THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND THE KINGS OF THE SOUTH.
Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. The versions show signs of great disturbance having happened here. The rendering of the LXX. is, "In the first year of Cyrus the king, he told me to be strong and to play the man." Theodotion's rendering is yet briefer, "And I, in the first year of Cyrus, stood in strength and might." The Peshitta rendering, "In the first year of Darius the Mede (he) arose to confirm and strengthen me." The Vulgate is close to the Massoretic and the English versions, "I likewise, from the first year of Darius the Mede, was standing that he might be confirmed and strengthened." The Revised Version does not differ seriously from the Authorized, "And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him." The Septuagint must have read אמר (amar), "he said," instead of אני (anee), "I." When we have the Septuagint and Theodotion supporting each other against the Massoretic text, the evidence against the received text is strong. In this case both these versions have, as will be seen, not "Darius," but "Cyrus." The two names would have in the old Egyptian Hebrew script, a striking resemblance to each other; the fact that the last letter of both names is the same, and also the second letter, made the likeness considerable in any script; but (see Egyptian Hebrew character) the first letter of "Darius" is certainly very like (see Egyptian Hebrew character) the first letter of" Cyrus." The vav would possibly be omitted, then the first two letters of either name would resemble closely the first two letters of the other, and the final letters are the same. Mistake, then, was easy. The first letter of מדי and מלד is the same, and the words would be liable to be read in accordance with that given to the proper name. Further, all the versions but the Vulgate make the speaker the recipient of the aid. Theodotion may be taken as doubtful The difference is slight, עמדי becomes עכד, and לו becomes לִי. The Septuagint seems to have read עַמַּי instead of עמד. The first two letters are thus the same, the daleth may have been an intrusion. Bevan and Behrmann would omit the date as spurious, and hold it to have been introduced because the previous four chapters begin each with a date. This reason, to have weight, must assume the division into chapters to be of ancient date, more ancient than the Septuagint Version. The fact that all the versions have it compels us to admit a date here, but, as we have said above, it is to be reckoned by the year, not of Darius, but of Cyrus. (Also I) in the first year of Cyrus the king. The first year of Cyrus was the year when he decided to set the Jews free, and permit them to return to their own land; but the first year in this case was reckoned from his assumption of the throne of Babylon. We saw reason to doubt whether the reference in the beginning of Daniel 10:1-21. was to the Babylonian reign of Cyrus, or to his reign as King of the Persians. His first year as King of the Persians might be when he first began to turn his arms against Babylon. We do not know enough of the history of the first years of Cyrus's monarchy to know what critical events befell in that rear. Stood to confirm and strengthen him (me). According to the Massoretic text, the angel Gabriel stood to confirm either the archangel Michael or King Darius. Certainly, as Darius (Cyrus) is the nearer substantive, the grammatical preference would be to take it, as do Havernick, Hitzig, and Calvin. The majority of commentators who hold by the Massoretic text take "him" to refer to Michael—and much can be said for this. Although Darius (Cyrus) is the nearest substantive, yet he is not the subject of the main sentence, but merely denotes a time, therefore a previous substantive must be chosen. In the opening of Cyrus's career, the intimate connection his prosperity had with the prosperity of the people of Israel might well make Michael interested. As Cyrus had been prophesied of, he was under the rule of the angel of prophecy, hence Gabriel strengthened and confirmed the efforts of Michael. Certainly "strengthening" and "confirming" are strong terms to apply to the archangel Michael, yet we know so little of angelic natures and their limitations that the phrase may be quite natural. The meaning is not materially altered if we read, "He stood to strengthen and confirm me."
And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. The rendering of the LXX. is, "And now I came to show thee the truth. Behold, three kings have risen, and the fourth shall be rich with great riches above all, and when he shall strengthen himself in his riches, he shall stir himself up against every king of the Greeks." Theodotion is very like this, only the last words of the verse are, "all the realms of the Greeks." The Peshitta is very like Theodotion, having "kingdoms" instead of "realm." The Vulgate is in nearly exact agreement with the Massoretic text. When we turn to the Massoretic text and compare it with the versions, we find that the LXX. must have read, וּבְחֶזְקָתוֹ, as it has ἐν . Theodotion reads, μετὰ; the Peshitta, ma; the Vulgate, cum. This is the beginning of the revelation referred to in Da 10:21a. The doubtful authenticity of that clause throws a shadow on this verse. It is to be noted that we are no longer in the region of symbol, but of distinct narration. There may have been something in the nature of a vision, and that here we have, enlarged, an interpretation of it. The fourth king is certainly Xerxes. If we regard him as one of the three successors to Cyrus, then Cambyses and Darius Hystaspis are the other two. So Hitzig and Delitzsch. Keil would more naturally make the fourth not the fourth King of Persia, but the fourth successor of Cyrus. (For the Hebrew usage, see Exodus 22:30.) Professor Bevan, assuming in his superior way the ignorance of the writer before us, here determines that he drew "most of his information" from the Bible, and, as there are only four names of Persian kings given in Ezra and Nehemiah, that he, this careful student of Scripture, came to the conclusion that there were only four kings. In the first place, if this portion was written, as it not impossibly was, in the Maceabean period, the writer must have got his information of the invasion of Greece by Xerxes from classical sources; he could not fail to know of Cambyses and the pseudo-Smerdis. Further, scarcely even the most casual reader of Ezra could fail to distinguish between the Artaxerxes who before Darius Hystaspis hindered the work of the Jews, and the Artaxerxes after Darius who fostered it. We have followed Herodotus in calling the brother of Cambysos, whose name the usurper assumed, "Smerdis;" but Ctesias calls him "Tanyoxarces;" Xenophon, "Tanaoxares;" and AEschylus, "Marries." We know that Artaxerxes was probably not a personal name, but rather a title, as was also Aehsverosh Xerxes. Some, as Behramnn, assume the fourth monarch here to be Darius Codomannus, but there seems no reason for this assump tion, save that critics are superior persons; and the writer, albeit many of them admit him to be inspired, would be more likely to be wrong in his facts than that their theories should be defective. As the writer here gives no names, it is certainly singular to assert that, though, if we take his Hebrew as grammatical, he gives a correct enumera tion of the Persian kings, he has defied Hebrew usage, and been wrong in his enumeration. He shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. All the versions except the Vulgate imply a plural here- מַלְכֻיוֹת instead of מַלְכוּת. This reading is preferable to the Massoretic, which would arise easily from the next verse. If we may take this as the true reading, then the diversities of the states in Greece is indicated in the way most natural to an Oriental.
