 |
HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM (438), in his on the XII prophets, says of Habakkuk that, whether he was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried to Babylon, .
THEODORET(457), towards the close of Ep. CXLV., quotes v. 36 with clear belief in the miracle. He also comments on vv. 1, 2 as if forming v. 14 of Dan. xii.; and then ceases.
We see, then, that the more than respectful references to this piece in the writers of ancient Christendom, if not quite so frequent as the citations of the Song and of Susanna, are still numerous and clear.
ART.
This apocryphal tract has afforded two fairly popular subjects for artistic illustration, viz., Daniel destroying the dragon, and Daniel and Habakkuk in the lions' den.
Daniel destroying the Dragon is a subject represented on glass from the catacombs (D.C.A. art. Glass, p. 733a). Garrucci (Vetri, XIII. 13) has a glass vessel in which Christ is represented with Daniel, who is giving cakes to the dragon (D.C.A. Jesus Christ, Representations of, p. 877b). In Paganism in Christian Art in the same Dictionary (p. 1535a), it is said, "Hercules feeding the fabled dragon with cakes of poppy-seed appears to have furnished the motive for the representation of the apocryphal story of Daniel killing the dragon at Babylon." Presumably this means the dragon Ladon in the garden of the Hesperides. But the connection between the two dragon episodes of Hercules and Daniel seems a little difficult to establish by indisputable evidence.
In Walter Lowrie's Christian Art and Archæology (Lond. and New York, 1901, p. 363) is a woodcut of a fragment of gold glass, with Daniel slaying the Dragon. This is correctly described on p. 209, but is wrongly entitled under the figure itself, as 'Daniel slaying Bel.' The picture is said to be taken from Garrucci, Storia dell' Arte, but no further reference is given. On p. 365 of Lowrie's book is a smaller scene of the same in glass, again with an erroneous description on p. xxi. as "Daniel and Bel." No dates are suggested for the above pieces of glass, but they appear to be very ancient.
In the Vatican cemetery a representation of Daniel's destruction of the dragon has been found on a sarcophagus; nor is this a solitary instance. (See O.T. in Art, D.C.A. p. 1459a.) And on the south side of the Angel Choir in Lincoln Minster, among a series of sculptures in the spandrils of the triforium arches, occurs a figure, described by Cockerell, the architect, as that of the "Angel of Daniel," with a monster under his feet, deemed to be "the old Dragon " (Archæol. Institute's Memoirs of Lincoln, Lond. 1850, p. 222).
Habakkuk with the loaves often appears in representations of the lions' den (O.T. in Art, 1459a). In fact there is reason to think that this apocryphal scene was at least as frequently represented as the corresponding canonical one; e.g. on a sarcophagus at Rome figured in the frontispiece to Burgon's Letters from Rome, thought by him to be of about the 5th century (p. 244). There is also a woodcut of this in D.C.A. art. Sculpture, p. 1868. A sarcophagus of the 4th century also, like Burgon's, in the Lateran Museum (though not, it would seem, identical) is mentioned in W. Lowrie's Art and Archæology, p. 260, as carved with the same subject of Daniel and Habakkuk.
In Bohn's edition of Didron's Christian Iconography (Lond. 1886, II. 210) there is a woodcut of a miniature in the Speculum hum. salv. (circ. 1350), in the library of Lord Coleridge, portraying Daniel among the lions. The appearance of Habakkuk guided by the angel in the background, carrying food, identifies the scene with Bel and the Dragon, and not with the history of Dan. vi. Even in representations of this, the canonical den-scene, it is noteworthy how often Daniel is shown in a sitting posture, although all mention of this is confined to v. 40 of the apocryphal story.
It is a little remarkable that Daniel's dramatic disclosure of the priests' trick (v. 21) has not, so far as the writer is aware, commended itself to artists. The ash-strewn floor of Bel's temple, the tell-tale footmarks, and the emotions of exultation and surprise on the face of Daniel and the King respectively, with a possible introduction of the detected impostors at the side, might make, in capable hands, a very effective picture.
"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."[84]. This element might perhaps be used with advantage more than it is by missionaries to idolatrous peoples.
The sordidness and trickery of heathen priests[85] is contrasted with the uprightness and single-minded devotion of Daniel. His God moreover delivers him, but their gods do not deliver them. The Bel of this history is as dumb as the Baal of I. Kings xviii.; their names and characters quite agree.
