Origen also asserts the canonicity of Susanna in Hom. in Levit. § 1 (middle): "Sed tempus est nos adversus improbos presbyteros uti sanctæ Susannæ vocibus, quas illi quidem repudiantes, historiam Susannæ de catalogo divinorum voluminum desecrarunt. Nos autem et suscipimus, et opportune contra ipsos proferimus, dicentes 'Angustiæ mihi undique,'" etc. (v. 22).

Again, Origen refers to the matter in his In Matthæum Commentariorum Series. He quotes Daniel's words in v. 55, "angelus Domini habens gladium scindet te medium," and also "ausi sumus uti in hoc loco, Dan. exemplo, non ignorantes quoniam in Hebræo positum non est, sed quoniam in ecclesiis tenetur. Alterius autem temporis est requirere de huiusmodi" (Migne, Patr. gr. XIII. 1696). Delitzsch (op. cit. p. 103) says, on second thoughts, that he "adductum esse, ut ipsos libros apocryphos ab Origine pro et divinis habitos esse censeam."

About the same time, or probably a little earlier, St. Hippolytus (230) gives a similar reason for the extrusion of this episode. He notes on v. 8, , . On which Bardenhewer (op. cit. p. 76) remarks, "Susanna soll also früher auch in dem jüdischen Kanon gestanden haben und erst später (unliebsamen Vorwürfen gegenüber) aus demselben entfernt worden sein."

A. Scholz, however, who treats the book allegorically as a 'vision,' attributes early opinions adverse to its canonicity to the "Missverstehen der Erzählung und die unlösbaren Schwierigkeiten, die dieselbe bei der historischen Auffassung macht" (p. 139). The 'vision' theory, however, is a difficult one to maintain, serviceable though it may be in evading historic difficulties.

Lists of books of the canon do not help us much, as it is often uncertain whether 'Daniel' covers the Additions or not. We may safely conclude, however, that it does in Origen's own list, as preserved for us by Eusebius (H.E. VI. 25).

In the pseudo-Athanasius' Synopsis sacr. script. § 74, Susanna is named, after the books he deems canonical, as , along with four books of Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon. In this case we might conclude that does not cover Susanna; but in the beginning of the Synopsis of Daniel (§ 41) the story is mentioned as part of that book, and Bel and the Dragon, at the end, in the same way. This author's view, then, for and against the canonicity looks somewhat undecided. So in Cyril of Jerusalem's list in Catech. IV. § 35, 'Daniel' pretty certainly includes Susanna and probably the other two Additions, because in Cat. XVI. § 31, "de Spiritu sancto," he quotes Susanna 45 in company with Dan. iv. 6 as if on an equal footing.

It is quoted as Scripture before Origen's time by Irenæus IV. xxxv. 2, xli. 1; Tert. de Cor. IV.; Clem. Alex. Proph. Ecl. 1. Methodius, Bishop of Tyre, introduces Susanna into his Virgins' Songs as an example of brave sanctity, calling upon Christ[54] (see exact words under'Early Christian Literature,' p. 166).

In the Apost. Const. II. 49, 'concerning accusers and witnesses,' this trial is instanced , and again in cap. 51 (Mansi, Concil. Florence, 1759, I. 352, 353).

Though Jerome (Pref. to Dan.) calls this and the other Additions 'fabulæ' (twice), it is pointed out by Peronne in his note to Corn. à Lap. on Dan. xiii. 1 (Paris, 1874) that Jerome uses the same word of the story of Samson (no ref. given), which he certainly regarded as canonical. He claims therefore that here it has "verum et nativum sensum vocis fabulæ, quæ quidem significat 'historiam, sermonem.'" But even if any disparaging sense could be eliminated from this particular word, Jerome's opinion is otherwise expressed.

The only possible reference to Susanna observable, I think, in the N.T. is in Matt, xxvii. 24, unless the name of Susanna in St. Luke viii. 3 be taken from our heroine's. It is of course emblematic of lily-like purity, and therefore very suitable for a woman. The story, with some omissions, forms the Epistle for Saturday after the third Sunday in Lent in the Sarum and Roman Missals.

Luther says that this and Bel are "beautiful and spiritual compositions, just as Judith and Tobias " (Bleek, O.T., Venables' transl., 1869, II. 339).

In the Greek Church the Synods of Constantinople and Jerusalem in 1672 expressly decided, in opposition to Cyril Lucar and the Calvinists, that Susanna and Bel (with some other apocryphal books) were genuine elements of Divine Scripture, and denounced Cyril Lucar's conduct in styling them Apocrypha as ignorance or wickedness (Bleek, II. 343; Loisy, O.T. p. 243). The present Eastern Church reckons them, with the Song of the Three, canonical, as Bishop Nectarius expressly states (Greek Manuals of Church Doctrine, publ. by Eng. Ch. Assoc., Lond., 1901, p. 19). Also Bar-Hebræus (1286), the Monophysite, comments on these fragments as if Holy Scripture (Loisy, p. 245). We see then that the testimonies to canonicity are of considerable strength, more so than is perhaps generally realised, even though the arguments to the contrary may be still stronger. The statement of Fritzsche (Libri apocryphi, 1871, p. xiii) is moderate and reasonable, fitting in well as it does with the views of our own Church, "Liber Danielis canonicus iam eo ipso tempore, quo primum in linguam græcam transferebatur, additamentis græcis auctus est, quorum tria maiora fere inde a seeulo quarto in eccl. christiana vulgo a viris doctis apocrypha iudicata sunt."

