ne vr, v,, with a slight change in the Hebrew.

[Barnes comments on Dan. 11:7. But out of a branch of her roots Compare the notes at <231101> Isaiah 11:1. The meaning is, that as a branch or shoot springs up from a tree that is decayed and fallen, so there would spring up some one of her family who would come to avenge her. That is, a person is indicated who would be of a common stock with her; or, in other words, if taken strictly, a brother. The phrase “branch of her roots” is somewhat peculiar. The words “her roots” must refer to her family; that from which she sprang. We speak thus of the root or “stem” of a family or house; and the meaning here is, not that one of her “descendants,” or one that should “spring from her,” would thus come, but a branch of the same family; a branch springing from the same root or stem. The fact in the case — a fact to which there is undoubted reference here — is, that her revenge was undertaken by Ptolemy Euergetes, her brother. As soon as he heard of the calamities that had come upon her, he hastened with a great force out of Egypt to defend and rescue her. But it was in vain. She and her son were cut off before he could arrive for her help, but, in connection with an army which had come from Asia Minor for the same purpose, he undertook to avenge her death. He made himself master not only of Syria and Cilicia, but passed over the Euphrates, and brought all under subjection to him as far as the river Tigris. Having done this, he marched back to Egypt, taking with him vast treasures. See Prideaux, “Con.” iii. 120, 121.]

^[61] ˆKe <h 3651>without the preposition, for `rm"[; öKe in his place, or stead. So Gesenius. With ˆKee a place, is used Gen. xl. 13, “In three days Pharaoh shall restore thee to thy place;” and again Gen. xli. 13, “to my office.” - Wintle renders it “on its base.”

[Barnes writes: “In his estate Margin, “place,” or “office.” The word ˆKe <h3651> means, properly, stand, station, place; then base, pedestal. Compare <271120> Daniel 11:20, 21, 38. See also <014013> Genesis 40:13: “Within three days shall Pharaoh restore thee to thy p1ace.” And again, <014113> Genesis 41:13, “to my office.” Here it means, in his place or stead. That is, he would take the place which his father would naturally occupy — the place of protector, or defender, or avenger. Ptolemy Philadelphus, her father, in fact died before she was put 772 to death; and his death was the cause of the calamities that came upon her, for as long as he lived his power would be dreaded. But when he was dead, Ptolemy Euergetes stood up in his place as her defender and avenger.”]

^[62]  lyij" usually to. So the Sept. hxei prov thn dunamin. The sense of with is however adopted by Wintle. - If this be not warranted, then the meaning may be, “shall come to the power,” i.e. to the power of the kingdom; for lyij" means power, as well as a host or army. - And so, I now see, Venema takes it: “Veniet ad potentiam;” or “imperium.” pp. 33-36.

^[63] lyij": a word which occurs also in verse 10, “stirred up to his fortress;” and is the same that by its use in verse 38 in the plural has given rise to Mede’s famous criticism on the Mahuzzim. - Venema, p. 37, thinks that it may be here taken collectively of all the defenses of the Northern kingdom, including the tutelar [or guardian] gods.”

^[64] µyhila èysin] The Septuagint has it, meta twn cwneutwn autwn with their molten images: meaning very different from our English rendering, princes, but which attaches also to the Hebres word. ès,n, to pour out: and it thus applies alike to images melted in fusion, (as the cognate words in Isa. xli. 29,) and to princes poured upon with the anointing oil, as in Josh. xiii. 21, Psalm lxxxiii. 12, &c.

Probaly the Septuagint rendering , molten images, is the correct: as it so well carries on the idea of their gods in the clause preceding; and was also so striking a point in the historical fulfillment. And so, I see, Gensenius ad verb. explains it, as well as Wintle. Venema thinks either rendering good, and suitable to the history. pp. 47, 48.

^[65] hD;m]j, yliK] ‰s,K, bh;z;, vessels of their desire: -a phrase used also of the sacred Jewish vessels carried off to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10. Compare my remarks on somewhat similar phrases in verses 15, 37, infrà

^[66] This verse seems recapitulatory. - It is to be observed that there is no his prefixed to kingdom in the Hebrew. So that the natural translation would be; “And he (viz. the King of the North) shall enter into the kingdom of the King of the South, and return to his own land;” i.e. without effecting anything. Compare Isa. xxxvii. 34. And so, I see, Venema translates and expounds it, pp. 51-55; with an extract from Justin in illustration: - “Lætus malis suis . . . Seleucus, veluti par viribus, bellum Ptolemæo infert: sed quasi ad ludibrium tautùm fortunæ natus esset, nec propter aliud regni opes recepisset quàm ut amitterest victus praelio . . trepidus Antiochiam confugit.”

