* The word in the original being Vayikra, in the Kal or Active form of the verb, and not Vayikare the Niphal or Passive form.—­D.

# reprove or argue.—­D.

* Or, in righteousness.—­D.

# Mr. English very properly takes notice of the disjunctive accent (Pasek) occurring here in the text.—­D.

# For a more correct enumeration of the thirteen cabalistic rules of exposition, the English reader is referred to vol. 1, page 209, of the “Conciliator” of B. Menasseh ben Israel, translated by E, H. Lindo, Esqr.—­D.

# Mr. E. was, doubtless, aware that this is an exposition given by Jewish Commentators.—­D.

# There exists an English translation of this work by Abraham de Sola.  —­D.

* The person here spoken of by Isaiah is said to make his grave with the wicked, and be with the rich in his death.  Whereas Jesus did exactly the contrary.  He was with the wicked (i. e., the two thieves) in his death, and with the rich (i.e., Joseph of Arimathea) in his grave, or tomb.  In the original, the words may be translated that “he shall avenge, or recompence upon the wicked his grave, and his death upon the rich.”  Thus does the Targum and the Arabic version interpret the place, and Ezekiel ix. 10, uses the verb in the verse in Isaiah under consideration translated (in The English version)—­“He made,” &c—­in the same sense, given to this place in Isaiah, by the Targum, and the Arabic, as said above.  See the place in Ezekiel, where it is translated—­“I will recompence their way upon their head.”  See also Deut. xxi. 8, in the original.  The Syriac has it—­“The wicked contributed to his burial, and the rich to his death.”  The Arabic—­“I will punish the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death.”  The Targum—­“He shall send the wicked into hell, and the rich who put him to a cruel death.”—­E.

# Or, shall destroy.—­D.

* The remainder of this chapter is taken from Levi and Wagenseil.—­E.

* The reader is requested to consider the reasoning in the last paragraph.  The prophecy in the second chapter of Daniel, is commonly supposed to relate to the four Great Empires, the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian and Roman.  This last, it is (according to this interpretation,) foretold, should be divided into many kingdoms, and that ’in the latter days of these kingdoms,’ (which are now subsisting) God would set up a kingdom which would never be destroyed,—­that of the Messiah.  Of course, according to this interpretation, the kingdom of the Messiah was not to be not only sustain after the destruction of the Roman Empire, but not till the latter days of the kingdoms which grew up out of its ruins; whereas, Jesus was born in the time of Augustus, i. e., precisely when the Roman Empire itself was in the highest of its splendour and vigour.  This is a remarkable, and very striking, repugnance, to the claims of the New Testament, and, if substantiated, must overset them entirely.—­E.