PART IV

THE HISTORY OF BEL AND THE DRAGON

תִּרְמׄס כְּפִיר וְתַנִּין

(תהל׳ צא׳ יג׳)

THE HISTORY OF BEL AND THE DRAGON.

ANALYSIS.

v.

1, 2. Introduces Cyrus and Daniel.

3. How Bel was worshipped by the Babylonians.

4--7. Discussion as to Bel's worship[60] between the King and Daniel.

8, 9. The King enquires of Bel's priests, and says that they or Daniel

must die.

10--14. The test agreed upon to prove whether Bel partook of the

offerings or no.

15--22. Decided in the negative by discovery of the Priests' trick, who

are slain and their idol destroyed.

23. Introduces the other object of worship[60], the Dragon.

24--27. Conversation as to its divinity between the King and Daniel,

who, with the former's permission, ingeniously slays it.

28, 29. Anger of the Babylonians with them both.

30--32. They cause Daniel to be cast into the lions' den.

33--40. He is miraculously saved by Habakkuk.

40, 42. The King acknowledges the Lord, sets Daniel free, and delivers

his persecutors to the fate intended for the prophet.

[Endnote: N.B.--It is unaccountable why the 'heading' in A.V. _begins_

with v. 19. _Cf._ Sus. for a similar peculiarity.]

TITLE AND POSITION.

TITLE.

Βήλ καὶ Δράκων is the usual title of this booklet. It is obviously

derived from the names of the two idols destroyed in the two portions of

the story. But Cod. Chis. has the curious heading, Ἐκ προφητείας

Ἀμβακοὺμ υἱοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευί (_cf._ v. 33). The Syriac also has

the equivalent of this. In some Syriac MSS. 'Dragon' is given as a

separate title before v. 23; and Luther's version, at the same point,

expands this into 'von Drachen zu Babel.'

In Codd. A, Q, the entire piece is headed ὅρασις ιβ´, and is thus

treated as an integral part of Daniel, finishing the book, the 12th

chapter of which ends in Cod. A with ὅρασις ια´.[61] In B it follows, if

possible, still more closely, there being no intermediate heading[62],

In Cod. A, at the end, there is τέλος Δαν. προφήτου, which, except in

the case of Ruth, is not A's usual way of terminating works. The Arabic

Version in Walton also superscribes it as a 'vision' (Scholz, p. 139).

The title 'the book of the little Daniel' seems applied to Bel and the

Dragon in a Nestorian list mentioned by Churton (p. 389), and seemingly

in Ebed Jesu's list of Hippolytus' works (_D.C..B_ art. _Hippolytus_,

III. p. 104a). This title, which usually belongs to Susanna, when

applied to Bel and the Dragon, must refer, not to Daniel's age, but to

the size of the book. Delitzsch (_op. cit._ 25_n_) mentions, without

further description, one MS. from Mount Athos which entitles it περὶ τοῦ

Ἀββακούμ.

The source of the marginal reading of A.V. "Bel's Dragon" (also given in

the title to Susanna) does not appear to be identified.

POSITION.

As to the place of this piece in some of the Greek MSS. _see_ above.

Professor A. Scholz (_Judith und Bel und der Drache,_ Würzburg, 1896, p.

200) finds fault with Holmes and Parsons for having disturbed the

position of this book without offering sufficient indication of having

done so: "die Stücke willkürlich versetzt sind."

In the Vulgate it is reckoned as chap. xiv. of Daniel, coming after

Susanna, which forms chap. xiii., as also in the Hexaplar Syriac. Caj.

Bugati, in his edition of this text, regards its ascription to Habakkuk

as a reason for its detached position at the end (_see_ 'Authorship,' p.

186).

J. Fürst's idea (quoted by Bissell, p. 444), that the work was

originally incorporated in chap. vi., seems far less likely than his

conjecture with regard to the position of Susanna (_q.v._). Indeed,

except for a certain similarity in the lions' den miracle, it is not

easy to see why it should be joined to any part of chap. vi. Nor do the

similar points of the den incidents seem any real ground for making one

story follow directly upon the other.

E. Philippe (Vigouroux _Dict._ II. 1266) attempts, rather feebly, to

account for its omission from the Hebrew Bibles. He says, "elle parut à

tort aux Juifs faire double emploi avec un récit pareil, VI." This seems

to be a gratuitous supposition of no great probability.

As the story deals with the latter part of Daniel's life, its place at

the conclusion of the book is very fitting. In Cod. A the subscription

mentioned above, marking it as the "end of Daniel the prophet,"

distinctly attaches it to the Book of Daniel, and precludes further

additions. On the whole, if its connection with the Book of Daniel is

to be recognized, this position at the close may be regarded as the most

suitable.

AUTHORSHIP.

In Θ, Bel and the Dragon is apparently assumed to be by the same writer

as the rest of the Book of Daniel. So in _Breshith Rabbah_[63] on Gen.

xxxvii. 24 we have nearly the words of v. 28 _sq._, introduced by "This

is as it is written in Daniel" (Ball, 344a). In Raymund Martini's

_Pugio fidei_ (Paris, 1651, p. 740) the Aramaic is given as בדניאל

(_see_ under 'Chronology,' p. 229).

If, however, it be presumed that Daniel is not the author, we are left

without any clue to the writer's name, except what is afforded us by the

LXX title, which treats the piece as an extract from a prophecy of

Habakkuk, son of Jesus. Most probably the minor prophet of that name is

intended, though this has been doubted on chronological and on

genealogical grounds; and the position of Bel and the Dragon in the MSS.

lends no countenance to a connection with Habakkuk's prophecy.

Rothstein nevertheless, in Kautzsch, _Apocr._ (p. 178), regards it as

certain that the minor prophet is meant; and so likewise do Schürer and

Driver in their articles in Hauck's _Encyclopædia_ (I. 639), and in

Hastings' _D.B._ respectively; and Keil, who is referred to below (p.

188).

Still, it is curious that a Levite of the name of Jesus, who had sons,

is mentioned in I. Esd. v. 58, and elsewhere in the same book. Further

evidence, however, which might connect him with the LXX title, is not

forthcoming. But it is noticeable that in Hab. ii. 18 _sq._ idolatry,

probably Chaldean, is scoffed at in a tone not dissimilar to that of

this work.

Eusebius and Apollinarius, in controversy with Porphyry, accept this

title as correct (Churton, 390b). So Bugati (Milan, 1788, p. 163)

treats the authorship of Habakkuk as the reason of the detached position

of the fragment at the end of the book. Hesychius of Jerusalem, quoted

under 'Early Christian Literature,' declines to express an opinion as to

the identity of Habakkuk. The _Synopsis sacr. Script._--referred to by

Ball (350b) and Bissell (447) as if a genuine work of

Athanasius--perhaps affords ground for a third theory. For it makes

mention (after N.T. books, § 75) of a certain pseudo-epigraphic writing

of Ἀμβακούμ which might perhaps be the προφητεία named in the LXX title.

All things considered, the theory that the well-known prophet Habakkuk

was meant by LXX seems the most probable.

But if Bel and the Dragon be merely the crystallization of what is

called a 'fluid myth,' or traditional floating story, its original

authorship is not merely unknown, but is undiscoverable, and was

probably a doubtful matter even to those who first rendered it into

Greek. This view accounts too, as nothing else seems satisfactorily to

do, for the many changes, insertions, and omissions in different

versions. Such stories, at any rate in their earlier days, are subject

to variation in many points as the result of oral repetition. Still, the

'fluidity' of this piece is by no means so great as that of Tobit, where

the variations are on a much wider scale.

If the 'fluid myth' theory be accepted, the original becomes an

anonymous story, built up on the renown of Daniel, a piece of Haggadah

in fact, as some, not unreasonably, have ventured to think; such as J.W.

Etheridge, who classes these pieces under that head, or, as he styles

them, "histories coloured with fable" (_Jerusalem and Tiberias_, Lond.

1856, p. 109). Reuss regards it as still more imaginative, deeming all

except the temple to be "reine Erfindung, und zwar eine ziemlich

geistlose" (_O.T._ VII. 269). But Prof. Sayce thinks that "the author

was better acquainted with Babylon and Babylonian history than the other

apocryphal writers" (_Temple Bible_, 'Tobit,' etc., Lond. 1903, pp. xiv,

95).

Furthermore it must be remembered that even if Bel and the Dragon was

added to Daniel as an appendix by a later hand, there may still be truth

in the story; its erroneousness is not necessarily proved, nor is it

needful to assume, as is sometimes done, that all its events are

fictitious. This seems to be done by G.H. Curteis (S.P.C.K. _Comm._,

'Introd. to Hab.'), who writes: "The absurd legends with which the

Rabbis and the author of Bel and the Dragon amused themselves are not

worthy of serious attention." And Keil also, in his _Commentary on the

Minor Prophets_, while accepting the superscription of Cod. Chis. as

supporting Habakkuk's Levitic origin, regards the rest of the legend as

"quite worthless" (Clark's translation, pp. 49, 50). So, too, W.J. Deane

(_Pulpit Bible_, 1898, 'Hab.' p. 111) says, "The whole account is

plainly unhistorical, and its connection with the canonical writer

cannot be maintained for a moment."

Supposing the story to be true, however, it may form an instance, both

at its outset and its close, of what is recorded in Dan. vi. 28, of

Daniel prospering in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. But, in the present

state of our knowledge, speculations lead to no positive result, for the

real author cannot be determined.

DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.

DATE.

The idea, which may be a true one, that this is the latest of these

three appendices, seems chiefly founded on its position at the end of

Daniel, and on its subject-matter, which contains indications of

belonging to the prophet's latter years. Having passed safely through

many trials, he now boldly laughs at the idols of Babylon (vv. 7, 19).

His contempt is unconcealed, and he again confidently risks his life for

the true God. In v. 19 we also find him venturing to hold the king

back--ἐκράτησεν τὸν βασιλέα (Θ). Long experience in surmounting great

difficulties by divine help had strengthened his nerve and confirmed his

faith.

_Original._ If the LXX be taken as a translation, the original is of

course older than the Greek text, but not necessarily much older. If the

statement at the head, however, be accepted as referring to Habakkuk the

prophet, the original is of course thrown back to a much earlier date,

say _circ._ 600 B.C., and Hebrew, not Aramaic, would be the language.

But this theory will scarcely commend itself to many (_cf._

'Chronology,' p. 223).

_LXX._ There seems no reason to doubt that Bel and the Dragon always

formed a part of this Greek version of Daniel. Pusey (quoted in Churton,

_Uncan. and Apocr. Script_, p. 389) speaks of it as 'contemporary with

the LXX,' while Rothstein (Kautzsch, 178, 9) attributes it to the second

century B.C., being probably of the same date as Susanna.

_Theodotion._ This version may reasonably be assigned to the second

century A.D. But it has been pretty clearly shewn that Theodotion worked

up some Greek version other than the LXX. Many of the quotations from

Daniel in the N.T., and especially those tn Revelation (specified in

_D.C.B._ art. _Theodotion_, IV. 975b), shew that a version largely

corresponding with his existed at the time when these quotations were

made. The Book of Baruch also (same art. 976a) bears evidence of the

employment of this Theodotionic ground-version, the origin of which is

at present unknown. In this connection compare Prof. Swete's _Introd. to

Greek O.T._ ed. 2, p. 48, and Schürer's pointed saying, quoted there in

note (3), "Entweder Th. selbst ist älter als die Apostel, oder es hat

einen 'Th.' vor Th. gegeben." There seems little reason to doubt that

the unnamed previous version extended to this and the other Additions to

Daniel.

PLACE.

_Original_ (Semitic?). Babylonia, or possibly Palestine. " The writer,"

says Bissell on v. 2, "shews a familiar acquaintance with what was the

probable state of things in Babylon when the event narrated is supposed

to have occurred."

Of the things mentioned, clay is common in Babylonia, and brass or

bronze was used as a material for images; and the lion was an inhabitant

of the country.

There is no sign (in this piece) of Hellenic thought influencing Jewish

belief, such as would have been likely to shew itself in a purely

Alexandrian production. The strong hatred of idolatry is quite in

accordance with a Babylonish origin; more so perhaps than with an

Alexandrian. _Cf._ Jer. xliv. 8, which seems to shew that, at any rate

in the early days of the dispersion in Egypt, the severance from

idolatry was not so sharp as in Babylonia.

The mention of pitch (v. 27) as a readily obtainable commodity is

inconclusive, as stated under the corresponding section of Part II. The

possible confusion between זצפא (storm-wind) and זיפא (pitch), pointed

out by Marshall in his article on Bel and the Dragon in Hastings'

_Dict._, does not look probable as occurring in a list of substances of

this kind.

