TITLE AND POSITION.

TITLE.

Forming, as it does, an integral portion of the third chapter of the Greek Daniel, the principal MSS. give the Song, in that place, no independent title. It falls of course under the general title of the whole Book, Daniel.

Van Ess in his LXX (Lips. 1835) entitles it Προσευχὴ Ἀζαρίου καὶ ὕμνος τῶν τριῶν, but as he puts this heading in curved brackets it is possibly merely his own insertion. ‘B’ is the codex which he is professing to follow in his text; but that MS. is credited with no such title in Dr. Swete’s Greek Old Testament; nor do Holmes and Parsons shew any knowledge of it as existing in any of their MSS.

In the Veronese Graeco-Latin Psalter it is headed ’Ὕμνος τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, and in the Turin Psalter Ὕμνος τῶν τριῶν παιδῶν, which title it inserts again at v. 57, strangely regarding that verse as the commencement of a fresh canticle with a new number, ιβʹ. Churton (Uncan. and Apocr. Script., p. 391) suggests that the former title “may have been wrongly transferred from Eccles. xliv.“ at the head of which it stands. He also calls it the title in the Alexandrian Psalter—the Odes, presumably that is, at the end. But the title to Eccles. xliv. is simply πατέρων ὕμνος, so that the likelihood of the transfer, deemed possible by Churton, having taken place is very small.

In the Odes, at the end of Cod. A, two canticles are extracted from this piece; the first (Ode IX.) entitled Προσευχὴ Ἀζαρίου, the second (Ode X.) Ὕμνος τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, each corresponding with the name given to it. In the office of Eastern Lauds the two parts have separate titles, being assigned to different days of the week (D.C.A. art. Canticle).

In the Syriac and Arabic versions of Daniel a separate title is given after v. 23 of chap. iii., and in the latter after v. 52, according to Churton in his marginal notes. He also says that “the prayer of the companions of Ananias“ is the Syriac title. The titles on the whole are fairly suited to their purpose; but the use of the word “children” (παιδῶν) in the common heading of the Song contemplates the three as of the age indicated in Daniel i, rather than that in Daniel iii.

POSITION.

Obviously this is not meant for an independent work, since it has no proper commencement of its own. “And they walked” is clearly intended as a continuation of some foregoing history. Accordingly, its position in the LXX, Theodotion, Vulgate, and other versions, is immediately after the 23rd verse of Daniel iii., thus forming a portion of that chapter. This is clearly its natural and appropriate place. It unites well both at the beginning and the end with the canonical text, ”Qui se trouve entrelassée (sic) dans le texte,” as D. Martin says in the heading of the book in his French version. T. H. Horne, however (Introd. 1856, II. 936), mentions its “abrupt nature” as a reason for thinking that the translator did not invent it, but made use of already existing materials. But the abruptness is not so apparent to other eyes and ears. Indeed G. Jahn, in his note on Dan. iii. 24 (Leipzig, 1904), considers the gap between vv. 23 and 24 in the Massoretic text is filled up satisfactorily in the LXX and Theodotion only.

By means of this insertion, and the inclusion of what in A.V. are the first four verses of chap. iv., this chapter is lengthened out in the Greek and Latin versions to exactly 100 verses.

Bishop Gray’s note (Key to O. T. 1797, p. 608), in which he says “the Song of the three holy children is not in the Vat. copy of the LXX,” is certainly a mistake. It is just possible, however, that he may have meant that the true LXX version was absent from it. So Ball somewhat obscurely (p. 310 “the Alex. MS. omits”This may refer to the titles he gives from “the Vatican LXX”; but see above, p. 18, as to the absence of these.), and Bissell (p. 442), though not very distinctly, suggest a like idea as to its omission from Dan. iii. in A, and Zöckler in his commentary falls into the same mistake (Munich, 1891, p. 231). It is not unlikely that these writers successively influenced each other.

E. Philippe’s idea (Vigouroux, Dict. II. 1267a), that this piece was separated from the original book because ”elle retarde le récit et est en dehors du but final“ seems unconvincing—as much so as Dereser’s (quoted in Bissell, p. 444), from whom perhaps it was borrowed—that “the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem shortened it for convenient use.” An equally unsatisfying “reason” is that of H. Deane in Daniel, his Life and Times, p. 70 (pref. 1888). “There is no doubt as to the antiquity of this addition, but probably on account of the feelings of hatred the three children express with regard to their enemies, it was not universally received by the Church.” In the face of many stronger expressions in the O.T. received without hesitation, this explanation seems untenable, or at least insufficient. And the same may be said of G. Jahn’s theory that some mention of the singing of the three, contained in the original, was expunged by the Massoretes as too wonderful and apocryphal.

Much has been made of the omission of this and the other additions from the original Syriac (e.g. Westcott, quoting Polychronius, Smith’s D. B., ed. 2. 713b, Bissell, 448), but they are contained in the Syriac text of Origen’s Hexapla, in the MS. in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (Kautzsch, I. 172), published in facsimile by Ceriani. Bugati in his edition of Daniel gives this Syriac and the LXX text in parallel columns. In Jephet Ibn Ali’s (the Karaite’s) Arabic commentary on Daniel, translated by D. S. Margoliouth (Oxf. 1889), no notice is taken of the additions. The commentary was probably written about a.d. 1000.

Professor Rothstein (Kautzsch, I. 173) compares the situation of the prayer in ix. 4 sqq., which he deems, like this one, to have been perhaps a later insertion into the book.

It is beyond question that if this psalm of prayer and praise is to find a place anywhere in the Book of Daniel, no more suitable position can be found for it than that which it occupies so well in the Greek. If it is a digression from the course of the original narrative it is very happily placed, since it accounts satisfactorily for the statement “the king was astonied” in v. 24 (91). He was surprised at the voice of praise, instead of the shrieks of pain which he had expected to produce by the execution of his decree.

AUTHORSHIP.

In the Greek of neither Οʹ nor Θ is there variation sufficient to prove that the writer differed from the one who translated the rest of the book. Rather do the indications point to the same hand having been at work throughout. Comely says of this and its companion pieces, ”Neque in trium pericoparum argumentis quidquam invenitur quo illas Danielis auctori attribuere prohibeamur“ (Compendium, Paris, 1889, p. 421). This, like other R. C. writings, holds of course a brief for their canonicity.

The Prayer, on the surface, claims to be by Azarias; the Song by all the three. The introductory and intermediate narrative verses are given as if from the same pen as the rest of Daniel’s history; v. 4 (27) reminds us in its terms of Daniel iv. 37 (34) very strongly, and, in part, of ix. 14. In v. 24 (47) the mention of 49 (7 x 7) is paralleled by the symbolic use of the number 7 in iv. 25, etc. But even if, as is likely, they did not originate with the ostensible utterers, still it is quite possible that the hand for the prayer, the narrative, and the Song may not, in the first instance, have been identical.

Probably, however, we are intended, by the producer of the piece in its present shape, to understand that the prayer and the Song are recorded, even if not originated, by the author of the whole book. If not genuine parts of Daniel, their parentage has not been assigned to any named author; and the work must be treated as anonymous, for no clue has been traced which points to a definite writer.

