Chapter 12

of address by the conquered Babylonians to Cyrus their conqueror. Probably some tumultous rising took place, which the king, a true oriental monarch, pacified at the expense of Daniel. On such outbreaks courtly politeness often vanishes, and the tyrant is subject to tyranny. Such an occurrence agrees with Habakkuk's description of the Chaldees as "bitter and hasty" (i. 6), and 'senseless' and 'absurd' are scarcely the terms to apply to it.

The slaughter of the priests (vv. 22, 28) is quite in accordance with the practice as shewn in the canonical chapters ii. and vi.[74]; also the destruction of false accusers (v. 42) with vi. 25; so also the keeping of lions by the king; and so, too, the method of double sealing (v. 11 Ο´, 14 Θ; vi. 17). That παιδάρια should be under the command of Daniel (v. 14 Θ and Syr.) is what would be likely for one in his position. The term is used of himself in Sus. 45 Θ as a page of superior rank. The idea of an image being made of more materials than one (v. 7) is paralleled in ii. 32, 33.

Cyrus' cowardice in giving up Daniel to the threatening mob is very like Pilate's in delivering up Christ (St. Matt, xxvii. 26, St. John xix. 16). Παραδίδωμι is used in each case (v. 29 Θ, 30 Θ and Ο´). Similar, too, is Nebuchadnezzar's conduct with Daniel, and that of Herod Antipas with St. John Baptist. Despotic rulers are often frightened by popular clamour. But Cyrus, however weak in yielding, appears at the close of the story in a less odious light than Pilate.

As in Susanna, there is no indication of rabbinism in the legal, religious, or social standpoints of the story.

THEOLOGY.

The whole piece makes a mock at idolatry[75] with a view of turning men from false worships to that of the living God. Indeed the end of v. 5 seems an echo of Gen. i. 1. Jehovah's power to vindicate Himself and His servants is of course also exhibited, and this in contrast to the idols, who make no resistance to their overthrow.

He is represented as Sole Sovereign, the only God worthy of worship, with full power to deliver by wonderful providence His faithful people, who make their acknowledgments to Him. However far they may be scattered, His eye is still upon them; He forsakes not those who seek and love Him (v. 38).

vv. 3, 4, 14 are quoted by Irenæus (IV. ix. 1) to prove that the one living God was the God worshipped by the prophets, as "the God of the living." Even the heathen king is forced to confess that He is great and unique, and (in Vulg. only, v. 42) calls Him Saviour, and desires the whole world to worship Him.

It is noteworthy that the king is represented as the party complaining in the first instance; it is his question (v. 4) which draws forth from Daniel his practical proof of the vanity of idols, inanimate or animate, culminating in the triumphant exclamation at the end of v. 27. And thus the imposture of idol-worship is revealed, as well as the value of devotion to the true Lord of all, by a process commenced in the opposite interest.

Daniel resists the king's invitation to worship Bel, which might have led him under the ban of Deut. xviii. 20 (end) as "speaking in the name of other gods." False theological opinions are corrected by Daniel, who not only dissuades from idol-worship, but persuades to that of the true deity. Hence the beautiful appropriateness of τοὺς ἀγαπῶντάς σε (v. 38) instead of τοὺς ἐλπίζοντας ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν in the corresponding point of delivery in Sus. 60 Θ. For Daniel was fighting for God, while Susanna was defending herself. The one was an active plaintiff for God, the other a passive defendant of herself. Thus Love in Daniel's case, Hope in Susanna's, has its own special appropriateness.

In v. 5 Daniel claims God to be τὸν ζῶντα θεόν, but Cyrus claims for Bel to be only ζῶν θεός; in v. 24 Cyrus makes the same claim for the Dragon, and then in v. 25 Daniel makes only a like claim for God (anarthrous), for Daniel takes here the words out of Cyrus' mouth; in the former instance it was _vice versâ_. The same phrases are used by Darius in vi. 20, 26 Θ. Thus the prophet makes a more exclusive claim for the divinity of his God. In v. 6 a contrast is afforded with what is said of God in Ps. xvi. 2 (P.B. aft. Vulg. and LXX), as the Creator who still retains power over living beings.

As in the canonical Dan. vi. 22 (and in the other additions thereto), so here an angel intervenes on behalf of the right, rescuing God's persecuted prophet. A man is employed in each case also to carry out the miraculous purposes of God. Further, compare the angel helping Daniel, after conflict with the Dragon, with Rev. xii. 7, 8.

The sudden transportation of Habakkuk (v. 36) is parallelled by that of St. Philip in Acts viii. 39 by the "Spirit of the Lord." Ezek. viii. 3, which is printed as a parallel in the margin of A.V. at iii. 12, 14 of that book, may also be compared,[76] as well as I. Kings xviii. 12 and St. Matt. iv. I. For the latter part of this verse (36), barely intelligible in the Greek, Gaster's Aramaic gives an excellent sense.