_LXX._ Alexandria may be pretty certainly named. What Bishop Westcott

calls "an Alexandrine hand" (_D.B._ I. p. 448 ed. 1, 714 ed. 2) has been

generally deemed apparent. So Bissell says: "The contents furnish

tolerably safe evidence of its Egyptian origin." But this does not seem

to agree very well with his note on v. 2, quoted at the beginning of

this chapter.

It might have been thought that the weights and measures which enter

into this story in v. 3 of both versions, and in v. 27 of LXX, would

have afforded some valuable local indications. But unfortunately for

this requirement, the weights and measures of the ancient world were so

much assimilated as to yield, in the question before us, no certain

clue. Alexandria too, being a great commercial centre, had become

somewhat syncretistic. As P. Smith remarks, in his article _Mensura_, in

_D. Gk. & Rom. A._ (1872, p. 754b), "The Roman system, which was

probably derived from the Greek, agreed with the Babylonian both in

weights and measures." It is stated, however, in Hastings' _D.B._ (IV.

911b, 913b) that ἀρτάβαι and μετρηταί were identified at Alexandria,

in which case they may have been used here as rough equivalents for the

translation of some Semitic words, such as חׄמֶר and סְאָה in Isai. v.

10 and I. Kings xviii. 32 respectively. The μνᾶ of v. 27 is also both

Babylonian and Alexandrian (_see_ Hastings' _D.B._ iv. 904a). The

signs, from this source, of local origin must not therefore be pressed.

_Theodotion._ From what little we know of this translator's life, it is

not improbable that he made his version at Ephesus.

The genitive form μαχαίρης in v. 26, thought to be Ionic, may lend a

little support to this. _Cf._ Heb. xi. 34, Rev. xiii. 14, in A; B here

failing; yet it is found in B, by the first corrector, in St. Luke xxi.

24. But _cf._ Swete's _Introd._ p. 304. On the other hand, the use of

σώματα in v. 32 (Θ only) for 'slaves' is given by Deissmann (p. 160) as

an example of Egyptian usage. It is found in Gen. xxxiv. 29, Tob. x. 10,

and elsewhere. Its use by Polybius (mentioned without reference by

Deissmann) does not give us much 'local' assistance, for his travels

were so extensive that he may have picked it up in various places. But

its occurrence in Rev. xviii. 13 may suggest that it was in use at

Ephesus also. Deissmann (p. 117) also thinks ἐδαπανῶντο εἰς (v. 3) to be

an Alexandrian idiom; but in the same verse we find the spelling

ράκουτα, which is considered by Liddell and Scott to be an Ionic form.

The indications therefore of this linguistic kind nearly counterbalance

one another.

FOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.

This story was evidently composed for Jewish use, not improbably for

Jews who had returned from the Captivity, as a popular memorial of

Babylonish days. And perhaps the general tenor of the piece implies that

it was written to serve, not so much to convert idolaters, as for the

encouragement of those who were striving, or had striven, to maintain

the faith among the heathen. Its tone and subject make its composition

in the first instance for Babylonian Jews, or Palestinian Jews returned

from captivity, more likely than for their Alexandrian brethren. To

these latter, however, it soon found its way. But it is amongst

Christian people that this narrative has had its longest and deepest

influence. The more it was valued by Christians the less it seemed

regarded by Jews. In this respect its fate was similar to that of the

entire LXX.

A distinct moral purpose is not obscurely indicated by the trend of the

whole story. It is not merely a record of two interesting episodes in

the prophet's later days, but it also aims at a definite religious

object. That object is to throw contempt on idolatry, whether directed

to inanimate or animate things; to honour Daniel as vindicator of the

true worship; and to shew that the adoration of heathen deities is lying

and deceptive, and ought to be supplanted by that of the Lord.

It is evidently desired to put both idols and idolaters into ridiculous

positions, not for mere amusement, but in order to destroy the

confidence which was groundlessly placed in them. The weapons of sarcasm

and contemptuous treatment are used with success, even as Elijah

employed them on Baal and his worshippers at an earlier time (I. Kings

xviii. 27). A desire to convert the heathen, by proving the absurdity of

their idol-worship, may be inferred from the last clause of v. 27,

compared with vv. 5, 25. As the history of Susanna deals with errors of

Jewish practice, so does this writing with the errors of heathenism.

The providence of God in protecting those who suffer for His sake is

clearly inculcated in the latter portion of the work. A sense of this

would, with other results, give confidence in the fight against

idolatry; the more needed because Bel was evidently a very popular deity

with high and low, and difficult to dislodge. The frequent compounding

of 'Bel' with proper names (Belshazzar and Belteshazzar)[64] shews the

regard in which he was held. Compare the similar compounding of

'Jehovah' amongst the Jews. But, although Bel was deemed a beneficent

deity, being, as Gesenius calls him (s.v. בֵּל, sub בַּצַל),

'agathodemon, omnis felicitatis auctor,' Daniel does not spare him on

that account. Thomas "Wintle[65] suggests that the image in chap. iii.

"was Bel, or some of the Assyrian deities, as we may collect from iii.

14"; and Bar-Hebræus' notion that the gift of Bel to Daniel, in v. 22 of

our story, was in order that he might be rewarded by the gold with which

the image was plated, agrees well enough with iii. I (Berlin, 1888, p.

28).

The aim is to depict Daniel, distinguished for his wisdom and piety, as

the successful, though sorely tried, opponent of heathenism, and as the

representative of the Living God. His character to a great extent

resembles that pourtrayed in the rest of the work bearing his name. It

is shewn how he continued to face and to solve the difficult problems of

court life in Babylon. And albeit he secured no small measure of fame,

and perhaps of popularity, at the time, these earthly results, in their

abiding form, it has lain with posterity to give him.

On the supposition that Alexandria was the birthplace of the piece, it

has been suggested that the aim of the writer was "to warn against the

sin of idolatry some of his brethren who had embraced Egyptian

superstition."[66] But no special reference to Egyptian forms of

idolatry is apparent in support of this view, which seems based on

little more than a wish to fit in the idolatry with the theory of the

story having an Alexandrian origin.

A. Scholz's notion that the whole piece is a 'vision' with allegoric or

apocalyptic meanings only, and never intended to be taken as history,

looks like a wonderfully forced hypothesis, laying a great strain on the

imaginations both of the writer and the reader. The book having been

received as canonical in the Roman communion, its contents must at all

hazards be reconciled with the maintenance of that position. Yet it is

fair to note that Luther, on other grounds, regarded Susanna and Bel and

the Dragon as pretty spiritual fictions, in which history must take its

chance (Zöckler, p. 216).

INTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.

This double story seems to have been treated as one in the Greek. In the

Syriac and Arabic versions the Dragon has a separate title (noticed in

A.V. margin, "Some add this title _of the Dragon_'). The former,

strangely enough, has 'end of Daniel' before this title. And in the

Syro-Chaldee version, given in Midrash _Rabbah de Rabbah_, Bel has a

subscription, and the Dragon a fresh title (_see_ Ball, 345a).

In v. 23 ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τόπῳ (Ο´) are wanting as connecting words in B, but

the reference to Bel in v. 28 serves to consolidate the two portions of

the story. A and Q also, as well as correctors of B, have an additional

clause in v. 24, which pre-supposes the former portion of the piece, a

clause given in A.V. and R.V. The καί of μὴ καὶ τοῦτον in Ο´ answers the

same purpose. Daniel's mocking tone at the end of v. 27 agrees well with

his sense of humour in v. 7. Cyrus' ready compliance, too, in v. 26 is

only accounted for fully by the shock given to his idolatrous beliefs in

the Bel part of the story. And so far the internal evidence argues for

the unity of the piece. But it is noticeable that the Epistle for

Tuesday after the Fifth Sunday in Lent in the Sarum and Roman Missals

consists of the Dragon story only, beginning at v. 29, with some slight

introductory changes.

And Gaster's recovered Aramaic text (which he believes to have been the

basis of Theodotion's Greek) consists of the Dragon story only. The

notion that it had a separate currency is therefore, to a certain

extent, supported; and this would still be the case, even if Gaster's

text is not an original, but a translation.

If Gaster's Aramaic were really the basis of Θ's version, it would

follow that he did not confine himself to making a mere recension of the

Ο´ text, though he evidently availed himself of it as far as he thought

proper. It is highly probable that this would apply to the Bel as well

as to the Dragon story, although the corresponding Aramaic of the former

is not at present forthcoming.

Neither the Ο´ nor Θ's original text seem to have been materially

tampered with, either in the way of addition or omission. Each has some

clauses not contained in the other: Ο´ in vv. 9, 15, 31, 39; Θ in vv. 1,

12, 13, 36, 40. Yet Westcott (Smith's _D.B._ I. 397a, ed. 2, 714a)

thinks that some of Θ's changes arose from a desire to give consistency

to the facts. The change at the end of v. 27, however, is hardly a happy

one, καὶ εἶπεν being put immediately after ὁ δράκων, thus suggesting the

idea that the latter drew attention to the fact that he was destroyed.

The LXX. avoided this.

It is remarkable that Theodoret, in his _Commentary on Daniel_, comments

on vv. 1 and 2 of Bel and the Dragon (Θ) only, treating them as the

closing verse (14) of chap. xii., and introducing them with the words,

οὕτω πληρώσας τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἐπήγαγεν ὁ προφήτης· καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς

Ἀστυάγης, κ.τ.λ. This curious fact, combined with that of their omission

from the Ο´, points to some arrangement of the text with which we are

not acquainted. Theodoret also refers to these same verses previously,

in commenting on chaps. v. 3 and x. 1. Though he says nothing of the

rest of Bel and the Dragon, he shews, by his referring in Ep. cxlv.

(latter part) to Habakkuk's miraculous flight through the air, that he

was well acquainted with the story, and approved of it.

The principal MSS. available are A, B, Q, Γ (vv. 2--4 only), and Δ from

v. 21 to 41, which has recently reinforced our somewhat scanty uncial

authorities.

The text of A appears to have slightly better Greek (vv. 9, 10, 19, 21,

27); but the form μαχαίρης (occurs in Heb. xi. 34 in A), if not a

slip,[67] seems Ionic (Wordsworth's _Greek Gram._ § 16, Obs.), as has

been already mentioned ('Authorship,' p. 193), and might perhaps be

accounted for by Θ's connection with Ephesus. The substitution of πρός

for τῷ, however, in v. 34 seems no improvement, A in this, as in several

other instances (vv. 10, 28, 35), agreeing with the Ο´ reading. Taking,

for convenience, B as the norm, we find that A's departures from it are

somewhat larger than in the Song of the Three. In v. 7 οὐδὲ πέπωκεν

πώποτε is added, as also in Q, to the description of Bel's inability to

consume food. In v. 11 δακτύλῳ is curiously substituted by A for

δακτυλίῳ; in v. 13 κατεφθόνουν for κατεφρόνουν. Both these are

suggestive of carelessness or of error _ex ore dictantis_ (Scrivener,

_N.T. Criticism_, ed. 2, p. 10). In v. 36 the substitution of χειρός for

κορυφῆς is peculiar. The alteration of gender in v. 17, σῶαι for σῶοι in

its first occurrence, but not in its second, may come under the head of

those "somewhat officious corrections" with which the editors of I.

Macc. in the _Camb. Bible for Schools_ (p. 48) charge this MS., as

likewise perhaps the reading παιδίων for τέκνων in v. 10.

Q not unfrequently agrees with it in differing from B. It stands alone,

however, in reading ναὸν for ἱερόν in v. 22, and in omitting the last

six words of v. 41, perhaps as improbable when coming from Cyrus.

Together with A, it contains an additional clause in v. 24, putting

words into Cyrus' mouth which connect the two stories together. Γ,

having vv. 2--4 only, contains no important variation. Δ (only from v.

21 to v. 41) contains in v. 22 the curious word ἔγδομα instead of

ἔκδοτον.

All things considered, the text of both versions may be said to be in as

fair condition as in the canonical part of Daniel.

LANGUAGE AND STYLE.

LANGUAGE.

[_See_ corresponding title in Susanna.]

The indications of a Semitic original give this fragment, in that

respect, a middle place between the other two. Less numerous than in the

Song of the Three, they are more so than in the History of Susanna,

though this is a shorter piece than that.

The non-discovery by Origen and others of Hebrew originals in their own

day by no means goes so far as to prove that such never existed, as

Rothstein in Kautzsch (I. 179) truly says.

Since Gaster's discovery of an Aramaic text of the Dragon (not of Bel),

the probability of a Semitic rather than a Greek original seems

strengthened. But see what Schürer thinks, under the corresponding

title in the Song of the Three, as also of the Syriac version at the end

of Neubauer's _Tobit._ C.H. Toy, too, in his article in the _Jewish

Encyclopædia_, Vol. II, says: "In the present state of knowledge it

seems better to reserve opinion as to its antiquity."