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART.

LITERATURE.

NEW TESTAMENT. In St. Matt. xxvii. 24 Pilate possibly adopts Daniel's words in v. 46, or at least accidentally falls in with them. In Heb. xi. 23 and Sus. 7 () there is a strong similarity in the use of the word , as well as in Exod. ii. 2.

"Among names taken from the O.T., that of Susanna is not uncommon" (D.C.A. art. Names, 1374a). Not improbably therefore Susanna, in St. Luke viii. 3, may have been named after the Susanna of this history, as already mentioned under 'Canonicity,' p. 161. St. Susanna of the Roman Calendar, who is dated circ. 293, is most likely an example of this. She is not given an article in D.C.B., but there is a short notice of her in D.C.A., as commemorated in various Martyrologies on August 11th.

IRENÆUS (200). In Adv. Hær.III. xlii. 1 there is an apparent reference to v. 55; in IV, xxxv. 2 to v. 42; and in IV. xli. 1, 'de presbyteris injustis,' vv. 20, 26 are quoted as "a Daniele propheta voces" in reproof of Christian presbyters. It is probable, too, that "Deum qui absconsa manifestat" (IV. xxxi. 2) may be a reminiscence of the phrase in v. 42; and still more probably perhaps "qui est absconsorum cognitor" in IV. xxxv. 2 has its origin in this same verse.

CLEMENT or ALEXANDRIA (220). In Strom. IV. (Heinsius' ed., Paris, 1629, p. 522) he speaks of Susanna and Miriam together, as if their biblical positions were on a par. In Hort and Mayor's edit. (1902) of Strom. VII. the words in § 37 are referred to Susanna 43 (); but it is hardly safe to assume that we have here more than an accidental approximation of wording.

HIPPOLYTUS (230) distinctly recognizes Susanna at the end of his Preface to Daniel, as well as in his Commentary itself. This last, Bardenhewer (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1877, p. 69) deems, on account of its homiletic phrases, to be "Bruchstücke einer Homilie" (cf. art. Hippolytus, D.C.B. iii. 102a).

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (third century?). Susanna's trial is instanced in II. 49, "Concerning accusers and witnesses" (see quotation under 'Canonicity,' p. 161), and again in cap. 51.

TERTULLIAN (240). In de Corona militis, 4, after instancing Rebecca, he goes on to say of Susanna: "si et Susanna in iudicio revelata argumentum velandi præstat, possum dicere: et his velamen arbitrii fuit," etc. Also de Pudic. 17, etc.

ORIGEN (254) frequently refers to Susanna in his commentaries, many references to which are collected by Schürer, H.J.P., II. III. 186. In the middle of § 1 of his Hom. I. in Levitic. he quotes Susanna's words in v. 22 as if appropriate to the mouth of the book itself, surrounded, by those who doubted its canonicity (words quoted under 'Canonicity,' p. 158). In Eusebius' Præp. Ev. VI. 11, Origen is given as quoting v. 42 as a proof of God's foreknowledge, . In his Commentary on St. John (bk. XX. § 5) he quotes v. 56 with .

CYPRIAN (258), in Ep. XLIII. 4, illustrates his remarks by a reference to "Susannam pudicam."

Bleek (O.T. II. 316) says that Bel and the Dragon and Susanna were used by both Irenæus and Cyprian in a similar way to the Scriptures of the Hebrew canon.

METHODIUS (330), in his "Song of the Virgins" (II. 2). , , includes Judith and Susanna:

, , , , ...

(Migne, Patr. gr. XVIII. 212).

HILARY OF POITIERS (367), de Trin. IV. 8 (Migne, Patr. lat. 10, 101), quotes Susanna 42, "Sicut beata Sus. dicit, Deus æternus absconditorum cognitor, sciens omnia," etc.

ATHANASIUS (373) also, in his Disc, against Arians, I. 13, quotes this popular verse (42) as "in Daniel." In the Life of Anthony, § 43, he refers to Susanna, as well as in the 'doubtful' Synopsis S.S.

EPHREM SYRUS (378) refers both in his Ep. ad Johann. monachum, and in his 15th Parænesis, to the blessed Susanna.

GRATIAN (383) notes on Can. XI. of Neocæsarea (315 A.D.) in Decreta I. 78, c. iv., "Daniel, we read, received the spirit of prophecy before he had arrived even at youth." The Canon itself, as given by Hefele, makes no mention of Daniel.

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (386) refers (Catech. I. 31) to Daniel's inspiration to rescue Susanna, and quotes v. 45 with .

GREGORY OF NYSSA (396) quotes, in his Hexaëmeron (Migne, Patr. gr. XLIV. p. 71) and in his Making of Man, v. 42, twice as a prophetic writing (XXIX. 1).

AMBROSE (397) has, Sermons XLIX. and L., "de accusato Domino apud Pilatum et de Susanna," in which he draws a parallel between them, as to silence under false charges, at considerable length (Basel, ed. 1527, III. 549).

SULPICIUS SEVERUS (400?), in his Hist. Sacr. lib. II. § 1, gives an outline of the story of Susanna, after the events of Dan. i. and before those of chap, ii., evidently regarding it as historical.

