Chapter 11

authorities.

The text of A appears to have slightly better Greek (vv. 9, 10, 19, 21, 27); but the form μαχαίρης (occurs in Heb. xi. 34 in A), if not a slip,[67] seems Ionic (Wordsworth's _Greek Gram._ § 16, Obs.), as has been already mentioned ('Authorship,' p. 193), and might perhaps be accounted for by Θ's connection with Ephesus. The substitution of πρός for τῷ, however, in v. 34 seems no improvement, A in this, as in several other instances (vv. 10, 28, 35), agreeing with the Ο´ reading. Taking, for convenience, B as the norm, we find that A's departures from it are somewhat larger than in the Song of the Three. In v. 7 οὐδὲ πέπωκεν πώποτε is added, as also in Q, to the description of Bel's inability to consume food. In v. 11 δακτύλῳ is curiously substituted by A for δακτυλίῳ; in v. 13 κατεφθόνουν for κατεφρόνουν. Both these are suggestive of carelessness or of error _ex ore dictantis_ (Scrivener, _N.T. Criticism_, ed. 2, p. 10). In v. 36 the substitution of χειρός for κορυφῆς is peculiar. The alteration of gender in v. 17, σῶαι for σῶοι in its first occurrence, but not in its second, may come under the head of those "somewhat officious corrections" with which the editors of I. Macc. in the _Camb. Bible for Schools_ (p. 48) charge this MS., as likewise perhaps the reading παιδίων for τέκνων in v. 10.

Q not unfrequently agrees with it in differing from B. It stands alone, however, in reading ναὸν for ἱερόν in v. 22, and in omitting the last six words of v. 41, perhaps as improbable when coming from Cyrus. Together with A, it contains an additional clause in v. 24, putting words into Cyrus' mouth which connect the two stories together. Γ, having vv. 2--4 only, contains no important variation. Δ (only from v. 21 to v. 41) contains in v. 22 the curious word ἔγδομα instead of ἔκδοτον.

All things considered, the text of both versions may be said to be in as fair condition as in the canonical part of Daniel.

LANGUAGE AND STYLE.

LANGUAGE.

[_See_ corresponding title in Susanna.]

The indications of a Semitic original give this fragment, in that respect, a middle place between the other two. Less numerous than in the Song of the Three, they are more so than in the History of Susanna, though this is a shorter piece than that.

The non-discovery by Origen and others of Hebrew originals in their own day by no means goes so far as to prove that such never existed, as Rothstein in Kautzsch (I. 179) truly says.

Since Gaster's discovery of an Aramaic text of the Dragon (not of Bel), the probability of a Semitic rather than a Greek original seems strengthened. But see what Schürer thinks, under the corresponding title in the Song of the Three, as also of the Syriac version at the end of Neubauer's _Tobit._ C.H. Toy, too, in his article in the _Jewish Encyclopædia_, Vol. II, says: "In the present state of knowledge it seems better to reserve opinion as to its antiquity."

Delitzsch, at the end of his _Commentatio de Hab. proph. vita atque oetate_ (Lips. 1842), prints in Rabbinic characters a Persian rendering, "ex codice Paris-Reg. judaico-persico," which he says "ex textu hebraico vel aramaico factam esse, ex crebris hebraismis patet" (p. 105). And on pp. 26, 27 he prints the LXX from v. 28 to the end, and adds: "Hæc omnia ad verbum Hebraico vel Aramaico translata esse dictionis simplicitas, structura ac tota indoles clamat atque testatur." But on p. 41 he quotes the opinion of Prof. Solomon Munk, of Paris (_Notice sur Rab. Saadia Gaon_, p. 84), that this Hebrew text, translated into Persian, was itself made by some European Rabbi from the Greek or Latin Bible. And a similar origin for Gaster's text is now thought far from unlikely.

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

v. 3 Θ. With ἐδαπανῶντο, _cf._ אֲכַלֶּה ב׳ of Deut. xxxii. 23 ("I will spend my arrows upon," etc.). Δαπανάω occurs with ἐν and ἐπί in N.T. Greek, but apparently not with εἰς, nor yet in the canonical O.T. Deissmann, however, attempts to shew that this use of εἰς, instead of 'dativus commodi,' is an Alexandrian idiom (_Bible Studies_, Eng. tr., Edinb. 1900, p. 127). כלא is also used in Aramaic in the same sense in Pahel.

