The Three Additions to Daniel, a Study Part 16

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 h.e.l.lenistic 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 T's version "partem dignissimam." Attempts to prove the falsity of this martyrdom, if such it may be called, by first a.s.suming the ident.i.ty 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 appet.i.tes (in T 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 n.o.bleman'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 wors.h.i.+p. It was not as to the propriety of wors.h.i.+p in itself, but of the object towards which it ought to be directed, that the controversy arose.

Two sorts of wors.h.i.+p were in vogue:--

(a) _Bel-wors.h.i.+p._ As to the practice of this in Babylon no question appears to be raised; he was the supreme G.o.d and guardian of Babylon.

The representation of Cyrus as a wors.h.i.+pper 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-wors.h.i.+p._ This is not otherwise known to have existed in Babylonia, but snake-wors.h.i.+p, which may be the same, is a.s.serted by J.T.

Marshall (end of art. _Bel and the Dragon_, Hastings' _D.B._.). In support of this it is noteworthy that ? d????? is identified with ? ?f??

in Rev. xii. 9, and that ?????? and ???????? seem identified in Ex. iv.

3 and vii. 9. A. Kamphausen, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, thinks that "Gunkel has conclusively shewn that the primeval Babylonian myth of the conquest of the chaos-monster or the great dragon Tiamat by the G.o.d 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 p??se????sa? t?? d?????ta of Rev. xiii. 4 may have been suggested by the dragon-wors.h.i.+p here; ?s???t? is used in v. 23, p??s????s?? (with dat.) in v. 24 (both versions).

Daniel set himself, in reply to the king, who suggested to him the propriety of Bel-wors.h.i.+p, to detach the Babylonians from these superst.i.tious follies, to interpret G.o.d'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-a.s.sumed, 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 superst.i.tion, Bel, by disproving the belief in the G.o.d'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. Schurer, in Hauck's _Dict._ (I. 639), writes of the Dragon as having been slain "mit unverdaulichen Kitchen"; and Toy, in the _Jewish Encyclopaedia_, 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, ???????? ???? ?????.

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 a.s.sent 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 t.i.tle as given in Swete's manual LXX, "t.i.t. adpinx. ut vid. pe?? t?? as??e?? ?e???s? ?? ?e???e? ???da???, Syr'mg*." Cajeta.n.u.s 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' appet.i.tes (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 amus.e.m.e.nt 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 T's version. As in Susanna, he stands as the willing exposer of fraud, intellectually acute as well as morally upright.

v. 29 T has been objected to by Ball and by Zockler 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 ??, 14 T; vi. 17). That pa?d???a should be under the command of Daniel (v. 14 T and Syr.) is what would be likely for one in his position. The term is used of himself in Sus. 45 T 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). ?a?ad?d?? is used in each case (v. 29 T, 30 T and ??). 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 wors.h.i.+ps to that of the living G.o.d. 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 G.o.d worthy of wors.h.i.+p, 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 Irenaeus (IV. ix. 1) to prove that the one living G.o.d was the G.o.d wors.h.i.+pped by the prophets, as "the G.o.d 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 wors.h.i.+p 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-wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p Bel, which might have led him under the ban of Deut. xviii. 20 (end) as "speaking in the name of other G.o.ds." False theological opinions are corrected by Daniel, who not only dissuades from idol-wors.h.i.+p, but persuades to that of the true deity. Hence the beautiful appropriateness of t??? ??ap??t?? se (v. 38) instead of t??? ??p????ta? ?p? a?t?? in the corresponding point of delivery in Sus. 60 T. For Daniel was fighting for G.o.d, while Susanna was defending herself. The one was an active plaintiff for G.o.d, the other a pa.s.sive defendant of herself. Thus Love in Daniel's case, Hope in Susanna's, has its own special appropriateness.

In v. 5 Daniel claims G.o.d to be t?? ???ta ?e??, but Cyrus claims for Bel to be only ??? ?e??; in v. 24 Cyrus makes the same claim for the Dragon, and then in v. 25 Daniel makes only a like claim for G.o.d (anarthrous), for Daniel takes here the words out of Cyrus' mouth; in the former instance it was _vice versa_. The same phrases are used by Darius in vi.

20, 26 T. Thus the prophet makes a more exclusive claim for the divinity of his G.o.d. In v. 6 a contrast is afforded with what is said of G.o.d 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 G.o.d's persecuted prophet. A man is employed in each case also to carry out the miraculous purposes of G.o.d. 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 G.o.d.

Though, with its two companion pieces, it has been cavilled at (not to reckon Africa.n.u.s' 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 G.o.d 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 princ.i.p.al 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: ??t? p????sa? t?? ?p????????

?p??a?e? ? p??f?t?? ?a? ? as??e?? ?st?????, ?.t.?. 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"!