There does not seem to be any undue love of the marvellous or straining to bring it into prominence. Both the statue and the Dragon are destroyed by ordinary means; and their false position in the imagination of the people is unmasked without any resort to the miraculous.[77] This element does not enter into the story till the rescue of the persecuted Daniel, who has been so zealous for the honour of his God.

Though, with its two companion pieces, it has been cavilled at (not to reckon Africanus' enquiries) from the time of the Jewish teacher whom Jerome tells us of in his preface to Daniel, yet even the most contemptuous deprecators of the 'Additions' can find little seriously to condemn in the theology of this story.[78] Considering the strong desire which has existed in some quarters to charge these apocryphal books with grievous doctrinal error, this fact says much. The knowledge of God and of divine things is what would be probable at the time it represents, and is not incongruous with the book to which it is appended, nor with its fellow-appendices. This speaks well for its excellence and its consistency.

CHRONOLOGY.

The principal chronological points, concerning which difficulties have been felt, arise: (A) in vv. 1, 2, concerning Astyages, Cyrus, and Daniel; (B) in v. 22, as to the destruction of Bel's temple; and (C) in v. 33, as to Habakkuk being a contemporary of Daniel.

In connection with A, it is remarkable that v. 1 forms in the Vulgate the last verse of the preceding chapter, _i.e._ the last verse of Susanna. This arrangement may have been made from chronological reasons, possibly to escape an apparent difficulty; and in the LXX the verse is wanting altogether. Either plan, the attachment of the verse to Susanna, or its entire omission, has the effect of leaving the king in this piece nameless, and so solves the imagined difficulty of Cyrus and Daniel acting together as represented.

The text commented on by Theodoret offers the same solution in another form, viz. by transferring v. 1 to the end of chap, xii., and so concluding the book. He thus introduces it: Οὕτω πληρώσας τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἐπήγαγεν ὁ προφήτης καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀστυάγης, κ.τ.λ. Theodoret comments no further on Bel and the Dragon, though his remarks in other parts of the commentary shew that he favourably regarded it. See his observations on v. 31, x. 1.

The disappearance in one case, and the displacements in the others of this verse, evidently point to some uncertainty in early times as to its right connection. But the difficulties raised as to this verse even where it stands are not so serious as was once thought. As Ball says _in loc._, "The cuneiform records have thrown unexpected light on difficulties which were the despair of bygone generations of scholars," and quotes one which makes Astyages the captive of Cyrus. J.H. Blunt attempts to shew, not very satisfactorily, that the king of v. 2 was Darius. A note in Husenbeth's Douay version, still less so, quietly says "Astyages, or Darius"!

It has also been suggested, with regard to this and difficulty C, that another Daniel is here intended, to be identified with the Daniel of Ezra viii. 2 (Bissell).

The second difficulty, B, is raised by the asserted destruction of Bel's temple in v. 22. Now this is said not to have been destroyed till Xerxes' return from Greece in 479. Even then Herodotus (I. 183) merely says that he 'took' (ἔλαβε) a golden statue, and slew the protesting priest; Strabo, on hearsay, (XVI. 1) and Arrian (_Exp. Alex._ VII. 17), however, assert its destruction. But this forms a small obstacle, unduly magnified. Supposing Bel's temple to have been destroyed, as v. 22 narrates, it is far from improbable that another temple may have been raised before Xerxes' arrival. The people were evidently attached to Bel's worship, as v. 28 shews, notwithstanding the conviction of their king as to the truth of Daniel's God. It is noticeable that the LXX has no mention of the temple's, but only of the idol's, destruction; and that Θ, according to the manuscript Q, has not ἱερόν but ναόν in v. 22.

A. Scholz entertains the strange opinion that this and other historic difficulties were purposely introduced by the writer: "Der Verfasser unserer Erzählung kennt sichtlich die Verhältnisse in Babylon, und hat seine Darstellung so eingerichtet, dass es einfach unmöglich ist, sie geschichtlich zu verstehen" (p. 219). But this is a desperate expedient to support his view of the whole story being intended for a 'vision,' and it would be hard to find any parallel to such a proceeding on the part of the sacred writers.[79]

So far as Babylon is concerned, there is no indication of anything but a time of peace, which is quite in accordance with the supposed period of the narrative.

There is perhaps more difficulty, C, in making Habakkuk than in making Cyrus, a contemporary of the grown-up Daniel. Indeed, with the earlier date formerly assigned to Habakkuk, the difficulty seemed all but insuperable, except by postulating two Habakkuks or two Daniels. And, much as it may lack _vraisemblance_, either of those suppositions is of course within the bounds of possibility. So Trapp notes, rather sneeringly, on Hab. i. 1: "Those apocryphal Additions to Daniel, which either are false, or there were two Habakkuks"; and J.H. Blunt, more seriously, to a similar effect on Hab. i. 1 and Bel 33. Josippon ben Gorion (I. 7) joins the whole story with the canonical history, but, as given by Delitzsch (_op. cit._ p. 40), transposes, presumably from chronological motives, the den incident to the beginning of the story, "in ordine chronologico iudaicæ traditioni de Habacuci ætate se accommodantem." Josippon, around whom considerable obscurity hangs, is dated as of the eighth or ninth century in the _Biog. Univ._ art. _Gorionides_, Paris, 1857; but in Hastings' _D.B._ art _Bel and the Dragon_, p. 267b, c. A.D. 940 is given as his time.

