The Three Additions to Daniel, a Study

by William Heaford Daubney

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.

[60] In each case it is not clear from the text that the 'worship' consisted in anything else than supplying food.

[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).

[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.

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. 25n) 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).

[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.

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 in 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).

[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.

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.

[66] Chambers's Encyclop., 1888, art. Bel.

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.

[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.

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 ætate (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]]

[68] The same writer, on p. 224, spells מאח with a final ם.

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 homœoteleuton 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]]

[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."

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.

[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´.

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.

[72] See note to 'For Whom and with What Object' p. 196.

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.

[73] Compare the Aramaic of the passage, given under 'Chronology,' p. 229.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[76] Ezekiel is transported in the opposite direction, and both prophets went unwillingly (Trapp). Both, too, were concerned in suppression of idolatry.

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.

[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.

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.

[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).

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]]

[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.

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]]

[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.

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.

[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).

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.

[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-canonical in the Roman Church."

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.

[83] So spelt in Migne in this instance, though elsewhere with final μ. A misprint may he suspected.

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.

[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).

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.

[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).

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.

[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.

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).