And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with groat dominion, and do according to his will. None of the versions imply any difference of reading. The Hebrew implies that the king was a mighty warrior. All critics are agreed that here the reference is to Alexander the Great. This does not mean that Alexander immediately followed Xerxes, but that his expedition was the revenge for that of Xerxes. Alexander, in his answer to Darius Codomannus, justified his invasion of Persia by referring back to Xerxes' invasion of Greece. The two expeditions, that which Xerxes made into Greece, and that of Alexander into Persia, might be regarded as causally connected.
And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those. The LXX. rendering is, "And when he is risen up, his kingdom shall be broken, and divided to the four winds of heaven; not according to his might, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: because his kingdom shall be taken away, and he shall teach these things to others." It is difficult to see what reading the LXX. translator had when he rendered, "his might," for no word meaning "might" is at all like aḥareetho, "his posterity." In the last clause he must have read, not milbad, but melamayd. Theodotion resembles the Massoretic more closely; he renders, "But when his kingdom stood (shall stand), it shall be broken, and shall be scattered to the four winds of heaven; and to his latter end ( ἔσχατα), nor according to his rule which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be rooted out, and (let) for others besides these." The Peshitta agrees generally with this, only that when in the English we have, "not to his posterity," it has, "not to his sword (siphoh)" The last clause is somewhat paraphrastic, "And his kingdom shall be rooted, and shall not be to others save these." The Vulgate agrees with the Massoretic. The description here given of the empire of Alexander the Great is strictly accurate; his empire did not go to his posterity, nor did any of his successors possess a dominion as extensive as his. For others beside those. This has been thought to refer to the successors of those who first divided the empire among them. It seems more natural to regard "those" as referring to the posterity of Alexander, as the nearest antecedent.
And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes: and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion. The LXX. rendering differs from this," And he shall strengthen the kingdom of Egypt; and one of the rulers shall overcome him ( κατισχύσει) and rule; and his power shall be a great power." Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic in sense. The Peshitta agrees verbally with the Massoretic, but, as it omits the preposition rain, the meaning the translator attached to the verse is difficult to ascertain. The Vulgate agrees with the Massoretic. The verse abruptly introduces the conflict between the Lagid and Seleucid princes. There is no indication in the preceding verses that the four winds of heaven are to be taken so rigidly as is implied by this verse. It is no answer to say that Egypt and Syria alone came into intimate relations with the Jews; it is not a question of fact, but a question of the necessities of composition. The appearance presented is that of a fragment existing separately, and inserted here. The intruded references to the truth which is to be shown have the took of being awkward attempts to prepare for the subjoined narrative. Whatever its origin, it is very difficult to explain to what it refers. The king of the south is certainly one of the Ptolemies, most probably Ptolemy Lagi. And one of his princes shall be strong above him. This is usually understood to mean Seleucus Nicator, who, when driven from Babylon, his original satrapy, by Anti-genus, took refuge with Ptolemy Lagi, and became a commander under him in his war against Antigonus. Ptolemy also gave him the few troops with which, after the battle of Gaza, he recovered possession of Babylonia. He certainly became by far the most powerful of the successors of Alexander. Indeed, he may be said to have had all the dominions of Alexander save Egypt and Syria on the south, and Macedonia and Greece on the west; for he had overthrown Lysimachus, and absorbed his dominion. His dominion shall be a great dominion states accurately the extent of the dominions of Scleucus. Rosenmiiller would refer the prenominal suffix , ו "his," to Alexander, and understand Ptolemy as the prince in question; but this is improbable. It is impossible not to observe the abrupt introduction of this prince. Gratz would suggest that a clause has dropped out here, which declared that one of his (Alexander's) princes stood up in the north. Had this any manuscript authority, it would be plausible. More, however, would seem to be wanting.