Delitzsch, at the end of his _Commentatio de Hab. proph. vita atque

oetate_ (Lips. 1842), prints in Rabbinic characters a Persian rendering,

"ex codice Paris-Reg. judaico-persico," which he says "ex textu hebraico

vel aramaico factam esse, ex crebris hebraismis patet" (p. 105). And on

pp. 26, 27 he prints the LXX from v. 28 to the end, and adds: "Hæc omnia

ad verbum Hebraico vel Aramaico translata esse dictionis simplicitas,

structura ac tota indoles clamat atque testatur." But on p. 41 he quotes

the opinion of Prof. Solomon Munk, of Paris (_Notice sur Rab. Saadia

Gaon_, p. 84), that this Hebrew text, translated into Persian, was

itself made by some European Rabbi from the Greek or Latin Bible. And a

similar origin for Gaster's text is now thought far from unlikely.

It may be well here to give a few brief notes on the separate phrases as

they occur:

v. 3 Θ. With ἐδαπανῶντο, _cf._ אֲכַלֶּה ב׳ of Deut. xxxii. 23 ("I will

spend my arrows upon," etc.). Δαπανάω occurs with ἐν and ἐπί in N.T.

Greek, but apparently not with εἰς, nor yet in the canonical O.T.

Deissmann, however, attempts to shew that this use of εἰς, instead of

'dativus commodi,' is an Alexandrian idiom (_Bible Studies_, Eng. tr.,

Edinb. 1900, p. 127). כלא is also used in Aramaic in the same sense in

Pahel.

v. 6 Ο´. The same phrase as the last recurs, inverted: εἰς αὐτὸν

δαπανᾶται.

v. 7 Ο´. Here the accusative after ὀμνύω might be taken as favouring a

Greek original, since ἐν for ב would seem natural in a translation of

Hebrew or Aramaic.

v. 7 Θ; v. 11 Ο´, Θ; v. 27 Ο´. The occurrence of βασιεῦ in these verses

suggests a rendering of מַלְבָּא which is used several times in the

Aramaic portion of Daniel, while it never occurs in the vocative in the

Hebrew portion. This indication, small though it be, inclines of course

towards an Aramaic rather than a Hebrew original.

v. 10 Ο´, Θ. Scholz's suggestion that χωρίς and ἐκτός are translations

of לבר is more probable than some of his ideas, for it is rendered by

both these words more than once in the Greek O.T.

v. 12 Θ. ὁ ψευδόμενος καθ᾽ ἡμῶν might be a translation of שְׁקַר צַל or

צַל.כְּדַב צַל is occasionally rendered by κατά, as in Job xxxiii. 10,

in a hostile sense. Liddell and Scott, however, give one example of

ψεύδω with κατά, and Arnold an anonymous one in his _Greek Grammar_

(1848, p. 265).

v. 13 Θ. Διόλου looks like a translation of תָּמִיד (or תְּדִירָא), as

in I. Kings x. 8, where it is so rendered.

v. 14 Ο´. σφραγισάμενος presents a difficulty here, which may be solved

by supposing that חֲתַם had been read by mistake for סְתַם, a kind of

error characteristic of the LXX translators. To 'shut' seems more in

place here than to 'seal,' which naturally follows later in the verse;

shutting first, sealing second, seems the only intelligible order.

vv. 14, 28 Θ; vv. 15, 33 Ο´. The καὶ ἐγένετο of these verses is

suggestive of וַיְהִי in the original.

v. 18 Θ. (Δόλος) οὐδὲ εἷς has an 'ungreek' look, and may have been a

rendering of צַד אֶחָד, as in Exod. xiv. 28. חדא (חדה) for חזא (חזה)

might account for the king's 'rejoicing' in Ο´ becoming his 'seeing' in

Θ.

v. 19 Ο´, Θ. The reading of ἔδαφος by Θ instead of δόλος by Ο´ may be

accounted for by supposing שקפא to have been substituted for שקרא, as

suggested in Hastings' _Dict._

v. 26 Ο´, Θ. The use of καί instead of ἵνα, to begin a clause signifying

purpose, is very Hebraic.

v. 27 Ο´, Θ. The ingenious idea of A. Scholz that τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν and

οὐ ταῦτα σέβεσηε are renderings of הפחדיכם and הפחדתם respectively, ה in

the first case being the article, and in the second merely the

interrogative particle, like other conjectures on p. 202 of his

_Commentary_, can hardly stand. He appears to have forgotten that the

article must not be placed before a noun with a pronominal suffix.[68]

v. 28 Ο´, Θ. ἐπί looks like a translation of צל (_cf._ Sus. 29). In Ο´

it is used against Daniel, and in Θ against the king.

v. 33 Ο´. Delitzsch suggests (p. 27) הששי ויהי ויהי ביום for the

beginning of this verse, with much likelihood.

v. 36 Θ. The reading χειρὸς in A for κορυφῆς may have arisen from קדקדו

being corrupted by homoeoteleuton into קדו, for which A has read ידו. A.

Scholz's notion of explaining this by Isai. xlv. 1 (where δεξιά is used,

not χείρ) is unsatisfactory.

v. 40 Ο´, Θ. The attempt to explain (Marshall in Hastings' _D.B._ art.

_Bel and the Dragon_) the 'in medio' of Vulg. v. 39 by a reading בגו for

בגב is not very likely, since they do not occur in corresponding

clauses.

v. 42 Ο´. Ἐξήγαγεν is used of the king here in a good sense, in v. 22 in

a bad one. This is possibly a rendering of הרציא in the latter case, of

הצלה in the former.

The Greek of the writer is hardly such as we should expect, unless he

was narrating a story which had reached him from a Hebrew source. The

frequency with which verbs occur very early in the construction of

sentences is a point in favour of a Semitic original, which does appear

to have been dwelt upon, _e.g._ vv. 11, 20 (Ο´), and 14, 16, 22 (Θ).

It is a matter of considerable nicety to estimate the value of these and

similar indications. They are not decisive. They tell with varying force

upon varying minds; but they distinctly tend, in the writer's opinion,

to increase the probability of the Greek having been grounded upon a

Hebrew or an Aramaic form of the story, the likelihood of the latter

being slightly the stronger.

In view of the introduction of Habakkuk into the story of the Dragon,

Delitzsch's opinion as to the similarity of Daniel's Hebrew to the

Hebrew of that prophet (_see_ Streane, _Age of Macc._ p. 262) becomes of

importance. A. Scholz, too, is of opinion (p. 146) that the Habakkuk

title makes for a Hebrew original, because the real prophecy of Habakkuk

was undoubtedly Hebrew, and this piece, whether genuine or fictitious,

would hardly have been appended in another language.

The LXX version was certainly known to Theodotion, since he copies much

of it, yet not quite so largely as in the Song of the Three. But it is

evident that he had other documents or traditions to use, of which he

freely availed himself; possibly some previous translation other than

LXX, as has been suggested under Susanna ('Date and Place,' p. 114).

There seems nothing in either Greek recension to imply that the two

parts of Bel and the Dragon (separated in Luther's version) are not by

the same hand.

It is noteworthy that the word ἔκδοτον, applied to Bel when handed over

to Daniel (v. 22, Θ), is used of our Lord in Acts ii. 23, these two

being its only Biblical occurrences.

STYLE.

The style is that of simple, clear, and well-told narrative, with very

little rhetorical embellishment about it, yet bearing somewhat of a

dramatic cast, like much of the canonical book to which it is appended.

It is not tedious (though there is much to tell which might have been

easily spun out), but is brief and spirited. There is nothing

superfluous to the aim of the story.[69]

Moreover, the narrative is told in such a way as ever to be a story of

captivating interest to the young, being full of movement and

interesting incident. The style of the composition is much more in

accordance with Syrian than with Alexandrian models. There is nothing of

Hellenistic speculation or philosophy, though the subject of idolatry

would have lent itself to such treatment (as that of injustice would in

Susanna). No figurative or hyperbolic phraseology is employed.

An idea has been revived and maintained that the lions' den episode at

the end is a mere adaptation and embellishment of that in Dan. vi.[70]

(Churton, 392; Streane, 109, "distortions of O.T. narratives"; J.M.

Fuller, S.P.C.K. _Comm. in loc._). This idea is successfully opposed by

Arnald, who (on v. 31) gives three reasons against it, and by Bishop

Gray (_Introd. to O.T. in loc._). Delitzsch (p. 30) calls this section

of Θ's version "partem dignissimam." Attempts to prove the falsity of

this martyrdom, if such it may be called, by first assuming the identity

of these two events, treating the latter as an ornamental exaggeration

of the former, and then pointing out what are taken for irreconcileable

discrepancies, are beside the mark. Nor does the supposition that the

one night in the den (of Dan. vi.) was increased to six, nor that the

detail of withholding the lions' usual food to sharpen their appetites

(in Θ only), were added for the purpose of heightening the effect, carry

much weight. The omission of Daniel's speech, with the detail[71] of the

angel closing the lions' mouths (vv. 21, 22), tells in the opposite

direction. It is no more necessary to reckon these two den episodes as

one event than our Lord's feeding of the four and five thousand, or his

healing of the centurion's servant and the nobleman's son.

RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.

RELIGIOUS.

A religious feeling, strong though misdirected, evidently existed both

in king and people, involving considerable expenditure on objects and

places of worship. It was not as to the propriety of worship in itself,

but of the object towards which it ought to be directed, that the

controversy arose.

Two sorts of worship were in vogue:--

(a) _Bel-worship._ As to the practice of this in Babylon no question

appears to be raised; he was the supreme god and guardian of Babylon.

The representation of Cyrus as a worshipper of Bel agrees with the

account of himself in the Annals of Nabu-nahid, cited by Ball on v. 4;

and Sayce (_Temple Bible_, Tobit, p. 95) notes that the cuneiform

monuments have shewn that Cyrus was politic enough to conform to the

religion of his Babylonian subjects.

The unabashed effrontery of the idol-priests (vv. 11, 12) is very

characteristic. See, however, Blakesley's note on Herodot. VIII. 41.

(b) _Dragon-worship._ This is not otherwise known to have existed in

Babylonia, but snake-worship, which may be the same, is asserted by J.T.

Marshall (end of art. _Bel and the Dragon_, Hastings' _D.B._.). In

support of this it is noteworthy that ὁ δράκων is identified with ὁ ὄφις

in Rev. xii. 9, and that נָחָשׁ and תַּנִּין seem identified in Ex. iv.

3 and vii. 9. A. Kamphausen, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, thinks that

"Günkel has conclusively shewn that the primeval Babylonian myth of the

conquest of the chaos-monster or the great dragon Tiamat by the god

Marduk lies at the root." So J.M. Fuller, in the S.P.C.K. _Comm._, says

that "in Babylonian inscriptions dealing with the fall, a dragon,

generally female, appears." Daniel plans his scheme in accordance with

the dragon's known voracity (Jer. li. 34). The προσεκύνησαν τὸν δράκοντα

of Rev. xiii. 4 may have been suggested by the dragon-worship here;

ἐσέβοντο is used in v. 23, προσκύνησον (with dat.) in v. 24 (both

versions).

Daniel set himself, in reply to the king, who suggested to him the

propriety of Bel-worship, to detach the Babylonians from these

superstitious follies, to interpret God's will in the matter, and to

free them from the service of idols. Yet his own name, 'Belteshazzar,'

may have implied[72] Bel's existence; still, even if it was so, we must

remember that it was not self-assumed, but given by the chief eunuch.

The king's question shews that he misunderstood Daniel's character. It

is noticeable, as a link of connection between the two parts of the

story, that Daniel attacks the former superstition, Bel, by disproving

the belief in the god's powers of eating; and the latter, the Dragon,

by destroying the supposed divinity by means of what he ate.

As described in the Greek, Daniel's method of destroying the Dragon

appears quite inadequate to effect his purpose. The ingredients named as

composing the ball do not seem capable of achieving the result which

followed. But in Gaster's Aramaic a different light is thrown upon the

matter; for the ball is merely used as a vehicle to conceal sharp teeth

embedded in it, so that the Dragon might swallow them unawares, and

sustain internally a fatal laceration. If this be accepted as correct,

Sir Thomas Browne's discussion, as to how such unlikely ingredients

might bring about a death of the kind described, is naturally set aside.

S. Wilkin, however, in his edition of Browne's _Works_, 1835 (Vol. II.

p. 337), does not treat Sir T. Browne's discussion as a serious one; but

in this view all will not concur. Schürer, in Hauck's _Dict._ (I. 639),

writes of the Dragon as having been slain "mit unverdaulichen Kitchen";

and Toy, in the _Jewish Encyclopædia_, regards "the iron comb insertion

as a natural embellishment." It is, however, not at all out of keeping

with Daniel's clever devices for the detection of error, and looks like

a practicable plan. And Josippon, quoted by Heppner, _op. cit._ p. 33,

gives a similar account of the Dragon's destruction,

והחרוצים קרני הברזל.

