Part 14 (1/2)

E. Philippe (Vigouroux _Dict._ II. 1266) attempts, rather feebly, to account for its omission from the Hebrew Bibles. He says, ”elle parut a tort aux Juifs faire double emploi avec un recit 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.

AUTHORs.h.i.+P.

In T, Bel and the Dragon is apparently a.s.sumed to be by the same writer as the rest of the Book of Daniel. So in _Bres.h.i.+th Rabbah_[63] on Gen.

x.x.xvii. 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 ??????

(_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 t.i.tle, 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 Schurer and Driver in their articles in Hauck's _Encyclopaedia_ (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 t.i.tle, 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 t.i.tle as correct (Churton, 390b). So Bugati (Milan, 1788, p. 163) treats the authors.h.i.+p 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 ident.i.ty 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 ?a??? which might perhaps be the p??f?te?a named in the LXX t.i.tle.

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 authors.h.i.+p 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 repet.i.tion. 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 cla.s.ses 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 a.s.sume, as is sometimes done, that all its events are fict.i.tious. 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 pa.s.sed 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 G.o.d. In v. 19 we also find him venturing to hold the king back--????t?se? t?? as???a (T). 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 a.s.signed 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 Schurer's pointed saying, quoted there in note (3), ”Entweder Th. selbst ist alter 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.