be strong above him, and have dominion: his dominion shall be a great dominion."

According to the notes of the Family Bible the king of the south is Ptolemy king of Egypt; but instead of "one of his princes, and he shall be strong above him," we are told to read "one of his princes shall be strong above him," and to apply the passage to Seleucus, who is said to be afterwards styled king of the north, and to have been strong above Ptolemy. The alteration is of great importance; let us examine the grounds of it. "The passage

may be so rendered after the Greek version." But is the Greek version, or any version of authority enough to alter the sense of the original? Had the Hebrew text been corrupted, or ambiguous, we should have a good reason for the change, and in cases of difficulty we are glad of the assistance of the Septuagint; but in this instance the commentator seems to have abandoned the original without just cause 2.

a A very slight alteration will make the Hebrew text accord with the Greek version; but why should we disturb the Hebrew text?

"At 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. If the king of the south is Ptolemy, we should imagine that the king of the north would be Lysimachus; but we have already been told that the king of the north is Seleucus, and the explanation of the present passage is this. Ptolemy, the second king of Egypt, made peace with Antiochus, the third king of Syria; and Antiochus, in consequence, put away his wife Laodice, and married Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy: but apparently no one goes so far as to assert that Berenice came to Antiochus to make an agreement. "But she shall not retain the power of the arm," that is, Berenice did not retain the affections of her husband; a strange explanation, and nearly sufficient to prove that the king of the

a The Family Bible, by Bishop Mant and Dr. D'Oyley, is in such general use, that my brief manner of quoting the explanatory notes will hardly mislead the reader; but I take this opportunity to mention that I rely upon his referring to the Family Bible.

south does not mean an individual, but a kingdom, or nation, and that the king's daughter means not a woman, but a colony of the parent state, and that the power of the arm means the power of empire.

99

"Neither shall he stand, nor his arm,' that is, Antiochus was poisoned by Laodice, and "his arm, his arm," his son by Berenice, did not succeed him; "his arm," however, his son by Laodice, did succeed him. “But she shall be given up, and they that brought her;" that is, Berenice and her Egyptian women. We are told, however, that Ptolemy himself brought Berenice to Antiochus. “And he that begat her," or, according to the marginal reading, "he, whom she brought forth," that is, her son, the same person who has already been described as "his arm." "And he that strengthened her in these times." This is supposed to mean her father, who had died before Antiochus ventured to recall his former wife, and before Berenice ceased to retain the power of the arm, and who could

not be said to be given up, if he had died, as it is said, of old age.

"But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up." This is said to mean Ptolemy Evergetes, the brother of Berenice. We will grant that the brother of Berenice was a branch of the roots of Berenice; but what says the text?" Out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up." If Ptolemy was the branch, how could he be the one who stood up out of the branch?

So far it seemed necessary to proceed, that we might ascertain whether the theory would work well: let us now return to the foundation and examine it more closely. The kings of Egypt, and the kings of Syria are said to have been called the kings of the south and the kings of the north in respect of their situation to Judæa; and the king of the south is said to have been strong, because Ptolemy annexed Cyprus, Phoenicia, Caria, and many islands, and cities, and regions, and Cyrene also, to Egypt. Our authorities for this part of

history are worth so little, that it is best to take the statement as we find it. If, however, the king of the south possessed Phonicia and Caria, could Seleucus be called the king of the north, even in respect of Judea? In other respects he was king of the east, and Lysimachus was king of the north.

Seleucus is said to have been strong above Ptolemy, because he annexed the kingdoms of Macedon and Thrace to the crown of Syria. Seleucus, however, did not make war upon Lysimachus till after the death of Ptolemy, and he can scarcely be said to have annexed Thrace and Macedon to the crown of Syria, for very soon after his conquest he was slain by Ptolemy Ceraunus, son of the first Ptolemy and brother of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Can Seleucus be said to have been strong above Ptolemy, by reason of conquests, which were not made till after Ptolemy's death? But how is it shewn that Seleucus is at all alluded to in the fifth verse? Our only authority is that of the Greek version,

PART II.

G