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' (??”?»?±???µ) 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 ??, according to the manuscript Q, has not ??±?µ?????? but ???±???? in v. 22.
A. Scholz entertains the strange opinion that this and other historic
difficulties were purposely introduced by the writer: "Der Verfasser
unserer Erz?¤hlung kennt sichtlich die Verh?¤ltnisse in Babylon, und hat
seine Darstellung so eingerichtet, dass es einfach unm?¶glich ist, sie
geschichtlich zu verstehen" (p.
Pages:
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253