And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times. The LXX. differs in a remarkable way from this, "And at the end of years he shall lead them, and the King of Egypt shall enter into the kingdom of the north to make covenants: but he shall not prevail, because his arm shall not establish strength ( οὐ στή σει ἰσχύν); and his arm shall become stiff, and that of those accompanying him, and he shall remain for a season ( εἰς ὥρας)." It is certainly difficult to see the reading from which this rendering came. It is noticeable that there is no reference to "the king's daughter of the south." History confirms the statement in the Massoretic text, but there is no expedition related in the history of Philadelphus undertaken against the kingdom of Syria. It is trite our records of the reign of Philadelphus are somewhat scanty. Theodotion is nearer the Massoretic text, though not quite in accordance with it, "And after his Jays they shall mingle with one another ( συμμιγήσονται); and the daughter of the king of the south shall enter unto the king of the north to make treaties with him: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; and his seed shall not stand: and she shall be betrayed, and those that brought her, both the damsel and he that did violence to her." The last words are separated from this verse and conjoined to the following verse. The text behind this seems, in many ways, superior to the Massoretic. The Peshitta agrees in the opening clauses with the Massoretic; at the end of the verse the difference is considerable, "But power shall not be in her, from the fear which she feared: and she shall be betrayed, and her youths, and those accompanying her, and those supporting her in this time." The Vulgate agrees pretty closely with this. The reference here is generally understood to be to the affinity made by the Lagids with the Seleucids, when Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphns, married Antiochus II. (Theos), who repudiated his first wife, Laodike, in order to do so. The leap over a space of approximately sixty years is not so trying as Professor Fuller imagines; but the uncertainty as to the text is great, and the meaning of even the Massoretic is by no means fixed. Still, the agreement with the course of events is so marked according to the common interpretation, that one feels inclined to adopt it. After the death of her father Philadelphus, Antiochus Theos took back Laodike, who, in order to escape the risk of being again dismissed, unceremoniously poisoned her rival Berenice and her son, and then her husband Antiochus. Yet this transaction seems somewhat dubiously set forth in the Massoretic text. Theodotion is closer to facts, though it is possible that the text has been altered to suit what were known to be facts.
But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail. The version of the LXX. is very different here also, "And a plant shall arise out of his root against himself, and the king of the north shall come against his power in his might, and shall cause disturbance, and[ prevail." The Hebrew text would bear the translation here given of the last clause, save "cause disturbance." The nominative may be the "king of the north." History confirms the ordinary interpretation. Theodotion, as usual, is in closer agreement with the Massoretic. Yet even he differs considerably: he connects the last words of the preceding verse, "In those times, one shall arise out of the flower of her root of his preparation, and shall enter into the strongholds of the king of the north, and shall do in them (according to his will), and prevail." The Peshitta is somewhat like this, "And there spring from the stem of her seed against his place, and he shall come in might, and he shall come in strength against the king of the north, and he shall pass over against them, and prevail." The Vulgate rendering seems to have a relation to that just given, "And a plant shall stand from the seed of his roots, and he shall come with an army, and shall enter into the province of the king of the north, and shall abuse them, and take possession." There must have been very different manuscript readings to explain these widely different renderings. The Massoretic text scarcely quite bears out the rendering of the Authorized Version. Yet it is difficult to make any other consistent sense. Certainly Euergetes, brother of the murdered Berenice, advanced into Syria, and overran the whole country, captured Seleucia, the port of Antioch, then mastered Antioch itself, and advanced even beyond the Tigris, while Seleucus retired behind the Taurus Mountains. The statements in the LXX. suit better a later period in history, when Physcon rebelled against his brother Philometor. Epiphanes invaded Egypt, nominally in the interest of Philometor, and laid siege to Alexandria. This, however, does not suit with the next verse.
And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north. The version of the LXX. is again very different from that of the Massoretic text, "And their gods, with them that moulded them, he shall subdue ( καταστρέψει), and their multitudes with the vessels of their desirable things, the silver and the gold, shall go into captivity in Egypt, and the year shall be to the king of the north." Theodotion. as so frequently is the case, takes a place intermediate between the Massoretic and the version of the LXX. His rendering is, "And their gods, with those that moulded them, all their desirable vessels of gold and silver, he shall carry with the captivity into Egypt, and he shall prevail over the king of the north." Both the Greek versions take נְסִכֵהֶם (nesikhayhem) as derived from nasak, "to pour out," hence "to mould," "to form a molten image," reading the word noskeem. The Syriac differs from both the Greek renderings and also from the Massoretic, "And even he shall terrify them, and their desirable vessels of silver and gold and the captives he shall carry down to Egypt, and twice (literally, 'one, two') shall rise against the king of the north." The Vulgate differs in meaning from all the preceding, but the text it is drawn from does not differ consonantly from that of the Massoretes, "And besides their gods. and their graven images, precious vessels too of silver and gold, he shall lead captive into Egypt, he shall prevail against the king of the north." The word nesikhayeem is rendered, in the Revised Version, 'molten images'—a meaning given to the word by Furst, Gesenius, and Winer, with reference to this verse. The meaning assigned to the word in the Authorized is drawn from Rashi, and is in accordance with the usage of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 32:30). And shall also carry caprices into Egypt their gods, with their princes. As we have said, Ptolemy Euergetes conquered all Syria and Mesopotamia to beyond the Tigris. From this we learn he carried off immense booty, and among the articles taken were images of their gods. And not only the gods of Syria, but the images of the Egyptian gods, which had been carried into Syria from Egypt by Cambyses, nearly three centuries before. If this doubtful word, nasakeem, is taken to mean "images," it is difficult to see the reference of the prenominal suffix. Does it mean that the gods themselves, and the images of these gods, were taken? That is to say, does it mean that gods of the Syrians were taken, and also their images, as if the images and the gods were different? From this, notwithstanding the general consensus of interpreters, we feel ourselves necessitated to differ, and to make the word mean "princes," although there is no prominence, in the few accounts we have of this expedition, to any captives of such rank as to be called princes. And with their precious vessels of silver and of gold. This rendering, although retained in the Revised, is scarcely grammatically accurate, as the noun for "vessels" is already defined by the prenominal suffix. On the other hand, this word cannot readily be in apposition, as the article would be needed. Professor Bevan would make it "in silver and gold." We feel inclined to regard this as a somewhat irregular construction, as if a ray had dropped out before כֶסִף, "silver," though most of the versions regard these nouns as in the genitive after "vessels." And he shall continue more years than the king of the north It is a matter of fact that Euergetes survived Seleueus Callinicus, his sister's stepson, about four years. Hitzig and Ewald would render," He shall refrain for some years from attacking the king of the north." This rendering has the advantage that it escapes from the purely unimportant personal statement that Ptolemy should survive Callinicus. That the king of the north was allotted to regain the greater part of the dominions which had been wrested from him, without any counter effort on the part of Ptolemy, is more important. Keil objects to this that the emphatic position of וְהוּא is against this, and would support the rendering of the Vulgate, Ipse prevalebit adversus regem Aquilouis. Both versions are so far grammatically defensible; yet both are a little strained: both are in accordance with history.