The consequence of the prophet's triumph in each case appears to have

been that the king was convinced of the vanity of idols much more than

his people. And as Daniel's demonstrations were not, so far as we see,

made before the general public, this is what might have been expected. A

similar conviction on Nebuchadnezzar's part, without any spontaneous

assent of his people, may be noticed in Dan. iii. 28--30, vi. 25--28. A

lack of popular adhesion to the king's change of mind would sufficiently

account for the early restoration of Bel's temple (_see_ 'Chronology,'

p. 225).

In v. 21 the LXX states that it was Daniel who shewed the king the privy

doors. This, on the whole, has more _vraisemblance_ than the idea of

Theodotion, who states that it was the priests who undertook the task.

Ball suggests that they did so because they were "in fear of their

lives"; but if so, this plan of saving them, by making a clean breast of

the matter, was unsuccessful.

Another religious feature shews itself in v. 28, viz. the scorn in which

the Babylonian zealots held the Jewish religion. It would evidently have

been regarded as a degradation for the king to become a Jew, and social

would probably here combine with religious grounds in giving force to

this feeling. Compare Pilate's contempt of such an idea with regard to

himself, as expressed in St. John xviii. 35. Grotius proposed a

translation which inverted the phrase in such a way as to make it apply

to Daniel: "A Jew has become king." This, however, is not natural in the

Greek, has no countenance lent to it by the Aramaic text, and is clearly

opposed by the Syriac marginal title as given in Swete's manual LXX,

"tit. adpinx. ut vid. περι του βασιλεως λεγουσι ως γεγονεν Ιουδαιος,

Syr'mg*." Cajetanus Bugati also (_Daniel_, Milan, 1788, p. 162) thinks

Grotius wrong.[73] For a similarly imagined instance of a king embracing

Judaism, _cf._ II. Macc. ix. 17, headed by A.V., "Antiochus promiseth to

become a Jew," on which Rawlinson notes, "it is extremely improbable

that Epiphanes ever expressed any such intention," an opinion in which

most will agree.

The withholding of food, in order to sharpen the lions' appetites (v.

32), shews a spirit similar to that which directed the sevenfold heating

of the furnace in chap. iii. The numbers in vv. 2, 10, etc., are quite

in keeping with Daniel's use of symbolic numeration for purposes of

religious teaching; and the zeal displayed against idolatry is

characteristic of the Jewish captivity, as depicted in the canonical

book which bears his name. These three points, therefore, so far as they

go, tell in favour of the religious unity of the whole.

SOCIAL

Daniel appears on the same terms of intimacy with royalty as in the

canonical book, and speaks his mind a little more freely and intimately

perhaps, as becomes his added years and experience. He still acts as a

divine messenger to a heathen king, and he successfully unmasks his

fallacy of judging by appearances in the matter of Bel's food. His

laughter in vv. 7,19, may have been amusement at the king's simplicity

or at the priests' cunning, the king's wrath in vv. 8, 21, being

compatible with either. But this laughter of v. 7 only appears in Θ's

version. As in Susanna, he stands as the willing exposer of fraud,

intellectually acute as well as morally upright.

v. 29 Θ has been objected to by Ball and by Zöckler as an unlikely mode

of address by the conquered Babylonians to Cyrus their conqueror.

Probably some tumultous rising took place, which the king, a true

oriental monarch, pacified at the expense of Daniel. On such outbreaks

courtly politeness often vanishes, and the tyrant is subject to tyranny.

Such an occurrence agrees with Habakkuk's description of the Chaldees as

"bitter and hasty" (i. 6), and 'senseless' and 'absurd' are scarcely the

terms to apply to it.

The slaughter of the priests (vv. 22, 28) is quite in accordance with

the practice as shewn in the canonical chapters ii. and vi.[74]; also

the destruction of false accusers (v. 42) with vi. 25; so also the

keeping of lions by the king; and so, too, the method of double sealing

(v. 11 Ο´, 14 Θ; vi. 17). That παιδάρια should be under the command of

Daniel (v. 14 Θ and Syr.) is what would be likely for one in his

position. The term is used of himself in Sus. 45 Θ as a page of superior

rank. The idea of an image being made of more materials than one (v. 7)

is paralleled in ii. 32, 33.

Cyrus' cowardice in giving up Daniel to the threatening mob is very like

Pilate's in delivering up Christ (St. Matt, xxvii. 26, St. John xix.

16). Παραδίδωμι is used in each case (v. 29 Θ, 30 Θ and Ο´). Similar,

too, is Nebuchadnezzar's conduct with Daniel, and that of Herod Antipas

with St. John Baptist. Despotic rulers are often frightened by popular

clamour. But Cyrus, however weak in yielding, appears at the close of

the story in a less odious light than Pilate.

As in Susanna, there is no indication of rabbinism in the legal,

religious, or social standpoints of the story.

THEOLOGY.

The whole piece makes a mock at idolatry[75] with a view of turning men

from false worships to that of the living God. Indeed the end of v. 5

seems an echo of Gen. i. 1. Jehovah's power to vindicate Himself and His

servants is of course also exhibited, and this in contrast to the idols,

who make no resistance to their overthrow.

He is represented as Sole Sovereign, the only God worthy of worship,

with full power to deliver by wonderful providence His faithful people,

who make their acknowledgments to Him. However far they may be

scattered, His eye is still upon them; He forsakes not those who seek

and love Him (v. 38).

vv. 3, 4, 14 are quoted by Irenæus (IV. ix. 1) to prove that the one

living God was the God worshipped by the prophets, as "the God of the

living." Even the heathen king is forced to confess that He is great and

unique, and (in Vulg. only, v. 42) calls Him Saviour, and desires the

whole world to worship Him.

It is noteworthy that the king is represented as the party complaining

in the first instance; it is his question (v. 4) which draws forth from

Daniel his practical proof of the vanity of idols, inanimate or animate,

culminating in the triumphant exclamation at the end of v. 27. And thus

the imposture of idol-worship is revealed, as well as the value of

devotion to the true Lord of all, by a process commenced in the opposite

interest.

Daniel resists the king's invitation to worship Bel, which might have

led him under the ban of Deut. xviii. 20 (end) as "speaking in the name

of other gods." False theological opinions are corrected by Daniel, who

not only dissuades from idol-worship, but persuades to that of the true

deity. Hence the beautiful appropriateness of τοὺς ἀγαπῶντάς σε (v. 38)

instead of τοὺς ἐλπίζοντας ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν in the corresponding point of

delivery in Sus. 60 Θ. For Daniel was fighting for God, while Susanna

was defending herself. The one was an active plaintiff for God, the

other a passive defendant of herself. Thus Love in Daniel's case, Hope

in Susanna's, has its own special appropriateness.

In v. 5 Daniel claims God to be τὸν ζῶντα θεόν, but Cyrus claims for Bel

to be only ζῶν θεός; in v. 24 Cyrus makes the same claim for the Dragon,

and then in v. 25 Daniel makes only a like claim for God (anarthrous),

for Daniel takes here the words out of Cyrus' mouth; in the former

instance it was _vice versâ_. The same phrases are used by Darius in vi.

20, 26 Θ. Thus the prophet makes a more exclusive claim for the divinity

of his God. In v. 6 a contrast is afforded with what is said of God in

Ps. xvi. 2 (P.B. aft. Vulg. and LXX), as the Creator who still retains

power over living beings.

As in the canonical Dan. vi. 22 (and in the other additions thereto), so

here an angel intervenes on behalf of the right, rescuing God's

persecuted prophet. A man is employed in each case also to carry out the

miraculous purposes of God. Further, compare the angel helping Daniel,

after conflict with the Dragon, with Rev. xii. 7, 8.

The sudden transportation of Habakkuk (v. 36) is parallelled by that of

St. Philip in Acts viii. 39 by the "Spirit of the Lord." Ezek. viii. 3,

which is printed as a parallel in the margin of A.V. at iii. 12, 14 of

that book, may also be compared,[76] as well as I. Kings xviii. 12 and

St. Matt. iv. I. For the latter part of this verse (36), barely

intelligible in the Greek, Gaster's Aramaic gives an excellent sense.

There does not seem to be any undue love of the marvellous or straining

to bring it into prominence. Both the statue and the Dragon are

destroyed by ordinary means; and their false position in the imagination

of the people is unmasked without any resort to the miraculous.[77] This

element does not enter into the story till the rescue of the persecuted

Daniel, who has been so zealous for the honour of his God.

Though, with its two companion pieces, it has been cavilled at (not to

reckon Africanus' enquiries) from the time of the Jewish teacher whom

Jerome tells us of in his preface to Daniel, yet even the most

contemptuous deprecators of the 'Additions' can find little seriously to

condemn in the theology of this story.[78] Considering the strong

desire which has existed in some quarters to charge these apocryphal

books with grievous doctrinal error, this fact says much. The knowledge

of God and of divine things is what would be probable at the time it

represents, and is not incongruous with the book to which it is

appended, nor with its fellow-appendices. This speaks well for its

excellence and its consistency.

CHRONOLOGY.

The principal chronological points, concerning which difficulties have

been felt, arise: (A) in vv. 1, 2, concerning Astyages, Cyrus, and

Daniel; (B) in v. 22, as to the destruction of Bel's temple; and (C) in

v. 33, as to Habakkuk being a contemporary of Daniel.

In connection with A, it is remarkable that v. 1 forms in the Vulgate

the last verse of the preceding chapter, _i.e._ the last verse of

Susanna. This arrangement may have been made from chronological reasons,

possibly to escape an apparent difficulty; and in the LXX the verse is

wanting altogether. Either plan, the attachment of the verse to

Susanna, or its entire omission, has the effect of leaving the king in

this piece nameless, and so solves the imagined difficulty of Cyrus and

Daniel acting together as represented.

The text commented on by Theodoret offers the same solution in another

form, viz. by transferring v. 1 to the end of chap, xii., and so

concluding the book. He thus introduces it: Οὕτω πληρώσας τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν

ἐπήγαγεν ὁ προφήτης καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀστυάγης, κ.τ.λ. Theodoret comments

no further on Bel and the Dragon, though his remarks in other parts of

the commentary shew that he favourably regarded it. See his observations

on v. 31, x. 1.

The disappearance in one case, and the displacements in the others of

this verse, evidently point to some uncertainty in early times as to its

right connection. But the difficulties raised as to this verse even

where it stands are not so serious as was once thought. As Ball says _in

loc._, "The cuneiform records have thrown unexpected light on

difficulties which were the despair of bygone generations of scholars,"

and quotes one which makes Astyages the captive of Cyrus. J.H. Blunt

attempts to shew, not very satisfactorily, that the king of v. 2 was

Darius. A note in Husenbeth's Douay version, still less so, quietly says

"Astyages, or Darius"!

It has also been suggested, with regard to this and difficulty C, that

another Daniel is here intended, to be identified with the Daniel of

Ezra viii. 2 (Bissell).

The second difficulty, B, is raised by the asserted destruction of Bel's

temple in v. 22. Now this is said not to have been destroyed till

Xerxes' return from Greece in 479. Even then Herodotus (I. 183) merely

says that he 'took' (ἔλαβε) a golden statue, and slew the protesting

priest; Strabo, on hearsay, (XVI. 1) and Arrian (_Exp. Alex._ VII. 17),

however, assert its destruction. But this forms a small obstacle, unduly

magnified. Supposing Bel's temple to have been destroyed, as v. 22

narrates, it is far from improbable that another temple may have been

raised before Xerxes' arrival. The people were evidently attached to

Bel's worship, as v. 28 shews, notwithstanding the conviction of their

king as to the truth of Daniel's God. It is noticeable that the LXX has

no mention of the temple's, but only of the idol's, destruction; and

that Θ, according to the manuscript Q, has not ἱερόν but ναόν in v. 22.

A. Scholz entertains the strange opinion that this and other historic

difficulties were purposely introduced by the writer: "Der Verfasser

unserer Erzählung kennt sichtlich die Verhältnisse in Babylon, und hat

seine Darstellung so eingerichtet, dass es einfach unmöglich ist, sie

geschichtlich zu verstehen" (p. 219). But this is a desperate expedient

to support his view of the whole story being intended for a 'vision,'

and it would be hard to find any parallel to such a proceeding on the

part of the sacred writers.[79]

So far as Babylon is concerned, there is no indication of anything but a

time of peace, which is quite in accordance with the supposed period of

the narrative.