CHRYSOSTOM (407) has a sermon "de Susanna," in which he compares her to the "garden enclosed" of Solomon's Song iv. 12 (quoted in Arnald's Commentary).

JEROME (420), in his de Nominibus Hebraicis, includes, under the Book of Daniel, Susanna and Joacim without any distinction from the names in the rest of the book (ed. Vallarsi, vol. III.).

AUGUSTINE (430) draws, in de Civ. Dei, I. 19, a parallel between Susanna and Lucretia, greatly to the advantage of the former. Arnald, on v. 23, gives some extracts from this.

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (444) quotes v. 56 at least twice, viz. on Hos. xii. 8 and on Zeph. i. 11. In the latter case he speaks of it as , giving it thus explicitly a high position.

THEODORET (457) quotes in Letter CX., Susanna 22; but in his comment on Daniel, Susanna is not contained.

MAMERTUS CLAUDIANUS (474). The following occurs in a hymn attributed to this writer, "In Jacobum magistrum equitum," but which Migne says is 'dubiæ auctoritatis': "Sic tibi det vires sancta Susanna suas."

NICEPHORUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE (828) classes Susanna among his "antilegomena." As he makes no separate mention in his lists of the Song, or of Bel and the Dragon, he presumably reckons them under 'Daniel'[55] (Migne, Patr. gr. c. 1056). At the end of pseudo-Athanasius' Synopsis S.S. comes a list of , so similar to Nicephorus' list in order and contents as to suggest that they had some close connection; and it is possible that this appendage may be of even later date than the Synopsis itself, which may be attributed to the 6th century (Loisy, A.T., p. 147).

The above are specimens of the numerous references made to Susanna by early Christian writers, both Greek and Latin, who evidently found in her a favourite instance to adduce in support of their teaching. Nor ought we, in such a matter, to treat lightly the tenor of Christian antiquity so remarkably manifested.

ART.

From early times scenes from Susanna were often chosen for artistic treatment. In "a list of the symbols most frequently represented in painting or sculpture by the Church of the first seven centuries" Susanna is included (D.C.A. art. Symbolism).

Frescoes of Susanna and the Elders occur, though not with great frequency, in the Catacombs (D.C.A. I. art. Fresco, 700a). W. Lowrie, in his Christian Art (N.Y. and Lond. 1901, p. 210), mentions a second-century fresco of Susanna and the Elders judged by Daniel, in the cemetery of Callistus; also he says, "in the Capella græca in St. Priscilla the story is depicted with unusual dramatic interest in several scenes." Three old Italian sarcophagi have bas-reliefs of Susanna and the Elders as emblematic of the Church enduring persecution; others are known in southern Gaul (D.C.A. art. Church, Symbols of). A woodcut is given in this article of a sheep (ewe?) between two wild beasts (wolves?), 'Susanna' and 'Senioris' being written over them respectively, the artist evidently fearing that the symbolism might otherwise not be perceived.

Scenes from the history of Susanna carved on sarcophagi are more frequent in France than in Italy. It has been thought that the two Elders may be taken to represent the two older forms of religion, the Pagan and the Jewish (D.C.A., O.T. in Art, II. 1459b). In the same Dict. (Sculpture, II. 1867a) it is noted that the cycle of subjects has a remarkable correspondence with those named in the Roman Breviary "Ordo commendationis animæ," where "Libera, Dom. animam servi tui sicut liberasti Sus. de falso crimine," is one of the petitions.

It is fair to presume that Delitzsch refers to some of the above when he writes, "Susannæ historia in sarcophagis veterum Christianorum cum sacris historiis insculpta conspicitur" (op. cit. 26).

In the Brit. Mus., 2nd North Gallery, Room V., there is a glass fragment of the 4th century, found at Cologne, representing (probably) Susanna amongst other subjects. She also appears on a carved ivory reliquary of Brescia, which is most likely not later in date than 800 (D.C.A. art. Reliquary, II. 1780b).

In the Byzantine Guide to Painting ( ), given in Didron's Christian Iconography (Bohn's ed., Lond. 1886, I. 45n, II. 284), 'Daniel defends Susanna' is put immediately after the scene in Dan. i. 15, and before the other scenes given out of Daniel (cf. 'Position,' p. 109). Didron's MS. of this work is probably of the 15th century, though the monks of Athos, whence it appears to have come, regarded it as some five centuries older.

There is a window of stained glass, said to be cinque-cento, in the westernmost bay of the south aisle of St. James' Church, Bury St. Edmunds, of which the three lower lights represent the trial of Susanna. In the centre Susanna's bath takes the form of a deep font, in which she is standing. The Elders are clothed in purple.[56]

In Sumner's Antiquities of Canterbury, 1703, the second figure in the third window of the cathedral is described as "Daniel in medio seniorum," and this inscription is given:

"Mirantur pueri seniores voce doceri Sic responsa dei sensum stupent Pharasaei."

(Reprinted in Ancient Glass Painting, by an Amateur, Oxf. 1848, p. 355.)

In the scheme of stained glass for Truro cathedral there are several apocryphal subjects, including a window in the south-east transept having "Susanna and the Mother of the Seven Martyrs" for its subjects (Donaldson, Bishopric of Truro, 1902, App. V.).