So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land. The Septuagint Version differs less than usual from the Massoretic, "The King of Egypt shall enter into (his) kingdom certain days and return to his land." Theodotion renders, "And he shall enter into the kingdom of the king of the south, and return into his land." The Peshitta differs more, "The king of the south shall enter in strength, and turn to his own land." The Vulgate does not differ from the others. This verse, assuming the king of the south, Ptolemy Euergetes, to be the subject of the verb, merely completes the statements of the previous verse, and seems to describe the triumphant return of Euergetes into Egypt. If we take—which, however, is not so natural—the king of the north as the subject, then the reference may be to the unsuccessful attempts made by Seleucus Callinicus to invade Egypt.
But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress. The version of the Septuagint differs from this, "And his son shall both be stirred up, and shall assemble ( συνάξει συναγωγὴν) a great multitude, and, ravaging with it ( κατασύρων), he shall enter, and pass by and return." The K'thib here supports this to the extent at least that it has "his son," not "his sons;" but the verbs are plural. The last clause of this verse in the Massoretic text is transferred by the Septuagint to the next; Theodotion, while, as usual, more closely in agreement with the Massoretic text, is not quite identical with it, "And his sons shall assemble a multitude moderately numerous ( ἀνὰ μέσον πολλῶν), and he that cometh and overfloweth shall come and shall pass by, and shall enter, and shall struggle hard ( συμπροσπλακήσεται), even to his fortress ( ἱσχύος)." The Peshitta and the Vulgate are in close agreement with the Massoretic text. But his sons shall be stirred up. The natural inference is that it is the sons of the king of the south who thus are stirred up, but, historically, it can only refer to the sons of Seleucus Callinicus, who, one after the other, succeeded him on the throne: Seleucus Ceraunus, who died after a short reign of rather more than two years; and Antiochus III; Magnus. Certainly Seleucus did little in this conflict, although he undertook a campaign to Asia Minor, in the course of which he was assassinated. It may be that this campaign was intended as a preparation for a great campaign against Egypt. On the death of Ceraunus, he was succeeded by Aatiochtus Magnus. This prince was very warlike. He began to assail Syria, which was in the possession of Philopotor, but was interrupted by news of war in the far East. After a successful campaign in Media and Persia, he wrested first Seleucia from the hands of Ptolemy Philopator; and then proceeded on his invasion of Coele-Syria and Palestine. And one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through. This describes in a compendious way the campaigns of Antiochus Magnus. And be stirred up, even to his .fortress. This is supposed to refer to the recovery of Seleucia. Some think that this rather states that he pierced nearly to Pelusium, the frontier fortress of Egypt.
And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth, and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. The LXX. differs a little from the Massoretic, "And the King of Egypt shall be much embittered and enraged, and shall come forth and fight with the king of the north; and he shall set forth ( στήσει) a great multitude, and the multitude shall be betrayed into his hands." Theodotion, like this, differs from the Massoretic by inserting, "the king of the north," without the pronoun, as do all the other versions. Ptolemy. usually slothful and lethargic, was at length roused, and placed an army of seventy-five thousand men in the field. Against this Antiochus opposed the slightly superior army of seventy-eight thousand The two armies engaged at Raphia, and Antiochus sustained a severe defeat, losing no less than ten thousand men. The multitude commanded by Antiochus was given into the hands of Ptolemy Pifilopator. This seems the only interpretation which is consistent with facts.
And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands; but he shall not be strengthened by it. The rendering of the LXX. is, "And he shall take the levy ( συναγωγήν), and his heart shall be lifted up, and he shall trouble many, and shall not be afraid." There seems to have been some difference of reading in the last clause, but it is not clear what. Theodotion renders the first clause as does the Septuagint; but the latter clause is more in accordance with the English version of the Massoretic text. The Peshitta from the same text differs in its interpretation, "And he shall destroy them mightily, and his heart shall be lifted up, and he shall cast down many, and shall not be strengthened." The Vulgate presents no occasion of remark. And he shall cast down many ten thousands. This, most probably, refers to the complete victory at Raphia, where Antiochus was reported to have lost ten thousand men. There is thus a repetition here of what has already been narrated. But he shall not be strengthened by it. It is very noticeable that Ptolemy did not even attempt to strengthen his position by vigorously following up his victory.