There is perhaps more difficulty, C, in making Habakkuk than in making

Cyrus, a contemporary of the grown-up Daniel. Indeed, with the earlier

date formerly assigned to Habakkuk, the difficulty seemed all but

insuperable, except by postulating two Habakkuks or two Daniels. And,

much as it may lack _vraisemblance_, either of those suppositions is of

course within the bounds of possibility. So Trapp notes, rather

sneeringly, on Hab. i. 1: "Those apocryphal Additions to Daniel, which

either are false, or there were two Habakkuks"; and J.H. Blunt, more

seriously, to a similar effect on Hab. i. 1 and Bel 33. Josippon ben

Gorion (I. 7) joins the whole story with the canonical history, but, as

given by Delitzsch (_op. cit._ p. 40), transposes, presumably from

chronological motives, the den incident to the beginning of the story,

"in ordine chronologico iudaicæ traditioni de Habacuci ætate se

accommodantem." Josippon, around whom considerable obscurity hangs, is

dated as of the eighth or ninth century in the _Biog. Univ._ art.

_Gorionides_, Paris, 1857; but in Hastings' _D.B._ art _Bel and the

Dragon_, p. 267b, c. A.D. 940 is given as his time.

Habakkuk's prophecy is now dated as late as 600 (Driver in Hastings'

_D.B._ art. _Habakkuk_; Kirkpatrick in Smith's _D.B²._ art. _Habakkuk_,

1256b, says "not later than the sixth year of Jehoiakim"); and if

Habakkuk prophesied in his youth, our story is not an impossible one. So

Cornelius Jansen (_Analecta_, p. 154), "Quapropter nihil obstabit quo

minus idem Habacuc iam senex prandium in Babylonem detulerit," and he

quotes a tradition of Isidore Hispalensis (_de vit. Proph._) that

Habakkuk lived to see the return from the Captivity, and two years

after. Rosenmüller, quoted in a note on Hab. i. 1 by Maurer (neither of

whom were too partial to traditional views), thinks that the time of

Habakkuk is consistent with the "vetus fama in apocryphis Danielis

additamentis." He even places chap. iii. of Habakkuk under Zedekiah,

though with this Maurer does not agree (_cf._ Henderson, _Min. Proph.,

Introd. to Hab._).

Jamieson, Brown, and Faussett in their Commentary, _Introd. to Hab._

(1869), by no means inclined to favour the Apocrypha, say that Bel and

the Dragon agrees with the notion of Habakkuk prophesying in Jehoiakim's

reign.

G.A. Smith, however, in his _Book of the Twelve Prophets_, 1900, II.

130, contents himself with calling it "an extraordinary story of

Habakkuk's miraculous carriage of food to Daniel in the lions' den, soon

after Cyrus had taken Babylon." But A.C. Jennings, in Bishop Ellicott's

_Comm. for English Readers, Introd. to Hab._, pp. 523--5, says: "The

story, worthless in itself, nevertheless, indirectly confirms the theory

of date which we have accepted below" in these words, "Habakkuk's

prophecy dates from the reign of Jehoiakim, not more than five years at

most before the battle of Carchemish--how much nearer that great event

it is impossible to say." Dean Farrar also curiously observes,

"Habakkuk's appearance in apocryphal legend (vv. 33--39) shews the

impression he had made on the mind of his people, and perhaps indicates

his date as a contemporary of Daniel." (_Minor Prophets_ in 'Men of the

Bible' series, n.d., p. 160).

Another instance of belief in the contemporaneity of Daniel and Habakkuk

is afforded by Raymund Martini (_c._ 1250) in his _Pugio fidei_ (Paris,

1651, p. 740): "Habacuc vero Prophetam fuisse contemporaneum Danieli

inde colligitur ubi in Bereschit Rabba hoc modo scribitur de Joseph," he

says before quoting a long passage from the B.R. on Gen. xxxvii. 24.

This passage is none other than a portion of Bel and the Dragon in

Chaldee, and is headed without reserve as בדניאל. It proceeds with v. 28

to the end:

לכא לביל תבד ולתנינא קטל ואתהפכו צליו ואמרין חד לחד יהודאה הוא ליה ואיתכנשו בבלאי צל מלכא. Then follows a Latin translation,

after which Martini adds "Hucusque traditio," and, after quoting Hab. i.

6, finishes his work.

Martini's good faith in quotation is defended by Neubauer in his Chaldee

Tobit (Oxf, 1888, xviii. to xxiv.). He also identifies the Breshith

Rabbah quoted with the Midrash Rabbah de Rabbah. The real Breshith is

probably as early as the 4th century; but neither in the Venice edition

of 1566, nor the Leipzig one of 1864, is the passage to be found under

Gen. xxxvii. _Cf._ Payne-Smith's note, as to Martini's quotations, in

_Pearson on the Creed_, Oxf. 1870, p. 306, where it is shewn that by

Breshith Rabbah the book by Moses Haddarshan (of the 11th century) is

sometimes meant. Etheridge states that only fragments of this book are

extant (p. 406). Delitzsch (_de Habacuci Proph. vita atque ætate_, Lips.

1842, p. 34) also defends Martini's sincerity, and says "Non dubito

fore, ut fragmentum a Raymundo nobiscum communicatum aliquando in

antiquis Genesis Rabba Codd., qui sane rarissimi sunt, inveniatur."

The fact incidentally brought out in the story that Habakkuk was not

engaged in reaping, but was occupied in taking out food for the reapers,

fits in well with the idea of his advanced age. Such a task might well

be undertaken by one who was no longer strong enough for field

labour.[80]

All these difficulties would, on other grounds, be deprived of much of

their importance by the theory of A. Scholz, if that could be accepted

as true. He regards the entire book of Daniel, including of course the

Additions, as a series of apocalyptic visions (p. 201). This he

considers as the earliest explanation, supported by the heading ὅραις

to each chapter of Daniel in A and some other MSS. But while removing

one set of difficulties, this theory introduces others of a character at

least as serious; and it is by no means easy to convince oneself that

there is an "apocalyptic" tone about this or the other Additions. This

remarkable theory cuts, rather than unties, such knots as are above

noted, and carries with it to most minds a strange and improbable air.

CANONICITY.

What is said as to Susanna on this point holds almost entirely good

here. Both pieces have been called in question on nearly the same

ground, and have stood or fallen together. Possibly this one presents

rather more difficulty in some of its details.

It is often included in Scripture lists under the title Daniel;[81] and

is often quoted in the same manner, _e.g._ by St. Cyprian, _ad

Fortunatum_, § 11, "Daniel, Deo devotus & sancto spiritu plenus exclamat

et dicit," v. 4. The quotations given under 'Early Christian Literature

and Art' will shew how strong a hold this story had in many quarters,

and what use was made of it.

Pseudo-Athanasius, in his _Synops. S.S._, mentions the story at the end

of Section 41 as included in Daniel, but he does _not_ name it at the

close of the _Synopsis_ as being outside the canonical books, as he does

in the case of Susanna. The writer of _De Mirabilibus Script. Sacr._,

often attached to St. Augustine's works (Migne, _Patr. lat._ XXXV.;

Benedict, ed. appx. to Vol. III.), expressly declares against its

canonicity. This treatise is thought to have been composed in England or

Ireland in the 7th or 8th century (Loisy, _O.T._ p. 154).

The hesitation of the earlier Church, however, found no counterpart in

the canonizing decree of the Council of Trent; while, on the other hand,

Protestant opinion has run almost entirely against canonicity.

Diametrically opposite views are steadily maintained by authorities on

both sides; although among English-speaking Protestants there is perhaps

a decrease in the contempt with which this story was once treated.

Among the Syriac-using Christians of the Malabar coast, Bel and the

Dragon, with the other additions, is reckoned as "part and parcel of the

book of Daniel" (Letter to present writer of Aug. 8, 1902, from Rev.

F.V.J. Givargese, Principal of Mar Dionysius Seminary, Kottayam).

Bar-Hebræus, too, comments on it, but says at the head of his remarks

that "some do not receive this story" (_op. cit._ p. 27).

The many, resemblances and coincidences between this and the canonical

book pointed out under other heads ('Language and Style,' 'Religious and

Social State,' etc.) of course tell, so far as they go, in its favour.

Schrader (Schenkel's _Bibel Lex._ 1869, art. _Habak._ p. 556) classes

Bel and the Dragon with pseudo-Epiphanius' and Rabbinic legends of the

same tale, as "reine Fabeln und Legenden zu erkennen." This seems too

positive an opinion of their untrustworthiness. It is agreed with,

however, by Orelli (_Introd.to Hab._, Clarke's Transl.), who styles Bel

and the Dragon, or at least the Habakkuk incident in it, "an idle

story." A.B. Davidson also (_Encyclop. Brit._ ed. 9, II. 181) writes of

it as being "completely fabulous;" and Ewald speaks of the episode of

Habakkuk as an example of an unhistoric spirit, growing rapidly and

dangerously (v. 487).

Cloquet's plea that non-canonicity is 'proved' (_XXXIX Arts._ 1885, pp.

112, 113) by six days being named here, and one day in the canonical

book, as the length of Daniel's incarceration in the den, is beside the

mark. It assumes for controversial purposes that the two passages must

refer to the same event. This writer also speaks generally (p. 115) of

Bel and the Dragon's "direct contradictions of Scripture." Such

strictures are only worth noticing as specimens of many instances in

which _possible_ discrepancies between canonical and uncanonical books

are treated by a particular class of writers as _certain_, in the hope

of depreciating the latter. These are sometimes attacked with extreme

violence as full of fables, superstitions, and impieties--apocryphal in

the worst sense. But they deserve to be saved from this unmerited

contempt, indulged in usually for polemical purposes, and only rendered

possible by an insufficient study of the works themselves and the many

admirable points which they contain.

Our own Church indulges in no rash or sweeping assertions, but follows

the golden mean. She states in Art. VI. her present practical view of

this and the other Additions in common with the rest of the Apocrypha.

While not making any special doctrine to turn upon an apocryphal text,

she directs the perusal of this, with the other books of its class, for

purposes of practical edification. In singularly guarded and cautious

terms she is careful not to commit herself to anything more than a

statement of her authorized practice. Thus she has not closed the door,

as the Council of Trent is supposed to have done,[82] against the entry

of fresh knowledge, with its corresponding changes of view or

modifications of usage.

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART

LITERATURE.

The following examples from primitive Christian writings bear more or

less directly upon this book.

NEW TESTAMENT. Compare B.V.M.'s words in St. Luke i. 38 with Daniel's at

the end of v. 9, Θ. With John xviii. 35 compare Bel 38, Ο´ and Θ, as to

a Gentile being taken for a Jew. Moreover the phrase τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν

in Acts xvii. 23 is very like a reminiscence of Bel 27, Θ, end. But A.

Scholz's idea that our Lord's words in John x. 9 are based on vv. 3, 6,

13 has little likelihood: "gegensätzlich so nahe verwandt, dass in den

Evangelium darauf Bezug genommen sein könnte" (note on v. 13).

IRENÆUS (†200) in IV. ix. 1 quotes vv. 4, 5, 24, as coming from Daniel,

apparently without the smallest misgiving. His quotations accord with Θ

as against Ο´, v. 4 being the same in both. As Schürer says in Hauck's

_Encyclopædia_ (I. 640): "Irenäus benuzt die Uebersetzung des Theodotion

und so alle Folgenden." But see under _Cyprian_.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (†220) refers, _Strom._ I. 21 (middle, ed. Potter,

Oxf. 1715), among a chain of historic events, to the closing scene in

this piece: τότε διὰ δράκντα Δανιὴλ εἰς λάκκον λεόντων βληθεὶς, ὑπὸ

Ἀμβακοὺβ[83] προνοίᾳ θεῦ τραφεὶς, ἑβδομαῖος ἀνασώζεται.

TERTULLIAN (†240). In _de Jejun._ VII. (end) reference is made to vv.

35--39; and in IX. the story is again mentioned. In _de Oratione_, 29,

he quotes vv. 33, 34, seemingly with full acceptance. In _de Idol._ XIX.

he says that "Daniel nec Belum nec draconem colere."

ORIGEN (†254). Besides the question dealt with in his controversy with

Julius Africanus, Origen in the Fragment of his _Strom_, bk. X. expounds

Bel. He also quotes it in his _Exhort, ad martyrium_, § 33.

CYPRIAN (†258) in _ad Fortunatum_, 11, quotes v. 5, apparently

following a translation of the Ο´, and not of Θ's, text. The same verse

is again quoted by him in _Ep._ lviii. 5 in exactly the same words. It

is curious that both passages are preceded, in the same sections, by a

quotation of Dan. iii. 16--18, apparently based on Θ's version. In the

case of v. 5 in _Ep._ lviii. there is a slight variation in the readings

of some MSS. as given by Hartel. _Cf._ Prof. Swete's _Introd._ 1902, p.

47.

PSEUDO-CYPRIAN (3rd century?) gives parts of vv. 37, 38, in _Oratio_ II.

2, following Ο´ a little more closely than Θ.

PASSING OF MARY (3rd or 4th century, _see D.C.B., Mary_, 1142b). In

the First Latin form vv. 33--39 are clearly referred to.

