Chapter 10

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