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 , while Cyrus only claims for Bel to be (vv. 5, 6, ), 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.
(e) Perseverance, in not resting upon his laurels, won over Bel, but proceeding against the Dragon. His promptitude of resource is not mere rashness, but is combined with steady determination in pursuing his task. As an active and diligent worker he is far-sighted and firm of purpose.
(f) Gratitude. On receiving Habakkuk's visit he at once acknowledges God's faithfulness, and addresses himself to the great First Cause immediately (v. 38), as the ever-watchful shaper of events.
(g) Mindfulness of faith and duty, by being ever foremost, even in association with a heathen king whose eyes he opens and to whom he acts as a missionary, in shewing hatred of falsehood and love of truth (as in Susanna). Absence of selfishness and willingness to undertake responsibility are manifested.
(h) Disinterested service of God in clearing away two great obstacles to his worship. His aims are realised without any trace of self-aggrandisement; for those aims are directed to his Maker's rather than to his own glory.
(i) Pleasure in God's service. The tone of the whole story implicitly conveys the idea that Daniel enjoyed, and was happy in the achievement of these works, because they were designed to honour God and to benefit man. Thus he finds his tasks thoroughly interesting and congenial.
It is to be observed that Daniel's character is in contrast with that of everyone in the story, except Habakkuk.
Per contra, Daniel might perhaps be accused of cruelty in his method of slaying the dragon,[86] especially as described in Gaster's Aramaic, and by Josippon ben Gorion, given by Arnald, in loc., from Selden.
In Habakkuk we see obedience to a divine command, apparently impossible of execution, for which the way is suddenly made plain. He becomes instrumental in alleviating such a state of affairs as he deplores in i. 4 of his Prophecy: "for the wicked doth compass about the righteous, etc." So in the hymn "Warum betrübst du dich mein Herz?" doubtfully attributed to Hans Sachs, we find the seventh stanza bearing upon this matter:
Des Daniels Gott ihm nicht rergass, Da er unter den Löwen sass: Sein Engel sandt er hin, Und liess ihm Speise bringen gut, Durch seiner Diener Habakkuk.
Habakkuk's obedience served God's purpose.
In Cyrus' character we see something of the impulsiveness of the despotic monarch, giving hasty directions on the spur of the moment as to matters of much importance. But the events of the story exert an educative influence upon his mind, culminating in his sentiments as expressed in v. 41, which apparently imply that Daniel's God was to be his God. Certainly the monarch's testimony proves that his religious opinions had been corrected, and raised above the stage represented in v. 6.
Probably some allegoric, or more strictly 'tropological,' instruction may be drawn from the story. In Bel we are taught to fight against crafty deception however generally believed in; in the Dragon, against fierce, repulsive, and terrifying adversaries. This kind of interpretation is sometimes strained however, as when in Neale's edition of the Moral Concordances of St. Antony of Padua (p. 125, n.d.), v. 27 is given as applicable to St. Bartholomew.
An unexpectedly adverse opinion on the use of Bel and the Dragon as a lesson (Nov. 23, matins, old Lectionary) is expressed by J.H. Blunt in his Directorium Pastorale (1864, p. 59): "I confess I can see no good which can arise from the public reading to a congregation, composed principally perhaps of young persons, of such lessons as Bel and the Dragon, or Lev. xviii., Deut. xxii., xxv." Then he adds the following curious note: "It is a fact that a man was once sent into a fit of loud and uncontrollable laughter, although he was honestly preparing for holy orders, by hearing this lesson (Bel and the Dragon) read for the first time in the chapel of a Theological College." One cannot help thinking that this gentleman must have had an abnormally developed sense of humour under exceptionally bad control.
John Wesley exhibits in his Journal (July 5th, 1773) an equally low opinion of the story, though free from ill-timed mirth: "St. Patrick converting 30,000 at one sermon I rank with the History of Bel and the Dragon" (Quoted in Church Quarterly Review, Jan. 1902, p. 323).
These opinions seem too contemptuous and inimical to a narrative which yields many valuable lessons. Indeed it may be said of this, as in the Bishops' reply at the Savoy Conference to the Puritan objection to reading the Apocryphal lessons in general: "It is heartily to be wished that sermons were as good" (Procter-Frere, Hist. of P.B. 1902, p. 174).