The putting forward in v. 2 (25) of the second person of the trio, not otherwise distinguished from his fellows, is remarkable, and not suggestive of a forgery. There is nothing to shew why he led the prayer, as no special characteristics are attached to Abed-nego in our knowledge. Most likely a forger would have put the prayer into the mouth of Shadrach (Ananias), who always stands first, though the order of the last two is reversed in the one place in which the three are named in the uncanonical portion of the chapter. Ewald (Hist. of Israel, E. Tr. Lond.1874, V. 486) thinks that Azarias is introduced as the eldest, or perhaps the teacher, of the other two; but this conjecture does not account for the varying orders of the names of the three in v. 65.

DATE AND PLACE.

DATE.

Almost everything, excepting its absence from the original, points to the Song having been from the beginning a part of the LXX text of Daniel. Its date therefore in this case would be the date of that text. The way in which it is worked into the canonical Daniel narrative suggests that, if there be any variation as to date in the three additions, this is seemingly the earliest.

That the LXX translator invented this enlargement out of his own genius seems highly improbable; nor, were it not for its absence from the original Daniel, few would have doubted that he obtained the whole of his material from the same quarter. In such case our ‘apocryphon’ would obviously ante-date the LXX text.

It is not unlikely that the Alexandrian translator worked up certain traditions (J. M. Fuller, S.P.C.K. Comm.; see also Bevan, Dan. Camb. 1892, p. 45), or, if Gaster’s discovery be what he thinks, written narratives. What sources, however, were used in preparing its LXX Greek form can only be conjectured, and that on very slender data.

Rothstein in Kautzsch (I. 176) deems it to have been imported into the text of Daniel before the LXX translation, which he dates at latest in the first quarter of the last century b.c.

How an interpolation of this kind came to be admitted into the original of Daniel is a difficult matter to explain. Even on the supposition that the כתובים were less rigidly fixed than the Law or even the Prophets, the insertion or omission of such a section as this seems a very bold step. Ewald (Hist. Israel, V. 86, 87, Eng. Tr.) thinks these additions to be fragments of an enlarged Daniel based on the older book; which was composed one or two centuries earlier.He appears, on p. 303, to date Daniel between 160 and 170 b.c. Some later writer must have compared this new book, which was originally written in Greek, with the translation of the older book of Daniel, and transferred whatever he thought proper from the former into the latter. The work, thus compiled afresh, has been preserved in Greek shape, while the intervening book, whose former existence is proved by clearest traces, is now lost. It is only in this way, Ewald thinks, that we can explain the origin and preservation of the portions which are not contained in the Hebrew.

Prof. Kautzsch (I. 121) deems III. Maccabees, in vi. 6 of which book there is a reference to v. 27 (50) of the Song, to date from some time between the end of the second century b.c. and 70 a.d. at the latest. Within these limits he fixes upon the commencement of the Christian era as the most likely time. Dr. Streane, moreover (Age of Macc. p. 157), thinks that while century I. b.c. is very possible, it cannot be of earlier date, on account of the proof given by this verse of acquaintance with the Song. This reference, therefore, undoubted as it is, does not greatly help us in solving the problem of date, except as to its ad quem limit.

Tob. xii. 6 and xiii. 10 (the latter especially in the Vulgate) are very similar in phraseology to the refrain of the Benedicite; vv. 29, 30 (52) too, in both Greek versions, strongly suggest an acquaintance with Tob. viii. 5, since κύριε appears more likely to have been added to, than omitted from, the later document of the two. This is on the assumption that Tobit is, as Streane thinks (p. 148), pre-Maccabean, or at any rate earlier than this Song. But as the words used are not very distinctive, it is quite possible that they might have been independently prepared. The mention of Ananias, Azarias, and Misael in I. Macc. ii. 59 is not conclusive as to its writer’s knowledge of the Song, but the order of the names, which does not occur elsewhere, makes a remembrance of v. 88 not improbable. I. Macc. is dated by Kautzsch (I. 31) from 100 to 90 b.c.; Streane (p. 149) allows slightly wider limits; and Westcott (Smith’s D. B. II. 173) suggests 120 to 100. As to another possible indication given by v. 66 (88), see ‘Chronology,’ p. 69.

Of that scepticism which followed the refinements of rabbinism there is no trace, either here, or in Susanna, or in Bel and the Dragon. The tone of them all is that of an earlier time, free from any symptoms of this later decline. But still the signs of date are not sufficiently decided to justify us in fixing upon a narrow period with any degree of certainty. Taking the piece as independent of the original Daniel, the second century b.c. might perhaps be named as far from improbable. But a closer date than this it is hardly safe to fix.

PLACE.

If we assume an Aramaic original, Babylonia most probably will be the place for its production; Palestine somewhat less probably. But indications of place in the piece itself are very faint. It is true, however, that the order “nights and days” is “in conformity with the Shemitic custom of fixing the beginning of the day at the preceding evening” (McSwiney, Psalms and Canticles, 1901, p. 644).

Everyone must have noticed the frequency with which things watery and things cold are mentioned in the Song. The number of times they occur seems quite out of proportion with the scale on which it is conceived. Water, showers, dew, cold, frost, snow,This particularly is unsuggestive of Egypt. sea, rivers, fountains, all that move in the waters, are apostrophised in succession. The preponderance of these objects is very noticeable, even to a cursory reader. Now both Babylon and Alexandria are alike situated in hot countries; but of the two, a resident in the former would be more likely to have had these things brought before his eyes than a resident in the latter. Lower Egypt with its almost rainless climate, and its one river, does not seem the most likely locality to suggest a constant reference to such topics. Chaldæa, on the other hand, is better watered and is within the region of rain, and at any rate in its northern parts, of frost and snow. Dura, according to Keith Johnston’s map, is close to the hills. But the position of “the plain of Dura,” where the martyrdom took place, has not been certainly identified. J. M. Fuller’s note on v. 42 (64), “Rain and dew have that prominence which naturally belongs to them in the parched East,” is far from sufficing to explain the oft recurring mention of these matters.

Still less does Bishop Forties’ remarkCommentary on Canticles in Divine Service, Lond. 1853, p. 81. that “the element of water seems specially to have received the benediction of the Lord,” serve to elucidate the cause of its preponderance here.

The slight anthropomorphism in v. 54, where ‘sitting’ is implied in Θ, expressed in Οʹ, is more conformable to Babylonian than Alexandrian ideas; but this may be a mere reminiscence of Psalms lxxx. 1, xcix. 1. The mention of pitch or bitumen is inconclusive, inasmuch as it is found in both Babylonia and Egypt; but the mention of “heavens” and “stars of heaven” (vv. 59, 63), agrees very well with Chaldean origin. So far, therefore, as these considerations go, they turn the scale, to a small extent, in favour of Babylonia.

The only natural object which may be regarded as telling in the opposite direction is κήτη (v. 79), which might be thought to point to a knowledge of the Mediterranean Sea (see Child Chaplin, Benedicite, 1879, p. 324).

The birthplace of the LXX text is surely Alexandria. The character of this, as of the other additions, indicates, according to Westcott (D.B. ed. 2, I. 1714a) and Wordsworth (on Dan. iii. 23), the hand of an Alexandrian writer.