For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches. The LXX. does not differ essentially from this, only πόλεως comes in unnecessarily by a blunder—the less to be understood, as there seems no word which can have occasioned the misreading, unless it is simply a blunder of hearing for πολλήν; but against this is the fact that Paulus Tellensis has medeenatha. There is also the limitation of the period after which the king of the north will return to "one year" ( καιροῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ), "a period of a year." Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic . The Peshitta is closer than either of the Greek versions, as neither of them attempts to give, "coming he shall come," which it does. The Vulgate is like Theodotion. The reference here is to the second expedition against Egypt, undertaken by Antiochus after the death of Philopator. After his victory at Raphia, Ptolemy resumed his life of self-indulgence. Antiochus endeavoured to build up his empire by curbing the Parthians; then, after an interval of fourteen years, he once more invaded the territories of the Egyptian monarch. This second invasion resulted in Antiochus gaining possession of all Palestine.
And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. The versions here differ from this, which represents the Massoretic with fair accuracy. The LXX. renders, "And in those times thoughts ( διάνοιαι) shall rise against the King of Egypt, and he shall build again that which has fallen down of thy people "—reading וּבָנָה (oobanah), "and he shall build," instead of וּבְנֵי (oobenee), "and sons of;" he has read also peratzee, "breaches," instead of peritzee, "robbers,"—"and he shall raise himself up"—reading singular instead of plural—"to fulfil the prophecy, and they shall stumble." This confusion indicates that the reading of the LXX. is mistaken. Theodotion is as much removed from the Massoretic as is the above, "And in those times many shall rise against the king of the south, and the sons of the plagues ( λοιμῶν) of thy people shall be exalted to establish the vision, and they shall become weak." If there were any trace of uncertainty in the reading at this point, we might be tempted to read λῃστῶν instead of λοιμῶν, written ληιχτων for λοι΄ων. The reading of Nestle ( λοιπῶν) is no improvement. The Peshitta renders, "And many shall rise against the king of the north, and the sons of the perversity of thy people shall be raised up to fulfil the vision, and shall be cast down." The change from "king of the south" to "the king of the north" must be noted, probably simply the result of blunder. The Vulgate renders פרצי prevarieatorum, And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south. Ptolemy Epiphanes was not only exposed to the assault of the confederates Antiochus and Philip of Macedon; but there were intrigues and conspiracies in the palace. Also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves; literally, the sons of the oppressors. Commentators of all varieties have assumed that these are Jews. Hitzig maintains that they were the Jews that sided with Antiochus's rule ('Historical Exposition of Daniel'); that they were the separatists, those who had gone down to Egypt (Calvin; Behrmann, 'Die Stiirmische Jugend'); Keil, "violent men who break through Divine law." So Kranichfeld and Wordsworth. Stuart, "the violent of thy people;" Ewald, "young high-handed men." Fuller thinks the word prizzeem is used as "rulers." Griitz would render, "to establish the vision, to make the law to totter "—an attempt to get, by addition to the text, an explanation. The Hebrew text does not bear out this meaning. Gratz here implies הזיון (hazion), "vision," to be equivalent to תורה (torah), "law;" but this is never the case. But the oppressors of the people do not necessarily belong to it. To establish the vision (comp. Acts 4:28). It may be that here there is a portion of the original vision of Daniel, which has been overlaid with what we have before us. It is a summary of the whole history of the Jews under the Greek domination. But they shall fall. A general statement true of all the oppressors of Israel.
So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand. The version of the LXX. is, "And the king of the north shall attack and turn his spears, and shall take the fortified city, and the arms of the King of Egypt shall stand with his rulers, and there shall not be strength in them to resist them." It is difficult to imagine what Hebrew text was before the translator when he rendered, "turn his spears." Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic in the first portion, and with the LXX. in the latter. The Peshitta rendering is not unlike the Massoretic, "And the king of the north shall come and shall lay ambuscades, and shall conquer strong fastnesses; and the arms of the south shall not stand, because there is not in them might to stand; and his chosen people shall not stand, because there is not might in them to stand." The Vulgate, as usual, is closest to the Massoretic. The reference here is most probably to the capture of Sidon, into which Scopas, the general of Ptolemy, had thrown himself after his defeat at Paneas. Other strongholds and fortified cities were of necessity taken at the same time. The arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people. Ptolemy sent several successive armies to relieve Sidon, but was unable to compel Antiochus to give up the siege. Finally Scopas had to surrender. Neither shall there be any strength to withstand. Egypt was to all appearance helpless; there was neither wisdom in their counsels nor valour in their arms.
But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed. The rendering of the Septuagint is quite different, "And he who entereth in shall do to him according to his will, and there shall be none to resist before him, and he shall stand in the province in the place of his will, and all things shall be fulfilled in his hands." Some of the variations may be understood by a slightly different vocalization, but others resist this explanation. Theodotion renders in a way that suggests a text between that used by the Septuagint translator and the Massoretic, "And he who entereth in shall do to him according to his will, and there shall not be one that standeth before him, and he shall stand in the land of Sabei, and it shall be perfected ( τελεσθήσεται) by his hand." The Peshitta has, "cometh against him," as in the Massoretic, "the glorious land" is put down directly as "the laud of Israel." The Vulgate renders exactly as our Authorized Version does. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him.. This is a fair description of the advance of Antiochus the Great through Coele-Syria and Palestine. Fortress after fortress fell before his arms. And he shall stand in the glorious land; "the land of delight." Ewald would render, "land of the ornament." It is certainly the land of Judea. Which by his hand shall be consumed. This certainly contradicts history as we have it elsewhere. The Revised is little better, "And in his hand shall be destruction," which is the rendering of Behrmann, Keil, Hitzig, and Bevan. The rendering of von Lengcrke, Ewald, Stuart, and Fuller seems better to take כָלָה (kalah) as meaning "completely." The answer to the historical objection that Antiochus did not destroy Palestine, is that this distinction refers to Egypt; but as little did he destroy Egypt.