^[67] That is the sons of the King of the North, the last mentioned, according to the explanation above given of the verse preceding. The King of the North, spoken of in the next verse as the southern King’s antagonist, was apparently one of these two sons. So Aben Ezra and Saadiah.

We should observe that wherever, as here, there is the pronouminal suffix, there is no distinction in Hebrew between the plural and the dual. So that we cannot argue for a duality of sons as here expressly defined.

^[68] The Hebrew is hr;G; , the same verb that occurs again, and in the same Hithpahel form, near the end of this verse, and also in verse 25; and quite a different one from that in verse 2. Its root is dr"G; : is a verb not used in Kal; but which in Piel signifies to stir up contention, as Prov. xv. 18, “A wrathful man, stirreth up strife:” hr;G; and in its Hithpahel form (as here) is used, 1st, says, Gesenius, in the sense to be excited, as to anger, 2nd, to contend, to engage in war. So Deut. ii. 5, 19, “Meddle [hr;G;]not with them in war;” also Jer. l. 24.

^[69] The change from plural to singular is as marked in the Hebrew as the English. - The clause is literally, “And he shall come, coming.”

^[70] The Hebrew verb hr;G; is the same that is used in verses 18 and 19 subsequently with ‰s"y; in the sense of to turn one’s face towards a place. It often means, when joined with another verb, to do a thing again. So Venema, p. 58, “Phrasis iterationem continent.” So here it may perhaps mean, that after his first acting out of his anger, and overflowing, he should be again excited to urge the war.

^[71] Gesenius supplies “and march” even to his fortress; i.e. the fortress of the Southern King.

^[72] “Usque ad munitissimum locum.” So Venema, p. 68; explaining the effect of the paragogic at the end of the word mahoc, as giving it the force of which the battle of Raphia was fought near it.

^[73] Or, make to stand. So verse 13. See p. 60 - note 311.

^[74] The he and his in the two successive clauses refer evidently to different persons.

^[75] ac;n; ; a word used not unfrequently of taking away with violence. So 1 Sam. xvii. 34, Job xxvii. 21, xxxii. 22, &c. But in these examples the verb is in Kal; in the text in Piel: to which latter form of the verb however Gesenius also gives the sense, to take away; adducing Amos iv. 2, as an example of it. - Or the verb may be here taken as in the Niphal, passively.

^[76] Wintle, “Wherefore though.”

^[77] Margin, Hebr. at the end of times, even years.

^[78] Venema, p. 85, renders the clause come to, instead of come with: “Veniendo veniet ad robur magnum et possessionem multam.” Such, he says, is the usual use of the verb in this Chapter.

^[79] Marg. the children of robbers; used as sons of Belial, &c., for men of that character. - The word , öBe Åyrip rendered robbers], is often used of violent and lawless men. So Psalm xvii. 4, “The ways of the violent;” Ezek. xviii. 10, If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood;” Jer. vii. 11, “Is this house become a den of robbers in your eyes?” Again in Isa. xxxv. 9, of ravenous beasts. Lee expounds it here as violent lawless men, of (or belonging to ) thy people. The Sept. translates it oi uioi twn loimwn, tou laou sou. Compare 2 Chron. xii. 7 suvhcqnsan prov auton andrev loimoi uioi paranomoi also Mac. x. 61. - Venema, on the other hand, explains it in a sense less opprobrious of high-spirited revolters against the yoke of slavery: “impetuosi ad libertatem grassatores, sese superbiâ et temerariâ spe efferentes, jugumque excutientos.” p. 102.

^[80] Lit. “To make to stand a vision;” the definite article not being in the original Hebrew. So the Sept. tou sthsai drasin. - So, for example, in case of a vision being pretended by false prophets among the revolters, in order to stir up the more violent to take up arms in favour of Antiochus, as an appointed deliverer, and to attack the castle of Jerusalem, then garrisoned by a strong Egyptian force; like as by Ahab’s false prophets, when urging the expedition against Ramoth Gilead. Compare too Isa. xxviii. 7, Jer. v. 31, xiv. 14, &c.

Such occurred to me as a not unlikely solution before consulting Venema. I find that he, not very dissimilarly, supposes a vision urged in order to this purpose: only not such a pretended vision as I have suggested; but the vision of Jewish restoration and final prosperity that is the burden of so much of the Old Testament prophecy. p. 103. He compares Isa. xxvi. 17, 18, speaking of Israel’s previous disappointed hopes on this head; “We have been with child, we have brought forth wind, &c.”

^[81] Or fail: literally, totter, stumble.

^[82] Or, city of munitions.

^[83] bracionev

^[84] Literally, the people of his choices. Marg.

^[85] Or, “stand,” as before.