It is well, however, to notice that this, with its companion pieces, has as few indications of Greek philosophy and habits of thought as any part of the Apocrypha; and in common with most Alexandrian writers it has little or nothing of purely Egyptian character. Still, Dereser’s idea that “Daniel may have written his book in Greek at Babylon with all the additions” (quoted by Bissell, p. 444) seems most unlikely, and could hardly have been advanced except under the necessity of supporting the Roman view of the book.

Theodotion’s version, so far as concerns the locality where it originated, shares the obscurity which hangs over much of Theodotion’s personal life. Ephesus may be suggested, for Irenæus (III. xxiii.) styles him ὁ Ἐφέσιος; though Epiphanius calls him Ποντικός (D.C.B. art. Hexapla, p. 22a). The latter author is, for the most part, the less accurate of the two. In De Mensuris, etc., XVII. he states that Θ’s version was issued in the second Commodus’ reign, 180–192, “obviously too late.”Swete, Introd. to Greek O.T., p. 43. The pre-Theodotionic version which Θ is thought to have used may of course have been an Alexandrian production; but at present little is known of it.

That Theodotion had some earlier rendering, besides the LXX as his basis, the quotations in Rev. ix. 20, etc., and St. Matt. xii. 18, coinciding with his version,Op. cit., pp. 48, 396, 403. render highly probable, inasmuch as he wrote subsequently to any likely date for those books. Possibly he may have used Aquila’s version, or that of some unknown translator. Professor Gwynn’s idea (D.C.B. art. Theodotion, 917a) of “two rival Septuagintal Daniels”Cf. Ewald in ‘Date,’ p. 29. seems to have more “inherent improbability” than he is inclined to admit. But where this ground text, circulated apparently in Palestine and Asia Minor, was made, who can say? But if we take St. John as the author of Revelation, his connection with Ephesus, and the probable publication of his work there, give some little support to the theory of an Ephesian origin of Theodotion’s translation.

It is strange that a version supposed to be made by one who was not an orthodox Christian, if Christian at all, should have been preferred, as far as concerns Daniel, by the Christian Church for ordinary use.Some slight warrant, or at least precedent, for using our R.V., in which dissenters had a hand, might perhaps be found in this fact. Jerome (Præf. in Dan.) says, as if he felt that some explanation was needed, ”et hoc cur acciderit nescio,” though he proceeds to suggest some possible reasons why the version of one ”qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit“ should have been so much honoured. The religious work of a Jew, who lived before Christ, and that of one who refused to acknowledge his advent after it had taken place, stand obviously, for Christians, on a different footing.

INTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.

It has been suggested by Prof. Rothstein (in Kautzsch I. 174, 175) that the prayer of Azarias, the intermediate narrative, and the Song itself, were not all written at the same time. But this view is based purely on internal probability, and derives little or no support from any of the MSS. or versions, unless the introduction of titles in the Arabic after v. 28 (51), and in some Greek copies to the prayer of Azarias, be thought to give it countenance; yet these may have crept in from their convenience for liturgical use, and so be accounted for merely on practical grounds.

To base this separation, however, on a supposed disagreement between v. 15 (38) and vv. 31 (53), 62 (84), is certainly insufficient cause, as Ball points out (307b), for assigning Prayer and Song to different writers (see ‘Chronology,’ p. 67). But the observation that the narrative passage between the Prayer and the Song fits in well after the canonical v 23G. Jahn in his “restoration” of the Hebrew text of Daniel from the LXX, admits vv. 28 and 49-51 into his canonical text (Leipzig, 1904). seems a stronger basis for supposing that the prayer is a later introduction than the Song. Rothstein points out (p. 181, note d) that v. 1 (24) in Θ has relation to the Song, but not to the Prayer, and originally, as he imagines, took the place of the present v. 28 (91) of similar import. Corn. a Lap. notes of v. 1 (24) ”est hysterologia.” This view is also mentioned with favour in Charles’ article on Apocrypha in the 1902 vols. of Encycl. Brit. (cf. ‘For whom written,’ p. 36).

It is observable also that the statement of v. 26 (48) is not a mere repetition of that in v. 22, but refers to the scorching of the onlookers, while v. 22 speaks of those who executed the king’s order.As to the possibility of the fact, cf. Yorkshire Post, April 12th, 1902, on Coronation bonfires: “Spectators should keep clear of the lee side. The flame of such bonfires has been known to stream in a flash 150 ft. out.”

The repetition of the same invocation at the commencement of the Prayer and the Song is noteworthy; if the two are not contemporary, it has probably been borrowed by the composer of the Prayer. But the difficulty (often magnified) of reconciling the statements of v. 15 (38) with the Jews’ civil and ecclesiastical condition at the time of Daniel iii. wears quite a different aspect if the Prayer is regarded as an interpolation of later date by another hand. Altogether this theory of the interpolation of the Prayer is surrounded with a considerable air of probability.

Five extra verses are interspersed in the Syriac of the Song, calling upon the hosts of the Lord, ye that fear the Lord, cold and heat (the winter and summer of our Benedicite), the herbs of the field, and the creeping things of the earth (Churton’s translation). Of these ”frigus and aestus“ is in the Vulgate, taken from Θ. The source of the others is unapparent, though creeping things would very naturally follow beasts and cattle, as in Gen. vii. 14.

The present ending of the Song, after the usual refrain in the middle of v. 66 (88) is of a laboured nature with a decidedly “dragging” style. It certainly has the appearance of being an afterthought, added by some not very skilful composer, who fancied the original termination to be too abrupt, and thought he could attach an appropriate supplement. But of this theory no external evidence is at present forthcoming.

Θ agrees with the Οʹ text much more closely in this than in the other additions. Most verses are the same, word for word; and many others have but the slightest variations. He makes a few small omissions, as in (Greek) vv. 24, 40, 67, 68; but in general he follows Οʹ exactly. Even vv. 67, 68, are contained in A, in both places, in Daniel and in the Odes at the end; also they are in the Turin Psalter, though omitted in the Veronese (Swete’s LXX). As they are found, with a little difference in the Οʹ text, they may have fallen out of B and Q accidentally. The identical refrain at the end of each verse would naturally facilitate an error of this kind.

The principal MSS. available for Θ’s text are the same as those for the canonical part of Daniel, A, B, and Q. Γ fails us here, as in other passages, except from vv. 37-52, in which its variations are unimportant.

Taking B as the groundwork, A’s changes are not generally of serious moment, excepting in the case of the two inserted verses, 67 and 68, and the transposition of vv. 73 and 74. Otherwise they chiefly consist of small insertions or omissions which do not materially affect the sense (vv. 36, 81); varying forms from the same root such as ὑπεραινετός for αἰνετός (v. 54), εὐλεγημένος for εὐλογητός (v. 56). The correctors of B in v. 38, though unsupported by the chief codices, certainly seem right in substituting οὐδέ for οὐ. Q’s variations not unfrequently agree with A’s; where they do not, they are scarcely more important, and often partake of a similar character. In v. 88 a synonym is substituted, viz., ἔσωσεν for ἐρύσατο (2nd). In the few verses covered by Γ, B is generally agreed with; a change of case, αὐτούς instead of αὐτοῖς, appearing in v. 50.