Habakkuk's prophecy is now dated as late as 600 (Driver in Hastings' _D.B._ art. _Habakkuk_; Kirkpatrick in Smith's _D.B²._ art. _Habakkuk_, 1256b, says "not later than the sixth year of Jehoiakim"); and if Habakkuk prophesied in his youth, our story is not an impossible one. So Cornelius Jansen (_Analecta_, p. 154), "Quapropter nihil obstabit quo minus idem Habacuc iam senex prandium in Babylonem detulerit," and he quotes a tradition of Isidore Hispalensis (_de vit. Proph._) that Habakkuk lived to see the return from the Captivity, and two years after. Rosenmüller, quoted in a note on Hab. i. 1 by Maurer (neither of whom were too partial to traditional views), thinks that the time of Habakkuk is consistent with the "vetus fama in apocryphis Danielis additamentis." He even places chap. iii. of Habakkuk under Zedekiah, though with this Maurer does not agree (_cf._ Henderson, _Min. Proph., Introd. to Hab._).

Jamieson, Brown, and Faussett in their Commentary, _Introd. to Hab._ (1869), by no means inclined to favour the Apocrypha, say that Bel and the Dragon agrees with the notion of Habakkuk prophesying in Jehoiakim's reign.

G.A. Smith, however, in his _Book of the Twelve Prophets_, 1900, II. 130, contents himself with calling it "an extraordinary story of Habakkuk's miraculous carriage of food to Daniel in the lions' den, soon after Cyrus had taken Babylon." But A.C. Jennings, in Bishop Ellicott's _Comm. for English Readers, Introd. to Hab._, pp. 523--5, says: "The story, worthless in itself, nevertheless, indirectly confirms the theory of date which we have accepted below" in these words, "Habakkuk's prophecy dates from the reign of Jehoiakim, not more than five years at most before the battle of Carchemish--how much nearer that great event it is impossible to say." Dean Farrar also curiously observes, "Habakkuk's appearance in apocryphal legend (vv. 33--39) shews the impression he had made on the mind of his people, and perhaps indicates his date as a contemporary of Daniel." (_Minor Prophets_ in 'Men of the Bible' series, n.d., p. 160).

Another instance of belief in the contemporaneity of Daniel and Habakkuk is afforded by Raymund Martini (_c._ 1250) in his _Pugio fidei_ (Paris, 1651, p. 740): "Habacuc vero Prophetam fuisse contemporaneum Danieli inde colligitur ubi in Bereschit Rabba hoc modo scribitur de Joseph," he says before quoting a long passage from the B.R. on Gen. xxxvii. 24. This passage is none other than a portion of Bel and the Dragon in Chaldee, and is headed without reserve as בדניאל. It proceeds with v. 28 to the end: לכא לביל תבד ולתנינא קטל ואתהפכו צליו ואמרין חד לחד יהודאה הוא ליה ואיתכנשו בבלאי צל מלכא. Then follows a Latin translation, after which Martini adds "Hucusque traditio," and, after quoting Hab. i. 6, finishes his work.

Martini's good faith in quotation is defended by Neubauer in his Chaldee Tobit (Oxf, 1888, xviii. to xxiv.). He also identifies the Breshith Rabbah quoted with the Midrash Rabbah de Rabbah. The real Breshith is probably as early as the 4th century; but neither in the Venice edition of 1566, nor the Leipzig one of 1864, is the passage to be found under Gen. xxxvii. _Cf._ Payne-Smith's note, as to Martini's quotations, in _Pearson on the Creed_, Oxf. 1870, p. 306, where it is shewn that by Breshith Rabbah the book by Moses Haddarshan (of the 11th century) is sometimes meant. Etheridge states that only fragments of this book are extant (p. 406). Delitzsch (_de Habacuci Proph. vita atque ætate_, Lips. 1842, p. 34) also defends Martini's sincerity, and says "Non dubito fore, ut fragmentum a Raymundo nobiscum communicatum aliquando in antiquis Genesis Rabba Codd., qui sane rarissimi sunt, inveniatur."

The fact incidentally brought out in the story that Habakkuk was not engaged in reaping, but was occupied in taking out food for the reapers, fits in well with the idea of his advanced age. Such a task might well be undertaken by one who was no longer strong enough for field labour.[80]

All these difficulties would, on other grounds, be deprived of much of their importance by the theory of A. Scholz, if that could be accepted as true. He regards the entire book of Daniel, including of course the Additions, as a series of apocalyptic visions (p. 201). This he considers as the earliest explanation, supported by the heading ὅραις to each chapter of Daniel in A and some other MSS. But while removing one set of difficulties, this theory introduces others of a character at least as serious; and it is by no means easy to convince oneself that there is an "apocalyptic" tone about this or the other Additions. This remarkable theory cuts, rather than unties, such knots as are above noted, and carries with it to most minds a strange and improbable air.