^[86] “Against,” `hc;[; a word meaning more generally to; but also used in the sense of against, as Gen. iv. 8, “Cain rose against Abel;” Ezek. xiii. 8, 9, “Behold I am upon or against you:” &c. - Venema however prefers the usual meaning; and renders the clause, that whoever comes to him (the king of the North) will conform to his will. p. 114.

^[87] ybix] År,a, ; i.e. literally, “in a land of the beauty, ornament, honour.” In Dan. viii. 9 the same word ybix] is used, perhaps of Judea,and with the definite article, “waxed great toward the pleasant land;” the word land, however, not being there expressed. So again Dan. xi. 41, 45, “the land of glory, the glorious  holy mount;” Jer. iii. 19, “goodly heritage, or heritage of beauty;” and in Ezek. xx. 6, 15, “the glory of all lands;” also 2 Sam. i. 19. - In Isa. xiii. 19, “the glory of kingdoms” is an appellative used of Babylon.

N. B. In Psalm cvi. 24, “They despised the pleasant land, hD;m]j,” Jer. iii. 19, “Give thee a pleasant land,” hD;m]j, and Zech. viii. 14, “They laid the pleasant land hM;j"desolate,” the Hebrew phrase is different; being the glorious ybix]

^[88] “It shall be consumed, or perfected, in or by, his hand. Here, 1st, as the verb is in the masculine form, we might naturally deem that it masculine also: in which case, we should suppose, it would not answer to the ybix] År,a, “the land,” which is feminine; but either to the word beauty, or the He, viz. the King of the North. But where the subject is in a state of construction with another noun, I am told that the predicate may agree in gender and number with the latter, not the former. So e.g. Gen. iv. 10, 1 Sam. ii. 4, Lev. xiii. 9. In the last of which cases the literal reading is thus: “When the plague (masc. noun) of leprosy is (fem, verb) in a man.” It is to be observed too that the Hebrew language is, as Gesenius says, sparing in the use of the feminine forms. Thus Isa. xxxiii. 9, literally; “The land (fem.) mourneth (masc.) and languisheth (fem.).” - 2. The Septuagint, agreeably with the Margin, gives the sense telesqhsetai, “shall be perfected,” or completed. And so Wintle and Bishop Newton. The verb is used Exod. xxxix. 32, 1 Kings vi. 38, of the completion of the tabernacle and temple. And here too it may refer to the temple, as the beauty of holiness; though without the [in the glorious ybix]<6643> holy vd,qo<6944> mountain rh"<2022>] “land of desire.

^[89] Or, “to enter with strength his whole kingdom.” i.e. the whole kingdom of the King of the South. So Venema and Wintle prefer to construe the clause; meaning Egypt proper, the center and strength of Ptolemy’s kingdom. The verb awOB,, enter, is used thus transitively Ps. c. 4, Gen. xxiii. 10, 18: also 1 Sam. xii. 8, Amos v. 19.

Perhaps the passage may be thus rendered and understood. “And he (the King of the North) shall set his face to enter with strength all his kingdom; . . . and shall give him . . . in order to destroy it:” the it thus referring to the kingdom of the South.

^[90] The Greek renders these two clauses, Kai euqeia panta met auntu poihsei and so the Vulgate, “Et recta faciet cum co;” reading `hc;[;. [Editor: In our Authorized Version, after checking all of Elliott’s comments where he thinks that different Hebrew words are used, I cannot agree. In every instance, that is, verse 7; and practice, viii. 24, the Hebrew `hc;[;, {6213} is used.] Elliott goes on to say: that Wintle and Bishop Newton approve that only one MS shows some differences. The whole clause will thus be literally rendered; “And he shall make rectitudes, or things straight, with him;” that is, as in verse 6, alliances, or an agreement; or, as Eben Ezra, peace µl"v;;, is as often to make, as to do. It is rendered deal, in verse 7; practice, viii. 24

[Editor: Barnes writes: “The Jews might hope at least that if Egypt were subjected to the Syrian scepter, their own country, lying between the two, would be at peace, and that they would no more be harassed by its being made the seat of wars — the battlefield of two great contending powers. It was not without reason, therefore, that Antiochus anticipated that in his invasion of Egypt he would be accompanied and assisted by not a few of the Hebrew people. As this is the natural and obvious meaning of the passage, and accords entirely with the sense of the Hebrew word, it is unnecessary to attempt to prove that the marginal reading is not correct. “Thus shall he do.” That is, in the manner which is immediately specified. He shall adopt the policy there stated — by giving his daughter in marriage with an Egyptian prince — to accomplish the ends which he has in view. The reference here is to another stroke of policy, made necessary by his new wars with the Romans, and by the diversion of his forces, in consequence, in a new direction. The “natural” step after the defeat of the Egyptian armies in Palestine, would have been to carry his conquests at once into Egypt, and this he appears to.783 have contemplated. But, in the meantime, he became engaged in wars in another quarter — with the Romans; and, as Ptolemy in such circumstances would be likely to unite with the Romans against Antiochus, in order to bind the Egyptians to himself, and to neutralize them in these wars, this alliance was proposed and formed by which he connected his own family with the royal family in Egypt by marriage. And he shall give him Give to Ptolemy. Antiochus would seek to form a matrimonial alliance that would, for the time at least, secure the neutrality or the friendship of the Egyptians.”]