LANGUAGE AND STYLE.

LANGUAGE.

The probability of a Semitic original lying in the background of this piece, has always been considerable. Those who have maintained Greek as the original language, have generally spoken a little less confidently with regard to this than with regard to its two companion pieces. So Bissell writes (p. 443), though a supporter of the Greek (p. 43), “undoubtedly more can be said in favour of such a theory” [of a Semitic original] “than for a similar one in respect of the two remaining additions.” And since M. Garter discovered in 1894 an Aramaic text, the grounds for deeming the Greek to be the original, though not set aside, have been partially undermined. Schürer, however, in Hauck’s Encycl. (I. 639), appears to think that this is translated from Θ, and not vice versâ, as Gaster claims. In his third German ed. of H.J.P. (III. 333) he agrees with Gaster in deeming תוךוס to be Θ, but considers the Aramaic to be a rendering of Θ’s Greek, taken into the tenth-century Chronicle of Jerahmeel.

It must be confessed that the existence of two Greek versions increases the probability, though it does not prove the existence, of an original in another language. It does not seem likely that Θ would have revised the Οʹ of the additions in the same way as the canonical part, unless he had a similar basis to go upon in both cases. If not, why, and on what authority, did he alter the additions at all? And this consideration applies to the other two, even more than to the one we are dealing with, inasmuch as the version of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon involved more numerous changes. Irenæus’ statement that Theodotion “ἡρμήνευσεν,” taken strictly, would of course always imply an original to translate; but Irenæus may only have been thinking of the particular passage from Isaiah which he refers to (III. xxiii.).

RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.

RELIGIOUS.

So far as the Jewish actors in the scene are concerned, they exhibit a true religious spirit from the O.T. standpoint, with an unshakeable firmness of conviction that Jehovah alone should be worshipped.

The episode shews (in common with the canonical part) that the Captivity had already produced a stubborn opposition to idolatrous temptations among the Jews. The tendency to follow after other gods, and to depart from Jehovah in this way, had been outrooted from the habits of these exiles; and their example now would be for all time an incentive to others to resist, at any cost, the pressing inducements to become idolaters.

It is difficult to find anything really inconsistent with the religious position, so far as we know it, of Israel in Babylon. Bissell, however, writes strongly to the contrary, in company as he avers, with almost all non-Romish scholars. This opinion is based on little more than the supposed inappropriateness of the Prayer and Song to the occasion, and on the discrepancy of v. 15 (38) with the circumstances of the time, and with other parts of the composition (p. 445 and on v. 15). This “discrepancy” is dealt with under ’Chronology.’ Bissell also quotes with approval the exaggerated comparison of Eichhorn, who deems the three “like dervishes gifted in penitential exclamations, which they interrupt by abuse of Nebuchadnezzar.” A consistent religious ground is maintained throughout by the three; there is for them no “doing at Rome as Rome does” in vital matters of religion. And their condition is evidently compassionated by God, their faithfulness approved, amid the persecutions of a foreign land.

Considerable talent and art in devotional composition are manifested in confession, petition, and praise—talent and art of which the Christian Church has widely availed herself from a very early period. The tone of Azarias’ prayer is not discordant with Daniel’s description of his own prayer in ix. 20, nor with the prayer itself immediately preceding that verse, either in sentiment or phraseology. They may well have come from the same editor, whether the prime author of the whole book or not. Verse 16 (39) apparently contains phrases culled from Pss. xxxiv. 18, li. 17. M. Parker on Deut. xxviii. 56 (Bibliotheca Biblica, Oxf. 1735) thinks that the declaration of the three in v. 9 (32) corresponds with Deut. xxviii. 49, 50, being in fact a public acknowledgment that national impiety had brought upon them the distress in which they were at present involved. If so, it shews knowledge of the law on their part. But the connection is one solely of idea, and not of phraseology. There is a strong connection in phraseology, however, between v. 27 and Deut. xxxii. 4 in LXX. In any case the religious tone of the whole production is not inconsistent with what we might have expected.

SOCIAL.

The nature of this piece does not afford much scope for the display of the social condition of Babylon and its inhabitants. It is to be expected therefore that it will shew us far less of these matters than either Susanna or Bel and the Dragon. But so far as it gives any indications, it is in accord with the canonical Daniel, and with what we know from other sources of the customs of the country. Evidently Israel was in a state of subjection to the Babylonian king, who ordered idolatry to be practised by captives and natives alike. It is shewn by v. 9 (32) sqq. that the former smarted under his tyranny, and appealed to God for redress, like their forefathers in Egyptian bondage.

The punishment of burning, on which the whole story turns, is quite Babylonian. Jer. xxix. 22 is another instance, so that there is no lack of vraisemblance in its introduction here. (See Hastings’ D. B. art. Crimes and Punishments, I. 523, for other instances). It has been thought (Smith’s D. B. ed. 2 art. Furnace, I. 1092b) that this furnace in Daniel is alluded to by our Lord in St. Matt. xiii. 42, 50; but how opposite on this occasion are the consequences of being cast into it! Here prayer and praise from the righteous, there weeping and gnashing from the wicked. The allusion must be considered a very doubtful one.

The subservience of the king’s servantsὑπηρέται, v. 23 (46), attendants probably holding some official position superior to that of slaves. Cf. St. John xviii. 18. in performing their cruel work, and the absence of a protesting voice or of a helping hand from any quarter, is very characteristic of the results of Eastern despotism. All, except the three martyrs, were afraid of Nebuchadnezzar, whose murderous rage under contradiction is of a piece in both the Chaldee and the Greek portions of the chapter. No one else on this occasion dared to disobey his decree, and there is no sign of anyone venturing so much as to intercede for the Jewish victims.

In such small glimpses as are given, in this extension of chap. iii., of the social state of Babylonia there is nothing clearly indicating that the interpolation (if such it be) is of an unhistoric or untrustworthy character, nothing wholly irreconcilable with the rest of the book. Indeed the author (W. T. Bullock) of the note on Daniel iii. 23 in the S.P.C.K. Commentary goes so far as to write of “that noble canticle Benedicite,” as an “historical document.” This expression may require qualification, but it is not beyond the bounds of possible fact.

THEOLOGY.

The theology appears to be of a perfectly orthodox character, quite what might have been expected from the three children; nor is it inconsistent with that contained in the rest of the book of Daniel. The exile had not now contaminated the Jewish religion, but had rather purged it of its corruptions, and eradicated in particular the fatal tendency to “serve other gods.” Such sins are thoroughly confessed by Azarias in a style not without resemblance to Daniel’s confession. (Cf. v. 6 (29) with ix. 5 in both versions; also Esther xiv. 6, 7.)

The God of their fathers is He alone to whom prayers and praises are to be addressed. He is regarded as the Lord of all creation, both as a whole and in its specific parts. He is looked up to to make good the old promises (13), being full of mercy (19), as well as of power and glory (20, 22, 68). He is a king (33), just (4), and gracious (67), with an ear open to the addresses of his people. The righteousness of even His heavy judgements is acknowledged in the prayer; and the hymn throughout shews that the gratitude of man is plainly deemed acceptable to Him.

