(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, Syrmg." 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.