^[91] Some one so call kat exochn, for rank or beauty. So Houbigant. History explains it of the northern king’s own daughter.

^[92] Lit. “to corrupt or destroy her, or it:” the verb tj"v; being used (like the Greek fqeirw ) both of corrupting, as Gen. vi. 12, “All flesh corrupted its way:” and of destroying, (a yet more common meaning,) as Dan. viii. 24, “He shall destroy the mighty ones,” Isa. xiv. 20, 2 Sam. i. 14 &c. - Perhaps the rendering here should be “to destroy it;” the feminine noun kingdom, mentioned before, being understood; not her. For the historical sense well agrees thereto; but very ill to the rendering of “to corrupt her.” Besides which, is there any example to justify the sense being attached to this word of getting her treacherously to act for him (viz. her father) in her new marriage alliance; so as Wintle, Newton, &c., would have it?

So, I now see, Venema takes the clause; “ad corrumpendum regnum.” -p. 129

[Barnes writes: “Corrupting her Margin, as in Hebrew, “to corrupt.” There has been some doubt, however, in regard to the word “her,” in this place, whether it refers.784 to Cleopatra or to the kingdom of Egypt. Rosenmuller, Prideaux, J.D. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Dereser, and others, refer it to Cleopatra, and suppose that it means that Antiochus had instilled into her mind evil principles, in order that she might betray her husband, and that thus, by the aid of her arts, he might obtain possession of Egypt. On the other hand, Lengerke, Maurer, DeWette, Havernick, Elliott (“Apocalypse,” iv. 13), and others, suppose that the reference is to Egypt, and that the meaning is, that Antiochus was disposed to enter into this alliance with a view of influencing the Egyptian government not to unite with the Romans and oppose him; that is, that it was on his part an artful device to turn away the Egyptian government from its true interest, and to accomplish his own purposes. The latter agrees best with the connection, though the Hebrew will admit of either construction. As a matter of fact, “both” these objects seem to have been aimed at — for it was equally true that in this way he sought to turn away the Egyptian government and kingdom from its true interests, and that in making use of his daughter to carry out this project, it was expected that she would employ artifice to influence her future husband. This arrangement was the more necessary, as, in consequence of the fame which the Romans had acquired in overcoming Hannibal, the Egyptians had applied to them for protection and aid in their wars with Antiochus, and offered them, as a consideration, the guardianship of young Ptolemy. This offer the Romans accepted with joy, and sent M. AEmilius Lepidus to Alexandria as guardian of the young king of Egypt. — Polybius, xv. 20; Appian, “Syriac.” i. 1; Livy, xxxi. 14; xxx. 19; Justin, xxx. 2, 3. xxxi. 1. The whole was, on the part of Antiochus, a stroke of policy; and it could not be accomplished without that which has been found necessary in political devices — the employment of bribery or corruption. It accords well with the character of Antiochus to suppose that he would not hesitate to instill into the mind of his daughter all his own views of policy.”]

^[93] “On his side,” or “for him,” is supplied from the clause following. It is not expressed in the original.

[However Barnes writes:

But she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him That is, she would become attached to her husband, and would favor his interests rather than the crafty designs of her father. On this passage, Jerome remarks:

“Antiochus, desirous not only of possessing Syria, Cilicia, and Lycia, and the other provinces which belonged to Ptolemy, but of extending also his own scepter over Egypt itself, betrothed his own daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy, and promised to give as a dowry Coelo-Syria and Judea. But he could not obtain possession of.785 Egypt in this way, because Ptolemy Epiphanes, perceiving his design, acted with caution, and because Cleopatra favored the purposes of her husband rather than those of her father.”

So Jahn (“Hebrews Commonwealth,” p. 246) says:

“He indulged the hope that when his daughter became queen of Egypt, she would bring the kingdom under his influence; but she proved more faithful to her husband than to her father.”]

^[94] After this he turn µWc bWv his face µynip; unto the isles yai. Lit. to islands, or maritime coasts. The word is the same as that used for the isles of Chittim, and the isles of Elishah, or Greece, in Ezek. xxvii. 6, 7, as ‘Bashan.’

i.e. many islands: both substantive and adjective being masculine.

