by
Damien F. Mackey
Was Daniel twice in the den of lions? Once under
“Darius the Mede” and once under Cyrus?
No, not if - as according to what we have argued
elsewhere - Darius was King Cyrus.
Toledôt Assistance
Sometimes the sacred Scriptures
present us with two or more versions of the same incident, but written by
different authors and hence from a different perspective. Because of seeming
contradictions between (or amongst) these texts, arising as they do from
different sources, critics can pounce on these as examples of biblical
contradiction and error.
One such situation that I looked
at were the two very similar - though in some ways quite different - accounts
of Abram’s wife, Sarai, and Abraham’s wife, Sarah, being abducted by “Pharaoh”
(in the case of Sarai), and by “Abimelech” (in the case of Sarah):
'Toledoth' Explains Abram's Pharaoh
These tales I concluded, with the
benefit of P. J. Wiseman’s illuminating toledôt
theory, were recording the one and same incident:
From the now well-known theory of toledôt (or Toledoth, a
Hebrew feminine plural), we might be surprised to learn that so great a
Patriarch as Abram (later Abraham), did not sign off the record of his own
history (as did e.g. Adam, Noah, and Jacob). No, Abram’s story was recorded
instead by his two chief sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
“These are the generations of Ishmael ...” (Genesis 25:12).
“These are the generations of
Isaac ...” (Genesis
25:19).
So, there were two hands at work in this particular
narrative, and this fact explains the otherwise strange repetition of several
famous incidents recorded in the narrative. And it is in the
second telling of the incident of the
abduction of Abram’s wife, Sarai (later Sarah), that we get the name of
the ruler who, in the first telling of it is called simply
“Pharaoh”. He is “Abimelech” (20:2).
[End of quote]
Whilst the Egyptianised Ishmael
(or his family) was recounting the story from the perspective of Egypt; Isaac (or his kin) gave the story
from a Palestinian perspective.
Archaeologically we have learned
that Egypt had, at this time, most appropriately, flowed over into southern Canaan.
And so with Daniel and the two accounts of his ordeal in the den of
lions (Daniel 6 and Bel and the Dragon),
it now follows that - given our identification of “Darius the Mede” with Cyrus
- that only the one incident is being referred to, but presumably related by
different authors. Hence, as with the case of the abduction of Sarah, it can
read as if referring to two separate incidents. This, whilst being possible, is
highly unlikely given Daniel’s advanced age at this time.
Let us consider the points of
comparison:
The scene is Babylon (4:30; Bel v. 3).
In both cases, Daniel is on very good terms with a Medo-Persian
king (6:3; Bel v. 2).
The people conspire against Daniel (and the king) on
religious grounds (6:4-5; Bel vv.
28-29).
The king, under extreme pressure was distressed (6:14; Bel v. 30).
The fate was a den of lions (6:7, 16; Bel v. 31).
The king comes to the den to see what fate has befallen
Daniel (6:19; Bel v. 40).
Daniel has been miraculously delivered (6:21; Bel v. 40).
The king rejoices, praises Daniel’s God (6:23; Bel v. 41).
Daniel is lifted out of the den (6:23; Bel v. 42).
His accusers are thrown into the den and are instantly
devoured (6:24; Bel v. 42).
Perhaps the biggest apparent difference between the two narrations is the
length of time that Daniel was in the den. Bel
v. 31 is explicit. It was six days: “Who cast him into the lions’ den: where he
was six days”. Daniel 6:19, on the other hand, gives: “At the
first light of dawn, the king got up and hurried to the lions’ den”.
However,
that does not mean that Daniel was lifted out from the den that next day.
Daniel
6 may be telescoping events here.
Also,
the motive given in Bel and the Dragon for
the Babylonians wanting Daniel slain - and even threatening the king - was
because Daniel, the friend of the king, had destroyed the Dragon that they
worshipped (vv. 28-29):
When
they of Babylon heard that, they took great indignation, and conspired against
the king, saying, ‘The king is become a Jew, and he hath destroyed Bel, he hath
slain the dragon, and put the priests to death’. So they came to the king, and
said, ‘Deliver us Daniel, or else we will destroy thee and thine house’.
In
Daniel 6:3-4, however, the motive is jealousy of Daniel who is favoured by the
king.
Now
Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his
exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. At
this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges
against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do
so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and
neither corrupt nor negligent.
These
two motives, however, may not be incompatible.
Over
a period of time, which may again be telescoped here, the Babylonians could
have become incensed with Daniel both because of his being favoured by the king
and because of the involvement of Daniel, in the company of the king, in the
destruction of the very idols that these superstitious people held to be most worshipful.
Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue
Daniel 14:33-39
The prophet
Habakkuk was in Judea. He mixed some bread in a bowl with the stew he had
boiled, and was going to bring it to the reapers in the field, when an angel of
the Lord told him, “Take the meal you have to Daniel in the lions’ den at
Babylon.” But Habakkuk answered, “Sir, I have never seen
Babylon, and I do not know the den!” The angel of the Lord seized
him by the crown of his head and carried him by the hair; with the speed of the wind, he set him down in Babylon
above the den. “Daniel, Daniel,” cried
Habakkuk, “take the meal God has sent you.” “You have remembered me, O
God,” said Daniel; “you have not forsaken those who love you.” So Daniel ate,
but the angel of God at once brought Habakkuk back to his own place.
If, as I have argued in Part One of this series:
the two accounts of Daniel in the den of lions (Daniel 6 and 14) are just
two versions - from different authors and perspectives - of the one incident,
then how could the prophet Habakkuk have served Daniel with a meal in the lions’
den if, as according to the parallel account of it in
Daniel 6, the Great King had actually sealed the den to prevent any such
sort of intervention (v. 17): “A stone was brought and placed over
the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet ring and with
the rings of his nobles, so that Daniel’s situation might not be changed”?
It was a situation somewhat analogous to that
of the tomb of Christ with the stone no longer an obstacle to access there.
My suggestion would be that, between the initial
visit of the king to the den (6:19): “At the first light
of dawn, the king got up and hurried to the lions’ den”, and the last one days
later, when he had Daniel released (14:39-40): “And upon the seventh day the
king came to bewail Daniel: and he came to the den, and looked in, and behold
Daniel was sitting in the midst of the lions. And the king cried out
with a loud voice, saying: ‘Great art thou, O Lord the God of Daniel’. And he
drew him out of the lions' den”, the stone had been removed.
This could have been done either at the
order of the king himself, in order to see and communicate with Daniel, or - to
carry further the Resurrection analogy (cf. Matthew 28:2) - by the angel who
had hair-raisingly transported Habakkuk to the den in Babylon.
No comments:
Post a Comment