A carved chimney-piece exists in Chillingham Castle, Northumberland, representing Susanna and the Elders (Murray, Handbook to Northumberland, 1873, p. 326).

This scene has been a wonderfully popular one with painters. Altdorfer, Carracci, Correggio, A. Coypel, van Dyck, Guercino, Rembrandt, Rubens, Santerre, Tintoretto, Valentin, and P. Veronese may be named amongst those who have treated it. A picture entitled 'Susanna' was exhibited in the Royal Academy, London, in 1886, by Fred. Goodall, R.A.

Thus we see that the many picturesque incidents in this Addition have not been overlooked by Christian artists in search of subjects for the brush or the chisel. Of these three supplementary sections of Daniel the History of Susanna has, in this respect, been found much the most suggestive; probably as the one which is thought to contain the highest passion and feeling.

"EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION OF MANNERS."

In the character of _Susanna_ we see unconquerable _Purity_ in thought and deed; prayerful _Trust_ in God under a false and cruel accusation,[57] and, in the face of death, securing deliverance from an unexpected quarter (_cf. v. 60 with II. Cor. i. 10). With v. 55 Hippolytus compares Tob. iii. 2 (Vulgate). The parallels drawn by St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine will be found under 'Early Christian Literature,' p. 167. Susanna's trouble may be taken as a conspicuous illustration of Ps. xxxiv. 19.

Susanna was conscientious as well as pure; would not lie, being tenderly nurtured morally as well as physically.[58] She had the virtue of bodily cleanliness as well as social purity, and affords an early instance of the use of the prepared bath.

It is noticeable, too, that no unfavourable traits develop themselves on the re-establishment of her happiness and the condemnation of her slanderers; there is no excessive reaction to unbecoming laxity, no .

In the character of the Elders we see judicial position and feigned piety used as a cloak for lust and slander; great hardness of heart in condemning Susanna to death, with the full knowledge that she was innocent; unblushing effrontery (v. 50); sins of the tongue in 'lying and slandering.'

Hooker (Ecc. Pol. V. 2) refers, according to the marginal note (though they are not named in the text), to these Elders as examples of "affected atheism," "where the windows of the soul are of very set purpose closed"; "they turned away their mind and cast down their eyes, that they might not see heaven nor remember just judgments." St. Hippolytus on v. 61 quotes Prov. xxvi. 27 very appositely. The fall of the Elders shews the need for our Lord's order in St. Matt. v. 28, and the terrible results of acting otherwise.

The individual character of each Elder has a little light thrown upon it by the form of condemnation framed by Daniel. That of the first is chiefly based on his unjust judgment, that of the second on his lewd conduct, each judgment being varied in this way according to the form of his previous iniquities. The knowledge which Daniel possessed of these appropriately determined the cast of his sentence. That he had some acquaintance with their former habits is shewn by vv.. 52, 53, 56.

The change to the plural in v. 57 is difficult to explain, and does not receive attention at the hands of the commentators; in fact Ball applies this verse, without mentioning the change of number, to the one Elder only. Although these godless judges failed in accomplishing their purpose, they were not on this account less scandalous betrayers of virtue.

In Susanna's Servants we see fidelity, sympathy, and no eagerness to believe an ill report. As regards Susanna, this fact speaks volumes for the excellence of her conduct.

In Daniel we see the courage and penetrating acumen which are so characteristic of his whole career, impressing all with whom he was brought into contact. He weighs a matter carefully before coming to a decision. By unmasking hypocrisy and securing justice he is delighted to set right a grievous wrong.[59] He appears as the best judge (cf. the estimation shewn of the justice of God by Azarias, Song of the Three, 4—8). Daniel further exhibits a decision and an absence of self-distrust, in undertaking tasks of great risk, quite in accordance with his character as portrayed in the canonical book, and in Bel and the Dragon. In each case he is alert, acute, and fearless; his conduct in different circumstances is quite in keeping with itself. Using his talents thoroughly, he makes "full proof of his ministry."

There is a strong resemblance in ideas, though not much in words, between Daniel's sentence in v. 55 and St. Matt. xxiv. 51. The judgment of Daniel in this case may be taken as a type of the Last Judgment, correcting the unjust judgments of this world.

A high value is set on Scripture, as v. 53 shews, where it is quoted as an authoritative rule of conduct; v. 5, too, if it is to be regarded as a reference to Jer. xxix. 23, points to a similar high esteem for it as the word of the Lord. Susanna herself in v. 22 evidently remembers David's words in II. Sam. xxiv. 14, when he too had to make his choice between falling into the hand of the Lord or the hand of man, thus shewing her ready knowledge of the O.T.

Much admirable moral teaching therefore may be drawn from the characters of this little work of world-wide interest, teaching which is needed in all nations and in all periods.



PART IV

THE HISTORY OF BEL AND THE DRAGON

( )



THE HISTORY OF BEL AND THE DRAGON.

ANALYSIS.

v.

1, 2. Introduces Cyrus and Daniel.

3. How Bel was worshipped by the Babylonians.

4—7. Discussion as to Bel's worship[60] between the King and Daniel.

8, 9. The King enquires of Bel's priests, and says that they or Daniel must die.

10—14. The test agreed upon to prove whether Bel partook of the offerings or no.

