The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 342

of tw"l'"" Y<'nre wns c-Nlnin!r much shorter e.ppcars Al! the party dORiring thn rh~ngo thnn tlrnt of his fn !Ler Antioehus, but longer of hostogo. To wl,om tliey ~ltall t1ot give Iha than thut of Epiplmn<'B bis brother, or of honour of the kingdom. 'l'h&t certainly ie SPh•ucns III. his nnclo. The Greek ver- not the C11se; he hnd the kingdom o.s much Ei"m do not giv<' this <'inuso. If we do not as his brother ha<l; he wn,e aclmowlcdged n•~nrt to the sonwwhnt despernte remedy of as Iring. Ho certainly had not the power altering the rPnding. we o.re compelled to his fathc-r had before his defeat at Magncsill, mPasnrc the dnys from tLe taxing of Judreo.. but he had as much as the scmi-euLjcct A good denl might be so.id for the reading conditions of Syria permitted. He Bhall of the LXX. He ,hall be destroyed, neither come in peaceably. That also is doubtful, for ttl an!le,·. nor in batt/6. If we mo.y assnme Eumenes of Pergamos supported his claims as correct the unsupported acoonnt of Ap- with an army. Obtain the kingdom by p:an. t.lmt Seleucus IV. was russassinated flatJcries. Even the.t is not a prominent by I-Ieliodorus, we en,n see the.t he was fen.tum of the accession of Antiochus. 'l'he ,lcs1roy0d "not in battle.'' It conveyA e.n Septuagint, o.s will be seen, ecpl\ro.tes between id,•a of the facts of tlic ce.ee different from the vilo person who should not havo the t!ial gin•n in Appian, when we say he WM glory of the kingdom given to him, and "nnt destroyed in nng-er." Moreover, the the king who should bo strong in his fact that ,Josephus refers to the dee.th of inheritance. If wo were sure that Appian Selencus Philopator in terms thnt imply had followed Polyliius, we might see in the that he knew nothing of hie ,iolent dee.th, first part of the verse Heliodorus, an4 in the makes Lis o.llcged asso.esina.tion by Helio- second the coming of Epiphanes. <lorus nt least doubtful. Ver. 22.-And with the arms of a flood Yer. 21.-And in his esta.te shall stand up shall they be overflown from before him, a vile person, to whom they shall not give and &hall te broken ; yee., o.lso the prince of the honour of the kingdom : tut he shall the covenant. Tho rendering of the LXX. come in peaoea.bly, and obtain the kingdom is very wide of this, "And the broken by flatteries. .AJJ ea.id above, the opening arms be she.II break from before him." da use of this ,erse, as it appears in the Although this is muoh shorter than the Septua~t, really belongs to the previous MaBBoretio text, yet the contradictory ,ersc, "And there shall stand np in bis plaoe assertion that arms already broken are a mean person (,un-ra,/>ptl,-,,.,.os), and the broken before him is conclusive against glory of a king aha.II not be given to him, accepting the evidrnce of the Septuagint o.nd he shall come suddenly, and tho king e.bsolutely. Thcodotion e.grees with the shnll be ~trong in his inheritance." Massoretic, not with the English versions, F,,·idcntly the trsnslo.toc, he.e omitted the "And the armB of the overflowing shall be reduplication and bas derived the word overflowed from before him, e.nd be broken, even the leader of the covenant." The ~·tR~S (l_ialaqlag_qoth) from i1R?\1 (l_iel'g_ah), Peehitta is widely difl'erent, alike from "n portion," "an inheritance." Theodotion's the Massoretio text and that of the rendering is not very intelligible, "On his Septuagint, "'And their mighty ones of preparation he shall be set at naught, and the city he Hhall carry away, e.nd they they shall not give to him the glory of the shall be broken from before him, even the kingdom, l,e shall come in prosperously leader of the covenant." The Vulgate (,v ,~671viq.), and aha.II overpower the king- stands in a closer relation with the above dom by flatteries." It is, however, more in than with the Massoretio text or the Greek nceordnnce with the Maesoretic text. The versions, "The arms (bracliia) of one fight- Peshitta i~ in pre.ctico.l agreement with the ing shall be driven out (e:z:pugnabuntur) from llfossorctic, o.nd the \'nlga.te rce.ds e.s if a. his face, e.nd shall be broken besides, and rendering of tlie Pcshitto.. It is assumed ( insuper et) the leader of the covenant." The iLat tl,is is .Antiochus Epiphanes, yet there reference here seems to be to the campaign o.rc considerable difficulties. .A. T1ile -ir there wwi a campaign-by which persun. Certainly he we.s morally vile Epiphnnes secured possession of the throne t-nongh, though not nearly so Yile a.a some of 8yria. The prince of the co11ena11t. of the kings of Egypt, bis contemporaries, Who this ce.n be it is impossible to say. or some of bis own ancestors. The meaning The idea supported by Hitzig, Bevan, of ;,:::?J is "rejected," "despised" (see Isa. Behrmann, that Onias III. is referred to, is Jiii. 3). It me.y be that it wa.s derived from founded on the utterly unhistorical narrative tL, i<lL"a that the Romane rejected Epiphanes in 2 Ma.cc. iv. The viow of Moses Stuart is as u Loste.ge, [IJld d,-manded Demetrius the that it is some sovereign who had o. league son of Scleucus instead, e.nd so Epiphanes of amity with Epiphanes. The reference got tLe opportunity of returning to Syria. thus might be to Eumenes or Attains, who Thie, Luwc-,cr, is not the o.spect which supported the claims of Anthoclus. N•geed :.he mallcr assumes in Appian, Selt'ucus b•reeth may be explanatory of the pre- Oil, XI. 1-45.] 'l'lm nooK OF DANlr-:r,.