CANONICITY.

What is said as to Susanna on this point holds almost entirely good here. Both pieces have been called in question on nearly the same ground, and have stood or fallen together. Possibly this one presents rather more difficulty in some of its details.

It is often included in Scripture lists under the title Daniel;[81] and is often quoted in the same manner, _e.g._ by St. Cyprian, _ad Fortunatum_, § 11, "Daniel, Deo devotus & sancto spiritu plenus exclamat et dicit," v. 4. The quotations given under 'Early Christian Literature and Art' will shew how strong a hold this story had in many quarters, and what use was made of it.

Pseudo-Athanasius, in his _Synops. S.S._, mentions the story at the end of Section 41 as included in Daniel, but he does _not_ name it at the close of the _Synopsis_ as being outside the canonical books, as he does in the case of Susanna. The writer of _De Mirabilibus Script. Sacr._, often attached to St. Augustine's works (Migne, _Patr. lat._ XXXV.; Benedict, ed. appx. to Vol. III.), expressly declares against its canonicity. This treatise is thought to have been composed in England or Ireland in the 7th or 8th century (Loisy, _O.T._ p. 154).

The hesitation of the earlier Church, however, found no counterpart in the canonizing decree of the Council of Trent; while, on the other hand, Protestant opinion has run almost entirely against canonicity. Diametrically opposite views are steadily maintained by authorities on both sides; although among English-speaking Protestants there is perhaps a decrease in the contempt with which this story was once treated.

Among the Syriac-using Christians of the Malabar coast, Bel and the Dragon, with the other additions, is reckoned as "part and parcel of the book of Daniel" (Letter to present writer of Aug. 8, 1902, from Rev. F.V.J. Givargese, Principal of Mar Dionysius Seminary, Kottayam). Bar-Hebræus, too, comments on it, but says at the head of his remarks that "some do not receive this story" (_op. cit._ p. 27).

The many, resemblances and coincidences between this and the canonical book pointed out under other heads ('Language and Style,' 'Religious and Social State,' etc.) of course tell, so far as they go, in its favour.

Schrader (Schenkel's _Bibel Lex._ 1869, art. _Habak._ p. 556) classes Bel and the Dragon with pseudo-Epiphanius' and Rabbinic legends of the same tale, as "reine Fabeln und Legenden zu erkennen." This seems too positive an opinion of their untrustworthiness. It is agreed with, however, by Orelli (_Introd.to Hab._, Clarke's Transl.), who styles Bel and the Dragon, or at least the Habakkuk incident in it, "an idle story." A.B. Davidson also (_Encyclop. Brit._ ed. 9, II. 181) writes of it as being "completely fabulous;" and Ewald speaks of the episode of Habakkuk as an example of an unhistoric spirit, growing rapidly and dangerously (v. 487).

Cloquet's plea that non-canonicity is 'proved' (_XXXIX Arts._ 1885, pp. 112, 113) by six days being named here, and one day in the canonical book, as the length of Daniel's incarceration in the den, is beside the mark. It assumes for controversial purposes that the two passages must refer to the same event. This writer also speaks generally (p. 115) of Bel and the Dragon's "direct contradictions of Scripture." Such strictures are only worth noticing as specimens of many instances in which _possible_ discrepancies between canonical and uncanonical books are treated by a particular class of writers as _certain_, in the hope of depreciating the latter. These are sometimes attacked with extreme violence as full of fables, superstitions, and impieties--apocryphal in the worst sense. But they deserve to be saved from this unmerited contempt, indulged in usually for polemical purposes, and only rendered possible by an insufficient study of the works themselves and the many admirable points which they contain.

Our own Church indulges in no rash or sweeping assertions, but follows the golden mean. She states in Art. VI. her present practical view of this and the other Additions in common with the rest of the Apocrypha. While not making any special doctrine to turn upon an apocryphal text, she directs the perusal of this, with the other books of its class, for purposes of practical edification. In singularly guarded and cautious terms she is careful not to commit herself to anything more than a statement of her authorized practice. Thus she has not closed the door, as the Council of Trent is supposed to have done,[82] against the entry of fresh knowledge, with its corresponding changes of view or modifications of usage.

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART

LITERATURE.

The following examples from primitive Christian writings bear more or less directly upon this book.

NEW TESTAMENT. Compare B.V.M.'s words in St. Luke i. 38 with Daniel's at the end of v. 9, Θ. With John xviii. 35 compare Bel 38, Ο´ and Θ, as to a Gentile being taken for a Jew. Moreover the phrase τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν in Acts xvii. 23 is very like a reminiscence of Bel 27, Θ, end. But A. Scholz's idea that our Lord's words in John x. 9 are based on vv. 3, 6, 13 has little likelihood: "gegensätzlich so nahe verwandt, dass in den Evangelium darauf Bezug genommen sein könnte" (note on v. 13).