15—22. Decided in the negative by discovery of the Priests' trick, who are slain and their idol destroyed.

23. Introduces the other object of worship[60], the Dragon.

24—27. Conversation as to its divinity between the King and Daniel, who, with the former's permission, ingeniously slays it.

28, 29. Anger of the Babylonians with them both.

30—32. They cause Daniel to be cast into the lions' den.

33—40. He is miraculously saved by Habakkuk.

40, 42. The King acknowledges the Lord, sets Daniel free, and delivers his persecutors to the fate intended for the prophet.

[Endnote: N.B.—It is unaccountable why the 'heading' in A.V. begins with v. 19. Cf. Sus. for a similar peculiarity.]

TITLE AND POSITION.

TITLE.

is the usual title of this booklet. It is obviously derived from the names of the two idols destroyed in the two portions of the story. But Cod. Chis. has the curious heading, (cf. v. 33). The Syriac also has the equivalent of this. In some Syriac MSS. 'Dragon' is given as a separate title before v. 23; and Luther's version, at the same point, expands this into 'von Drachen zu Babel.'

In Codd. A, Q, the entire piece is headed , and is thus treated as an integral part of Daniel, finishing the book, the 12th chapter of which ends in Cod. A with .[61] In B it follows, if possible, still more closely, there being no intermediate heading[62], In Cod. A, at the end, there is . , which, except in the case of Ruth, is not A's usual way of terminating works. The Arabic Version in Walton also superscribes it as a 'vision' (Scholz, p. 139).

The title 'the book of the little Daniel' seems applied to Bel and the Dragon in a Nestorian list mentioned by Churton (p. 389), and seemingly in Ebed Jesu's list of Hippolytus' works (D.C..B art. Hippolytus, III. p. 104a). This title, which usually belongs to Susanna, when applied to Bel and the Dragon, must refer, not to Daniel's age, but to the size of the book. Delitzsch (op. cit. 25n) mentions, without further description, one MS. from Mount Athos which entitles it .

The source of the marginal reading of A.V. "Bel's Dragon" (also given in the title to Susanna) does not appear to be identified.

POSITION.

As to the place of this piece in some of the Greek MSS. see above.

Professor A. Scholz (Judith und Bel und der Drache, Würzburg, 1896, p. 200) finds fault with Holmes and Parsons for having disturbed the position of this book without offering sufficient indication of having done so: "die Stücke willkürlich versetzt sind."

In the Vulgate it is reckoned as chap. xiv. of Daniel, coming after Susanna, which forms chap. xiii., as also in the Hexaplar Syriac. Caj. Bugati, in his edition of this text, regards its ascription to Habakkuk as a reason for its detached position at the end (see 'Authorship,' p. 186).

J. Fürst's idea (quoted by Bissell, p. 444), that the work was originally incorporated in chap. vi., seems far less likely than his conjecture with regard to the position of Susanna (q.v.). Indeed, except for a certain similarity in the lions' den miracle, it is not easy to see why it should be joined to any part of chap. vi. Nor do the similar points of the den incidents seem any real ground for making one story follow directly upon the other.

E. Philippe (Vigouroux Dict. II. 1266) attempts, rather feebly, to account for its omission from the Hebrew Bibles. He says, "elle parut à tort aux Juifs faire double emploi avec un récit pareil, VI." This seems to be a gratuitous supposition of no great probability.

As the story deals with the latter part of Daniel's life, its place at the conclusion of the book is very fitting. In Cod. A the subscription mentioned above, marking it as the "end of Daniel the prophet," distinctly attaches it to the Book of Daniel, and precludes further additions. On the whole, if its connection with the Book of Daniel is to be recognized, this position at the close may be regarded as the most suitable.

AUTHORSHIP.

In , Bel and the Dragon is apparently assumed to be by the same writer as the rest of the Book of Daniel. So in Breshith Rabbah[63] 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 Raymund Martini's Pugio fidei (Paris, 1651, p. 740) the Aramaic is given as (see under 'Chronology,' p. 229).

If, however, it be presumed that Daniel is not the author, we are left without any clue to the writer's name, except what is afforded us by the LXX 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 which might perhaps be the 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— (). Long experience in surmounting great difficulties by divine help had strengthened his nerve and confirmed his faith.

Original. If the LXX be taken as a translation, the original is of course older than the Greek text, but not necessarily much older. If the statement at the head, however, be accepted as referring to Habakkuk the prophet, the original is of course thrown back to a much earlier date, say circ. 600 B.C., and Hebrew, not Aramaic, would be the language. But this theory will scarcely commend itself to many (cf. 'Chronology,' p. 223).

LXX. There seems no reason to doubt that Bel and the Dragon always formed a part of this Greek version of Daniel. Pusey (quoted in Churton, Uncan. and Apocr. Script, p. 389) speaks of it as 'contemporary with the LXX,' while Rothstein (Kautzsch, 178, 9) attributes it to the second century B.C., being probably of the same date as Susanna.

