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 a.s.serted 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" (??ae) a golden statue, and slew the protesting priest; Strabo, on hearsay, (XVI. 1) and Arrian (_Exp. Alex._ VII. 17), however, a.s.sert 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 G.o.d. It is noticeable that the LXX has no mention of the temple"s, but only of the idol"s, destruction; and that T, according to the ma.n.u.script Q, has not ?e??? but ?a?? in v. 22.
A. Scholz entertains the strange opinion that this and other historic difficulties were purposely introduced by the writer: "Der Verfa.s.ser unserer Erzahlung kennt sichtlich die Verhaltnisse in Babylon, und hat seine Darstellung so eingerichtet, da.s.s es einfach unmoglich 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 a.s.signed 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 iudaicae traditioni de Habacuci aetate 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.B._ 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 (_a.n.a.lecta_, 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. Rosenmuller, 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 pa.s.sage from the B.R. on Gen. x.x.xvii. 24.
This pa.s.sage 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 Bres.h.i.th Rabbah quoted with the Midrash Rabbah de Rabbah. The real Bres.h.i.th is probably as early as the 4th century; but neither in the Venice edition of 1566, nor the Leipzig one of 1864, is the pa.s.sage to be found under Gen. x.x.xvii. _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 Bres.h.i.th 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 aetate_, Lips.
1842, p. 34) also defends Martini"s sincerity, and says "Non dubito fore, ut fragmentum a Raymundo n.o.bisc.u.m 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 ??a??
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 t.i.tle 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._ x.x.xV.; 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, Princ.i.p.al of Mar Dionysius Seminary, Kottayam).
Bar-Hebraeus, 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) cla.s.ses 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" (_x.x.xIX 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 a.s.sumes for controversial purposes that the two pa.s.sages 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 cla.s.s of writers as _certain_, in the hope of depreciating the latter. These are sometimes attacked with extreme violence as full of fables, superst.i.tions, 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 a.s.sertions, 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 cla.s.s, 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, T. With John xviii. 35 compare Bel 38, ?? and T, as to a Gentile being taken for a Jew. Moreover the phrase t? se?sata ???
in Acts xvii. 23 is very like a reminiscence of Bel 27, T, 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: "gegensatzlich so nahe verwandt, da.s.s in den Evangelium darauf Bezug genommen sein konnte" (note on v. 13).
IRENaeUS (200) in IV. ix. 1 quotes vv. 4, 5, 24, as coming from Daniel, apparently without the smallest misgiving. His quotations accord with T as against ??, v. 4 being the same in both. As Schurer says in Hauck"s _Encyclopaedia_ (I. 640): "Irenaus 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: t?te d?? d????ta ?a???? e?? ?????? ?e??t?? ???e??, ?p?
?a???[83] p?????? ?e? t?afe??, ?d?a??? ??as??eta?.
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 Africa.n.u.s, 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 T"s, text. The same verse is again quoted by him in _Ep._ lviii. 5 in exactly the same words. It is curious that both pa.s.sages are preceded, in the same sections, by a quotation of Dan. iii. 16--18, apparently based on T"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 T.
Pa.s.sING 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, "c.u.m Daniel jejunavit."
GREGORY n.a.z.iANZEN (390) in his poetical _Praecepta ad Virgines_ has the line, speaking of Daniel, ?e???? d? ??? ??s?? ?d??at? da?ta p??f?t??.
AMBROSE (397), in his Commentary in _Ep. ad Rom. I. 23_, writes, "Coluerunt et serpentem draconem quem occidit Daniel, h.o.m.o 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.