[Editor: Barnes writes: “After this shall he turn his face unto the isles The islands of the Mediterranean, particularly those in the neighborhood of and constituting a part of Greece. This he did in his wars with the Romans, for the Roman power then comprehended that part of the world, and it was the design of Antiochus, as already remarked, to extend the limits of his empire as far as it was at the time of Seleucus Nicator. This occurred after the defeat of Scopas, for, having given his daughter in marriage to Ptolemy, he supposed that he had guarded himself from any interference in his wars with the Romans from the Egyptians, and sent two of his sons with an army by land to Sardis, and he himself with a great fleet sailed at the same time into the AEgean Sea, and took many of the islands in that sea. The war which was waged between Antiochus and the Romans lasted for three years, and ended in the defeat of Antiochus, and in the subjugation of the Syrian kingdom to the Roman power, though, when it became a Roman province, it continued to be governed by its own kings. In this war, Hannibal, general of the Carthaginians, was desirous that Antiochus should unite with him in carrying his arms into Italy, with the hope that together they would be able to overcome the Romans; but Antiochus preferred to confine his operations to Asia Minor and the maritime parts of Greece; and the consequence of this, and of the luxury and indolence into which he sank, was his ultimate overthrow. Compare Jahn’s “Hebrews Commonwealth,” pp. 246-249.”]

^[95] i.e. many islands: both substantive and adjective being masculine.

[Editor: Barnes writes: “After this shall he turn his face unto the isles The islands of the Mediterranean, particularly those in the neighborhood of and constituting a part of Greece. This he did in his wars with the Romans, for the Roman power then comprehended that part of the world, and it was the design of Antiochus, as already remarked, to extend the limits of his empire as far as it was at the time of Seleucus Nicator. This occurred after the defeat of Scopas, for, having given his daughter in marriage to Ptolemy, he supposed that he had guarded himself from any interference in his wars with the Romans from the Egyptians, and sent two of his sons with an army by land to Sardis, and he himself with a great fleet sailed at the same time into the AEgean Sea, and took many of the islands in that sea. The war which was waged between Antiochus and the Romans lasted for three years, and ended in the defeat of Antiochus, and in the subjugation of the Syrian kingdom to the Roman power, though, when it became a Roman province, it continued to be governed by its own kings. In this war, Hannibal, general of the Carthaginians, was desirous that Antiochus should unite with him in carrying his arms into Italy, with the hope that together they would be able to overcome the Romans; but Antiochus preferred to confine his operations to Asia Minor and the maritime parts of Greece; and the consequence of this, and of the luxury and indolence into which he sank, was his ultimate overthrow. Compare Jahn’s “Hebrews Commonwealth,” pp. 246-249.”]

^[96] öyxiq; a word used both of civil magistrates and military commanders: of the first, Micah iii. 9, “Princes or judges, that pervert equity:” of the second, Josh x. 24, “the captains of the men of war.” So too Judges xi. 6, &c.

^[97] hP;r]j, “as to him:” i.e. as regards this general himself

^[98] Rather, “Besides, he shall make.” &c. So Wintle. - He shall not only avert reproach from himself, but turn it on his assailant. So too Venema, p. 144; who compares Hos. xii. 14.

^[99] Lit. fortresses.

^[100] Literally on his base; i.e. on the base, or in the place, of the former kings. So in verse 7. See p. 34 note 327.

^[101] Literally, one who makes an exactor to pass over the glory of his kingdom. The Hebrew word for exactor, cg"n;;, so reading the word with the Lexicographers, instead of  cg"n; [Editor: In all these instances the KJV uses the same Greek word - [cg"n;;, exactor ,] and its cognates, are used of money exactions. So Deut. xv. 2, 3; “Every creditor, that lendeth aught unto his neighbor, shall . . . not exact it of his neighbor, or of his brother: . . . of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again:” and 2 Kings xxiii. 35; Jehoiakim taxed the land “to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land.” In Zech. ix. 8, “And no oppressor shall pass through them any more,” the same word is used. - “The glory” may means simply the Northern king’s (once) glorious kingdom: or perhaps as Wintle explains it, the Jewish temple. See my Note p. 39, note 353, on verse 16.

Venema explains the clause otherwise thus. “There shall stand up an exactor against his offshoot: and shall make the glory of the kingdom, or glory of reigning, to pass over him.” And so, he says, Heliodorus murdered Seleucus, and usurped the crown. But on the point of translation the almost uniform judgment of expositors is against him. And historically we may object the omission in this case of all notice of Seleucus from the prophecy.

^[102] Within a year. Wintle.