Theodotion. This version may reasonably be assigned to the second century A.D. But it has been pretty clearly shewn that Theodotion worked up some Greek version other than the LXX. Many of the quotations from Daniel in the N.T., and especially those tn Revelation (specified in D.C.B. art. Theodotion, IV. 975b), shew that a version largely corresponding with his existed at the time when these quotations were made. The Book of Baruch also (same art. 976a) bears evidence of the employment of this Theodotionic ground-version, the origin of which is at present unknown. In this connection compare Prof. Swete's Introd. to Greek O.T. ed. 2, p. 48, and Schürer's pointed saying, quoted there in note (3), "Entweder Th. selbst ist älter als die Apostel, oder es hat einen 'Th.' vor Th. gegeben." There seems little reason to doubt that the unnamed previous version extended to this and the other Additions to Daniel.

PLACE.

Original (Semitic?). Babylonia, or possibly Palestine. " The writer," says Bissell on v. 2, "shews a familiar acquaintance with what was the probable state of things in Babylon when the event narrated is supposed to have occurred."

Of the things mentioned, clay is common in Babylonia, and brass or bronze was used as a material for images; and the lion was an inhabitant of the country.

There is no sign (in this piece) of Hellenic thought influencing Jewish belief, such as would have been likely to shew itself in a purely Alexandrian production. The strong hatred of idolatry is quite in accordance with a Babylonish origin; more so perhaps than with an Alexandrian. Cf. Jer. xliv. 8, which seems to shew that, at any rate in the early days of the dispersion in Egypt, the severance from idolatry was not so sharp as in Babylonia.

The mention of pitch (v. 27) as a readily obtainable commodity is inconclusive, as stated under the corresponding section of Part II. The possible confusion between (storm-wind) and (pitch), pointed out by Marshall in his article on Bel and the Dragon in Hastings' Dict., does not look probable as occurring in a list of substances of this kind.

LXX. Alexandria may be pretty certainly named. What Bishop Westcott calls "an Alexandrine hand" (D.B. I. p. 448 ed. 1, 714 ed. 2) has been generally deemed apparent. So Bissell says: "The contents furnish tolerably safe evidence of its Egyptian origin." But this does not seem to agree very well with his note on v. 2, quoted at the beginning of this chapter.

It might have been thought that the weights and measures which enter into this story in v. 3 of both versions, and in v. 27 of LXX, would have afforded some valuable local indications. But unfortunately for this requirement, the weights and measures of the ancient world were so much assimilated as to yield, in the question before us, no certain clue. Alexandria too, being a great commercial centre, had become somewhat syncretistic. As P. Smith remarks, in his article Mensura, in D. Gk. & Rom. A. (1872, p. 754b), "The Roman system, which was probably derived from the Greek, agreed with the Babylonian both in weights and measures." It is stated, however, in Hastings' D.B. (IV. 911b, 913b) that and were identified at Alexandria, in which case they may have been used here as rough equivalents for the translation of some Semitic words, such as and in Isai. v. 10 and I. Kings xviii. 32 respectively. The of v. 27 is also both Babylonian and Alexandrian (see Hastings' D.B. iv. 904a). The signs, from this source, of local origin must not therefore be pressed.

Theodotion. From what little we know of this translator's life, it is not improbable that he made his version at Ephesus.

The genitive form in v. 26, thought to be Ionic, may lend a little support to this. Cf. Heb. xi. 34, Rev. xiii. 14, in A; B here failing; yet it is found in B, by the first corrector, in St. Luke xxi. 24. But cf. Swete's Introd. p. 304. On the other hand, the use of in v. 32 ( only) for 'slaves' is given by Deissmann (p. 160) as an example of Egyptian usage. It is found in Gen. xxxiv. 29, Tob. x. 10, and elsewhere. Its use by Polybius (mentioned without reference by Deissmann) does not give us much 'local' assistance, for his travels were so extensive that he may have picked it up in various places. But its occurrence in Rev. xviii. 13 may suggest that it was in use at Ephesus also. Deissmann (p. 117) also thinks (v. 3) to be an Alexandrian idiom; but in the same verse we find the spelling , which is considered by Liddell and Scott to be an Ionic form. The indications therefore of this linguistic kind nearly counterbalance one another.

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)[64] 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. , sub ), 'agathodemon, omnis felicitatis auctor,' Daniel does not spare him on that account. Thomas "Wintle[65] 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. I (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."[66] 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 notion 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 () 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 of in 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 's version, it would follow that he did not confine himself to making a mere recension of the 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 nor '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: in vv. 9, 15, 31, 39; in vv. 1, 12, 13, 36, 40. Yet Westcott (Smith's D.B. I. 397a, ed. 2, 714a) thinks that some of '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, being put immediately after , 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 () only, treating them as the closing verse (14) of chap. xii., and introducing them with the words, , ... This curious fact, combined with that of their omission from the , 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, (vv. 2—4 only), and 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 (occurs in Heb. xi. 34 in A), if not a slip,[67] seems Ionic (Wordsworth's Greek Gram. § 16, Obs.), as has been already mentioned ('Authorship,' p. 193), and might perhaps be accounted for by 's connection with Ephesus. The substitution of for , however, in v. 34 seems no improvement, A in this, as in several other instances (vv. 10, 28, 35), agreeing with the 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 is added, as also in Q, to the description of Bel's inability to consume food. In v. 11 is curiously substituted by A for ; in v. 13 for . 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 for is peculiar. The alteration of gender in v. 17, for 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 for in v. 10.

Q not unfrequently agrees with it in differing from B. It stands alone, however, in reading for 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. , having vv. 2—4 only, contains no important variation. (only from v. 21 to v. 41) contains in v. 22 the curious word instead of .

