" So J.M. Fuller, in the S.P.C.K. _Comm._, says
that "in Babylonian inscriptions dealing with the fall, a dragon,
generally female, appears." Daniel plans his scheme in accordance with
the dragon's known voracity (Jer. li. 34). The ?????????µ???????·???±?? ?„????? ?????¬???????„?±
of Rev. xiii. 4 may have been suggested by the dragon-worship here;
?????????????„?? is used in v. 23, ???????????????·?????? (with dat.) in v. 24 (both
versions).
Daniel set himself, in reply to the king, who suggested to him the
propriety of Bel-worship, to detach the Babylonians from these
superstitious follies, to interpret God's will in the matter, and to
free them from the service of idols. Yet his own name, 'Belteshazzar,'
may have implied[72] Bel's existence; still, even if it was so, we must
remember that it was not self-assumed, but given by the chief eunuch.
The king's question shews that he misunderstood Daniel's character. It
is noticeable, as a link of connection between the two parts of the
story, that Daniel attacks the former superstition, Bel, by disproving
the belief in the god's powers of eating; and the latter, the Dragon,
by destroying the supposed divinity by means of what he ate.
Pages:
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240