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

v. 7 Ο´. Here the accusative after ὀμνύω might be taken as favouring a Greek original, since ἐν for ב would seem natural in a translation of Hebrew or Aramaic.

v. 7 Θ; v. 11 Ο´, Θ; v. 27 Ο´. The occurrence of βασιεῦ in these verses suggests a rendering of מַלְבָּא which is used several times in the Aramaic portion of Daniel, while it never occurs in the vocative in the Hebrew portion. This indication, small though it be, inclines of course towards an Aramaic rather than a Hebrew original.

v. 10 Ο´, Θ. Scholz's suggestion that χωρίς and ἐκτός are translations of לבר is more probable than some of his ideas, for it is rendered by both these words more than once in the Greek O.T.

v. 12 Θ. ὁ ψευδόμενος καθ᾽ ἡμῶν might be a translation of שְׁקַר צַל or צַל.כְּדַב צַל is occasionally rendered by κατά, as in Job xxxiii. 10, in a hostile sense. Liddell and Scott, however, give one example of ψεύδω with κατά, and Arnold an anonymous one in his _Greek Grammar_ (1848, p. 265).

v. 13 Θ. Διόλου looks like a translation of תָּמִיד (or תְּדִירָא), as in I. Kings x. 8, where it is so rendered.

v. 14 Ο´. σφραγισάμενος presents a difficulty here, which may be solved by supposing that חֲתַם had been read by mistake for סְתַם, a kind of error characteristic of the LXX translators. To 'shut' seems more in place here than to 'seal,' which naturally follows later in the verse; shutting first, sealing second, seems the only intelligible order.

vv. 14, 28 Θ; vv. 15, 33 Ο´. The καὶ ἐγένετο of these verses is suggestive of וַיְהִי in the original.

v. 18 Θ. (Δόλος) οὐδὲ εἷς has an 'ungreek' look, and may have been a rendering of צַד אֶחָד, as in Exod. xiv. 28. חדא (חדה) for חזא (חזה) might account for the king's 'rejoicing' in Ο´ becoming his 'seeing' in Θ.

v. 19 Ο´, Θ. The reading of ἔδαφος by Θ instead of δόλος by Ο´ may be accounted for by supposing שקפא to have been substituted for שקרא, as suggested in Hastings' _Dict._

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

v. 27 Ο´, Θ. The ingenious idea of A. Scholz that τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν and οὐ ταῦτα σέβεσηε are renderings of הפחדיכם and הפחדתם respectively, ה in the first case being the article, and in the second merely the interrogative particle, like other conjectures on p. 202 of his _Commentary_, can hardly stand. He appears to have forgotten that the article must not be placed before a noun with a pronominal suffix.[68]

v. 28 Ο´, Θ. ἐπί looks like a translation of צל (_cf._ Sus. 29). In Ο´ it is used against Daniel, and in Θ against the king.

v. 33 Ο´. Delitzsch suggests (p. 27) הששי ויהי ויהי ביום for the beginning of this verse, with much likelihood.

v. 36 Θ. The reading χειρὸς in A for κορυφῆς may have arisen from קדקדו being corrupted by homoeoteleuton into קדו, for which A has read ידו. A. Scholz's notion of explaining this by Isai. xlv. 1 (where δεξιά is used, not χείρ) is unsatisfactory.

v. 40 Ο´, Θ. The attempt to explain (Marshall in Hastings' _D.B._ art. _Bel and the Dragon_) the 'in medio' of Vulg. v. 39 by a reading בגו for בגב is not very likely, since they do not occur in corresponding clauses.

v. 42 Ο´. Ἐξήγαγεν is used of the king here in a good sense, in v. 22 in a bad one. This is possibly a rendering of הרציא in the latter case, of הצלה in the former.

The Greek of the writer is hardly such as we should expect, unless he was narrating a story which had reached him from a Hebrew source. The frequency with which verbs occur very early in the construction of sentences is a point in favour of a Semitic original, which does appear to have been dwelt upon, _e.g._ vv. 11, 20 (Ο´), and 14, 16, 22 (Θ).

It is a matter of considerable nicety to estimate the value of these and similar indications. They are not decisive. They tell with varying force upon varying minds; but they distinctly tend, in the writer's opinion, to increase the probability of the Greek having been grounded upon a Hebrew or an Aramaic form of the story, the likelihood of the latter being slightly the stronger.

In view of the introduction of Habakkuk into the story of the Dragon, Delitzsch's opinion as to the similarity of Daniel's Hebrew to the Hebrew of that prophet (_see_ Streane, _Age of Macc._ p. 262) becomes of importance. A. Scholz, too, is of opinion (p. 146) that the Habakkuk title makes for a Hebrew original, because the real prophecy of Habakkuk was undoubtedly Hebrew, and this piece, whether genuine or fictitious, would hardly have been appended in another language.