IRENÆUS (†200) in IV. ix. 1 quotes vv. 4, 5, 24, as coming from Daniel, apparently without the smallest misgiving. His quotations accord with Θ as against Ο´, v. 4 being the same in both. As Schürer says in Hauck's _Encyclopædia_ (I. 640): "Irenäus benuzt die Uebersetzung des Theodotion und so alle Folgenden." But see under _Cyprian_.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (†220) refers, _Strom._ I. 21 (middle, ed. Potter, Oxf. 1715), among a chain of historic events, to the closing scene in this piece: τότε διὰ δράκντα Δανιὴλ εἰς λάκκον λεόντων βληθεὶς, ὑπὸ Ἀμβακοὺβ[83] προνοίᾳ θεῦ τραφεὶς, ἑβδομαῖος ἀνασώζεται.

TERTULLIAN (†240). In _de Jejun._ VII. (end) reference is made to vv. 35--39; and in IX. the story is again mentioned. In _de Oratione_, 29, he quotes vv. 33, 34, seemingly with full acceptance. In _de Idol._ XIX. he says that "Daniel nec Belum nec draconem colere."

ORIGEN (†254). Besides the question dealt with in his controversy with Julius Africanus, Origen in the Fragment of his _Strom_, bk. X. expounds Bel. He also quotes it in his _Exhort, ad martyrium_, § 33.

CYPRIAN (†258) in _ad Fortunatum_, 11, quotes v. 5, apparently following a translation of the Ο´, and not of Θ's, text. The same verse is again quoted by him in _Ep._ lviii. 5 in exactly the same words. It is curious that both passages are preceded, in the same sections, by a quotation of Dan. iii. 16--18, apparently based on Θ's version. In the case of v. 5 in _Ep._ lviii. there is a slight variation in the readings of some MSS. as given by Hartel. _Cf._ Prof. Swete's _Introd._ 1902, p. 47.

PSEUDO-CYPRIAN (3rd century?) gives parts of vv. 37, 38, in _Oratio_ II. 2, following Ο´ a little more closely than Θ.

PASSING OF MARY (3rd or 4th century, _see D.C.B., Mary_, 1142b). In the First Latin form vv. 33--39 are clearly referred to.

ATHANASIUS (†373) in his _Discourse against Arians_, II. 8, quotes v. 5 as words of Daniel, which he also refers to in III. 30.

EPHREM SYRUS (†378). In the hymn _de Jejunio_ there is, according to T.J. Lamy (Mechlin, 1886), a reference to Bel and the Dragon, "cum Daniel jejunavit."

GREGORY NAZIANZEN (†390) in his poetical _Præcepta ad Virgines_ has the line, speaking of Daniel, ἀερίην δ᾽ ἐνὶ χρσὶν ἐδέξατο δαῖτα προφήτου.

AMBROSE (†397), in his Commentary in _Ep. ad Rom. I. 23_, writes, "Coluerunt et serpentem draconem quem occidit Daniel, homo dei" (Basel, 1527, IV. p. 768).

CHRYSOSTOM (†407), _In Danielem_, cap. XIII. (XIV.) comments on Bel and the Dragon as part of the book, seemingly without reserve or alteration of tone.

PRUDENTIUS (†410), in his _Cathemerinon_, IV., has several verses on the den episode, of which this is one:

"Cernit forte procul dapes ineuntas Quas messoribus Habakkuk propheta Agresti bonus exhibebat arte."

JEROME (†420), though excluding this and the other Additions from the canon, according to what he writes in his preface to Daniel, "veru anteposito easque jugulante subjecimus," retains it in his Bible. In his _Onomasticon de Nominibus Hebraicis_ he includes under Daniel, Astyages, Bel, Ambacum, without distinction from the rest of the names in Daniel. But for this last work he was chiefly indebted to Eusebius, Πετὶ τῶν οπικῶν ὀνομάτων. (_D.C.B._ II. 336a).

HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM (†438), in his Στιχηρόν on the XII prophets, says of Habakkuk that, whether he was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried to Babylon, εἰπεῖν τὸ σαφὲς οὐκ ἔχω.

THEODORET(†457), towards the close of _Ep._ CXLV., quotes v. 36 with clear belief in the miracle. He also comments on vv. 1, 2 as if forming v. 14 of Dan. xii.; and then ceases.

We see, then, that the more than respectful references to this piece in the writers of ancient Christendom, if not quite so frequent as the citations of the Song and of Susanna, are still numerous and clear.

ART.

This apocryphal tract has afforded two fairly popular subjects for artistic illustration, viz., Daniel destroying the dragon, and Daniel and Habakkuk in the lions' den.