^[103] ‰a". a contracted verbal, (root  to breathe,) which 1st signifies the breathing organ, i.e. the nose, or nostrils; and 2ndly, because the breaking of the nostrils often expresses anger, means anger also. In this sense the word is often used: e. g. Gen. xxvii. 45, of the anger of Esau against Jacob, which made him seek to kill him; Judges xiv. 19, of that of Samson against the Philistines, which issued in a murderous attack upon them; and 1 Sam. xx. 30, &c., of that of Saul against Jonathan, under the influences of which he cast a javelin at him to slay him. So that this phrase in the text may very well mean, that the king should neither be slain in any private angry brawl or quarrel, nor in public war. Hence Wintle’s recourse to the Coptic version for the different reading of qv,n , signifying arms, or weapons of war, seems quite unnecessary.e

Compare Venema; p. 168, who explains the word of the ebullition or exuberance of anger in a popular tumult, very much as I have suggested.

^[104] öKe So verses 7, 20, before. And, as before, Venema prefers to render it, against his offshoot. His historical explanation, which refers to the same Heliodorus, a man of contemptible rank, standing up against Seleucus’ son, and usurping the kingdom, but being rejected by the people, is independent and seems admissible, if we construe the next clause, “And one shall come in,” of Antiochus Epiphanes.

^[105] hz;B; one despised: the same word that is used in Isaiah’s memorable prophecy of Christ, liii. 3, “He is despised,” &c.; and the Niphil particip. of hz;B; - to esteem lightly , to despise. So 2 Sam. vi. 16, 2 Kings xix. 21, &c.

^[106] i. e. “on whom they (the people) shall not confer the honor,” &c.

^[107] hw;l]v",, in quietness. The word is used Prov. xvii. 1, “Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith;” as also Psalm cxxii. 7; and again Dan. viii. 25, “In peace (Gesen. in the midst of peace) he shall destroy many.” So too verse 24 infrà

^[108] hQ;l"q]l"j}, Lubricitates, blanditiæ; Trommius. Thus the word has a double sense; being applied both to the slipperiness of a path, and the slipperiness or flattering and deceit of the tongue. In the former sense it occurs Psalm xxxv. 6, “Let their way be dark and slippery:” in the latter its originating verb, ql"j;, Prov. ii. 16, vii. 5, “A man that flattereth, or dissembleth, with her words:” and Prov. xix. 5, “A man that flattereth or dissembleth to his neighbor.” In this latter sense the verbal seems to be used both here and in the verses 32, 34, below. - “Arts of dissimulation.” Gesenius.

^[109] The with is not in the Hebrew. Therefore rather, “The arms of the overflowing shall,” &c. So the Greek; kai bracionev tou katakluzontov kataklusqhsontai apo proswpou autou. The article is before flood in the Hebrew. Grotius, Newton, and Wintle, explain this of Heliodorus’ power, the usuper of the Syrian kingdom, which was broken before a general of Antiochus Epiphanes, and such Egyptian forces, as gathered to support Heliodorus: Venema, of Egypt’s power, as having previously under Euergetes overflowed into Syria. He suggests the Nile-flood on the symbol; and observes that the arms of the Nile was quite a common figurative expression. The overflowing of Syria’s power into Egypt here spoken of, he considers to be a general and in a manner anticipatory statement: because it was not till Epiphanes’ final expedition against Egypt that this could be said to be fulfilled. - The word ["wOrz] covenant, by itself, is of as general application and sense in Hebrew as in English; and therefore Michaelis’ rendering, rex fædevatus, quite sufficient to satisfy it: a rendering which Wintle approves. - The word dygin; translated prince, is also one of general meaning, and applied alike to chiefs royal, military, civil, and ecclesiastical; e.g. 1 Sam. ix. 16, x. 1, of Saul, the ruling prince over Israel; 1 Chron. xiii. 1, 2 Chron. xxxii. 21, of military leaders; 2 Chron. xxviii. 7, of a ruler over the palace; 1 Cnron. ix. 11, and 2 Chron. xxxi. 13, of the priest that was ruler over the house or temple of God. - Dan. ix. 25, 26, it is used alike of the Prince Messiah, and of the Roman Prince that was to come and desolate Jerusalem. [Editor: Many of our Christian friends misrepresent the 70 weeks prophecy by using the word ‘Prince’  -- referring him to some future general, whereas we bible-students realize that it refers to our Savior, Jesus Christ, the Messiah.]

Such being the whole requirement of the two Hebrew words, Wintle explains them historically of the then king of Egypt; on the rex fæderatus, confederated by league with Antiochus Epiphanes, soon after the latter’s establishment in the kingdom. In which application however of the clause, I think it would be better t refer rather to the previous treaty with the Egyptian king made by Epiphanes’ father Antiochus the Great: as history records no new treaty made with him by Epiphanes himself. This is the view that I adopt in my text.