The LXX version was certainly known to Theodotion, since he copies much of it, yet not quite so largely as in the Song of the Three. But it is evident that he had other documents or traditions to use, of which he freely availed himself; possibly some previous translation other than LXX, as has been suggested under Susanna ('Date and Place,' p. 114). There seems nothing in either Greek recension to imply that the two parts of Bel and the Dragon (separated in Luther's version) are not by the same hand.

It is noteworthy that the word ἔκδοτον, applied to Bel when handed over to Daniel (v. 22, Θ), is used of our Lord in Acts ii. 23, these two being its only Biblical occurrences.

STYLE.

The style is that of simple, clear, and well-told narrative, with very little rhetorical embellishment about it, yet bearing somewhat of a dramatic cast, like much of the canonical book to which it is appended. It is not tedious (though there is much to tell which might have been easily spun out), but is brief and spirited. There is nothing superfluous to the aim of the story.[69]

Moreover, the narrative is told in such a way as ever to be a story of captivating interest to the young, being full of movement and interesting incident. The style of the composition is much more in accordance with Syrian than with Alexandrian models. There is nothing of Hellenistic speculation or philosophy, though the subject of idolatry would have lent itself to such treatment (as that of injustice would in Susanna). No figurative or hyperbolic phraseology is employed.

An idea has been revived and maintained that the lions' den episode at the end is a mere adaptation and embellishment of that in Dan. vi.[70] (Churton, 392; Streane, 109, "distortions of O.T. narratives"; J.M. Fuller, S.P.C.K. _Comm. in loc._). This idea is successfully opposed by Arnald, who (on v. 31) gives three reasons against it, and by Bishop Gray (_Introd. to O.T. in loc._). Delitzsch (p. 30) calls this section of Θ's version "partem dignissimam." Attempts to prove the falsity of this martyrdom, if such it may be called, by first assuming the identity of these two events, treating the latter as an ornamental exaggeration of the former, and then pointing out what are taken for irreconcileable discrepancies, are beside the mark. Nor does the supposition that the one night in the den (of Dan. vi.) was increased to six, nor that the detail of withholding the lions' usual food to sharpen their appetites (in Θ only), were added for the purpose of heightening the effect, carry much weight. The omission of Daniel's speech, with the detail[71] of the angel closing the lions' mouths (vv. 21, 22), tells in the opposite direction. It is no more necessary to reckon these two den episodes as one event than our Lord's feeding of the four and five thousand, or his healing of the centurion's servant and the nobleman's son.

RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.

RELIGIOUS.

A religious feeling, strong though misdirected, evidently existed both in king and people, involving considerable expenditure on objects and places of worship. It was not as to the propriety of worship in itself, but of the object towards which it ought to be directed, that the controversy arose.

Two sorts of worship were in vogue:--

(a) _Bel-worship._ As to the practice of this in Babylon no question appears to be raised; he was the supreme god and guardian of Babylon. The representation of Cyrus as a worshipper of Bel agrees with the account of himself in the Annals of Nabu-nahid, cited by Ball on v. 4; and Sayce (_Temple Bible_, Tobit, p. 95) notes that the cuneiform monuments have shewn that Cyrus was politic enough to conform to the religion of his Babylonian subjects.

The unabashed effrontery of the idol-priests (vv. 11, 12) is very characteristic. See, however, Blakesley's note on Herodot. VIII. 41.

(b) _Dragon-worship._ This is not otherwise known to have existed in Babylonia, but snake-worship, which may be the same, is asserted by J.T. Marshall (end of art. _Bel and the Dragon_, Hastings' _D.B._.). In support of this it is noteworthy that ὁ δράκων is identified with ὁ ὄφις in Rev. xii. 9, and that נָחָשׁ and תַּנִּין seem identified in Ex. iv. 3 and vii. 9. A. Kamphausen, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, thinks that "Günkel has conclusively shewn that the primeval Babylonian myth of the conquest of the chaos-monster or the great dragon Tiamat by the god Marduk lies at the root." So J.M. Fuller, in the S.P.C.K. _Comm._, says that "in Babylonian inscriptions dealing with the fall, a dragon, generally female, appears." Daniel plans his scheme in accordance with the dragon's known voracity (Jer. li. 34). The προσεκύνησαν τὸν δράκοντα of Rev. xiii. 4 may have been suggested by the dragon-worship here; ἐσέβοντο is used in v. 23, προσκύνησον (with dat.) in v. 24 (both versions).