INDEX I.
PROPER NAMES.
Addison Africanus Alexander, Abp. Altdorfer Ambrose Antony of Padua Apollinarius Aquila Arnald Adrian Athanasius Athanasius, pseudo, Augustine,
Ball, C.J. Barclay, P. Bardenhewer Barnes, A. Barry, Bp. Bassus Bayer, F.P. Behrmann Bengel Bevan, Prof. Blackie, J.S. Blakesley, Dean Bleek Blunt, J.H. Blunt, J.J. Boys, Dean Breshith Rabba Brightman, Canon Brown, Sir Thos. Brüll Bugati Buhl Bullock, W.T. Bunsen Burbidge Burgon, Dean Bury St. Edmunds
Cæsarius of Aries Calvin Cambridge, Trinity College Chapel Cappellus, Ludovione Carr Carracci Castillo, de Ceriani Chaplin, Child Charles Chigi, Cardinal Chrysostom Churton Clement of Alexandria Cloquet Cockerell Congreve Cope, L.C. Cornelius à Lapide Cornely Cornish, H.P. Correggio Coypel Curteis, G.H. Curtis, E.L. Curtius, Quintus Cyprian Cyprian, pseudo- Cyril of Alexandria Cyril of Jerusalem
Damasus I. Daniel, E. Davidson Deane, H. Deane, W. Deissmann Delitzsch (elder) Denys, the Carthusian Dereser Didron Donaldson Driver, Dr. Duehesne Dyck, van
Ebed Jesu Edersheim Eichhorn Ephrem Syrus Epiphanius Epiphanius, pseudo- Etheridge Eusebius Ewald
Farrar, Dean Faussett Feltoe, Dr. Florence, Council of Forbes, Bp. Frank, Archd. Freeman, Archd. Fritzsche Fuller, J.M. Fürst, J.
Garrucci Gaster Gerard Gesenius Givargese, F. Goodall, F. Gorionides Gratian Gray, Bp. Gregory of Nazianzus Gregory of Nyssa Grenfell Grotius Guercino Günkel Gwillim Gwynne, Prof.
Hauck Hebræus, Bar Henderson Heppner, A. Herodotus Hesychius Hieronymus Graecus Hilary of Poitiers Hippolytus Holmes Hooker Home, T.H. Hotham Humphry, W. Hunt
Irenæus Isaacson, S. Isidore Hispalensis
Jacobus Edessenus Jahn,G. Jahn, J. Jamieson Jansen, Cornelius Jennings Jephet ibn Ali Jerahmeel Jerome Jocelin of Brakelond Johnson, S. Josephus Josippon Julian, Dr. Justin Martyr
Kamphausen Karlstadt Kautzsch Keil Keilah Kells Kennedy, J. Kirkpatrick, Prof.
Lagarde Liddon Lightfoot, Bp. Littledale Loisy Lowrie, W. Lucar, Cyril Lucretia Luther Lyra, Nich. de
Maccabaeus, Simon Mamertus, Claudianus Margoliouth, D.S. Marshall Marti Martin, D. Martini Mary, Passing of Maskell Mattathias Maurer Melito Merrick Methodius Meyer Milton Moone Abbey Moses Haddarshan Movers Mozley M'Swiney M'Whirter Muis, de Munk, S.
Nachman, Rabba bar Nachmanides Nectarius Nestle Neubauer Nicephorus, of Constantinople. Nobilius, Flaminius
Orelli Origen
Parker, M. Parsons Patrick, St. Pearson, Bp. Peronne Perowne, Bp. Philippe, E. Philo Pilate Polychronius Porphyry Procter, F. Prudentius Pusey
Quignon, Card.
Rembrandt Reuss Rose, H.P. Rosenmüller Rothstein Rubens Rufinus Ryle, Bp. H.E. Ryssel, Prof.
Sabatier Sachs, Hans Salmon, Prof. Sanday, Prof. Santerre Sayce Scholz, A. Schrader Schürer Scrivener Sedulius Selden Selwyn, Prof. Severus, Sulpicius Shann, G.V. Shetach, Simon ben Shushan Sidon Smith, Prof. Smith, Prof. Robertson Sozomen Spenser Stähelin, O. Stephens, A.J. Stephens, Dean Stokes, M. Strabo Streane, Dr. Susanna, St. Swete, Prof. Syncellus
Tertullian Thackeray Theodoret Theodotion Thomas of Harkel Tintoretto Toledo, 4th Council of Toy, C.H. Trapp Trent, Council of Trommius
Valentin Van Ess Vatican, Council of Verecundus Veronese, P.
