Page:06.CBOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.B.vol.6.LesserProphets.djvu/453

 Syriac and Vulgate, take מן יעמד in the sense of: to stand out before, מן in the sense of מפּני, contra, as in Psa 43:1 it is construed with ריב, which is supported by the circumstance that עמד in Dan 11:6, Dan 11:15, Dan 11:17, and Dan 11:25, has this meaning. By this not only is והוּא rightly translated: and he, the same who penetrated into the fortresses of his adversary and carried away his gods, shall also take his stand against him, assert his supremacy for years; but also Dan 11:9 contains a suitable addition, for it shows how he kept his ground. The king of the north shall after some time invade the kingdom of the king of the south, but shall return to his own land, namely, because he can effect nothing. Kran. takes the king of the south as the subject to וּבא, Dan 11:9; but this is impossible, for then the word must be בּמלכוּתו, particularly in parallelism with אדמתו. As the words stand, הנגב מלך, can only be the genitive to בּמלכוּת; thus the supposition that “the king of the south is the subject” is excluded, because the expression, “the king of the south comes into the kingdom of the south and returns to his own land,” has no meaning when, according to the context, the south denotes Egypt. With the וּבא there also begins a change of the subject, which, though it appears contrary to the idiom of the German [and English] language, is frequently found in Hebrew; e.g., in Dan 11:11 and Dan 11:9. By the mention of an expedition of the king of the north into the kingdom of the king of the south, from which he again returned without having effected anything, the way is opened for passing to the following description of the supremacy of the king of the north over the king of the south.

Verses 10-11
The decisive wars - Dan 11:10-12 Here the suffix in בּנו refers to the king of the north, who in Dan 11:9 was the person acting. Thus all interpreters with the exception of Kranichfeld, who understand בנו of the son of the Egyptian prince, according to which this verse ought to speak of the hostilities sought, in the wantonness of his own mind, of the king of the south against the king of the north. But this interpretation of Kranichfeld is shattered, not to speak of other verbal reasons which oppose it, against the contents of Dan 11:11. The rage of the king of the south, and his going to war against the king of the north, supposes that the latter had given rise to this rage by an assault. Besides, the description given in Dan 11:10 is much too grand to be capable of being referred to hostility exercised in mere wantonness. For such conflicts we do not assemble a multitude