Daniel destroying the Dragon is a subject represented on glass from the catacombs (_D.C.A._ art. _Glass_, p. 733a). Garrucci (_Vetri_, XIII. 13) has a glass vessel in which Christ is represented with Daniel, who is giving cakes to the dragon (_D.C.A. Jesus Christ, Representations of_, p. 877b). In _Paganism in Christian Art_ in the same Dictionary (p. 1535a), it is said, "Hercules feeding the fabled dragon with cakes of poppy-seed appears to have furnished the motive for the representation of the apocryphal story of Daniel killing the dragon at Babylon." Presumably this means the dragon Ladon in the garden of the Hesperides. But the connection between the two dragon episodes of Hercules and Daniel seems a little difficult to establish by indisputable evidence.

In Walter Lowrie's _Christian Art and Archæology_ (Lond. and New York, 1901, p. 363) is a woodcut of a fragment of gold glass, with Daniel slaying the Dragon. This is correctly described on p. 209, but is wrongly entitled under the figure itself, as 'Daniel slaying Bel.' The picture is said to be taken from Garrucci, _Storia dell' Arte_, but no further reference is given. On p. 365 of Lowrie's book is a smaller scene of the same in glass, again with an erroneous description on p. xxi. as "Daniel and Bel." No dates are suggested for the above pieces of glass, but they appear to be very ancient.

In the Vatican cemetery a representation of Daniel's destruction of the dragon has been found on a sarcophagus; nor is this a solitary instance. (_See O.T. in Art, D.C.A._ p. 1459a.) And on the south side of the Angel Choir in Lincoln Minster, among a series of sculptures in the spandrils of the triforium arches, occurs a figure, described by Cockerell, the architect, as that of the "Angel of Daniel," with a monster under his feet, deemed to be "the old Dragon " (Archæol. Institute's _Memoirs of Lincoln_, Lond. 1850, p. 222).

Habakkuk with the loaves often appears in representations of the lions' den (_O.T. in Art_, 1459a). In fact there is reason to think that this apocryphal scene was at least as frequently represented as the corresponding canonical one; _e.g._ on a sarcophagus at Rome figured in the frontispiece to Burgon's _Letters from Rome_, thought by him to be of about the 5th century (p. 244). There is also a woodcut of this in _D.C.A._ art. _Sculpture_, p. 1868. A sarcophagus of the 4th century also, like Burgon's, in the Lateran Museum (though not, it would seem, identical) is mentioned in W. Lowrie's _Art and Archæology_, p. 260, as carved with the same subject of Daniel and Habakkuk.

In Bohn's edition of Didron's _Christian Iconography_ (Lond. 1886, II. 210) there is a woodcut of a miniature in the _Speculum hum. salv._ (_circ._ 1350), in the library of Lord Coleridge, portraying Daniel among the lions. The appearance of Habakkuk guided by the angel in the background, carrying food, identifies the scene with Bel and the Dragon, and not with the history of Dan. vi. Even in representations of this, the canonical den-scene, it is noteworthy how often Daniel is shown in a sitting posture, although all mention of this is confined to v. 40 of the apocryphal story.

It is a little remarkable that Daniel's dramatic disclosure of the priests' trick (v. 21) has not, so far as the writer is aware, commended itself to artists. The ash-strewn floor of Bel's temple, the tell-tale footmarks, and the emotions of exultation and surprise on the face of Daniel and the King respectively, with a possible introduction of the detected impostors at the side, might make, in capable hands, a very effective picture.

"EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION OF MANNERS."

The whole story, in addition to proving the vanity of idols, shews how God watches over the fate of those who bravely discharge his work; while idolaters and persecutors meet with punishment. Religious fraud, deceit under mask of piety, is dealt with very severely. Retribution is not to be escaped. Even J.M. Fuller (S.P.C.K. _Comm. Introd._), who regards the story as "essentially apocryphal," admits "an edifying element."[84]. This element might perhaps be used with advantage more than it is by missionaries to idolatrous peoples.

The sordidness and trickery of heathen priests[85] is contrasted with the uprightness and single-minded devotion of Daniel. His God moreover delivers him, but their gods do not deliver them. The Bel of this history is as dumb as the Baal of I. Kings xviii.; their names and characters quite agree.

The once flourishing temples of iniquity are conspicuously brought to nought, affording a lesson of confidence and patience to those who fear the Lord. Thus the angry opponents, who made certain of slaying Daniel, were disappointed, and judgment quickly overtook them.

With v. 6 Arnald, _in loc._, finely contrasts the P.B.V. of Ps. xvi. 2--the God who was estimated by the amount of provisions he consumed, and the God to whom earthly goods were nothing. But the Hebrew will hardly bear the P.B.V. rendering.

The character of Daniel, without fear or reproach, is not out of keeping with that displayed in the canonical book, and in the companion story of Susanna. He affords an example of:

(a) _Courage_ in his fearless attacks upon idolatry, attacks which, as the event proved, could not be indulged in with safety. He faces terrible crises at much personal risk, with decision and absence of self-distrust, as in the canonical chapters and in Susanna. He boldly defends his religion when it is called in question, and ousts rival worships.