As to the question of praise being called for from inanimate things or irrational beings, we must remember that though unfitted, so far as we understand them, for conscious praise, their creation, maintenance, and usefulness give evidence of God’s greatness and goodness. As Cornelius à Lapide notes on v. 35 (57) ”Inanimes creaturæ benedicunt Deum creatorem suum, non ore sed opere, ait S. Hieronymus,” giving, however, no reference to the passage in Jerome. Ps. civ. 4 and Heb. i. 7 afford some helpful clues to the operations of Nature in this connection. Man is treated by our author as the interpreter of Nature, with a right, as made in the image of God, to call upon it to glorify its Maker. He offers vocal praise on its behalf as well as on his own; though things without life praise God silently, by fulfilling the parts for which He made them. A somewhat similar idea of the elevating influence exerted by natural beings may be discerned in the second of the New sayings of Jesus as restored by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt (Lond. 1904, p. 15). And Addison fitly writes (Spect. No. 393), “The cheerfulness of heart which springs up in us from the survey of Nature’s works, is an admirable preparation for gratitude” (cf. ’Early Christian Literature and Art,’ s.v. ‘Hippolytus’).

Azarias desires that the rescue of the party may redound to the knowledge among all men of the sole deity of Jehovah (22)—a petition for the conversion of the Gentiles The phrase in the last verse of the Song, θεὸς τῶν θεῶν, might be taken as an admission of the existence of other gods over whom Jehovah was supreme. But clearly this is not so intended, as may be proved from the use of the phrase in Deut. x.17,Pss. xlix. 1(LXX), cxxxvi. 2 . Yet it is not unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar used the phrase in this acceptation in ii. 47. The other occasion, however, on which it is used in Daniel (xi. 36), allows it to be taken only in an orthodox sense; nor is any other likely in the mouth of Azarias, who resisted to the utmost the command to sin by idolatry. It is observable that Azarias omits the clause “in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. xxii. 18, xxvi. 4) from his quotation of the patriarchal promise. This might arise from dislike to the nations who had conquered Israel; but on the other hand, the gist of it is contained in his concluding petition in v. 22.

The objection that Ananias, Azarias, and Misael are invoked as saints (which probably caused the omission in 1789 of v. 66 (88) from the American P.B.) is sufficiently answered by pointing out that the Song is praise, not prayer; and that these three do not stand on a different footing in this respect from the other objects apostrophized. Moreover, a highly poetical composition of this kind is not to be too literally interpreted. As Liddon remarks in his Elements of Religion (Lond. 1892, p. 182), “The apostrophes of the Psalms and Benedicite are really acts of praise to God, of which his creatures furnish the occasion;” and Addison again (Spect. No. 327), “Invocations of this nature fill the mind with glorious ideas of God’s works.” v. 43 (65) is oddly applied by Archdeacon Frank, Serm. XLII. to Pentecost (Oxf. 1849, II. 254).

Belief is plainly shewn in an angelic ministry, sent down to help God’s suffering servants, and endued with miraculous powers. The angel comes, too, after their humble confession and prayer for rescue (vv. 43–45), and before their song of praise. The very propriety however of this arrangement, from a theological point of view, induces Rothstein to deem the prayer a subsequent introduction, in order to supply the want of request for deliverance before praise for its accomplishment; and he thinks that the opening in the narrative for the insertion of the prayer (between vv. 23 and 46) was not, in the Οʹ, very deftly effected (Kautzsch, I. 175,181).

The natural and the supernatural, without any incongruity, are blended as being all under one control, all subserving the same great ends, as in the Hebrew Bible. But there is no increase of the miraculous element beyond that in chapter iii., in which this piece is inserted; and at a later age increase would have been highly probable. What essential difference is there to be found between the miracles of the Chaldee and of the Greek Daniel? Surely none.

A typical resemblance was discerned by St. Antony of Padua (Moral Concordances, ed. Neale, p. 123), between v. 26 (44) and the Annunciation, but this will be regarded by many minds as a very fanciful theological discovery, and one surely not in the purview of the composer of the passage.

CHRONOLOGY.

There is but little in the way of chronological indication in this addition; considerably less than in the other two, and what there is, is indirectly brought in.

A time after the Captivity is evidently pointed to in vv. 26, 32, 37, 38. Jerusalem was lying under a heavy visitation, the people delivered over to the enemy, almost denationalized, and deprived of the sacrificial worship to which they had been accustomed. Yet this position of affairs is spoken of as if it were not one of very long standing. (Cf. the use of νῦν in vv. 31, 33, 42, though in the last of these instances its use may not perhaps be temporal.)

It has been objected, quite unnecessarily, that v. 38 is inconsistent with v. 53, the one implying the destruction of the temple, the other recognizing its existence; v. 84, too, may be taken as supposing priests to be still capable of performing their offices. It is even possible that the corrections of Cod. A in v. 38 may have had behind them some idea of softening a discrepancy. This supposed lack of consistency has been taken as an indication of double authorship of the Prayer and the Song; and of course, if the Prayer were a later interpolation than the Song, even the appearance of contemporary inconsistency is avoided. But if we were to decline this hypothesis, and take Prayer and Song as from the same pen, there is still no real difficulty; for v. 38 is thinking of the earthly temple, v. 53 of the heavenly. Grotius (Critici Sacri), apparently accepting the statements of v. 38 as correct, writes: ”Harum rerum penuria animos venturo Evangelio præparabit.“

Another chronological difficulty, that of “no prophet,”Cf.Ps. lxxiv. 9. in the same verse (38) has even been offered as a ‘proof’ of non-canonicity (Cloquet, Articles, p. 113). So T. H. Horne in Vol. IV. of his Introduction, quoted by A. Barnes on Daniel (I. 81), says that “v. 15 (38) contains a direct falsehood”; and in Vol. II. 937 of his Introduction (ed. 1852), he asserts that the author “slipped in the part he assumed.” More just is his observation that “Theodotion does not appear to have marked the discrepancy.” Ball, too, joins in the condemnation, by expressing an opinion that the writer had “lost his cue” (Introd. to Song, p. 308); and Reuss, ”Hier verrät sich der Verfasser“ (O. T., Brunswick, 1894, VII. 166). It has been suggested (J. H. Blunt in loc.) that Ezekiel, who was both priest and prophet, had just finished his utterances, while Daniel, if he had commenced his, would, out of modesty, not reckon himself. The same commentator also attempts, still less successfully, to overcome the difficulty of “no prince.” Probably, however, this merely means that no monarch was actually reigning, and that Jewish rulers were themselves ruled and their authority superseded, not that no member of the royal house or of the ruling classes was in existence. And this seems to fit in better with an early period of the Captivity than with a later age, when Simon Maccabeus is said to have had the title נָשִׂיא on his coins; and Mattathias is called ἄρχων in 1 Macc. ii. 17. Gesenius says in his Thesaurus under נשיא on the authority of F. P. Bayer (de numis hebraeo-samaritanis, p. 171, append. p. XV.), that Simon’s coins had the inscription שמעון נשיא ישראלSee also H. J. Rose’s Paper On the Heb. coins called shekels, Beds. Architect. Soc. Rep. I., p. 367, 1851. but it is now doubted whether the coins formerly attributed to Simon are really of his time. (Cf. Bp. Wordsworth of Lincoln on 1 Macc. xv. 6.) Zöckler’s idea (Comm. in loc.) that ἡγούμενος must be understood here as equivalent to “priest” is unsupported and needless. כֹּהֵן is never so translated by LXX.

