The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 173

ne aeon by the eoulpturee-wae BUppoeecl to verse in the Septuagint makee its authen- have the quality of breaking the power of ticity eomewho.t doubtful. tho eoven Maslcim. Whatever the origin of Ver. 12.-The leaves thereof were !air this belief, it eoeme to have passod into the and the fruit thereof much, and in it wa; faith of Assyria. nnd Bahylon, nnd to have mee.t for all; the beasts of the field ha.d so permeated them the.t Ezekiel (xxxi.) shadow under it, and the fowls of the describes Ae~yria. e.e o. mi~hty cedar. To heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all pa.ea from the empire to 1te ruler was e. flesh we.s fed of it. The Septuagint Ver.,ion epecia.lly ee.ey step in rege.rd to e.n Ori- here ie widely different : "Its branches ente.l mone.rohy, in which the et11te we.a were thirty furlongs in extent, and nnder- the mono.rob. In the midst of the earth. nee.th its she.dow all beasts of the earth Thie refers to the notion ee.ob ne.tion he.d took shelter, and in it the birde of heaven the.t their own we.e the middle point, or made their nests, and ite fruit was mneh omphalos, of the world. Though ,~ (ga1J) e.nd good, and it supplied all living mee.nt origine.lly ree.lly "be.ck," not creatures." As already mentioned, this "middle," yet it is used of the fume.ea of verse occurs before the one we have jul!t fire in the preceding che.pter, 11nd the been considering. It differs, like it, more primitive mee.ning is entirely lost in the th11n can be exple.ined by o. mistake in read- T11rgums. ing the Massoretic Aramaic; if it were trans- l Ver. 11.-The tree grew, and wae strong, lated from e. cuneiform document, it is easily and the height thereof reached unto heaven, imaginable in what form the statement and the sight thereof to the end of all the might be made. The reading, however, is earth. This verse is tre.nepoeed in the Sep- not an unlikely one in the deecription of a tue.gint with the following verse, e.nd is dream. If we could have imagined the rendered," And its e.ppee.rance (8pa.-,s) WIIB Indian banyan tree to have been known to great, and its top approached to the bee.vene, the authors of this version, we might have and its breadth (K6Tos, equivalent to understood the tree of the dream to have ' bre.nches ') filled ( wll.11poiiv) to the clouds been like it. Theodotion is at one with all thinge beneath the heaven and the the Massoretic text, e.s also the Peshitta. sun and the moon were, and dwelt in it, Wbether we take the symbol of e. tree need and enlightened all the earth." The ad- for the Babylonian empire, e.s drawn from dition in the last clause is a eingule.r and the Babylonian tree of life, or merely de- picturesque one to one standing beneath a vised by the poetic fancy of the monarch, spreading tree ; sun and moon might pierce inspired for the time, it must be recognized with their re.ye through some thin points in as very a.pt. From the Persian Gulf to the foliage, but they would seem never to the Mediterranean. it stretched from the get beyond the widespree.d branches of the ce.te.re.cts of the Nile in e.ll probability into tree, and therefore it would be but e. poetical Asia Minor. Over e.ll this empire the mode of statement to say," the sun and moon monarch me.intained the attitude of o.n dwelt amid the branches.'' At the same earthly providence. It we.a because govern- time, it is not impossible that there was ment we.a strong that peaceable men could some e.etronomice.l legend of the sun and live. It is useless to carry the similitude moon and the tree of life. If this procla- into the minutiis of Jephet-ibn-Ali. who mation was originally written in cuneiform, me.into.ins that the wild beasts a.re the nomads there might easily be some diffioulty at of the deserts, and the birds the strangers times in deciphering and fixing in which that co.me to Nebuchadnezzar from far. In of e. dozen possible senses e. given word the Aramaic here there are traces of the an- must be ta.ken. The variation is beyond tiquity in the language: the use of inbbaya, the region of mere ordinary blundering in "fruit," instead of ibbaya, is one instance. Are.me.ic. On the other hand, it seems too Saggee' (with sin) is e. proof that the dis- picturesque for the work of e. commonplace tinction between i, and o was still understood, interpole.tor. Theodotion in the ma.in and probably heard. It is remarked by agrees with the Me.ssoretio, but instead of Keil that this word does not really mean "sight thereof," he he.a "brne.dth (Kfros) "much,,. but rather "great," "strong." thereof," reading some such word as path- Although it is undeniable the.t he is correct ootheh instead of hazotheh. The Peshitte. is as to the primitive meaning of the word, in close agreement with the received text. it can smirc,,ly mean anything else th11n To those who, like the Babylonian, believed "much" in the present c0nuection. Mazcm, the earth to be e. vast plain, it w11s not " food," is rnre as a Biblical word, but inconceivable that a tree should be so high occurs in Genesis as well as Chronicles. e.s to be seen over the whole earth. It is Professor Ilevan quot~s Noldeke in favour o. very suitable symbol of a great world- of n Mandroan origin for it. empire. At the same time, we must re- Ver. 13.-I saw in the visions of my member th11t the grent variation in this head upon my bed, and, behold, e. we.toher 188 'l'HE BOOK OF DANIEL. (en. 1v. 1-37.