Waldo, P. Warren, Canon F.E. Walton, Bp. B. Wesley, J. Westcott, Bp. Wheatley Wilson, Bp. Wilton, R. Wintle, J. Wordsworth, Bp. Chas. Wordsworth, Bp. Chris. Wyon, W.G.
Xerxes
Yonge, Miss
Zimmer Zöckler
INDEX II.
SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
GENESIS.
i. 1 ii. 2, 3 vii. 14 x. 15 xxi. 17 xxii. 18 xxiii. 3, 4, 8 xxiv. 65 xxvi. 4 xxxi. 5 xxxiv. 29 xxxvii. xxxvii. 24
EXODUS.
ii. 2 iv. 3 vii. 9 ix. 16
LEVITICUS
ii. 9, 11 xviii. xx. 10 xxiii. 7 xxvi. 21
NUMBERS.
xi. 15 xi. 16
DEUTERONOMY.
v. 21 x. 17 xviii. 20 xxii. xxii. 22 xxv. xxviii. 49, 50 xxxii. 4 xxxii. 23
JOSHUA.
xxii. 19
I. SAMUEL
xxiii. 1
II. SAMUEL.
xxiv. 14
I. KINGS.
iii. x. 8 xv. 19 xvi. 28 xviii. 12 xviii. 27 xviii. 32 xx. 7 xxi. 8, 11
II. KINGS.
xiii. 5 xxiv. 8, 12 xxv. 28 xxv. 27
I. CHORNICLES.
ii. 31, 34, 35 xxi. 13
II. CHRONICLES.
iv. 5 xii. 12 xx. 12 xxxv. 3 xxxv. 15 xxxvi. 8, 9
EZRA.
iv. 12 iv. 15 viii. 2
NEHEMIAH.
ix. 33
ESTHER.
ii. 3 ii. 9 ii. 12 vii. 8
JOB.
i. 1 i. 8 ii. 3 xxxiii. 10 xlii. 17
PSALMS.
xv. 11 xvi. 2 xxiii. xxv. 14 xxviii. 7 xxxiv. 19 xlix. 1 xlix. 18 lvii. 3, 4 lx. 3 lxxiv. 9 lxxx. 1 xcix. 1 civ. 4 cv. 46 cxxxvi. cxxxvi. 2 cxlviii.
PROVERBS.
xxiv. 22 xxvi. 27
SOLOMON'S SONG.
ii. 1, 2 iv. 12
ISAIAH.
v. 2 v. 7 v. 10 xvii. 1 xliii. 2 xliii 4 xlv. 1
JEREMIAH.
x. 15 xi. 10 xiv. 21 xix. 1 xxii. 24 xxv. 12 xxvi. 17 xxxviii. 1-4 xxix. 5 xxix. 21 xxix. 23 xxix. 22 xxix. 23 xlii. 11 xliv. 8 l. 2 li. 34 li. 44
EZEKIEL.
iii. 12, 14 viii. 3 xvi. 3 xvi. 38 xxxviii. 6
DANIEL.
i. 1 i. 3 i. 15 i. 17 i. 20 ii. 5 ii. 9 ii. 28, 29 ii. 31 ii. 32, 33 ii. 45 ii. 47 iii. 1 iii. 14 iii. 16-18 iii. 21 iii. 22 iii. 23 iii. 24 iii. 28-30 iv. 6 iv. 8 iv. 14 iv. 25 iv. 27 iv. 36 v. 3 v. 23 v. 25-28 v. 31 vi. 17 vi. 20 vi. 21, 22 vi. 25-28 vi. 26 vi. 28 vii. 9 vii. 11 viii. 10 ix. 2 ix. 4 ix. 5 ix. 13 ix. 14 ix. 15 ix. 17 ix. 18 x. 1 x. 1 xi. 36 xii. 3 xii. 14 xiii. 1
HOSEA.
iii. 4 iv. 15 iv. 16 v. 13 xii. 6 xiv. 5
JONAH.
ii. 2
MICAH.
ii. 2
HABAKKUK.
i. 1 i. 4 i. 6 ii. 18
ZEPHANIAH.
i. 11
I. ESDRAS.
i. 37 i. 43 iv. 52 iv. 62 v. 58
II. ESDRAS.
iii. 2
JUDITH.
iv. 6 xx. 8
TOBIT.
iii. 2 viii. 5 x. 10 xii. 6 xiii. 10
ESTHER.
xiv. 6, 7
ECCLESIASTICUS.
xvi. 13 xliii. 4, 22 xliv.