Cornelius à Lap. (Paris, 1874), deals with the difficulty of “no prophet” in a different way. He writes, “Quia Dan. potius somniorum regiorum erat interpres, quam propheta populi; Ezech. autem propheta aberat agebatque in Chobar aliisque Chaldaeae locis, eratque is unus et captivus. Itaque ‘non est,’ i.e. vix nullus erat.“ Of ’princeps et dux“ he says nothing; but Peronne adds a note to say that Daniel was thinking of Judaea only. It is not unlikely that Hos. iii. 4 was in the mind of the writer of the Song, as being fulfilled in his days.

If, however, we assume a date for the whole piece considerably later than that of the canonical book, it is quite conceivable that the author may have made a backward transference of the circumstances of his own time to that of the earlier exile. For this is a species of error all traces of which even expert forgers find it difficult to remove.

It is generally assumed, and probably rightly, that v. 88 is intended as a contemporary utterance of the Three calling upon themselves; nevertheless it is quite intelligible as the expression of a later writer summoning them, with the rest of creation, to praise their Maker. And, assuming this verse to be contemporary with the rest, this latter idea would of course mark the hymn as not really issuing from the mouths of the Three.

Everything said and done in this piece takes place within one day, the day on which Nebuchadnezzar’s subjects were ordered to worship the golden image. There is therefore much less scope than in Bel and the Dragon, or even Susanna, for those who seek to discover chronological difficulties, because devotional compositions afford fewer openings than narrative matter for the raising of such questions.

CANONICITY.

Like Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, the Song of the Three Children formed, so far as we know, part of the original LXX text of Daniel, having a connection with it closer even than theirs. For while they take their places at the beginning or the end, this one is incorporated into the narrative of chapter iii. as one connected whole. Prof. Robertson Smith does indeed write (O.T. in Jewish Church, 1895, p. 154), “these are perhaps later additions to the Greek version”; but this is only conjecture, and as such he puts it forward.

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART

LITERATURE.

In the N. T. possible references may be found in St. Matt. xi. 29 (ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ) from v. 65 (87); II. Tim. i. 18 (εὑρεῖν ἔλεος) from v. 15 (38); [in Numb. xi. 15 only does the phrase elsewhere occur, but in another tense]; Heb. xii. 23 (πνεύματα δικαίων) from v. 64 (86).

LITURGICAL USE.

GENERAL.

There is, strange to say, no record of the Song’s employment in this way amongst the Jews. Statements sometimes made to the contrary in works on the P.B., e.g. by W. G. Humphry, F. Procter, E. Daniel, and J. M. Fuller (S.P.C.K. Comm. “Introd. to the Song”), “in the later Jewish Church,” all appear to have originated in a misunderstanding of an ambiguous sentence in Wheatley’s Rational Illustration (1875, p. 143). He says that it “was an ancient hymn in the Jewish Church.” But this does not necessarily imply that it formed any part of Jewish services. Nor did Wheatley probably intend to assert that it did. In point of fact no evidence of such use is forthcoming, though it certainly would not have been surprising if the Song had been so used, at least among the Hellenistic Jews. For as Rothstein says in Kautzsch’s Apocrypha, like Ps. cxxxvi. it is ”offenbar antiphonisch aufzufassen“ and “litaneiartig.”

Notwithstanding the previous neglect, as it would seem, of this Song in Jewish worship, its use by Christians dates from an early period. So Bp. Gray (O.T., p. 611) says, “It was sung in the service of the primitive Church;” and Ball, “the instinct of the Church, which early adopted the Benedicite for liturgical use, was right” (p. 307). Yet after it had come into high esteem with Christians its chances of Jewish acceptance would of course be largely diminished.

EARLY.

The liturgical use however was generally confined to the Song proper, commencing with v. 29, and not always extending to the whole even of that. In the Greek Church it is divided into two odes, said at Lauds on two different days, vv. 3–34 (A.V. verses) forming one, and the remainder of the Song the other (art. Canticle D.C.A.). In the Ambrosian rite the first part only of the Song is used as an invitatory before the Matin Psalms, under the title, somewhat confusing to us, of “Benedictus” (D.C.A. art. Benedictus).In the Bk. of private Prayer (Lond. 1887, p. 32), approved by the Lower House of Canterbury Convocation, these six verses are employed as a separate canticle, under the title Benedictus es, probably suggested by the Ambrosian rite above mentioned. The same canticle had also appeared previously in An additional Order for Evening Prayer, put forth by the same authority in 1873, for singing after the first lesson.

For some reason not easy to assign, the Song, whether divided or entire, has always been treated as a morning canticle, although there is nothing in its words to suggest any time of day as specially appropriate.

Rufinus, according to Dr. Salmon (Speaker’s Comm. Introduction to Apocr. XXVII b), speaks of the Song as “sung on Festivals in the Church of God.” No reference is given to the passage quoted. But in Rufinus’ Apol. in Hieron. II. 35 we find the words, ”Omnis Ecclesia per orbem terrarum . . . . quicunque Hymnum trium puerorum in Ecclesia Domini cecinerunt,” etc. Whether this be the passage Dr. Salmon intends or not, it is at any rate sufficient to prove that the canticle was in use in and before Rufinus’ time, who is believed to have died in the year 410.

Bishop Barry (Teacher’s P.B.) notes that it yeas used at Lauds (τὸ ὄρθρον) in the East as well as in the West: and so Mr. Hotham in his art. Canticle in D.C.A. In his art. Psalmody, however, no mention is made of its Eastern use; but in the Western Church in the Gregorian and its derived rites, including the Roman and cognate Breviaries, he says, ”Benedictiones sive canticum trium puerorum“ comes in Sunday Lauds, and likewise in the Benedictine Psalter.

In the Ambrosian Psalter, while the first part ”Benedictus es“ is said daily at Matins as stated above, the usual Benedicite is said at Lauds on Sundays. In the Mozarabic Psalter an abridgment of both parts is said at Lauds, but not ”in feriis.” “Benedictus es” also comes on weekdays at Prime. In the Mozarabic Missal Benedicite occurs in the service for the first Sunday, in Lent. In the use arranged by Cæsarius of Arles (†542) for the Gallican Church Benedicite was sung at Sunday Lauds.

Duchesne says (Christian Worship, Eng. tr. S.P.C.K. 1903, p.195), “In the Gallican Mass between the Apostolic and the Evangelic lections the Hymn of the Three Children was sung. It was known also by the name of the Benediction (Benedicite) because in it the word ‘Benedicite’ is continually repeated.” In a note he adds, “The Luxeuil Lectionary, however, prescribes for the Nativity, Daniel cum Benedictione, i.e., the Hymn of the Three Children before the Apostolic Lection. It is true that in the Mass of Clausum Paschale it places it after this lection.”

