There is nothing
superfluous to the aim of the story.[69]
Moreover, the narrative is told in such a way as ever to be a story of
captivating interest to the young, being full of movement and
interesting incident. The style of the composition is much more in
accordance with Syrian than with Alexandrian models. There is nothing of
Hellenistic speculation or philosophy, though the subject of idolatry
would have lent itself to such treatment (as that of injustice would in
Susanna). No figurative or hyperbolic phraseology is employed.
An idea has been revived and maintained that the lions' den episode at
the end is a mere adaptation and embellishment of that in Dan. vi.[70]
(Churton, 392; Streane, 109, "distortions of O.T. narratives"; J.M.
Fuller, S.P.C.K. _Comm. in loc._). This idea is successfully opposed by
Arnald, who (on v. 31) gives three reasons against it, and by Bishop
Gray (_Introd. to O.T. in loc._). Delitzsch (p. 30) calls this section
of ??'s version "partem dignissimam." Attempts to prove the falsity of
this martyrdom, if such it may be called, by first assuming the identity
of these two events, treating the latter as an ornamental exaggeration
of the former, and then pointing out what are taken for irreconcileable
discrepancies, are beside the mark.
Pages:
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237