Part 16 (1/2)

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.