He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him: thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him. The LXX. renders, "And he shall set (give, δώσει) his face to enter upon ( ἐπελθεῖν) his work with violence, and he shall make covenants with him, and shall give him a daughter of man to corrupt her, but she shall not obey, neither shall it be." The translator seems to have had before him מלאכתּו, "work," instead of מלכותו, "kingdom"—a reading not equal to the Massoretic, and מֵישָׁרִים instead of וִישׁרִים, in which case the LXX. reading is preferable. Theodotion is like the Massoretic, "And he shall set ( τάξει) his face to enter with the strength of all his kingdom, and he shall make all things straight with him, and shall give him a daughter of the women to corrupt her, but she shall not continue on his side, neither be for him." The Peshitta renders, "And he shall set his face to enter with the force of all his kingdom, and all his people shall pass over, and the daughter of men shall be given to him to corrupt her, but she shall not stand, neither be for him." The Vulgate rendering is independent of the other versions, "And he shall set his face that he may come to lay hold of his whole kingdom, and he shall do right things with him, and he shall give to him the daughter of women that he may overturn it, but she shall not stand, neither be for him." The events portrayed here are well known. Antiochus collected all his forces with a view to the conquest of Egypt, then, alarmed by the progress of Rome and the overthrow of Philip of Macedon, he changed his plan. He now endeavoured to get Ptolemy to be his ally, and gave him his daughter Cleopatra to wife, with Coele-Syria as a dowry. His idea was that she would remain always on his side, would be his spy in the court of her husband, and would always lead the policy of Egypt in the lines he wished. His hopes were frustrated. She was not corrupted so as to be false to her husband. In proof of this, when her father's armies were defeated by the Romans, she joined with her husband in sending congratulations to the Senate of Rome.
After this he shall turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. The rendering of the LXX. is nearly unintelligible, "And he shall set ( δώσει) his face against the sea, and shall take many ( πολλοῦς), and shall turn the wrath of their reproach in an oath against his reproach." The translator had read לים instead of לאיים. Professor Bevan would ingeniously supply some words to the Greek. With all it seems nearly impossible to explain the relation between the Massoretic text and that used by the Septuagint. Theodotion is much briefer, "He shall turn his face to the islands, and shall take many, and shall cause rulers to cease from their reproach; but his reproach shall return upon him." The Peshitta renders, "And he shall turn his face to the islands of the sea, and shall conquer many, and a ruler of reproach shall cause it to cease in regard to him, and his reproach shall return to him." The Vulgate is closely related to the Peshitta. We would render the last clause, with Behrmann, "Yea, his reproach will he repay to him." The events referred to are clear and obvious enough. Antiochus the Great took advantage of the disastrous defeat inflicted on Philip of Macedon by the Romans, to seize many of the islands of the archipelago. He not only took possession of all the Asiatic dominions of Philip, but crossed into Europe and seized Thrace. The Romans demanded that he should retire from all the former dominions of Philip. He refused, and war ensued, in which, after being driven out of Europe, he was totally defeated at Magnesia by Lucius Scipio, and compelled to surrender all his dominions west of the Taurus.
Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found. The versions do not present any occasion for remark. After his defeat, Antiochus was not only compelled to submit to the loss of much of his empire, but was adjudged to pay all the expenses of the war, estimated at eighteen thousand Euboeic talents. Justin relates thus the death of Antiochus: "Meanwhile in Syria King Antiochus, being loaded with heavy tribute after his defeat by the Romans, whether urged by want of money or impelled by avarice, flattering himself that, under the plea of necessity, he might with fair excuse commit sacrilege, assaulted with an armed force by night the temple of Jove (Bel) in Elymais But the attempt having been discovered, there was a concourse of the inhabitants, and he was slain with all his forces." The resemblance here between the fate of Antiochus the Great and that of his son Epiphanes is so striking as to throw suspicion on one or other of them.
Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom; but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. The rendering of the LXX. differs very much from this, "Then shall a plant arise out of his root to the restoration ( ἀνάστασις) of the kingdom, a man striking the glory of a king." It is impossible to find any connection between the opening clause of this and the corresponding clause in the Massoretic. Some of tile other clauses contain echoes of the Massoretic, or vice versa. The first clause of Daniel 11:21 in the LXX. really belongs to this verse, "In the last days he shall be broken, not in wrath nor in war," reading thus, אֲהַרֹנִים ('aharoneem) instead of אֲהָדִים ('ahadeem). Theodotion agrees in the first clause with the Septuagint, but is equally unintelligible, "There shall arise out of his root one removing a plant of the kingdom; on his preparation he shall act ( πράσσων), the glory of the kingdom: yet in those days he shall be broken, and not openly ( ἐνπροσώποις) nor in war shall he stand." The Peshitta renders, "In his stead shall one stand up who shall cause a ruler to pass through even the glory of your kings; and in a few days he shall be destroyed, not in tumult, nor in battle." The Vulgate renders, "In his stead shall stand a vile person (vilissimus), and unworthy of royal dignity; and in a few days he shall be broken, not in fury, nor in battle." Difficult as is the interpretation of the words, just as difficult is it to find out the reference. Seleucus Philopator, who succeeded Antiochus, might be called a "raiser of taxes," as he had to meet as best he could the heavy demands of the Roman treasury. The rendering of the Revised suits also, "causing the exactor to pass through the glory of the kingdom." The reference might be to Heliodorus, were there any probability that he ever made an expedition to rob the temple. Certainly the story in 2 Maccabees makes it doubtful. It is not likely that Palestine would be exempt from taxation. To a Jew resident in Palestine—the land the possession of which had been the occasion or' so many wars—it might well seem the glory of the Syrian kingdom. But within few days he shall be destroyed. It is difficult to understand how the writer could reckon the reign of Seleucus Philopator as only a few days. His reign of twelve years was certainly much shorter than that of his father Antiochus, but longer than that of Epiphanes his brother, or of Seleucus III his uncle. The Greek versions do not give this clause. If we do not resort to the somewhat desperate remedy of altering the reading, we are compelled to measure the days from the taxing of Judaea. A good deal might be said for the reading of the LXX. He shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. If we may assume as correct the unsupported account of Appian, that Seleucus IV. was assassinated by Heliodorus, we can see that he was destroyed "not in batlle." It conveys an idea of the facts of the case different from that given in Appian, when we say he was "not destroyed in anger." Moreover, the fact that Josephus refers to the death of Seleucus Philopator in terms that imply that be knew nothing of his violent death, makes his alleged assassination by Helio-dorus at least doubtful.
And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. As said above, the opening clause of this verse, as it appears in the Septuagint, really belongs to the previous verse, "And there shall stand up in his place a mean person ( εὐκαταφρόνητος), and the glory of a king shall not be given to him, and he shall come suddenly, and the king shall be strong in his inheritance." Evidently the translator, has omitted the reduplication and has derived the word חֲלַקְלַקוֹת (ḥalaqlaqqoth) from חֶלְקָה (hel'qah), "a portion," "an inheritance." Theodotion's rendering is not very intelligible, "On his preparation he shall be set at naught, and they shall not give to him the glory of the kingdom, he shall come in prosperously ( ἐν εὐθηνίᾳ), and shall overpower the king dom by flatteries." It is, however, more in accordance with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta is in practical agreement with the Massoretic, and the Vulgate reads as if a rendering of the Peshitta. It is assumed that this is Antiochus Epiphanes, yet there are considerable difficulties. A vile person. Certainly he was morally vile enough, though not nearly so vile as some of the kings of Egypt, his contemporaries, or some of his own ancestors. The meaning of נבזה is "rejected, despised" (see Isaiah 53:3). It may be that it was derived from the idea that the Romans rejected Epiphanes as a hostage, and demanded Demetrius the son of Seleucus instead, and so Epiphanes got the opportunity of returning to Syria. This, however, is not the aspect which the matter assumes in Appian. Seleucus appears as the party desiring the change of hostage. To whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom. That certainly is not the case; he had the kingdom as much as his brother had; he was acknowledged as king. He certainly had not the power his father had before his defeat at Magnesia, but he had as much as the semi-subject conditions of Syria permitted. He shall come in peaceably. That also is doubtful, for Eumenes of Pergamos supported his claims with an army. Obtain the kingdom by flatteries. Even that is not a prominent feature of the accession of Antiochus. The Septuagint, as will be seen, separates between the vile person who should not have the glory of the kingdom given to him, and the king who should be strong in his inheritance. If we were sure that Appian had followed Polybius, we might see in the first part of the verse Heliodorus, and in the second the coming of Epiphanes.
And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. The rendering of the LXX. is very wide of this, "And the broken arms he shall break from before him." Although this is much shorter than the Massoretic text, yet the contradictory assertion that arms already broken are broken before him is conclusive against accepting the evidence of the Septuagint absolutely. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic, not with the English versinns, "And the arms of the overflowing shall be overflowed from before him, and be broken, even the leader of the covenant." The Peshitta is widely different, alike from the Massoretic text and that of the Septuagint, "And their mighty ones of the city he shall carry away, and they shall be broken from before him, even the leader of the covenant." The Vulgate stands in a closer relation with the above than with the Massoretic text or the Greek versions, "The arms (brachia) of one fighting shall be driven out (expugnabuntur) from his face, and shall be broken besides, and (insuper et) the leader of the covenant." The reference here seems to be to the campaign'—if there was a campaign—by which Epiphanes secured possession of the throne of Syria. The prince of the covenant. Who this can be it is impossible to say. The idea supported by Hitzig, Bevan, Behrmann, that Onias III. is referred to, is founded on the utterly unhistorical narrative in 2 Macc. 4. The view of Moses Stuart is that it is some sovereign who had a league of amity with Epiphanes. The reference thus might be to Eumenes or Attalus, who supported the claims of Anthochs. Negeed bereeth may be explanatory of the prenominal suffix in milpanayo, "before him." As Stuart acutely remarks, had the reference in bereeth been to the Divine covenant with the Jews, we should have had habbeereth.