The fourth council of Toledo in 633, condemns the omission of the Song at Mass, threatens with excommunication those who in Spain or Gaul (or Gallicia, margin) persist in leaving it out, and styles it “Hymnum quoque trium puerorum in quo universa cœli terræque creatura dominum collaudat et quem ecclesia catholica per totum orbem diffusa celebrat“ (Mansi, Concil., Florence, 1764, X. 623).

In the Roman Missal at the end of the Canon, the last Rubric is “Discedens ab Altari, pro gratiarum actione dicit Antiphonam Trium Puerorum cum reliquis, ut habetur in principio Missalis;” where is given as an antiphon before it these words, “Trium puerorum cantemus hymnum quem cantabant sancti in camino ignis, benedicentes Dominum.“

Possibly there is a reference to this Eucharistic use in Bishop Wordsworth’s Michaelmas Hymn, No. CII. in his Holy Year, 1864.

“EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION OF MANNERS.”

The conduct of Azarias and its results shew us the value of Prayer made by those under persecution. He led the way, and his comrades joined him.

Azarias is not so taken up with the wrongs of himself and his fellows as to forget the wrongs which his own nation had done; therefore his prayer commences with a humble Confession. Then he relies on the great promises of the past (vv. 12, 13). It may be thought that Humility is also shewn in the Song by the Three putting their own names in the last place of the series. But another cause may have contributed to the choice of this order; for, so far as animal life is concerned, the Song follows the order of Gen. i., bringing in human beings last, not as being least important, but as forming the crown of creation.

AUTHORSHIP.

In Θ, Bel and the Dragon is apparently assumed to be by the same writer as the rest of the Book of Daniel. So in Breshith RabbahThis has been attributed to Rabba bar Nachman of Pumbaditha, about a.d. 300, but is probably later. See, however, Etheridge, Jerus. and Tiberias, p. 143. on Gen. xxxvii. 24 we have nearly the words of v. 28 sq., introduced by “This is as it is written in Daniel” (Ball, 344a). In Raymond Martini’s Pugio fidei (Paris, 1651, p. 740) the Aramaic is given as בדניאל (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 title, 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 Schürer and Driver in their articles in Hauck’s Encyclopædia (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 title, 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 title as correct (Churton, 390b). So Bugati (Milan, 1788, p. 163) treats the authorship 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 identity 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 ’Ἀμβακούμ which might perhaps be the προφητεία named in the LXX title. 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 authorship 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 repetition. 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 classes 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 assume, as is sometimes done, that all its events are fictitious. 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 passed 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 God. In v. 19 we also find him venturing to hold the king back—ἐκράτησεν τὸν βασιλέα (Θ). Long experience in surmounting great difficulties by divine help had strengthened his nerve and confirmed his faith.

FOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.

This story was evidently composed for Jewish use, not improbably for Jews who had returned from the Captivity, as a popular memorial of Babylonish days. And perhaps the general tenor of the piece implies that it was written to serve, not so much to convert idolaters, as for the encouragement of those who were striving, or had striven, to maintain the faith among the heathen. Its tone and subject make its composition in the first instance for Babylonian Jews, or Palestinian Jews returned from captivity, more likely than for their Alexandrian brethren. To these latter, however, it soon found its way. But it is amongst Christian people that this narrative has had its longest and deepest influence. The more it was valued by Christians the less it seemed regarded by Jews. In this respect its fate was similar to that of the entire LXX.

A distinct moral purpose is not obscurely indicated by the trend of the whole story. It is not merely a record of two interesting episodes in the prophet’s later days, but it also aims at a definite religious object. That object is to throw contempt on idolatry, whether directed to inanimate or animate things; to honour Daniel as vindicator of the true worship; and to shew that the adoration of heathen deities is lying and deceptive, and ought to be supplanted by that of the Lord.

It is evidently desired to put both idols and idolaters into ridiculous positions, not for mere amusement, but in order to destroy the confidence which was groundlessly placed in them. The weapons of sarcasm and contemptuous treatment are used with success, even as Elijah employed them on Baal and his worshippers at an earlier time (I. Kings xviii. 27). A desire to convert the heathen, by proving the absurdity of their idol-worship, may be inferred from the last clause of v. 27; compared with vv. 5, 25. As the history of Susanna deals with errors of Jewish practice, so does this writing with the errors of heathenism.

The providence of God in protecting those who suffer for His sake is clearly inculcated in the latter portion of the work. A sense of this would, with other results, give confidence in the fight against idolatry; the more needed because Bel was evidently a very popular deity with high and low, and difficult to dislodge. The frequent compounding of ‘Bel’ with proper names (Belshazzar and Belteshazzar)Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions of O.T.² II. 125, considers Bel not to enter explicitly into the second of these names, which he takes to mean ‘may his life protect’; but even in this case the mention of a Deity is evidently understood. But cf. Dan. iv. 8. Gesenius and Longfield (Chaldee Grammar, 1869, p. 116) take the older view. See also Sayce’s art. in Hastings’ D. B. on Merodach-Baladan, where M. seems identified with Bel; also art. Merodach. shews the regard in which he was held. Compare the similar compounding of ‘Jehovah’ amongst the Jews. But, although Bel was deemed a beneficent deity, being, as Gesenius calls him {s.v. בֵּל sub בַּעַל), ’agathodemon, omnis felicitatis auctor,’ Daniel does not spare him on that account. Thomas WintleDaniel, Oxf. 1792, p. 40. suggests that the image in chap. iii. “was Bel, or some of the Assyrian deities, as we may collect from iii. 14“; and Bar-Hebræus’ notion that the gift of Bel to Daniel, in v. 22 of our story, was in order that he might be rewarded by the gold with which the image was plated, agrees well enough with iii. 1 (Berlin, 1888, p. 28).

The aim is to depict Daniel, distinguished for his wisdom and piety, as the successful, though sorely tried, opponent of heathenism, and as the representative of the Living God. His character to a great extent resembles that pourtrayed in the rest of the work bearing his name. It is shewn how he continued to face and to solve the difficult problems of court life in Babylon. And albeit he secured no small measure of fame, and perhaps of popularity, at the time, these earthly results, in their abiding form, it has lain with posterity to give him.

On the supposition that Alexandria was the birthplace of the piece, it has been suggested that the aim of the writer was “to warn against the sin of idolatry some of his brethren who had embraced Egyptian superstition.”Chambers’s Encyclop., 1888, art. Bel. But no special reference to Egyptian forms of idolatry is apparent in support of this view, which seems based on little more than a wish to fit in the idolatry with the theory of the story having an Alexandrian origin.

A. Scholz’s nation that the whole piece is a ‘vision’ with allegoric or apocalyptic meanings only, and never intended to be taken as history, looks like a wonderfully forced hypothesis, laying a great strain on the imaginations both of the writer and the reader. The book having been received as canonical in the Roman communion, its contents must at all hazards be reconciled with the maintenance of that position. Yet it is fair to note that Luther, on other grounds, regarded Susanna and Bel and the Dragon as pretty spiritual fictions, in which history must take its chance (Zöckler, p. 216).

INTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.