On the other hand Bishop Newton and others explain the words, chief of the covenant of the Jewish High Priest Onias, against whom Antiochus Epiphanes practiced: and Venema (p. 208) of the supreme heavenly head of the Jewish covenant, viz. the Messiah; against whom Antiochus acted effectively in these his attacks on the Jewish religion, even as Sennacherib against God, when attacking Judah and Hezekiah. If holy had been added, as in verse 30, this view of the covenant meant would have been clear. But it is a word sometimes omitted; e.g. Ps. lxxiv. 20

^[110] ‰f"v;, Or, as Prof. Lee, shall be swept along, or, away.

^[111] from , out of the (league rb"j); and sometimes after or by reason of. Compare the Hebrew word in the important verse 31, and my Note on it p. 78 infrà

[Editor: Barnes writes; And after the league made with him A treaty of peace and concord. The great subject of contention between the kings of Syria and Egypt was the possession of Coelo-Syria and Palestine. This they often endeavored to settle by conquest as each of them claimed that in the original partition of the empire of Alexander this portion of the empire fell to himself; and often they endeavored to settle it by treaty. Consequently this region was constantly passing from one to the other, and was also the seat of frequent wars. The “league” here referred to seems to have been that respecting this country — file successive promises which had been made to the king of Egypt that Coelo-Syria and Palestine should be made over to him. These provinces had been secured to Ptolemy Lagus by the treaty made 301 B.C., and they had been again pledged by Antiochus the Great, in dowry, when his daughter Cleopatra should be made queen of Egypt. — Jahn, “Hebrews Commonwealth,” p. 260. Antiochus Epiphanes, however, was by no means disposed to confirm this grant, and hence, the wars in which he was involved with the Egyptians.]

^[112] Lit. “And after the (i.e. their or his) being associated with him he shall practice deceit: “Sept. kai apo twn sunamixewn prov auton poihsei dolon. It is the Hithpael Syriac infinitive form (to join oneself), used as a noun, derived from the Hebrew - to be joined or confederated; a word so used Gen. xiv. 3.

^[113] The Hebrew and is found here.

^[114] Or, go up.

^[115] hw;l]v", as in verse 21; where see Note 373, pg. 40. Wintle would prefer to construe this word with the last clause of the verse preceding; “shall become strong by quiet measures:” an idea with which (the in the Hebr.) of the next word well agrees.

^[116] Pinguetudines provinciæ; - The word hn;ydim] is thus used figuratively in Isaac’s blessings on Jacob and Esau, Gen. xxvii. 28, 39; “God give thee of the fulness of the earth.” - hn;ydim], like the English province, is a word used of some smaller division of a country or kingdom. So in Ezra and Daniel (e.g. Dan. ii. 48, iii. 2, 3) of the provinces of the Persian empire very frequently. In one case Ezra. v. 8 Judea  is thus specified, “the province of Judea.” And, as there is no specification of any particular province of either the Syrian or the Egyptian kingdom, and Judea was in a Jewish mind the  province par excellence, I conceive that this is the one here intended; and not, as Wintle, the Delta of Egypt. This view best suits history, on Wentle’s own report of it: “When Antiochus went to examine the southern parts of his dominion (2 Macc. iv. 21) he sent Apollonius with his retinue into Egypt; but it does not appear that he made an excursion thither himself.”

And so, I now see, Venema explains it: observing, p. 229, that Epiphanes reduced Judea to the subject state very much of  a province.

^[117] Among whom? Newton supposes among his own Syrian people; citing Polybius and 1 Mac. iii. 30 in proof of his munificence in gifts and public shows, on which the spoil and riches he acquired were spent: Wintle, that it refers to the large donations and bribes, from out of the plunder, with which he courted the Egyptians, which is also noticed in the 1st Maccabees, i. 16. - But may not the rz#B; rather mean belonging to them, viz, to his father’s fathers: that is, as stored up by them? So 1 Sam xiv. 16, “the watchman of Saul, shl ; signifies of or belonging to Saul. This is a common sense of l

And so precisely, I now find, Venema explains it, p. 234: “Possessio corum, sc patrum et majorum, sensu facillimo, qui tamen fugit interpretes; qui pronomen lwa[l ipsis vertunt, &c.”

^[118] Or, devise his devices. The 25th verse should have begun, I conceive, with this clause.

^[119] The Septuagint, for rx;b]mi, strong holds, seems to have read µyir"x]mi, Egypt: its translation being ep’ Aigupton logismouv logismonv. - Venema thinks that the arces here referred to were the sacras arces of certain temple-treasures which Antiochus Epiphanes attacked, specially those of Jerusalem and of Diana in the Elymais; the latter resulting in his death. Thus Venema makes this verse run on in a general sketch to the end of Epiphanes’ career; and then return to a description of his expeditions into Egypt, more in detail.