(b) _Resistance to temptation_ in refusing to worship as the king wished. No half compliance is suggested, such as worshipping Bel and God together. Observe how he claims for God to be τὸν ζῶντα Θεόν, while Cyrus only claims for Bel to be ζῶν Θεός (vv. 5, 6, Θ), as noticed under 'Theology.'

(c) _Wisdom_, 'of the serpent,' in his plan for detecting fraud, and in his skill and versatility in choosing suitable means for unveiling each kind of imposture; of which another striking instance occurs in Susanna. He was a man of right understanding, clear insight, and practical sagacity, as shewn by his methods of dealing with opposing forces, moral or physical. As a man of great resource he rapidly adapts himself to fresh conditions.

(d) _Endurance_ of persecution for righteousness' sake. One trial overcome, a yet greater presents itself; but with unflinching constancy he faces it and passes unharmed, Ps. lvii. 3, 4.

(e) _Perseverance_, in not resting upon his laurels, won over Bel, but proceeding against the Dragon. His promptitude of resource is not mere rashness, but is combined with steady determination in pursuing his task. As an active and diligent worker he is far-sighted and firm of purpose.

(f) _Gratitude._ On receiving Habakkuk's visit he at once acknowledges God's faithfulness, and addresses himself to the great First Cause immediately (v. 38), as the ever-watchful shaper of events.

(g) _Mindfulness of faith and duty_, by being ever foremost, even in association with a heathen king whose eyes he opens and to whom he acts as a missionary, in shewing hatred of falsehood and love of truth (as in Susanna). Absence of selfishness and willingness to undertake responsibility are manifested.

(h) _Disinterested service_ of God in clearing away two great obstacles to his worship. His aims are realised without any trace of self-aggrandisement; for those aims are directed to his Maker's rather than to his own glory.

(i) _Pleasure in God's service._ The tone of the whole story implicitly conveys the idea that Daniel enjoyed, and was happy in the achievement of these works, because they were designed to honour God and to benefit man. Thus he finds his tasks thoroughly interesting and congenial.

It is to be observed that Daniel's character is in contrast with that of everyone in the story, except Habakkuk.

_Per contra_, Daniel might perhaps be accused of cruelty in his method of slaying the dragon,[86] especially as described in Gaster's Aramaic, and by Josippon ben Gorion, given by Arnald, _in loc._, from Selden.

In Habakkuk we see _obedience to_ a divine command, apparently impossible of execution, for which the way is suddenly made plain. He becomes instrumental in alleviating such a state of affairs as he deplores in i. 4 of his Prophecy: "for the wicked doth compass about the righteous, etc." So in the hymn "Warum betrübst du dich mein Herz?" doubtfully attributed to Hans Sachs, we find the seventh stanza bearing upon this matter:

Des Daniels Gott ihm nicht rergass, Da er unter den Löwen sass: Sein Engel sandt er hin, Und liess ihm Speise bringen gut, Durch seiner Diener Habakkuk.

Habakkuk's obedience served God's purpose.

In _Cyrus'_ character we see something of the impulsiveness of the despotic monarch, giving hasty directions on the spur of the moment as to matters of much importance. But the events of the story exert an educative influence upon his mind, culminating in his sentiments as expressed in v. 41, which apparently imply that Daniel's God was to be his God. Certainly the monarch's testimony proves that his religious opinions had been corrected, and raised above the stage represented in v. 6.

Probably some allegoric, or more strictly 'tropological,' instruction may be drawn from the story. In Bel we are taught to fight against crafty deception however generally believed in; in the Dragon, against fierce, repulsive, and terrifying adversaries. This kind of interpretation is sometimes strained however, as when in Neale's edition of the _Moral Concordances_ of St. Antony of Padua (p. 125, n.d.), v. 27 is given as applicable to St. Bartholomew.

An unexpectedly adverse opinion on the use of Bel and the Dragon as a lesson (Nov. 23, matins, old Lectionary) is expressed by J.H. Blunt in his _Directorium Pastorale_ (1864, p. 59): "I confess I can see no good which can arise from the public reading to a congregation, composed principally perhaps of young persons, of such lessons as Bel and the Dragon, or Lev. xviii., Deut. xxii., xxv." Then he adds the following curious note: "It is a fact that a man was once sent into a fit of loud and uncontrollable laughter, although he was honestly preparing for holy orders, by hearing this lesson (Bel and the Dragon) read for the first time in the chapel of a Theological College." One cannot help thinking that this gentleman must have had an abnormally developed sense of humour under exceptionally bad control.

John Wesley exhibits in his Journal (July 5th, 1773) an equally low opinion of the story, though free from ill-timed mirth: "St. Patrick converting 30,000 at one sermon I rank with the History of Bel and the Dragon" (Quoted in _Church Quarterly Review_, Jan. 1902, p. 323).

These opinions seem too contemptuous and inimical to a narrative which yields many valuable lessons. Indeed it may be said of this, as in the Bishops' reply at the Savoy Conference to the Puritan objection to reading the Apocryphal lessons in general: "It is heartily to be wished that sermons were as good" (Procter-Frere, _Hist. of P.B._ 1902, p. 174).

