Глава 14

Chapters XIII and XIV are translated from Greek because they are not in the Hebrew text. Known from the LXX translation (Code Hyzianus) and many translation copies of Theodotion, but not found in the Hebrew text of the book of the prophet Daniel, the story of Vila presents many oddities, suggesting its legendary status. This is, first of all, the beginning of the story according to the reading of LXX: “from the prophecy of Habakkuk the son of Jesus, from the tribe of Levi. There was a certain man, a priest, named Daniel, the son of Abal, the companion of the king of Babylon.” Judging by this inscription, the narrative is borrowed from an unknown apocryphal work attributed to the prophet Habakkuk. It considers the main character not the prophet Daniel, who came from the tribe of Judah (Dan. 1:3-6), but some unknown priest Daniel (cf. 1 Ezra 8:2). In Theodotion’s translation, the story begins differently: “King Astyages venerated his fathers, and Cyrus the Persian accepted his kingdom. And Daniel lived with the king.” The narrative is thus placed in connection with the canonical content of the book. the prophet Daniel, but disagrees with him in the remark about Astyages: he was not a contemporary of Daniel, but Darius (Dan. 5:31), and the unusual proximity of the prophet to Cyrus. The further story that Cyrus was a worshiper of the Babylonian idol Bel (Dan.14:3–4) also raises doubts. Indeed, the Babylonians had the idol Bel (Is. 46:1), but the sun worshiper Cyrus, who, like all Persians, did not have idols, could hardly honor them. The story of Bela ends with the “destruction” of his idol and even the “church” by Daniel with the permission of Cyrus (Dan.14:22). Meanwhile, according to Herodotus, this church existed even after Cyrus under Xerxes, by whom it was robbed. It is strange, moreover, that the church was destroyed by Daniel alone. Catholic exegetes see here the partial destruction of some vestibule or floor of the church (cf. Pesotsky, p. 457, pr. 1), but the text does not authorize this. The second half of Chapter 14, the story of the dragon, is also questionable in terms of historical authenticity. Its obvious implausibility is evident from the fact that it considers the prophet Habakkuk a contemporary of Daniel (Dan. 14:33). In fact, Habakkuk lived long before the invasion of the Chaldeans into Judea, since he characterizes them as a people completely unknown to his listeners (Hab.1:6-12), and depicts the invasion itself as an event that is unlikely for them (Hab.1:5-6). The prophet Habakkuk is considered a younger contemporary of Isaiah, but not of Daniel. It is also unlikely that the defeated Babylonians would demand more of Cyrus and threaten to “kill him and his house” (Dan. 14:29–30) for Daniel’s killing of the serpent. It resembles a similar demand before Darius; but the latter was presented not by the vanquished, but by court officials and, moreover, on the basis of “the laws of the Medes and Persians” (Dan. 6:15, Yungerov, p. 288). As for the original story of Bel and the dragon, defenders of its existence in the Hebrew-Aramaic language point to one Aramaic fragment from the Jewish commentary on the book. Genesis, published in 1290 by Raymond Martini and similar in content to Daniel 14:27–41. You might be interested in: