And Josippon, quoted by Heppner, _op. cit._ p. 33,
gives a similar account of the Dragon's destruction,
?•?”?—???•?¦?™?? ?§??? ?™ ?”?‘???–??.
The consequence of the prophet's triumph in each case appears to have
been that the king was convinced of the vanity of idols much more than
his people. And as Daniel's demonstrations were not, so far as we see,
made before the general public, this is what might have been expected. A
similar conviction on Nebuchadnezzar's part, without any spontaneous
assent of his people, may be noticed in Dan. iii. 28--30, vi. 25--28. A
lack of popular adhesion to the king's change of mind would sufficiently
account for the early restoration of Bel's temple (_see_ 'Chronology,'
p. 225).
In v. 21 the LXX states that it was Daniel who shewed the king the privy
doors. This, on the whole, has more _vraisemblance_ than the idea of
Theodotion, who states that it was the priests who undertook the task.
Ball suggests that they did so because they were "in fear of their
lives"; but if so, this plan of saving them, by making a clean breast of
the matter, was unsuccessful.
Pages:
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242