INDEX I.

PROPER NAMES.

Addison Africanus Alexander, Abp. Altdorfer Ambrose Antony of Padua Apollinarius Aquila Arnald Adrian Athanasius Athanasius, pseudo, Augustine,

Ball, C.J. Barclay, P. Bardenhewer Barnes, A. Barry, Bp. Bassus Bayer, F.P. Behrmann Bengel Bevan, Prof. Blackie, J.S. Blakesley, Dean Bleek Blunt, J.H. Blunt, J.J. Boys, Dean Breshith Rabba Brightman, Canon Brown, Sir Thos. Brüll Bugati Buhl Bullock, W.T. Bunsen Burbidge Burgon, Dean Bury St. Edmunds

Cæsarius of Aries Calvin Cambridge, Trinity College Chapel Cappellus, Ludovione Carr Carracci Castillo, de Ceriani Chaplin, Child Charles Chigi, Cardinal Chrysostom Churton Clement of Alexandria Cloquet Cockerell Congreve Cope, L.C. Cornelius à Lapide Cornely Cornish, H.P. Correggio Coypel Curteis, G.H. Curtis, E.L. Curtius, Quintus Cyprian Cyprian, pseudo- Cyril of Alexandria Cyril of Jerusalem

Damasus I. Daniel, E. Davidson Deane, H. Deane, W. Deissmann Delitzsch (elder) Denys, the Carthusian Dereser Didron Donaldson Driver, Dr. Duehesne Dyck, van

Ebed Jesu Edersheim Eichhorn Ephrem Syrus Epiphanius Epiphanius, pseudo- Etheridge Eusebius Ewald

Farrar, Dean Faussett Feltoe, Dr. Florence, Council of Forbes, Bp. Frank, Archd. Freeman, Archd. Fritzsche Fuller, J.M. Fürst, J.

Garrucci Gaster Gerard Gesenius Givargese, F. Goodall, F. Gorionides Gratian Gray, Bp. Gregory of Nazianzus Gregory of Nyssa Grenfell Grotius Guercino Günkel Gwillim Gwynne, Prof.

Hauck Hebræus, Bar Henderson Heppner, A. Herodotus Hesychius Hieronymus Graecus Hilary of Poitiers Hippolytus Holmes Hooker Home, T.H. Hotham Humphry, W. Hunt

Irenæus Isaacson, S. Isidore Hispalensis

Jacobus Edessenus Jahn,G. Jahn, J. Jamieson Jansen, Cornelius Jennings Jephet ibn Ali Jerahmeel Jerome Jocelin of Brakelond Johnson, S. Josephus Josippon Julian, Dr. Justin Martyr

Kamphausen Karlstadt Kautzsch Keil Keilah Kells Kennedy, J. Kirkpatrick, Prof.

Lagarde Liddon Lightfoot, Bp. Littledale Loisy Lowrie, W. Lucar, Cyril Lucretia Luther Lyra, Nich. de

Maccabaeus, Simon Mamertus, Claudianus Margoliouth, D.S. Marshall Marti Martin, D. Martini Mary, Passing of Maskell Mattathias Maurer Melito Merrick Methodius Meyer Milton Moone Abbey Moses Haddarshan Movers Mozley M'Swiney M'Whirter Muis, de Munk, S.

Nachman, Rabba bar Nachmanides Nectarius Nestle Neubauer Nicephorus, of Constantinople. Nobilius, Flaminius

Orelli Origen

Parker, M. Parsons Patrick, St. Pearson, Bp. Peronne Perowne, Bp. Philippe, E. Philo Pilate Polychronius Porphyry Procter, F. Prudentius Pusey

Quignon, Card.

Rembrandt Reuss Rose, H.P. Rosenmüller Rothstein Rubens Rufinus Ryle, Bp. H.E. Ryssel, Prof.

Sabatier Sachs, Hans Salmon, Prof. Sanday, Prof. Santerre Sayce Scholz, A. Schrader Schürer Scrivener Sedulius Selden Selwyn, Prof. Severus, Sulpicius Shann, G.V. Shetach, Simon ben Shushan Sidon Smith, Prof. Smith, Prof. Robertson Sozomen Spenser Stähelin, O. Stephens, A.J. Stephens, Dean Stokes, M. Strabo Streane, Dr. Susanna, St. Swete, Prof. Syncellus

Tertullian Thackeray Theodoret Theodotion Thomas of Harkel Tintoretto Toledo, 4th Council of Toy, C.H. Trapp Trent, Council of Trommius

Valentin Van Ess Vatican, Council of Verecundus Veronese, P.

Waldo, P. Warren, Canon F.E. Walton, Bp. B. Wesley, J. Westcott, Bp. Wheatley Wilson, Bp. Wilton, R. Wintle, J. Wordsworth, Bp. Chas. Wordsworth, Bp. Chris. Wyon, W.G.

Xerxes

Yonge, Miss

Zimmer Zöckler

INDEX II.

SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

GENESIS.

i. 1