The Three Additions to Daniel, a Study Part 18

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, Ambac.u.m, without distinction from the rest of the names in Daniel.

But for this last work he was chiefly indebted to Eusebius, ?et? t??

?p???? ????t??. (_D.C.B._ II. 336a).

HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM (438), in his St?????? on the XII prophets, says of Habakkuk that, whether he was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried to Babylon, e?pe?? t? saf?? ??? ???.

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 ill.u.s.tration, viz., Daniel destroying the dragon, and Daniel and Habakkuk in the lions' den.

Daniel destroying the Dragon is a subject represented on gla.s.s from the catacombs (_D.C.A._ art. _Gla.s.s_, p. 733a). Garrucci (_Vetri_, XIII.

13) has a gla.s.s 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 Archaeology_ (Lond. and New York, 1901, p. 363) is a woodcut of a fragment of gold gla.s.s, with Daniel slaying the Dragon. This is correctly described on p. 209, but is wrongly ent.i.tled 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 gla.s.s, again with an erroneous description on p.

xxi. as "Daniel and Bel." No dates are suggested for the above pieces of gla.s.s, 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 c.o.c.kerell, the architect, as that of the "Angel of Daniel," with a monster under his feet, deemed to be "the old Dragon " (Archaeol.

Inst.i.tute'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 Archaeology_, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d moreover delivers him, but their G.o.ds 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 G.o.d who was estimated by the amount of provisions he consumed, and the G.o.d 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 G.o.d together. Observe how he claims for G.o.d to be t?? ???ta Te??, while Cyrus only claims for Bel to be ??? Te?? (vv. 5, 6, T), 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 pa.s.ses unharmed, Ps. lvii. 3, 4.

(e) _Perseverance_, in not resting upon his laurels, won over Bel, but proceeding against the Dragon. His prompt.i.tude 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) _Grat.i.tude._ On receiving Habakkuk's visit he at once acknowledges G.o.d'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 a.s.sociation 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 G.o.d in clearing away two great obstacles to his worship. His aims are realised without any trace of self-aggrandis.e.m.e.nt; for those aims are directed to his Maker's rather than to his own glory.

(i) _Pleasure in G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 compa.s.s about the righteous, etc." So in the hymn "Warum betrubst du dich mein Herz?"

doubtfully attributed to Hans Sachs, we find the seventh stanza bearing upon this matter:

Des Daniels Gott ihm nicht rerga.s.s, Da er unter den Lowen sa.s.s: Sein Engel sandt er hin, Und liess ihm Speise bringen gut, Durch seiner Diener Habakkuk.

Habakkuk's obedience served G.o.d'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 G.o.d was to be his G.o.d. 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 princ.i.p.ally 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).