P.C.K. _Comm._,
'Introd. to Hab.'), who writes: "The absurd legends with which the
Rabbis and the author of Bel and the Dragon amused themselves are not
worthy of serious attention." And Keil also, in his _Commentary on the
Minor Prophets_, while accepting the superscription of Cod. Chis. as
supporting Habakkuk's Levitic origin, regards the rest of the legend as
"quite worthless" (Clark's translation, pp. 49, 50). So, too, W.J. Deane
(_Pulpit Bible_, 1898, 'Hab.' p. 111) says, "The whole account is
plainly unhistorical, and its connection with the canonical writer
cannot be maintained for a moment."
Supposing the story to be true, however, it may form an instance, both
at its outset and its close, of what is recorded in Dan. vi. 28, of
Daniel prospering in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. But, in the present
state of our knowledge, speculations lead to no positive result, for the
real author cannot be determined.
DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.
DATE.
The idea, which may be a true one, that this is the latest of these
three appendices, seems chiefly founded on its position at the end of
Daniel, and on its subject-matter, which contains indications of
belonging to the prophet's latter years.
Pages:
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213