Daniel set himself, in reply to the king, who suggested to him the propriety of Bel-worship, to detach the Babylonians from these superstitious follies, to interpret God's will in the matter, and to free them from the service of idols. Yet his own name, 'Belteshazzar,' may have implied[72] Bel's existence; still, even if it was so, we must remember that it was not self-assumed, but given by the chief eunuch. The king's question shews that he misunderstood Daniel's character. It is noticeable, as a link of connection between the two parts of the story, that Daniel attacks the former superstition, Bel, by disproving the belief in the god's powers of eating; and the latter, the Dragon, by destroying the supposed divinity by means of what he ate.

As described in the Greek, Daniel's method of destroying the Dragon appears quite inadequate to effect his purpose. The ingredients named as composing the ball do not seem capable of achieving the result which followed. But in Gaster's Aramaic a different light is thrown upon the matter; for the ball is merely used as a vehicle to conceal sharp teeth embedded in it, so that the Dragon might swallow them unawares, and sustain internally a fatal laceration. If this be accepted as correct, Sir Thomas Browne's discussion, as to how such unlikely ingredients might bring about a death of the kind described, is naturally set aside. S. Wilkin, however, in his edition of Browne's _Works_, 1835 (Vol. II. p. 337), does not treat Sir T. Browne's discussion as a serious one; but in this view all will not concur. Schürer, in Hauck's _Dict._ (I. 639), writes of the Dragon as having been slain "mit unverdaulichen Kitchen"; and Toy, in the _Jewish Encyclopædia_, regards "the iron comb insertion as a natural embellishment." It is, however, not at all out of keeping with Daniel's clever devices for the detection of error, and looks like a practicable plan. And Josippon, quoted by Heppner, _op. cit._ p. 33, gives a similar account of the Dragon's destruction, והחרוצים קרני הברזל.

The consequence of the prophet's triumph in each case appears to have been that the king was convinced of the vanity of idols much more than his people. And as Daniel's demonstrations were not, so far as we see, made before the general public, this is what might have been expected. A similar conviction on Nebuchadnezzar's part, without any spontaneous assent of his people, may be noticed in Dan. iii. 28--30, vi. 25--28. A lack of popular adhesion to the king's change of mind would sufficiently account for the early restoration of Bel's temple (_see_ 'Chronology,' p. 225).

In v. 21 the LXX states that it was Daniel who shewed the king the privy doors. This, on the whole, has more _vraisemblance_ than the idea of Theodotion, who states that it was the priests who undertook the task. Ball suggests that they did so because they were "in fear of their lives"; but if so, this plan of saving them, by making a clean breast of the matter, was unsuccessful.

Another religious feature shews itself in v. 28, viz. the scorn in which the Babylonian zealots held the Jewish religion. It would evidently have been regarded as a degradation for the king to become a Jew, and social would probably here combine with religious grounds in giving force to this feeling. Compare Pilate's contempt of such an idea with regard to himself, as expressed in St. John xviii. 35. Grotius proposed a translation which inverted the phrase in such a way as to make it apply to Daniel: "A Jew has become king." This, however, is not natural in the Greek, has no countenance lent to it by the Aramaic text, and is clearly opposed by the Syriac marginal title as given in Swete's manual LXX, "tit. adpinx. ut vid. περι του βασιλεως λεγουσι ως γεγονεν Ιουδαιος, Syr'mg*." Cajetanus Bugati also (_Daniel_, Milan, 1788, p. 162) thinks Grotius wrong.[73] For a similarly imagined instance of a king embracing Judaism, _cf._ II. Macc. ix. 17, headed by A.V., "Antiochus promiseth to become a Jew," on which Rawlinson notes, "it is extremely improbable that Epiphanes ever expressed any such intention," an opinion in which most will agree.

The withholding of food, in order to sharpen the lions' appetites (v. 32), shews a spirit similar to that which directed the sevenfold heating of the furnace in chap. iii. The numbers in vv. 2, 10, etc., are quite in keeping with Daniel's use of symbolic numeration for purposes of religious teaching; and the zeal displayed against idolatry is characteristic of the Jewish captivity, as depicted in the canonical book which bears his name. These three points, therefore, so far as they go, tell in favour of the religious unity of the whole.

SOCIAL

Daniel appears on the same terms of intimacy with royalty as in the canonical book, and speaks his mind a little more freely and intimately perhaps, as becomes his added years and experience. He still acts as a divine messenger to a heathen king, and he successfully unmasks his fallacy of judging by appearances in the matter of Bel's food. His laughter in vv. 7,19, may have been amusement at the king's simplicity or at the priests' cunning, the king's wrath in vv. 8, 21, being compatible with either. But this laughter of v. 7 only appears in Θ's version. As in Susanna, he stands as the willing exposer of fraud, intellectually acute as well as morally upright.