Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 6:19-24
19 Then, at break of day, the king arose and went in haste to the den of lions. 20 As he came near to the den where Daniel was, he cried out in a tone of anguish. The king declared to Daniel, “O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?” 21 Then Daniel said to the king, “O king, live forever! 22 My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not harmed me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no harm.” 23 Then the king was exceedingly glad, and commanded that Daniel be taken up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God. 24 And the king commanded, and those men who had maliciously accused Daniel were brought and cast into the den of lions—they, their children, and their wives. And before they reached the bottom of the den, the lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces.
One of the Bible’s most famous children’s stories concludes with the wives and children of Daniel’s malicious accusers being eaten by lions. Perhaps the lesson to your 2nd grader in Sunday School is that he should have a vested interest in the spiritual health of his father.
There is some good stuff in the commentary notes for these verses, though, so let’s dive in. (Via The Pulpit Commentaries)
Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of lions. And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Darnel O Daniel servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions? “Very early” is really “the glimmer of day;” (shapharpara’). The word used occurs in the Targums. It may, however, be doubted whether the word here is not the Syriac shapbra. The writing here presents so many peculiarities that suspicion is forced upon the reader. The first פis small, and the second is large. There is the further difficulty that nogah is nearly equivalent to shaphra. One might suspect a doublet, as Behrmann maintains, here, did not the versions indicate something like this as the meaning of this clause. A lamentable voice (atzeeb) seems to mean “sad” or “grieved.” The version of the Septuagint shows traces of addition, “And King Darius rose early in the morning, and took with him the satraps, and went and stood at the mouth of the den of lions. Then the king called to Daniel with a loud voice, with weeping, saying, O Daniel, if thou art alive, and thy God whom thou servest continually, hath he saved thee from the lions? and have they not harmed thee?” It is possible the addition of “the satraps” may have been due to shapharpara being read aḥashdarpnayya. Certainly if the purpose of the double scaling was what it is assigned to be in the first verse, then the satraps would accompany him; only the suggestion is such a natural one that it might readily slip into the text. Verse 20 (21) in the LXX. has traces of expansion. The omission of yekeel and the change of sheezab to the finite preterite is possible enough, and may indicate that in the original text the word rendered “able” was not found. Theodotion renders verse 19 (20) in accordance with the Massoretic reading, but, in verse 20 (21) instead of “lamentable voice,” has “strong voice,” a reading that seems somewhat confirmed by the LXX. Further, he translates the interrogative ha as if it were the Hebrew kee, “if.”£ The Peshitta, though agreeing in the nineteenth verse with the Massoretic, has some minor differences in the following verse—”high voice” instead of “lamentable voice,” and “faithfully” instead of “continually.” The Vulgate singularly inserts in verse 20 putasne? “dost thou think?” That Darius should thus hasten in the semi-darkness of the first glimmer of dawn to the lions’ den to see whether Daniel were yet alive, was but natural. As the sealing of the lions’ den suggested the sealing of the holy sepulchre, so the hastening of Darius to the den in the earliest dawn suggests the action of the women who got up “a great while before day.” When Darius calls Daniel the “servant of the living God,” there is no necessary confession of faith in him on the part of the king. It is for him simply an act of politeness to a Deity who, if this were neglected, might resent. It is to be noted that this attribute “living” is omitted in the Septuagint.
Darius gets up “at the glimmer of the day” (shapharpara’) to check on Daniel. He is distressed by the injustice of this punishment and by the fact that he was tricked into administering this punishment himself. It’s one thing to observe an evil and another to be the tool used by others to cause harm. This is the burden of leadership though, and one hopes a ruler agonizes over mistakes in this way. Darius is of course rewarded. Continuing in TPC:
Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. The Syriac construction, malleel‛im, is to be observed. The rendering of the LXX. differs from the Massoretic text in a way that can scarcely be due to differences merely of reading, “Then Daniel called with a loud voice and said O king, I am yet living, and God hath saved me from the lions according to the righteousness found in me before him, and before thee, O king, was neither ignorance nor sin to be found in me; but thou didst hearken to men who deceive kings, and hast east me into the den of lions for my destruction.” It is not impossible that the opening clauses of the Massoretic and the LXX. respectively, “O king, I am yet living.” and “O king, live for ever,” have been derived from the same source. The last clause is to all appearance an expansion. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. Daniel answers the king, and declares his safety. The angelology of Daniel is an interesting subject, but here the question is complicated by the fact that there is no reference to angelic interference in the Septuagint. Still all through Scripture God does most of his works through the intervention of angels. To Darius, if he had any such beliefs as afterwards are found associated with Zoru astrianism, the ascription of deliverance to an angel would be natural enough. It is doubt ful whether Cyrus and his followers were not idolaters. The rebuke implied in the state merit that not only before God was Daniel innocent, but in the sight of the king, is sufficiently clear without passing beyond the lines of courtly decorum. The expansion in the LXX. is unnecessary, and mars the stately picture; though, on the other hand, the simple answer to the king’s question is more likely than the courtly “O king live for ever.”
One task of the scholars who compare versions of the Bible is guessing (in an educated way) what the original text likely said. The comment above shows how that reasoning is done. It’s notable now that the Dead Sea Scrolls added dramatically to the list of early source documents, so this type of comparison can be done more easily, efficiently, and hopefully accurately. The comment above was written prior to the DSS discoveries.