BARUCH.
i. 3 ii. 9
SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN.
(Greek verse numbers.)
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 44 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 56 57 59 63 64 65 67 68 77 84 86 87 88 89 90 91
SUSANNA.
1-5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 13 14 15 17 19 20 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 39 41 42 43 44 45 46 48 50 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 61 62 63 64
BEL AND THE DRAGON.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
I. MACCABEES.
ii. 17 ii. 59 xv. 6
II. MACCABEES.
ix. 17
III. MACCABEES.
vi. 6
ST. MATTHEW.
i. 11, 12 iv. 1 v. 28 xi. 21 xi. 29 xii. 18 xiii. 42, 50 xxiv. 51 xxvii. 24 xxvii. 26
ST. LUKE.
i. 38 ii. 29 ii. 42 ii. 52 viii. 3 xxi. 24
ST. JOHN.
x. 9 xi. 1 xviii. 18 xviii. 35 xix. 16
ACTS.
ii. 10 ii. 23 iv. 24 vi. 9 viii. 39 ix. 1 xiii. 13 xvii. 17 xvii. 23 xxii. 4 xxiv. 6
ROMANS.
i. 23
II. CORINTHIANS.
i. 10
EPHESIANS.
ii. 12
II TIMOTHY.
i. 18
HEBREWS.
i. 7 ix. 5 x. 34 xi. 23 xi. 34 xii. 23
REVELATION.
ix. 20 xii. 7, 8 xii. 9 xiii. 4 xiii. 14 xxi. 13
FOOTNOTES:
[1] He refers to Theiner, Acta ... concil. Trident, i. 77.
[2] So Raymund Martini, at the end of his Pugio fidei; but his quotation has been doubted. See B. and D. 'Chronology,' p. 229.
[3] The Vatican Council confirmed the Tridentine decree on Scripture (Const. "Dei Filius" II., Loisy, p. 239).
[4] "The first and most gifted of creatures" (M'Swiney, Psalms and Canticles, 1901, p. 644).
[5] Perhaps in default of better explanation the "earth" verse may have been put into the third person in order to mark the transition from things celestial to those terrestrial.
[6] This may refer to the titles he gives from "the Vatican LXX"; but see above, p. 18, as to the absence of these.
[7] Psalms, Lond. 1871, II. 462.
[8] Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archæol. 1895, p. 81.
[9] Rational ittuitrat. of P.B.
[10] But J.T. Marshall (Hastings' D.B. IV. 755), "The hymn is modelled after Ps. 136, and has equal claim to be considered poetical."
[11] He appears, on p. 303, to date Daniel between 160 and 170 B.C.
[12] This particularly is unsuggestive of Egypt.
[13] Commentary on Canticles in Divine Service, Lond. 1853, p. 81.
[14] Swete, Introd. to Greek O.T., p. 43.
[15] Op. cit., pp. 48, 396, 403.
[16] Cf. Ewald in 'Date,' p. 29.
[17] 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.
[18] G. 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).
[19] 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 150ft. out."
[20] Dr. Julian (Diet. Hymnol. p. 134) has the following strange sentence as to Benedicite, " It is not in the Hebrew version (sic) of the Scriptures, and on this ground, among others, it is omitted from A.V."
[21] G. Jahn in loc. thinks this fact an indication of a later hand, as shewing that they severed themselves in the furnace from contact with heathenism, and were giving themselves to intercourse with Jahwe alone. But surely an interpolator must have been aware that this was their attitude from the outset.
[22] Proc. Sac. Bibl. Archæol. 1895, p. 80.
[23] In the Hebrew of this verse the parallel is less striking.
[24] , v. 23 (46), attendants probably holding some official position superior to that of slaves. Cf. St. John xviii. 18.
[25] Cf. Ps. lxxiv. 9.