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 oetate (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 Rab. 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 . With , cf. of Deut. xxxii. 23 ("I will spend my arrows upon," etc.). occurs with and in N.T. Greek, but apparently not with , nor yet in the canonical O.T. Deissmann, however, attempts to shew that this use of , instead of 'dativus commodi,' is an Alexandrian idiom (Bible Studies, Eng. tr., Edinb. 1900, p. 127). is also used in Aramaic in the same sense in Pahel.

v. 6 . The same phrase as the last recurs, inverted: .

v. 7 . Here the accusative after might be taken as favouring a Greek original, since for would seem natural in a translation of Hebrew or Aramaic.

v. 7 ; v. 11 , ; v. 27 . The occurrence of in these verses suggests a rendering of 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 , . Scholz's suggestion that and are translations of is more probable than some of his ideas, for it is rendered by both these words more than once in the Greek O.T.

v. 12 . might be a translation of or . is occasionally rendered by , as in Job xxxiii. 10, in a hostile sense. Liddell and Scott, however, give one example of with , and Arnold an anonymous one in his Greek Grammar (1848, p. 265).

v. 13 . looks like a translation of (or ), as in I. Kings x. 8, where it is so rendered.

v. 14 . presents a difficulty here, which may be solved by supposing that had been read by mistake for , a kind of error characteristic of the LXX translators. To 'shut' seems more in place here than to 'seal,' which naturally follows later in the verse; shutting first, sealing second, seems the only intelligible order.

vv. 14, 28 ; vv. 15, 33 . The of these verses is suggestive of in the original.

v. 18 . () has an 'ungreek' look, and may have been a rendering of , as in Exod. xiv. 28. () for () might account for the king's 'rejoicing' in becoming his 'seeing' in .

v. 19 , . The reading of by instead of by may be accounted for by supposing to have been substituted for , as suggested in Hastings' Dict.

v. 26 , . The use of instead of , to begin a clause signifying purpose, is very Hebraic.

v. 27 , . The ingenious idea of A. Scholz that and are renderings of and respectively, in the first case being the article, and in the second merely the interrogative particle, like other conjectures on p. 202 of his Commentary, can hardly stand. He appears to have forgotten that the article must not be placed before a noun with a pronominal suffix.[68]

v. 28 , . looks like a translation of (cf. Sus. 29). In it is used against Daniel, and in against the king.

v. 33 . Delitzsch suggests (p. 27) for the beginning of this verse, with much likelihood.

v. 36 . The reading in A for may have arisen from being corrupted by homoeoteleuton into , for which A has read . A. Scholz's notion of explaining this by Isai. xlv. 1 (where is used, not ) is unsatisfactory.

v. 40 , . The attempt to explain (Marshall in Hastings' D.B. art. Bel and the Dragon) the 'in medio' of Vulg. v. 39 by a reading for is not very likely, since they do not occur in corresponding clauses.

v. 42 . is used of the king here in a good sense, in v. 22 in a bad one. This is possibly a rendering of in the latter case, of in the former.

The Greek of the writer is hardly such as we should expect, unless he was narrating a story which had reached him from a Hebrew source. The frequency with which verbs occur very early in the construction of sentences is a point in favour of a Semitic original, which does appear to have been dwelt upon, e.g. vv. 11, 20 (), and 14, 16, 22 ().

It is a matter of considerable nicety to estimate the value of these and similar indications. They are not decisive. They tell with varying force upon varying minds; but they distinctly tend, in the writer's opinion, to increase the probability of the Greek having been grounded upon a Hebrew or an Aramaic form of the story, the likelihood of the latter being slightly the stronger.

In view of the introduction of Habakkuk into the story of the Dragon, Delitzsch's opinion as to the similarity of Daniel's Hebrew to the Hebrew of that prophet (see Streane, Age of Macc. p. 262) becomes of importance. A. Scholz, too, is of opinion (p. 146) that the Habakkuk title makes for a Hebrew original, because the real prophecy of Habakkuk was undoubtedly Hebrew, and this piece, whether genuine or fictitious, would hardly have been appended in another language.

The LXX version was certainly known to Theodotion, since he copies much of it, yet not quite so largely as in the Song of the Three. But it is evident that he had other documents or traditions to use, of which he freely availed himself; possibly some previous translation other than LXX, as has been suggested under Susanna ('Date and Place,' p. 114). There seems nothing in either Greek recension to imply that the two parts of Bel and the Dragon (separated in Luther's version) are not by the same hand.

It is noteworthy that the word , applied to Bel when handed over to Daniel (v. 22, ), is used of our Lord in Acts ii. 23, these two being its only Biblical occurrences.

STYLE.

The style is that of simple, clear, and well-told narrative, with very little rhetorical embellishment about it, yet bearing somewhat of a dramatic cast, like much of the canonical book to which it is appended. It is not tedious (though there is much to tell which might have been easily spun out), but is brief and spirited. There is nothing superfluous to the aim of the story.[69]

Moreover, the narrative is told in such a way as ever to be a story of captivating interest to the young, being full of movement and interesting incident. The style of the composition is much more in accordance with Syrian than with Alexandrian models. There is nothing of Hellenistic speculation or philosophy, though the subject of idolatry would have lent itself to such treatment (as that of injustice would in Susanna). No figurative or hyperbolic phraseology is employed.

