Kevin quoted Gesenius as saying:

 He literally wrote the book: “Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar”.   It is his determination that in the context of the passage as recorded in his Lexicon, “ this is to be understood, as the context shows it must, of some idol especially worshipped by the Syrian women such as Astarte or Anaitis.”  

and argued context to support this theory.  Can we get a thought check on how out-of-context this argument is from Gesenius?  At the time Daniel was written, Israel was in exile in Babylon.  Why would the mention of a Syrian god be of importance to them?  It is not likely Daniel even knew who Astarte was.

And it is about the future.  When the false messiah rises, the above mentioned Syrian god will have been forgotten about by all but archeologists and a few historians for several thousand years?  Who WOULD have regard for such a long forgotten 'god' in our modern times?  Why would this god be singled out for mention?

If we are to figure out from context what "חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים" means, why would we look to Syria for an answer at all?  Where does Syrian activity fit into the context of things at all?

Gesenius was starting with the presumption that

• the King James interpretation of "desired of women" was the correct interpretation of "חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים"
• Tried to find some reasonable interpretation of "desired of women"
• Forced one into the literal context of the sentence that was out of context with the culture and future timing.

Given that there are multiple ways to interpret "חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים", as I documented at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/may2012/jovial524.htm .  Why would we go with an interpretation in which in order to fit the literary context, with have to draw a conclusions that is culturally and historically out of context?