[26] See also H.J. Rose's Paper On the Heb. coins called shekels, Beds. Architect. Soc. Rep. I., p. 367, 1851.
[27] 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.
[28] Its use declined in the 18th century as is shewn by P. Barclay (Letter to People of Scotland on Comm. Pr., Lond. 1713, p. 36), who says, "Benedicite is very good; but because it is seldom or never used, I don't insist upon it." P. Waldo (Commentary on Liturgy, 1775, p. 98), also deplores its disuse. And even in the 19th century C. Chaplin (Benedicite, 1879, p. 11) says, "In a few churches it seems to be banished from the service altogether."
[29] It is stated in Dr. Swete's Introd. (1902, p. 260) that Susanna is excluded from the visions, Dan. i. 1 commencing the first of them. But this is not borne out by the 'apparatus criticus' to his Greek text, where i. 1 in A and Q begins ', and ' is the subscription of Susanna in A.
[30] The name is used of an actual woman in St. Luke viii. 3.
[31] Kothstein (Kautzsch i., 176) gives the first quarter of the last century B.C. as the latest possible date for the LXX version of Daniel. Exceedingly little time therefore would be allowed, on Ball's theory, for the original publication, the translation, and the incorporation into the Alexandrian canon, of this Susanna-book.
[32] If not, as Bissell in his note elegantly puts it, "it would be a bungling lapsus pennæ."
[33] This may be merely an echo of Reuss, who reckons Susanna "in die Reihe der moralischen Märchen" (O.T. 1894, VII. 159).
[34] See J.M. Fuller in S.P.C.K. Comm. Introd. to Sus.
[35] These names, however, do not agree with the Jewish identification of them, as the Ahab and Zedekiah of Jer. xxix. 21, which Origen reports in his Ep. ad Afric. (Speaker's Comm. 325b).
[36] So in N.T., St. Mark v. 19.
[37] Adv. Christ., Bk. XII.
[38] For similar instances of word-play see accounts of Melito's pseudo-Clavis, D.C.B. iii. 897b, and Muratorian Fragment, line 67.
[39] Jerome in his Prol. gal. shews how it might be done in Latin; and in the Vulgate some attempt is made to reproduce it in vv. 54, 55 ('schinus, scindit'). Luther tried after rhymes in German, 'Linden,' 'finden,' 'Eiche,' 'zeichnen.' In the French version of Martin no play is attempted; but in the Arabic, according to Delitzsch (op. cit. 102), an easy one is produced.
[40] for would yield good sense, but evidence for such a reading is absent.
[41] "And that which all faire workes doth most aggrace, The art which all that wrought appeared in no place."
SPENSER, Faery Queene, II. XII. 58.
[42] I. Macc., Fairweather and Black, Camb. 1897, p. 14; Streane, Age of Macc., Lond. 1898, pp. 247, 248.
[43] Curiously enough the canonical Daniel has not escaped this accusation, for G. Jahn (Leips. 1904, p. 64) says of vi. 28, "Der König wie ein jüdischen Rabbiner predigt."
[44] Right use of Early Fathers, Lond., 1857, p. 649.
[45] See Wordsworth, Gk. Test., note in loc.
[46] Quintus Curtius (v. 1) gives a terrible account, in connection with Alexander's capture of this city, of Babylonian debauchery, which must have been of long standing when it had attained the pitch he indicates.
[47] "Soap making is the chief industry of modern Palestine" (Hastings' D.B. art. Soap).
[48]
[49] In Hastings' D.B. art. Jehoiachin, it is stated that he does; but Hippolytus' Comm. in Migne, Patr. gr. x. 689, does not shew this. It is apparently based on a quotation from Hippolytus by Georgius Syncellus, given among the critical notes of Bonwetsch's ed. of Hipp. p. 10 (Lips. 1897).
[50] But see G. Jahn, in loc., and art. Jehoiakim in Hastings' D.B. as to making the date in Dan. i. 1 a little later.
[51] Scrivener, Introd. to A.V. § vii., and Sayce, Tobit, 1903, p. xvi.
[52] Speaker's Comm., end of Introd. to Sus.
[53] See Jerome's Pref. to Daniel, end.
[54] Warren, Ante-Nicene Liturgy, 1897, p. 188.
[55] But may refer to them.