ATHANASIUS (†373) in his _Discourse against Arians_, II. 8, quotes v. 5

as words of Daniel, which he also refers to in III. 30.

EPHREM SYRUS (†378). In the hymn _de Jejunio_ there is, according to

T.J. Lamy (Mechlin, 1886), a reference to Bel and the Dragon, "cum

Daniel jejunavit."

GREGORY NAZIANZEN (†390) in his poetical _Præcepta ad Virgines_ has the

line, speaking of Daniel, ἀερίην δ᾽ ἐνὶ χρσὶν ἐδέξατο δαῖτα προφήτου.

AMBROSE (†397), in his Commentary in _Ep. ad Rom. I. 23_, writes,

"Coluerunt et serpentem draconem quem occidit Daniel, homo dei" (Basel,

1527, IV. p. 768).

CHRYSOSTOM (†407), _In Danielem_, cap. XIII. (XIV.) comments on Bel and

the Dragon as part of the book, seemingly without reserve or alteration

of tone.

PRUDENTIUS (†410), in his _Cathemerinon_, IV., has several verses on the

den episode, of which this is one:

"Cernit forte procul dapes ineuntas

Quas messoribus Habakkuk propheta

Agresti bonus exhibebat arte."

JEROME (†420), though excluding this and the other Additions from the

canon, according to what he writes in his preface to Daniel, "veru

anteposito easque jugulante subjecimus," retains it in his Bible. In his

_Onomasticon de Nominibus Hebraicis_ he includes under Daniel, Astyages,

Bel, Ambacum, without distinction from the rest of the names in Daniel.

But for this last work he was chiefly indebted to Eusebius, Πετὶ τῶν

οπικῶν ὀνομάτων. (_D.C.B._ II. 336a).

HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM (†438), in his Στιχηρόν on the XII prophets, says

of Habakkuk that, whether he was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried

to Babylon, εἰπεῖν τὸ σαφὲς οὐκ ἔχω.

THEODORET(†457), towards the close of _Ep._ CXLV., quotes v. 36 with

clear belief in the miracle. He also comments on vv. 1, 2 as if forming

v. 14 of Dan. xii.; and then ceases.

We see, then, that the more than respectful references to this piece in

the writers of ancient Christendom, if not quite so frequent as the

citations of the Song and of Susanna, are still numerous and clear.

ART.

This apocryphal tract has afforded two fairly popular subjects for

artistic illustration, viz., Daniel destroying the dragon, and Daniel

and Habakkuk in the lions' den.

Daniel destroying the Dragon is a subject represented on glass from the

catacombs (_D.C.A._ art. _Glass_, p. 733a). Garrucci (_Vetri_, XIII.

13) has a glass vessel in which Christ is represented with Daniel, who

is giving cakes to the dragon (_D.C.A. Jesus Christ, Representations

of_, p. 877b). In _Paganism in Christian Art_ in the same Dictionary

(p. 1535a), it is said, "Hercules feeding the fabled dragon with cakes

of poppy-seed appears to have furnished the motive for the

representation of the apocryphal story of Daniel killing the dragon at

Babylon." Presumably this means the dragon Ladon in the garden of the

Hesperides. But the connection between the two dragon episodes of

Hercules and Daniel seems a little difficult to establish by

indisputable evidence.

In Walter Lowrie's _Christian Art and Archæology_ (Lond. and New York,

1901, p. 363) is a woodcut of a fragment of gold glass, with Daniel

slaying the Dragon. This is correctly described on p. 209, but is

wrongly entitled under the figure itself, as 'Daniel slaying Bel.' The

picture is said to be taken from Garrucci, _Storia dell' Arte_, but no

further reference is given. On p. 365 of Lowrie's book is a smaller

scene of the same in glass, again with an erroneous description on p.

xxi. as "Daniel and Bel." No dates are suggested for the above pieces of

glass, but they appear to be very ancient.

In the Vatican cemetery a representation of Daniel's destruction of the

dragon has been found on a sarcophagus; nor is this a solitary instance.

(_See O.T. in Art, D.C.A._ p. 1459a.) And on the south side of the

Angel Choir in Lincoln Minster, among a series of sculptures in the

spandrils of the triforium arches, occurs a figure, described by

Cockerell, the architect, as that of the "Angel of Daniel," with a

monster under his feet, deemed to be "the old Dragon " (Archæol.

Institute's _Memoirs of Lincoln_, Lond. 1850, p. 222).

Habakkuk with the loaves often appears in representations of the lions'

den (_O.T. in Art_, 1459a). In fact there is reason to think that this

apocryphal scene was at least as frequently represented as the

corresponding canonical one; _e.g._ on a sarcophagus at Rome figured in

the frontispiece to Burgon's _Letters from Rome_, thought by him to be

of about the 5th century (p. 244). There is also a woodcut of this in

_D.C.A._ art. _Sculpture_, p. 1868. A sarcophagus of the 4th century

also, like Burgon's, in the Lateran Museum (though not, it would seem,

identical) is mentioned in W. Lowrie's _Art and Archæology_, p. 260, as

carved with the same subject of Daniel and Habakkuk.

In Bohn's edition of Didron's _Christian Iconography_ (Lond. 1886, II.

210) there is a woodcut of a miniature in the _Speculum hum. salv._

(_circ._ 1350), in the library of Lord Coleridge, portraying Daniel

among the lions. The appearance of Habakkuk guided by the angel in the

background, carrying food, identifies the scene with Bel and the Dragon,

and not with the history of Dan. vi. Even in representations of this,

the canonical den-scene, it is noteworthy how often Daniel is shown in

a sitting posture, although all mention of this is confined to v. 40 of

the apocryphal story.

It is a little remarkable that Daniel's dramatic disclosure of the

priests' trick (v. 21) has not, so far as the writer is aware, commended

itself to artists. The ash-strewn floor of Bel's temple, the tell-tale

footmarks, and the emotions of exultation and surprise on the face of

Daniel and the King respectively, with a possible introduction of the

detected impostors at the side, might make, in capable hands, a very

effective picture.

"EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION OF MANNERS."

The whole story, in addition to proving the vanity of idols, shews how

God watches over the fate of those who bravely discharge his work; while

idolaters and persecutors meet with punishment. Religious fraud, deceit

under mask of piety, is dealt with very severely. Retribution is not to

be escaped. Even J.M. Fuller (S.P.C.K. _Comm. Introd._), who regards the

story as "essentially apocryphal," admits "an edifying element."[84].

This element might perhaps be used with advantage more than it is by

missionaries to idolatrous peoples.

The sordidness and trickery of heathen priests[85] is contrasted with

the uprightness and single-minded devotion of Daniel. His God moreover

delivers him, but their gods do not deliver them. The Bel of this

history is as dumb as the Baal of I. Kings xviii.; their names and

characters quite agree.

The once flourishing temples of iniquity are conspicuously brought to

nought, affording a lesson of confidence and patience to those who fear

the Lord. Thus the angry opponents, who made certain of slaying Daniel,

were disappointed, and judgment quickly overtook them.

With v. 6 Arnald, _in loc._, finely contrasts the P.B.V. of Ps. xvi.

2--the God who was estimated by the amount of provisions he consumed,

and the God to whom earthly goods were nothing. But the Hebrew will

hardly bear the P.B.V. rendering.

The character of Daniel, without fear or reproach, is not out of keeping

with that displayed in the canonical book, and in the companion story of

Susanna. He affords an example of:

(a) _Courage_ in his fearless attacks upon idolatry, attacks which,

as the event proved, could not be indulged in with safety. He faces

terrible crises at much personal risk, with decision and absence of

self-distrust, as in the canonical chapters and in Susanna. He boldly

defends his religion when it is called in question, and ousts rival

worships.

(b) _Resistance to temptation_ in refusing to worship as the king

wished. No half compliance is suggested, such as worshipping Bel and God

together. Observe how he claims for God to be τὸν ζῶντα Θεόν, while

Cyrus only claims for Bel to be ζῶν Θεός (vv. 5, 6, Θ), as noticed

under 'Theology.'

(c) _Wisdom_, 'of the serpent,' in his plan for detecting fraud, and

in his skill and versatility in choosing suitable means for unveiling

each kind of imposture; of which another striking instance occurs in

Susanna. He was a man of right understanding, clear insight, and

practical sagacity, as shewn by his methods of dealing with opposing

forces, moral or physical. As a man of great resource he rapidly adapts

himself to fresh conditions.

(d) _Endurance_ of persecution for righteousness' sake. One trial

overcome, a yet greater presents itself; but with unflinching constancy

he faces it and passes unharmed, Ps. lvii. 3, 4.

(e) _Perseverance_, in not resting upon his laurels, won over Bel,

but proceeding against the Dragon. His promptitude of resource is not

mere rashness, but is combined with steady determination in pursuing his

task. As an active and diligent worker he is far-sighted and firm of

purpose.

(f) _Gratitude._ On receiving Habakkuk's visit he at once acknowledges

God's faithfulness, and addresses himself to the great First Cause

immediately (v. 38), as the ever-watchful shaper of events.

(g) _Mindfulness of faith and duty_, by being ever foremost, even in

association with a heathen king whose eyes he opens and to whom he acts

as a missionary, in shewing hatred of falsehood and love of truth (as in

Susanna). Absence of selfishness and willingness to undertake

responsibility are manifested.

(h) _Disinterested service_ of God in clearing away two great

obstacles to his worship. His aims are realised without any trace of

self-aggrandisement; for those aims are directed to his Maker's rather

than to his own glory.

(i) _Pleasure in God's service._ The tone of the whole story

implicitly conveys the idea that Daniel enjoyed, and was happy in the

achievement of these works, because they were designed to honour God

and to benefit man. Thus he finds his tasks thoroughly interesting and

congenial.

It is to be observed that Daniel's character is in contrast with that of

everyone in the story, except Habakkuk.

_Per contra_, Daniel might perhaps be accused of cruelty in his method

of slaying the dragon,[86] especially as described in Gaster's Aramaic,

and by Josippon ben Gorion, given by Arnald, _in loc._, from Selden.

In Habakkuk we see _obedience to_ a divine command, apparently

impossible of execution, for which the way is suddenly made plain. He

becomes instrumental in alleviating such a state of affairs as he

deplores in i. 4 of his Prophecy: "for the wicked doth compass about the

righteous, etc." So in the hymn "Warum betrübst du dich mein Herz?"

doubtfully attributed to Hans Sachs, we find the seventh stanza bearing

upon this matter:

Des Daniels Gott ihm nicht rergass,

Da er unter den Löwen sass:

Sein Engel sandt er hin,

Und liess ihm Speise bringen gut,

Durch seiner Diener Habakkuk.

Habakkuk's obedience served God's purpose.

In _Cyrus'_ character we see something of the impulsiveness of the

despotic monarch, giving hasty directions on the spur of the moment as

to matters of much importance. But the events of the story exert an

educative influence upon his mind, culminating in his sentiments as

expressed in v. 41, which apparently imply that Daniel's God was to be

his God. Certainly the monarch's testimony proves that his religious

opinions had been corrected, and raised above the stage represented in

v. 6.

Probably some allegoric, or more strictly 'tropological,' instruction

may be drawn from the story. In Bel we are taught to fight against

crafty deception however generally believed in; in the Dragon, against

fierce, repulsive, and terrifying adversaries. This kind of

interpretation is sometimes strained however, as when in Neale's edition

of the _Moral Concordances_ of St. Antony of Padua (p. 125, n.d.), v. 27

is given as applicable to St. Bartholomew.

An unexpectedly adverse opinion on the use of Bel and the Dragon as a

lesson (Nov. 23, matins, old Lectionary) is expressed by J.H. Blunt in

his _Directorium Pastorale_ (1864, p. 59): "I confess I can see no good

which can arise from the public reading to a congregation, composed

principally perhaps of young persons, of such lessons as Bel and the

Dragon, or Lev. xviii., Deut. xxii., xxv." Then he adds the following

curious note: "It is a fact that a man was once sent into a fit of loud

and uncontrollable laughter, although he was honestly preparing for holy

orders, by hearing this lesson (Bel and the Dragon) read for the first

time in the chapel of a Theological College." One cannot help thinking

that this gentleman must have had an abnormally developed sense of

humour under exceptionally bad control.

John Wesley exhibits in his Journal (July 5th, 1773) an equally low

opinion of the story, though free from ill-timed mirth: "St. Patrick

converting 30,000 at one sermon I rank with the History of Bel and the

Dragon" (Quoted in _Church Quarterly Review_, Jan. 1902, p. 323).

These opinions seem too contemptuous and inimical to a narrative which

yields many valuable lessons. Indeed it may be said of this, as in the

Bishops' reply at the Savoy Conference to the Puritan objection to

reading the Apocryphal lessons in general: "It is heartily to be wished

that sermons were as good" (Procter-Frere, _Hist. of P.B._ 1902, p.