All of that said, as you can see and have seen in previous examinations like this, the differences between the versions don’t make a notable difference to the intended meaning of the story being told. The distinction matters more for scholars than the faithful. There is an additional note for verse 22, this time from Ellicott’s Bible Commentary:
(22) His angel.—Comp. Psalms 34:7; Psalms 34:10; Daniel 3:28.
Before thee—i.e., thou knowest full well.
The note above provides several other places from within the Old Testament wherein “His angel” is used in this way. We do not know overtly to whom this refers. There are a lot of Christian theologians who have interpreted Old Testament references to “The Angel of the Lord” as references to a pre-incarnate Jesus. As we are not given that level of specificity here, we will have to be content with some ambiguity.
Continuing on, again in TPC:
Then was the king exceeding glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God. The verse that occupies the same place in the Septuagint is not a translation of the present verse at all, but looks as if it had been a sentence in the original longer documents which followed the above Massoretic verse, “Then all the powers gathered together, and saw Daniel, that the lions had not hurt him.” It is barely possible float the first clause here represents Aramaic text that might be misread into the Massoretic text. Although it is supported by the later versions, the Massoretic text has a suspicions appearance. The last clause is a moral reflection, unlike anything else in the Book of Daniel, and is omitted, as we saw, from the Septuagint. The assertion of the king’s gladness, too, differs in colour from the other statements in the book; thus compare the language concerning Nebuchadnezzar when the three Hebrew youths were delivered from the fiery furnace. At the same time, it is to be observed that the use of the hophal form in the verb hoosaq is an evidence of the antiquity of this portion of the verse. The hypothesis that tins narrative has been condensed from a longer one, has much to support it. The lesson inculcated, that faith in God would result in deliverance, is very true, even though it was not in the text. The irregular form of the adjective t’ayb points out a possibility that there has been some modification of the text. Sometimes words not understood have resulted in known words being written in an irregular way.
The note here gives us another example of the way that text scholars read and compare the various versions of Scripture.
Continuing to the end of this section, one last time in TPC:
And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them. and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den. Here the Septuagint text is superior to the Massoretic, as briefer, “Then those two men who had berne witness against Daniel, they, their wives, and their children, were east to the lions, and the lions slew them, and brake their bones.” In this account of the punishment meted out to the accusers of Daniel, the victims are only two, with their wives and children. Hitzig contemptuously remarks that the lions’ den must have been large to contain a hundred and twenty-two men along with their families—that number he gets by adding to the governors of the provinces the two presidents,colleagues of Daniel. If, however, we assume the Septuagint text to be correct, then this objection falls to the ground. The phrase “or ever they came at the bottom of the den,” is an intensification of the narrative. In the Massoretic text it is “all their bones;” in the LXX. it is simply “their bones.” Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The slaughter of the wives and children of offenders, with the guilty persons themselves, was the common practice. There are two other accounts of this event—one preserved in the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon, and the other in the pages of Josephus. According to the story of Bel and the Dragon, the king, who thus condemns Daniel, is no less a person than Cyrus the great conqueror. The reason of the condemnation is not a decree forbidding all worship, but because Daniel had laid bare the deceit of the priests of Bel, and killed the sacred dragon, the people of Babylon were incensed, and threatened Cyrus that they would burn his house if he did not deliver Daniel into their hands to be cast into the lions’ den. The seven lions were starved in order that they might be sure to devour Daniel. For six days he was there in the den. In order that Daniel might not starve, whatever befell the lions, Habacuc was brought from Judaea, carried by the hair of his head, to feed the prophet. The destruction of Daniel’s accusers is stated in a mere compendious fashion. The fact that this version is referred to by Irenaeus (‘Adv. Haeres.,’ 4.), Tertullian (‘De Jejuniis,’ 7.), and Clement of Alexandria, shows that early.in the second century this narrative was incorporated with the canonical Daniel. This makes it almost necessarily before Christ in the date of its origin. If so, it is difficult to imagine the canonical version to be only a century and a half older. Josephus shows no signs that he knew of this apocryphal addition, but adds a feature for himself, “The enemies of Daniel, when they saw that nothing evil had befallen him, unwilling to attribute his deliverance to Deity and his providence, declared that the lions had been filled with food, and therefore neither attacked Daniel nor approached him, and maintained this to the king. But he, hating their malice, ordered that much flesh be thrown to the lions, and when they had gorged themselves, that the enemies of Daniel be cast into the den, in order that he might learn whether the lions would spare them on account of their being satisfied. It was then manifest to Darius, when the satraps had been thrown in, that Daniel had been preserved by miracle, for the lions spared none of them, but tore them all to pieces as if they had been famishing.”
The note here touches on the debate over a part of Daniel which lie outside the Protestant (and Jewish) canon, but continue as part of the Catholic and Orthodox canon. This chapter is commonly called “Bel and the Dragon.” It’s worth noting that the commentator above from TPC is Protestant, but agrees that this “addition” must have predated Christ and that it was cited by early Church fathers in surviving letters.
I have included the story below. It seems to function as surrounding context for the passage we have read from Daniel 6.
We do not know what the “dragon” was (whether it looked like something you might see in Harry Potter, King Arthur / St. George stories, or whether it looked like a Komodo dragon.) Given that a lot of the worship of idols is shown as unimpressive, upon close scrutiny, perhaps this worship also was unimpressive upon a closer scrutiny, too.
Then again…
In any case, Daniel slew the dragon. And that takes us to the end of this section. We’ll finish Chapter 6 in the next.