^[120] {6256} `t[e"e ewv kairou. Sept. Compare this with the “at the time appointed” of verses 27 and 29: also with the notices of time in verses 13, 14, The word t[, time, will be observed on in a subsequent note on verse 40.

^[121] Or, stir himself up for the war.

^[122] iyb,, for, because

^[123] As in verse 24. They shall devise devices, or plots. So Wintle.

^[124] gB"t]p", costly food and delicacies from the royal table. Gesen. So Dan. i. 5, 8, 13, 15.

^[125] Wintle observes: “Instead of {7665} rb"v; shall bruise or break him, one manuscript reads shall sell or betray him:” which last reading he adopts. And certainly, if the word bear this sense, (which seems however doubtful, for, according to the Lexicographers ryjim];; means hire, bribe, not sell,) it well suits the context.

^[126] “Shall be overflowed.” So Vul. and Syr. passively, says Wintle; 26 MSS. dripping the y in År"qy.

^[127] [r"me[r", Sept. eiv pongrian, Wintle, to act maliciously.

^[128] That is, the policy shall not succeed, jl"x; a word so used in Isa. liii. 10, “The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper, in his hand;” and Isa. liv. 17, “No weapon formed against thee shall prosper.”

^[129] Sept. oti ete perav eiv kairov. So Wintle; as also the authorized English translation.

^[130] Or, and.

^[131] tyriB] vd,qo, literally, covenant of holiness. The phrase is also used in verses 30, 32; and in all of the holy Jewish religion.

^[132] Or prosper; or perhaps, do the thing his heart was bent on; i.e. the oppression of the holy covenant, or Jewish religion.

^[133] See on verses 24, 27, p. 41, note 386, and p. 41 note 398, suprà.

^[134] b, perhaps rather into. So Wintle. “He shall advance again into the south.”

^[135] Or, as (at) the first time, or as (at) the latter time. - Wintle observes that the Hebrew may be rendered, “But the latter shall not be like the former:” and Grotius and Venema so translate it: not without reason. Compare Josh. xiv. 11 and 1 Sam. xxx. 24. Antiochus Epiphanes made indeed a primary demonstration against Egypt, and occupied the Province of Palestine, which more properly belonged to Egypt, before his grand campaign and success against it foretold in verses 25, 26. But it was not an expedition into Egypt; though many have so represented it, and hence reckoned three as the number of Antiochus Epiphanes’ anti-Egyptian expeditions. See Venema, pp. 273-276. - Some Hebrew noun signifying an expedition may be understood.

^[136] yxi Kittiy; ships from or of Chittim. One manuscript, Wintle says, reads Kittiy dy yxi as in the famous parallel passage, Numb. xxiv. 24; of which, says Prof. Lee (Euseb. Theoph. p. cviii.) this is manifestly an echo. (See Bochart, Phaleg. iii. 5.)

In Gen. x. 4, Isa. xxiii. 1, and Ezek. xxvii. 6, the word yn"a} is spelt with one y, as here; in Jer. ii. 10 with two. - Gesenius says, “What particular part of the West it may mean is doubtful.” The writer of the 1st Book of Maccabees, i. 1, understands it of Greece; Vitringa, (on Isa. xxiii. 1,) distinctively of Italy. For “of the four sons of Javan he thinks Elisha means the Peloponnesians. Tharsis the Spaniards, Dedanim, or Rhodanum, the Gauls as distinct from the Celts, and Cethiim the people of Italy.” Wintle. So too Venema, p. 278. - Jerome says ad loc., “Siim quippe, et Chittim, quos nos trieres et Romanos interpretati sumus, Hebræi Italos violunt intelligi atque Romanos.” And so Aben, Ezra and Saadias Gaon.

^[137] “Shall be grievously humbled.” So Wintle. Sept. tapeinwqhsetai. Venenia, p. 295, compares the tiqhpewmenov tg Yucg, said in 2 Macc. v. 11 of Antiochus Epiphanes on occasion of his attack on Jerusalem.

^[138] Or, “shall again have:” a not unfrequent sense of this verb, where conjoined with another; as observed already Note 336 p. 35.

^[139] µ["z;, “shall have indignation:” whence the verbal noun of the same radicals, used in verse 36 in the same sense of indignation, which will be there observed on.

^[140] It might be, “And he shall prosper, and he shall return.”

^[141] The existence of such forsakers of the holy covenant is an important characteristic of the time intended. On which point, as well as others, the history is well illustrated by 1 Macc. i. 52, &c., and Josephus. See Wintle, Newton, Venema, or the Universal History.