An idea has been revived and maintained that the lions' den episode at the end is a mere adaptation and embellishment of that in Dan. vi.[70] (Churton, 392; Streane, 109, "distortions of O.T. narratives"; J.M. Fuller, S.P.C.K. Comm. in loc.). This idea is successfully opposed by Arnald, who (on v. 31) gives three reasons against it, and by Bishop Gray (Introd. to O.T. in loc.). Delitzsch (p. 30) calls this section of 's version "partem dignissimam." Attempts to prove the falsity of this martyrdom, if such it may be called, by first assuming the identity of these two events, treating the latter as an ornamental exaggeration of the former, and then pointing out what are taken for irreconcileable discrepancies, are beside the mark. Nor does the supposition that the one night in the den (of Dan. vi.) was increased to six, nor that the detail of withholding the lions' usual food to sharpen their appetites (in only), were added for the purpose of heightening the effect, carry much weight. The omission of Daniel's speech, with the detail[71] of the angel closing the lions' mouths (vv. 21, 22), tells in the opposite direction. It is no more necessary to reckon these two den episodes as one event than our Lord's feeding of the four and five thousand, or his healing of the centurion's servant and the nobleman's son.

RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.

RELIGIOUS.

A religious feeling, strong though misdirected, evidently existed both in king and people, involving considerable expenditure on objects and places of 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 is identified with in Rev. xii. 9, and that and 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 of Rev. xiii. 4 may have been suggested by the dragon-worship here; is used in v. 23, (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 implied[72] 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 Kitchen"; 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, .

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. , Syr'mg*." Cajetanus Bugati also (Daniel, Milan, 1788, p. 162) thinks Grotius wrong.[73] For a similarly imagined instance of a king embracing Judaism, cf. II. Macc. ix. 17, headed by A.V., "Antiochus promiseth to become a Jew," on which Rawlinson notes, "it is extremely improbable that Epiphanes ever expressed any such intention," an opinion in which most will agree.

The withholding of food, in order to sharpen the lions' 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 's version. As in Susanna, he stands as the willing exposer of fraud, intellectually acute as well as morally upright.

v. 29 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.[74]; also the destruction of false accusers (v. 42) with vi. 25; so also the keeping of lions by the king; and so, too, the method of double sealing (v. 11 , 14 ; vi. 17). That should be under the command of Daniel (v. 14 and Syr.) is what would be likely for one in his position. The term is used of himself in Sus. 45 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). is used in each case (v. 29 , 30 and ). Similar, too, is Nebuchadnezzar's conduct with Daniel, and that of Herod Antipas with St. John Baptist. Despotic rulers are often frightened by popular clamour. But Cyrus, however weak in yielding, appears at the close of the story in a less odious light than Pilate.

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

THEOLOGY.

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

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

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

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

Daniel resists the king's invitation to worship Bel, which might have led him under the ban of Deut. xviii. 20 (end) as "speaking in the name of other gods." False theological opinions are corrected by Daniel, who not only dissuades from idol-worship, but persuades to that of the true deity. Hence the beautiful appropriateness of (v. 38) instead of in the corresponding point of delivery in Sus. 60 . 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 , but Cyrus claims for Bel to be only ; 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 . Thus the prophet makes a more exclusive claim for the divinity of his God. In v. 6 a contrast is afforded with what is said of God in Ps. xvi. 2 (P.B. aft. Vulg. and LXX), as the Creator who still retains power over living beings.

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

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

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

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

CHRONOLOGY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another instance of belief in the contemporaneity of Daniel and Habakkuk is afforded by Raymund Martini (c. 1250) in his Pugio fidei (Paris, 1651, p. 740): "Habacuc vero Prophetam fuisse contemporaneum Danieli inde colligitur ubi in Bereschit Rabba hoc modo scribitur de Joseph," he says before quoting a long passage from the B.R. on Gen. xxxvii. 24. This passage is none other than a portion of Bel and the Dragon in Chaldee, and is headed without reserve as . It proceeds with v. 28 to the end: . Then follows a Latin translation, after which Martini adds "Hucusque traditio," and, after quoting Hab. i. 6, finishes his work.

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

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

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

CANONICITY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART

LITERATURE.

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

NEW TESTAMENT. Compare B.V.M.'s words in St. Luke i. 38 with Daniel's at the end of v. 9, . With John xviii. 35 compare Bel 38, and , as to a Gentile being taken for a Jew. Moreover the phrase in Acts xvii. 23 is very like a reminiscence of Bel 27, , 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 as against , 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: , [83] , .

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

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

CYPRIAN (258) in ad Fortunatum, 11, quotes v. 5, apparently following a translation of the , and not of 's, text. The same verse is again quoted by him in Ep. lviii. 5 in exactly the same words. It is curious that both passages are preceded, in the same sections, by a quotation of Dan. iii. 16—18, apparently based on 's version. In the case of v. 5 in Ep. lviii. there is a slight variation in the readings of some MSS. as given by Hartel. Cf. Prof. Swete's Introd. 1902, p. 47.

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

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

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

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

GREGORY NAZIANZEN (390) in his poetical Præcepta ad Virgines has the line, speaking of Daniel, .

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

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

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

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

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