[56] There is a very quaint note in Gwillim's Heraldry (1611, p. 109) as to a mulberry figured on a shield, "This fruit hath a purple blushing colour, in the one resembling the judges' attire who attempted Susanna, in the other that hue of their face which should have been in them, if they had been so gracious to blush at their fault," etc.
[57] There are similar instances in chaps. iii. and vi. of the canonical Daniel. See also the Notes on Scripture, in loco, of Bishop Wilson, of Sodor and Man, who tells what comfort he derived from hearing Susanna read in the daily service when himself falsely accused.
[58] Thackeray's mention of Susanna in Tht Newcomes, chap, lvi., seems pointless, though that in chap. xix. is suitable enough. Steele has an absurd reference in the Spectator, No. 14, to the "opera of Susanna, or Innocence Betrayed, which will be exhibited next week, with a pair of new Elders."
[59] St. Antony of Padua curiously gives vv.. 52, 56, as an example of the "Zeal of prelates" (Moral Concordance, Neale's edit., n.d., p. 105).
[60] In each case it is not clear from the text that the 'worship' consisted in anything else than supplying food.
[61] The title is also used in Q in some of Isaiah's visions, e.g. xvii. 1.
[62] See under Theodoret in 'Early Christian Literature,' and 'Chronology,' p. 224.
[63] This 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.
[64] 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, 1859, p. 115) 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.
[65] Daniel, Oxf. 1792, p. 40.
[66] Chambers's Encyclop., 1888, art. Bel.
[67] There is clearly a slip in v. 35 of for , and probably in v. 11 of for , indicating some mistakes on the scribe's part, or errors in his copy.
[68] The same writer, on p. 224, spells with a final .
[69] It is even given in L.C. Cope's English Composition (Lond., 1900), as an example of the four essentials of composition, viz. invention, selection, disposition, diction. He also speaks (p. 29) of the "superb workmanship in framing the narrative."
[70] Bar Hebræus (op. cit., p. 27), gives this as a reason why some would not receive Bel and the Dragon.
[71] Not in .
[72] See note to 'For Whom and with What Object' p. 196.
[73] Compare the Aramaic of the passage, given under 'Chronology,' p. 229.
[74] On the propriety of such a sentence, accordant with Babylonian ideas of justice, see Mozley, Ruling O.T. Ideas, 1878, pp. 88, 95, 99.
[75] "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 1. 2, li. 44 of that prophet.
[76] Ezekiel is transported in the opposite direction, and bothcprophets went unwillingly (Trapp). Both, too, were concerned in suppression of idolatry.
[77] 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.
[78] 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).
[79] The phrase applied to the Additions in the Introd. to Daniel in the Speaker's Comm. (p. 216a), if we take to mean 'poet,' would fall in with this view. J.M. Fuller does not make quite clear his source for this phrase.
[80] Sozomen, H.E. vii. 29, says that Habakkuk's tomb was found at Keilah, , ... (sic) . Now Keilah is mentioned in I Sam. xxiii. 1 as having threshing-floors worth robbing, and so presumably lay in a corn-growing district.
[81] Delitzech thought it likely, though not certain, that the mentioned by Josephus (Ant. x. 11. 7) as left by Daniel refer to the Additions as portions of the canonical hook (De Hab. vita, etc., Lips. 1842, p. 25).
[82] Cf. Revue biblique internationale (Dominican) Paris, Jan. 1901, p. 149, "L'église romaine s'est prononcée dès ce moment, et si elle ne pas dès lors imposé sa solution comme définitive et irréformable, elle ne s'en est du moins jamais écartée 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-oanonical in the Roman Church."
[83] So spelt in Migne in this instance, though elsewhere with final . A misprint may he suspected.
[84] 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).
[85] So Butler in his Hudibras of the Presbyterian Assembly of Divines:
"Bell (sic) and the Dragon's chaplains were More moderate than those by far."—(I. III. 1181).
[86] J.H. Blunt (Comm. on v. 27) makes an unaccountable mistake in supposing that the balls were put into the statue of Bel, not eaten by the Dragon. "The composition would not of itself burst the hollow statue either by chymical explosion or mechanical expansion." Almost as ridiculous is the abusive phrase "Offspring of Bel and the Dragon," which Congreve puts into the mouth of Fondlewife in his play of The Old Bachelor, Act IV. sc. 4.
THE END |
|