This double story seems to have been treated as one in the Greek. In the Syriac and Arabic versions the Dragon has a separate title (noticed in A.V. margin, “Some add this title of the Dragon“). The former, strangely enough, has ‘end of Daniel’ before this title. And in the Syro-Chaldee version, given in Midrash Rabbah de Rabbah, Bel has a subscription, and the Dragon a fresh title (see Ball, 345a).

In v. 23 ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τόπῳ (Οʹ) are wanting as connecting words in B, but the reference to Bel in v. 28 serves to consolidate the two portions of the story. A and Q also, as well as correctors of B, have an additional clause in v. 24, which pre-supposes the former portion of the piece, a clause given in A. V. and R. V. The καὶ of μὴ καὶ τοῦτον in Οʹ answers the same purpose. Daniel’s mocking tone at the end of v. 27 agrees well with his sense of humour in v. 7. Cyrus’ ready compliance, too, in v. 26 is only accounted for fully by the shock given to his idolatrous beliefs in the Bel part of the story. And so far the internal evidence argues for the unity of the piece. But it is noticeable that the Epistle for Tuesday after the Fifth Sunday in Lent in the Sarum and Roman Missals consists of the Dragon story only, beginning at v. 29, with some slight introductory changes.

And Gaster’s recovered Aramaic text (which he believes to have been the basis of Theodotion’s Greek) consists of the Dragon story only. The notion that it had a separate currency is therefore, to a certain extent, supported; and this would still be the case, even if Gaster’s text is not an original, but a translation.

If Gaster’s Aramaic were really the basis of Θ’s version, it would follow that he did not confine himself to making a mere recension of the O’ text, though he evidently availed himself of it as far as he thought proper. It is highly probable that this would apply to the Bel as well as to the Dragon story, although the corresponding Aramaic of the former is not at present forthcoming.

Neither the Οʹ nor Θ’s original text seem to have been materially tampered with, either in the way of addition or omission. Each has some clauses not contained in the other: Οʹ in vv. 9, 15, 31, 39; Θ in vv. 1, 12, 13, 36, 40. Yet Westcott (Smith’s D. B. I. 397a, ed. 2, 714a) thinks that some of Θ’s changes arose from a desire to give consistency to the facts. The change at the end of v. 27, however, is hardly a happy one, καὶ εἶπεν being put immediately after ὁ δράκων, thus suggesting the idea that the latter drew attention to the fact that he was destroyed. The LXX. avoided this.

It is remarkable that Theodoret, in his Commentary on Daniel, comments on vv. 1 and 2 of Bel and the Dragon (Θ) only, treating them as the closing verse (14) of chap. xii., and introducing them with the words, οὕτω πληρώσας τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἐπήγαγεν ὁ προφήτης· καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀστυώγης, κ.τ.λ. This curious fact, combined with that of their omission from the Οʹ, points to some arrangement of the text with which we are not acquainted. Theodoret also refers to these same verses previously, in commenting on chaps. v. 3 and x. 1. Though he says nothing of the rest of Bel and the Dragon, he shews, by his referring in Ep. cxlv. (latter part) to Habakkuk’s miraculous flight through the air, that he was well acquainted with the story, and approved of it.

The principal MSS. available are A, B, Q, Γ (vv. 2–4 only), and Δ from v. 21 to 41, which has recently reinforced our somewhat scanty uncial 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,There is clearly a slip in v. 35 of Δανιήλ for Ἀμβακούκ, and probably in v. 11 of δακτύλῳ for δακτυλίῳ, indicating some mistakes on the scribe’s part, or errors in his copy. 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 Οʹ 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 ætate (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 Bab. 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 εἰς, 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 Οʹ. The same phrase as the last recurs, inverted: εἰς αὐτὸν δαπανᾶται.

v. 7 Οʹ. 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 Οʹ, Θ; v. 27 Οʹ. The occurrence of βασιλεῦ in these verses suggests a rendering of מַלְכָּא 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 Οʹ, 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.

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 impliedSee note to ‘For Whom and with What Object’ p. 196. 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 Küchen”; 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. περιτου βασιλεως λεγουσι ως γεγονεν Ιουδαιος, Syr^mg.” Cajetanus Bugati also (Daniel, Milan, 1788, p. 162) thinks Grotius wrong.Compare the Aramaic of the passage, given under ‘Chronology,’ p. 229. 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.

v. 29 Θ has been objected to by Ball and by Zöckler 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.On the propriety of such a sentence, accordant with Babylonian ideas of justice, see Mozley, Ruling O. T. Ideas, 1878, pp. 88, 96, 99.; 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 Οʹ, 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 Οʹ). 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“More withering sarcasm could scarcely be poured on heathenism than in the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon” (Edersheim, Life and Times of Messiah, 1886, I. 31). Daniel’s laugh in v. 7 accords with Jeremiah’s view of idols (x. 15). Other coincidences with Jeremiah may be noted in l. 2, li. 44 of that prophet. 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 Irenaeus (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,Ezekiel is transported in the opposite direction, and both prophets went unwillingly (Trapp). Both, too, were concerned in suppression of idolatry. as well as I. Kings xviii. 12 and St. Matt. iv. 1. 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.The destruction of the Dragon, by means which in A. V. and the Greek appear inadequate, does not come under this head, since the Aramaic explains it by iron teeth concealed in the ball (v. 27), an intelligible and practical device. 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.Of general condemnations, Alb. Barnes’ may be taken as a sample: “This foolish story . . . is wholly unworthy a place in any volume claiming Divine origin, or any volume of respectable authorship whatever” (Comment. on Dan. Vol. I. pp. 79, 81). 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”!

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;Delitzech thought it likely, though not certain, that the βιβλία mentioned by Josephus (Ant. x. 11. 7) as left by Daniel refer to the Additions as portions of the canonical book (De Hab. vita, etc., Lips. 1842, p. 25). and is often quoted in the same manner, e.g. by St. Cyprian, ad Fortunatum, § 11, “Daniel, Dec, 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 § 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 and 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,Cf. Revue biblique internationale (Dominican) Paris, Jan. 1901, p. 149, “L’église romaine s’est prononcé dès ce moment, et si elle n’a pas dès lore imposé sa solution comme définitive et irréformable, elle ne s’en est du moins jamais écarté et c’est cette solution qui explique l’unanimité pratique de l’Église latine, où les doutes n’étaient plus que le reflet érudit d’anciennes controverses.“ See also Sanday on Inspiration, Note B, to Lect. V. “The Use of the term Deutero-canonical in the Roman Church.” 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, Οʹ 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 Οʹ, 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 δράκοντα Δανιὴλ εἰς λάκκον λεόντων βληθεὶς, ὑπὸ ἈμβακοὺβSo spelt in Migne in this instance, though elsewhere with final μ. A misprint may be suspected. προνοίᾳ θεοῦ 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.

“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.”It was told as a story to Miss Yonge when a child by her father (Life, 1903, p. 78), and apparently remembered with pleasure through life. So Saml. Johnson: “When I was a boy I have read or heard Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, etc.” (Prayers and Meditations, Lond. [1905], p. 78). This element might perhaps be used with advantage more than it is by missionaries to idolatrous peoples.

The sordidness and trickery of heathen priests

So Butler in his Hudibras of the Presbyterian Assembly of Divines:

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.