And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. The rendering of the LXX. is, "And with the covenant and a people set in array he shall fabricate a lie, even against a strong nation with ( ἐν) a small people." The rendering of Theodotion is somewhat difficult to comprehend, "By reason of leagues against him, he shall make a device, and shall ascend and master them with few people." The Peshitta is very like Theodotion, only the last clause of this verse is regarded as the first of the next. The Vulgate is closer to the Massoretic than are any of the other ancient versions, "And after friendships with him, he shall work fraud, and shall go up and conquer with a small number." The reference here is to the obscure events which attended the contest—if there was a con-test—that resulted in Epiphanes securing the throne. The alliance may refer to his league with Eumenes. Appian assigns as a reason for the help given to Epiphanes by Eumenes, that it was to gain his friendship. Only Appian mentions "Attains and Eumenes," as if they were separate sovereigns; but Attains was brother of Eumenes, and, at the time of the arrival of Epiphanes, his brother's envoy at Rome. There may be some foundation of fact, and this would explain the statement in the text. The hopes of Eumenes, if he wished to strengthen himself by an alliance with Epiphanes, were probably soon frustrated, as Epiphanes involved himself in conflict with Egypt.
He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time. The rendering of the LXX. is," Suddenly he shall desolate the city, and he shall do such things as his fathers have not done, nor his father's fathers, and he shall give captives ( προνομή, Deuteronomy 21:1-23.)and spoils and riches to them; and against the strong city a device shall be forecast ( διανοηθήσεται), and his reasonings are in vain." In the first clause, וְשָׁמַם seems to have been read instead of וּמְשִׁמִנֵּי. Medeena is taken in its Syriac meaning. It is difficult to see what reading could produce both the Massoretic and the Septuagint renderings. Theodotion differs alike from this and from the Massoretic, "And in plenty, and in the fat places he shall corn and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; and he shall disperse among them captives ( προνομήν), and spoil and possessions, and against ( ἐπ ̓) Egypt he shall devise devices, even for a season." The Peshitta is like the Massoretic. It joins what is reckoned the last clause of Daniel 11:23 to the present verse, and omits "peaceably;" the last words of this verse are transferred to the next. The Vulgate is more related to Theodotion than to the Massoretic text, "And he shall enter plenteous (abundantes) and rich cities." The remaining part of the verse agrees with the Massoretic text The events here indicated are somewhat difficult to identify. The histories of this period are scanty, and, with the exception of Polybius, whose work has come to us in a fragmentary condition, not very trustworthy. Moreover, the readings are uncertain in a portion of the verse. It is generally held to describe the first entrance of Epiphanes into Palestine or Egypt—more generally the latter—an opinion shared by Theodotion. The English versions do not bring out the probable meaning, although their rendering agrees with the Massoretic pointing, "That which his fathers have not done," etc. The repeated triumphant invasions of Egypt are probably referred to. Forecast devices against the strong holds. This may refer to the siege of Alexandria, which he was on the eve of commencing when he was compelled by the Roman envoy, Popilius Lena, to desist; but this is evidently the subject of the later verse. We can most easily understand this verse if we regard it as a summary of the whole reign of Antiochus.
And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him. The versions present no point of remark, save that, instead of "king of the south," the Septuagint has, as usual, "the King of Egypt." This is supposed to be a compendious account of the second of the wars waged by Epipbanes against Egypt; but it suits the first better. At this time the Romans had declared war against Perseus, King of Macedon, and Antiochus, finding that they did not conquer Macedon easily, regarded the opportunity a suitable one for assailing Egypt and wresting from Ptolemy Philometor Coele-Syria, which his father had given as dower with Cleopatra, his daughter. The state of Egypt presented an aspect eminently hopeful to an assailant. The court of Egypt was full of intrigue and treachery; the centre of intrigue was the brother of the king, Ptolemy, nicknamed Physeon. The king, Ptolemy, was young; his generals, however, took up the challenge, and set on the field a large army; but the army was defeated, and Antiochus advanced as far as Memphis. Ptolemy was taken prisoner by his uncle, and Physeon his brother ascended the throne. The defeat of Philometor was supposed to be largely due to treachery.
Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain. The Septuagint rendering here is different, "And his cares shall consume him and turn him away, and he shall pass by (and shall hiss, κατασυριεῖ); and many shall fall down wounded." Paulus Tellensis renders κατασυριεῖ by, see script, (nigrooph), "shall overflow," as if he had read καταρεύσεται, or perhaps κατασυρεῖ, though it does not exactly represent the Hebrew. Theodotion is liker the Massoretic , "And they eat his provisions, and shall break him to pieces; and he shall overflow powers, and many shall fall wounded." The account of the invasion of Egypt by Epiphanes occurs in 1 Macc. 1:18. The Septuagint translator, appears to have read, instead of וְאֹכְלֵי פַּת־בָגוֹ (veochlay path-bago), וְאָכְלוּ דָאגְתָיו (veachloo dageothav). There would seem also to have been some confusion between הִיל (heel), "strength," and הלד (halach), "to go." The Peshitta rendering is, "They that eat his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall be dispersed, and many shall fall wounded." The Vulgate is closely related to this. This refers to the treachery which was alleged to have been at work and to have caused the overthrow of Philometor in his contest with his uncle. The version of the Septuagint is more picturesque, and more in accordance with facts. Cares might well devour Ptolemy Philometor—treachery in his army and his brother occupying his throne. Certainly he was defeated, turned asae, and was compelled to accompany the victor as a prisoner, while Egypt was wasted ( κατασυρεῖ)
And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. The Septuagint Version is, "And two kings shall dine alone at the same time, and eat at one table, and they shall speak lies, and they shall not prosper." The translator has read לבדם instead of לבבם. Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic, agreeing in this with the Peshitta and Vul