Chapter IX: Part IV: The History of Bel and the Dragon (2)

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' (ἔλαβε) 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 Θ, according to the manuscript Q, has not ἱερόν but ναόν 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 בדניאל. It proceeds with v. 28 to the end: לכא לביל תבד ולתנינא קטל ואתהפכו צליו ואמרין חד לחד יהודאה הוא ליה ואיתכנשו בבלאי צל מלכא. 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 ὅραις 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, Θ. With John xviii. 35 compare Bel 38, Ο´ and Θ, as to a Gentile being taken for a Jew. Moreover the phrase τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν in Acts xvii. 23 is very like a reminiscence of Bel 27, Θ, end. But A. Scholz's idea that our Lord's words in John x. 9 are based on vv. 3, 6, 13 has little likelihood: "gegensätzlich so nahe verwandt, dass in den Evangelium darauf Bezug genommen sein könnte" (note on v. 13).

IRENÆUS (†200) in IV. ix. 1 quotes vv. 4, 5, 24, as coming from Daniel, apparently without the smallest misgiving. His quotations accord with Θ as against Ο´, v. 4 being the same in both. As Schürer says in Hauck's _Encyclopædia_ (I. 640): "Irenäus benuzt die Uebersetzung des Theodotion und so alle Folgenden." But see under _Cyprian_.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (†220) refers, _Strom._ I. 21 (middle, ed. Potter, Oxf. 1715), among a chain of historic events, to the closing scene in this piece: τότε διὰ δράκντα Δανιὴλ εἰς λάκκον λεόντων βληθεὶς, ὑπὸ Ἀμβακοὺβ[83] προνοίᾳ θεῦ τραφεὶς, ἑβδομαῖος ἀνασώζεται.

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

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

CYPRIAN (†258) in _ad Fortunatum_, 11, quotes v. 5, apparently following a translation of the Ο´, and not of Θ'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 Θ'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 Ο´ a little more closely than Θ.

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, ἀερίην δ᾽ ἐνὶ χρσὶν ἐδέξατο δαῖτα προφήτου.

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, Πετὶ τῶν οπικῶν ὀνομάτων. (_D.C.B._ II. 336a).

HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM (†438), in his Στιχηρόν on the XII prophets, says of Habakkuk that, whether he was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried to Babylon, εἰπεῖν τὸ σαφὲς οὐκ ἔχω.

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 τὸν ζῶντα Θεόν, while Cyrus only claims for Bel to be ζῶν Θεός (vv. 5, 6, Θ), as noticed under 'Theology.'

(c) _Wisdom_, 'of the serpent,' in his plan for detecting fraud, and in his skill and versatility in choosing suitable means for unveiling each kind of imposture; of which another striking instance occurs in Susanna. He was a man of right understanding, clear insight, and practical sagacity, as shewn by his methods of dealing with opposing forces, moral or physical. As a man of great resource he rapidly adapts himself to fresh conditions.

(d) _Endurance_ of persecution for righteousness' sake. One trial overcome, a yet greater presents itself; but with unflinching constancy he faces it and passes unharmed, Ps. lvii. 3, 4.

(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] ὑπηρέται, 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 ὃρασις β', and ὅρασις α' 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] Μιαρά for μικρά 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] καὶ ἰδοδ ἄγγελος

[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 Δανιὴλ ψευδεπίγραφα 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 ὅρασις 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 Δανιήλ for Ἀμβακούμ, and probably in v. 11 of δακτύλῳ for δακυλίῳ, indicating some mistakes on the scribe's part, or errors in his copy.

[68] The same writer, on p. 224, spells מאח with a final ם.

[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 Ο´.

[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), דברי פיוטין if we take פיוט 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, κελὰ, ἡ πρὶν κείλα... καθ᾽ ἡν ὁ Ἀβακοὺμ (_sic_) εὑρέθη. 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 βιβλία 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 μ. 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.