174).

INDEX I.

PROPER NAMES.

Addison

Africanus

Alexander, Abp.

Altdorfer

Ambrose

Antony of Padua

Apollinarius

Aquila

Arnald

Adrian

Athanasius

Athanasius, pseudo,

Augustine,

Ball, C.J.

Barclay, P.

Bardenhewer

Barnes, A.

Barry, Bp.

Bassus

Bayer, F.P.

Behrmann

Bengel

Bevan, Prof.

Blackie, J.S.

Blakesley, Dean

Bleek

Blunt, J.H.

Blunt, J.J.

Boys, Dean

Breshith Rabba

Brightman, Canon

Brown, Sir Thos.

Brüll

Bugati

Buhl

Bullock, W.T.

Bunsen

Burbidge

Burgon, Dean

Bury St. Edmunds

Cæsarius of Aries

Calvin

Cambridge, Trinity College

Chapel

Cappellus, Ludovione

Carr

Carracci

Castillo, de

Ceriani

Chaplin, Child

Charles

Chigi, Cardinal

Chrysostom

Churton

Clement of Alexandria

Cloquet

Cockerell

Congreve

Cope, L.C.

Cornelius à Lapide

Cornely

Cornish, H.P.

Correggio

Coypel

Curteis, G.H.

Curtis, E.L.

Curtius, Quintus

Cyprian

Cyprian, pseudo-

Cyril of Alexandria

Cyril of Jerusalem

Damasus I.

Daniel, E.

Davidson

Deane, H.

Deane, W.

Deissmann

Delitzsch (elder)

Denys, the Carthusian

Dereser

Didron

Donaldson

Driver, Dr.

Duehesne

Dyck, van

Ebed Jesu

Edersheim

Eichhorn

Ephrem Syrus

Epiphanius

Epiphanius, pseudo-

Etheridge

Eusebius

Ewald

Farrar, Dean

Faussett

Feltoe, Dr.

Florence, Council of

Forbes, Bp.

Frank, Archd.

Freeman, Archd.

Fritzsche

Fuller, J.M.

Fürst, J.

Garrucci

Gaster

Gerard

Gesenius

Givargese, F.

Goodall, F.

Gorionides

Gratian

Gray, Bp.

Gregory of Nazianzus

Gregory of Nyssa

Grenfell

Grotius

Guercino

Günkel

Gwillim

Gwynne, Prof.

Hauck

Hebræus, Bar

Henderson

Heppner, A.

Herodotus

Hesychius

Hieronymus Graecus

Hilary of Poitiers

Hippolytus

Holmes

Hooker

Home, T.H.

Hotham

Humphry, W.

Hunt

Irenæus

Isaacson, S.

Isidore Hispalensis

Jacobus Edessenus

Jahn,G.

Jahn, J.

Jamieson

Jansen, Cornelius

Jennings

Jephet ibn Ali

Jerahmeel

Jerome

Jocelin of Brakelond

Johnson, S.

Josephus

Josippon

Julian, Dr.

Justin Martyr

Kamphausen

Karlstadt

Kautzsch

Keil

Keilah

Kells

Kennedy, J.

Kirkpatrick, Prof.

Lagarde

Liddon

Lightfoot, Bp.

Littledale

Loisy

Lowrie, W.

Lucar, Cyril

Lucretia

Luther

Lyra, Nich. de

Maccabaeus, Simon

Mamertus, Claudianus

Margoliouth, D.S.

Marshall

Marti

Martin, D.

Martini

Mary, Passing of

Maskell

Mattathias

Maurer

Melito

Merrick

Methodius

Meyer

Milton

Moone Abbey

Moses Haddarshan

Movers

Mozley

M'Swiney

M'Whirter

Muis, de

Munk, S.

Nachman, Rabba bar

Nachmanides

Nectarius

Nestle

Neubauer

Nicephorus, of Constantinople.

Nobilius, Flaminius

Orelli

Origen

Parker, M.

Parsons

Patrick, St.

Pearson, Bp.

Peronne

Perowne, Bp.

Philippe, E.

Philo

Pilate

Polychronius

Porphyry

Procter, F.

Prudentius

Pusey

Quignon, Card.

Rembrandt

Reuss

Rose, H.P.

Rosenmüller

Rothstein

Rubens

Rufinus

Ryle, Bp. H.E.

Ryssel, Prof.

Sabatier

Sachs, Hans

Salmon, Prof.

Sanday, Prof.

Santerre

Sayce

Scholz, A.

Schrader

Schürer

Scrivener

Sedulius

Selden

Selwyn, Prof.

Severus, Sulpicius

Shann, G.V.

Shetach, Simon ben

Shushan

Sidon

Smith, Prof.

Smith, Prof. Robertson

Sozomen

Spenser

Stähelin, O.

Stephens, A.J.

Stephens, Dean

Stokes, M.

Strabo

Streane, Dr.

Susanna, St.

Swete, Prof.

Syncellus

Tertullian

Thackeray

Theodoret

Theodotion

Thomas of Harkel

Tintoretto

Toledo, 4th Council of

Toy, C.H.

Trapp

Trent, Council of

Trommius

Valentin

Van Ess

Vatican, Council of

Verecundus

Veronese, P.

Waldo, P.

Warren, Canon F.E.

Walton, Bp. B.

Wesley, J.

Westcott, Bp.

Wheatley

Wilson, Bp.

Wilton, R.

Wintle, J.

Wordsworth, Bp. Chas.

Wordsworth, Bp. Chris.

Wyon, W.G.

Xerxes

Yonge, Miss

Zimmer

Zöckler

INDEX II.

SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

GENESIS.

i. 1

ii. 2, 3

vii. 14

x. 15

xxi. 17

xxii. 18

xxiii. 3, 4, 8

xxiv. 65

xxvi. 4

xxxi. 5

xxxiv. 29

xxxvii.

xxxvii. 24

EXODUS.

ii. 2

iv. 3

vii. 9

ix. 16

LEVITICUS

ii. 9, 11

xviii.

xx. 10

xxiii. 7

xxvi. 21

NUMBERS.

xi. 15

xi. 16

DEUTERONOMY.

v. 21

x. 17

xviii. 20

xxii.

xxii. 22

xxv.

xxviii. 49, 50

xxxii. 4

xxxii. 23

JOSHUA.

xxii. 19

I. SAMUEL

xxiii. 1

II. SAMUEL.

xxiv. 14

I. KINGS.

iii.

x. 8

xv. 19

xvi. 28

xviii. 12

xviii. 27

xviii. 32

xx. 7

xxi. 8, 11

II. KINGS.

xiii. 5

xxiv. 8, 12

xxv. 28

xxv. 27

I. CHORNICLES.

ii. 31, 34, 35

xxi. 13

II. CHRONICLES.

iv. 5

xii. 12

xx. 12

xxxv. 3

xxxv. 15

xxxvi. 8, 9

EZRA.

iv. 12

iv. 15

viii. 2

NEHEMIAH.

ix. 33

ESTHER.

ii. 3

ii. 9

ii. 12

vii. 8

JOB.

i. 1

i. 8

ii. 3

xxxiii. 10

xlii. 17

PSALMS.

xv. 11

xvi. 2

xxiii.

xxv. 14

xxviii. 7

xxxiv. 19

xlix. 1

xlix. 18

lvii. 3, 4

lx. 3

lxxiv. 9

lxxx. 1

xcix. 1

civ. 4

cv. 46

cxxxvi.

cxxxvi. 2

cxlviii.

PROVERBS.

xxiv. 22

xxvi. 27

SOLOMON'S SONG.

ii. 1, 2

iv. 12

ISAIAH.

v. 2

v. 7

v. 10

xvii. 1

xliii. 2

xliii 4

xlv. 1

JEREMIAH.

x. 15

xi. 10

xiv. 21

xix. 1

xxii. 24

xxv. 12

xxvi. 17

xxxviii. 1-4

xxix. 5

xxix. 21

xxix. 23

xxix. 22

xxix. 23

xlii. 11

xliv. 8

l. 2

li. 34

li. 44

EZEKIEL.

iii. 12, 14

viii. 3

xvi. 3

xvi. 38

xxxviii. 6

DANIEL.

i. 1

i. 3

i. 15

i. 17

i. 20

ii. 5

ii. 9

ii. 28, 29

ii. 31

ii. 32, 33

ii. 45

ii. 47

iii. 1

iii. 14

iii. 16-18

iii. 21

iii. 22

iii. 23

iii. 24

iii. 28-30

iv. 6

iv. 8

iv. 14

iv. 25

iv. 27

iv. 36

v. 3

v. 23

v. 25-28

v. 31

vi. 17

vi. 20

vi. 21, 22

vi. 25-28

vi. 26

vi. 28

vii. 9

vii. 11

viii. 10

ix. 2

ix. 4

ix. 5

ix. 13

ix. 14

ix. 15

ix. 17

ix. 18

x. 1

x. 1

xi. 36

xii. 3

xii. 14

xiii. 1

HOSEA.

iii. 4

iv. 15

iv. 16

v. 13

xii. 6

xiv. 5

JONAH.

ii. 2

MICAH.

ii. 2

HABAKKUK.

i. 1

i. 4

i. 6

ii. 18

ZEPHANIAH.

i. 11

I. ESDRAS.

i. 37

i. 43

iv. 52

iv. 62

v. 58

II. ESDRAS.

iii. 2

JUDITH.

iv. 6

xx. 8

TOBIT.

iii. 2

viii. 5

x. 10

xii. 6

xiii. 10

ESTHER.

xiv. 6, 7

ECCLESIASTICUS.

xvi. 13

xliii. 4, 22

xliv.

BARUCH.

i. 3

ii. 9

SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN.

(_Greek verse numbers._)

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

36

37

38

39

40

41

44

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

56

57

59

63

64

65

67

68

77

84

86

87

88

89

90

91

SUSANNA.

1-5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

13

14

15

17

19

20

22

23

24

26

27

28

29

30

32

33

34

35

36

39

41

42

43

44

45

46

48

50

52

53

54

55

56

57

59

60

61

62

63

64

BEL AND THE DRAGON.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

I. MACCABEES.

ii. 17

ii. 59

xv. 6

II. MACCABEES.

ix. 17

III. MACCABEES.

vi. 6

ST. MATTHEW.

i. 11, 12

iv. 1

v. 28

xi. 21

xi. 29

xii. 18

xiii. 42, 50

xxiv. 51

xxvii. 24

xxvii. 26

ST. LUKE.

i. 38

ii. 29

ii. 42

ii. 52

viii. 3

xxi. 24

ST. JOHN.

x. 9

xi. 1

xviii. 18

xviii. 35

xix. 16

ACTS.

ii. 10

ii. 23

iv. 24

vi. 9

viii. 39

ix. 1

xiii. 13

xvii. 17

xvii. 23

xxii. 4

xxiv. 6

ROMANS.

i. 23

II. CORINTHIANS.

i. 10

EPHESIANS.

ii. 12

II TIMOTHY.

i. 18

HEBREWS.

i. 7

ix. 5

x. 34

xi. 23

xi. 34

xii. 23

REVELATION.

ix. 20

xii. 7, 8

xii. 9

xiii. 4

xiii. 14

xxi. 13

FOOTNOTES:

[1] He refers to Theiner, _Acta ... concil. Trident_, i. 77.

[2] So Raymund Martini, at the end of his _Pugio fidei_; but his

quotation has been doubted. _See_ B. and D. 'Chronology,' p. 229.

[3] The Vatican Council confirmed the Tridentine decree on Scripture

(_Const._ "Dei Filius" II., Loisy, p. 239).

[4] "The first and most gifted of creatures" (M'Swiney, _Psalms and

Canticles_, 1901, p. 644).

[5] Perhaps in default of better explanation the "earth" verse may have

been put into the third person in order to mark the transition from

things celestial to those terrestrial.

[6] This may refer to the titles he gives from "the Vatican LXX"; but

see above, p. 18, as to the absence of these.

[7] _Psalms_, Lond. 1871, II. 462.

[8] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archæol._ 1895, p. 81.

[9] _Rational ittuitrat. of P.B._

[10] But J.T. Marshall (Hastings' _D.B._ IV. 755), "The hymn is modelled

after Ps. 136, and has equal claim to be considered poetical."

[11] He appears, on p. 303, to date Daniel between 160 and 170 B.C.

[12] This particularly is unsuggestive of Egypt.

[13] _Commentary on Canticles in Divine Service_, Lond. 1853, p. 81.

[14] Swete, _Introd. to Greek O.T._, p. 43.

[15] _Op. cit._, pp. 48, 396, 403.

[16] _Cf._ Ewald in 'Date,' p. 29.

[17] Some slight warrant, or at least precedent, for using our R.V., in

which dissenters had a hand, might perhaps be found in this fact.

[18] G. Jahn in his "restoration" of the Hebrew text of Daniel from the

LXX, admits vv. 28 and 49--51 into his canonical text (Leipzig, 1904).

[19] As to the possibility of the fact, _cf. Yorkshire Post_, April

12th, 1902, on Coronation bonfires: "Spectators should keep clear of the

lee side. The flame of such bonfires has been known to stream in a flash

150ft. out."

[20] Dr. Julian (_Diet. Hymnol._ p. 134) has the following strange

sentence as to _Benedicite_, " It is not in the Hebrew version (_sic_)

of the Scriptures, and on this ground, among others, it is omitted from

A.V."

[21] G. Jahn _in loc._ thinks this fact an indication of a later hand,

as shewing that they severed themselves in the furnace from contact with

heathenism, and were giving themselves to intercourse with Jahwe alone.

But surely an interpolator must have been aware that this was their

attitude from the outset.

[22] _Proc. Sac. Bibl. Archæol._ 1895, p. 80.

[23] In the Hebrew of this verse the parallel is less striking.

[24] ὑπηρέται, v. 23 (46), attendants probably holding some official

position superior to that of slaves. _Cf._ St. John xviii. 18.

[25] _Cf._ Ps. lxxiv. 9.

[26] See also H.J. Rose's Paper _On the Heb. coins called shekels_,

Beds. Architect. Soc. Rep. I., p. 367, 1851.

[27] In the _Bk. of private Prayer_ (Lond. 1887, p. 32), approved by the

Lower House of Canterbury Convocation, these six verses are employed as

a separate canticle, under the title _Benedictus es_, probably suggested

by the Ambrosian rite above mentioned. The same canticle had also

appeared previously in _An Additional Order for Evening Prayer_, put

forth by the same authority in 1873, for singing after the first lesson.

[28] Its use declined in the 18th century as is shewn by P. Barclay

(_Letter to People of Scotland on Comm. Pr._, Lond. 1713, p. 36), who

says, "Benedicite is very good; but because it is seldom or never used,

I don't insist upon it." P. Waldo (_Commentary on Liturgy_, 1775, p.

98), also deplores its disuse. And even in the 19th century C. Chaplin

(_Benedicite_, 1879, p. 11) says, "In a few churches it seems to be

banished from the service altogether."

[29] It is stated in Dr. Swete's _Introd._ (1902, p. 260) that Susanna

is excluded from the visions, Dan. i. 1 commencing the first of them.

But this is not borne out by the 'apparatus criticus' to his Greek text,

where i. 1 in A and Q begins ὃρασις β', and ὅρασις α' is the

subscription of Susanna in A.

[30] The name is used of an actual woman in St. Luke viii. 3.

[31] Kothstein (Kautzsch i., 176) gives the first quarter of the last

century B.C. as the latest possible date for the LXX version of Daniel.

Exceedingly little time therefore would be allowed, on Ball's theory,

for the original publication, the translation, and the incorporation

into the Alexandrian canon, of this Susanna-book.

[32] If not, as Bissell in his note elegantly puts it, "it would be a

bungling lapsus pennæ."

[33] This may be merely an echo of Reuss, who reckons Susanna "in die

Reihe der moralischen Märchen" (_O.T._ 1894, VII. 159).

[34] _See_ J.M. Fuller in S.P.C.K. _Comm. Introd. to Sus._

[35] These names, however, do not agree with the Jewish identification

of them, as the Ahab and Zedekiah of Jer. xxix. 21, which Origen reports

in his _Ep. ad Afric._ (_Speaker's Comm._ 325b).

[36] So in N.T., St. Mark v. 19.

[37] _Adv. Christ._, Bk. XII.

[38] For similar instances of word-play see accounts of Melito's

pseudo-Clavis, _D.C.B._ iii. 897b, and Muratorian Fragment, line 67.

[39] Jerome in his _Prol. gal._ shews how it might be done in Latin; and

in the Vulgate some attempt is made to reproduce it in vv. 54, 55

('schinus, scindit'). Luther tried after rhymes in German, 'Linden,'

'finden,' 'Eiche,' 'zeichnen.' In the French version of Martin no play

is attempted; but in the Arabic, according to Delitzsch (_op. cit._

102), an easy one is produced.

[40] Μιαρά for μικρά would yield good sense, but evidence for such a

reading is absent.

[41]

"And that which all faire workes doth most aggrace,

The art which all that wrought appeared in no place."

SPENSER, _Faery Queene_, II. XII. 58.

[42] _I. Macc._, Fairweather and Black, Camb. 1897, p. 14; Streane, _Age

of Macc._, Lond. 1898, pp. 247, 248.

[43] Curiously enough the canonical Daniel has not escaped this

accusation, for G. Jahn (Leips. 1904, p. 64) says of vi. 28, "Der König

wie ein jüdischen Rabbiner predigt."

[44] _Right use of Early Fathers_, Lond., 1857, p. 649.

[45] See Wordsworth, _Gk. Test._, note _in loc._

[46] Quintus Curtius (v. 1) gives a terrible account, in connection with

Alexander's capture of this city, of Babylonian debauchery, which must

have been of long standing when it had attained the pitch he indicates.

[47] "Soap making is the chief industry of modern Palestine" (Hastings'

_D.B._ art. _Soap_).

[48] καὶ ἰδοδ ἄγγελος

[49] In Hastings' _D.B._ art. _Jehoiachin_, it is stated that he does;

but Hippolytus' _Comm._ in Migne, _Patr. gr._ x. 689, does not shew

this. It is apparently based on a quotation from Hippolytus by Georgius

Syncellus, given among the critical notes of Bonwetsch's ed. of _Hipp._

p. 10 (Lips. 1897).

[50] But see G. Jahn, _in loc._, and art. _Jehoiakim_ in Hastings'

_D.B._ as to making the date in Dan. i. 1 a little later.

[51] Scrivener, _Introd. to A.V._ § vii., and Sayce, _Tobit_, 1903, p.

xvi.

[52] _Speaker's Comm._, end of _Introd. to Sus._

[53] _See_ Jerome's _Pref. to Daniel_, end.

[54] Warren, _Ante-Nicene Liturgy_, 1897, p. 188.

[55] But Δανιὴλ ψευδεπίγραφα may refer to them.

[56] There is a very quaint note in Gwillim's _Heraldry_ (1611, p. 109)

as to a mulberry figured on a shield, "This fruit hath a purple blushing

colour, in the one resembling the judges' attire who attempted Susanna,

in the other that hue of their face which should have been in them, if

they had been so gracious to blush at their fault," etc.

[57] There are similar instances in chaps. iii. and vi. of the canonical

Daniel. See also the _Notes on Scripture, in loco, of_ Bishop Wilson, of

Sodor and Man, who tells what comfort he derived from hearing Susanna

read in the daily service when himself falsely accused.

[58] Thackeray's mention of Susanna in _Tht Newcomes_, chap, lvi., seems

pointless, though that in chap. xix. is suitable enough. Steele has an

absurd reference in the _Spectator_, No. 14, to the "opera of Susanna,

or Innocence Betrayed, which will be exhibited next week, with a pair of

new Elders."

[59] St. Antony of Padua curiously gives vv.. 52, 56, as an example of

the "Zeal of prelates" (_Moral Concordance,_ Neale's edit., n.d., p.

105).

[60] In each case it is not clear from the text that the 'worship'

consisted in anything else than supplying food.

[61] The title ὅρασις is also used in Q in some of Isaiah's visions,

_e.g._ xvii. 1.

[62] _See_ under Theodoret in 'Early Christian Literature,' and

'Chronology,' p. 224.

[63] This has been attributed to Rabba bar Nachman of Pumbaditha, about

A.D. 300, but is probably later. _See_, however, Etheridge, _Jerus. and

Tiberias_, p. 143.

[64] Schrader, _Cuneiform Inscriptions of O.T._² II. 125, considers Bel

not to enter explicitly into the second of these names, which he takes

to mean 'may his life protect'; but even in this case the mention of a

Deity is evidently understood. But _cf._ Dan. iv. 8. Gesenius and

Longfield (_Chaldee Grammar_, 1859, p. 115) take the older view. _See_

also Sayce's art. in Hastings' _D.B._ on _Merodach-Baladan_, where M.

seems identified with Bel; also art. _Merodach._

[65] _Daniel_, Oxf. 1792, p. 40.

[66] _Chambers's Encyclop._, 1888, art. _Bel._

[67] There is clearly a slip in v. 35 of Δανιήλ for Ἀμβακούμ, and

probably in v. 11 of δακτύλῳ for δακυλίῳ, indicating some mistakes on

the scribe's part, or errors in his copy.

[68] The same writer, on p. 224, spells מאח with a final ם.

[69] It is even given in L.C. Cope's _English Composition_ (Lond.,

1900), as an example of the four essentials of composition, viz.

invention, selection, disposition, diction. He also speaks (p. 29) of

the "superb workmanship in framing the narrative."

[70] Bar Hebræus (_op. cit._, p. 27), gives this as a reason why some

would not receive Bel and the Dragon.

[71] Not in Ο´.

[72] See note to 'For Whom and with What Object' p. 196.

[73] Compare the Aramaic of the passage, given under 'Chronology,' p.

229.

[74] On the propriety of such a sentence, accordant with Babylonian

ideas of justice, _see_ Mozley, _Ruling O.T. Ideas_, 1878, pp. 88, 95,

99.

[75] "More withering sarcasm could scarcely be poured on heathenism than

in the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon" (Edersheim, _Life and

Times of Messiah_, 1886, I. 31). Daniel's laugh in v. 7 accords with

Jeremiah's view of idols (X. 15). Other coincidences with Jeremiah may

be noted in 1. 2, li. 44 of that prophet.

[76] Ezekiel is transported in the opposite direction, and bothcprophets

went unwillingly (Trapp). Both, too, were concerned in suppression of

idolatry.

[77] The destruction of the Dragon, by means which in A.V. and the Greek

appear inadequate, does not come under this head, since the Aramaic

explains it by iron teeth concealed in the ball (v. 27), an intelligible

and practical device.

[78] Of general condemnations, Alb. Barnes' may be taken as a sample:

"This foolish story... is wholly unworthy a place in any volume claiming

Divine origin, or any volume of respectable authorship whatever"

(_Comment. on Dan._ Vol. I. pp. 79, 81).

[79] The phrase applied to the Additions in the _Introd. to Daniel_ in

the _Speaker's Comm._ (p. 216a), דברי פיוטין if we take פיוט to mean

'poet,' would fall in with this view. J.M. Fuller does not make quite

clear his source for this phrase.

[80] Sozomen, _H.E._ vii. 29, says that Habakkuk's tomb was found at

Keilah, κελὰ, ἡ πρὶν κείλα... καθ᾽ ἡν ὁ Ἀβακοὺμ (_sic_) εὑρέθη. Now

Keilah is mentioned in I Sam. xxiii. 1 as having threshing-floors worth

robbing, and so presumably lay in a corn-growing district.

[81] Delitzech thought it likely, though not certain, that the βιβλία

mentioned by Josephus (_Ant._ x. 11. 7) as left by Daniel refer to the

Additions as portions of the canonical hook (_De Hab. vita_, etc., Lips.

1842, p. 25).

[82] Cf. _Revue biblique internationale_ (Dominican) Paris, Jan. 1901,

p. 149, "L'église romaine s'est prononcée dès ce moment, et _si elle ne

pas dès lors imposé sa solution comme définitive et irréformable_, elle

ne s'en est du moins jamais écartée et c'est cette solution qui explique

l'unanimité pratique de l'Église latine, où les doutes n'étaient plus

que le reflet érudit d'anciennes controverses." See also Sanday on

_Inspiration_, Note B. to Lect. V. "The Use of the term

Deutero-oanonical in the Roman Church."

[83] So spelt in Migne in this instance, though elsewhere with final μ.

A misprint may he suspected.

[84] It was told as a story to Miss Yonge when a child by her father

(_Life_, 1903, p. 78), and apparently remembered with pleasure through

life. So Saml. Johnson: "When I was a boy I have read or heard Bel and

the Dragon, Susanna, etc." (_Prayers and Meditations_, Lond. [1905], p.

78).

[85] So Butler in his _Hudibras_ of the Presbyterian Assembly of

Divines:

"Bell (_sic_) and the Dragon's chaplains were

More moderate than those by far."--(I. III. 1181).

[86] J.H. Blunt (_Comm._ on v. 27) makes an unaccountable mistake in

supposing that the balls were put into the _statue_ of Bel, not eaten by

the Dragon. "The composition would not of itself burst the hollow statue

either by chymical explosion or mechanical expansion." Almost as

ridiculous is the abusive phrase "Offspring of Bel and the Dragon,"

which Congreve puts into the mouth of Fondlewife in his play of _The Old

Bachelor_, Act IV. sc. 4.