There follows then the exploit of Daniel with the dragon. Daniel had scoffed at Bel because he had been made of clay and bronze; but this god, as the king says, “liveth, and eateth, and drinketh.” However, Daniel undertakes to kill this living god without sword or staff, and thus prove that he is no god. So he takes pitch, and fat and hair, and makes lumps of them, and puts them into the dragon’s mouth; the dragon eats them and bursts asunder. The king is convinced. But the populace threaten to rise against him unless he delivers unto them the destroyer of their gods. The king gives way; and Daniel, being delivered up, is cast into a den of lions. After remaining in the den for six days, without being touched by the lions, Habakkuk (presumably the prophet of that name is intended) brings him his dinner, having been conveyed by an angel from Palestine to Babylon for this purpose. Finally, Daniel is released by the king, at whose order those who would have brought about his destruction are cast into the den of lions and devoured instead. The purpose of this addition is obviously to throw ridicule on idolatry; although the story is somewhat puerile it may well reflect forms of idolatry which obtained not only in Babylon in earlier days, but also among the Gentiles at the time when the author lived (about B.C. 100, or a little earlier); that is to say that both images and living animals were worshipped. By the “dragon” is probably meant a serpent[422]; we know that serpents were kept at Greek shrines; for example, in the temple of Aesculapius at Epidaurus,[423] and elsewhere, and were, therefore, probably objects of worship.[424] The writer of this addition may likely enough have had this kind of idolatry in mind when speaking of the “dragon.” That Daniel slaying the “dragon” was intended to be a reference to the myth of Merodach and his conflict with Tiamat seems highly improbable, for the addition is clearly a philippic against idolatry, and there would be no point in referring to this primeval combat. As it is not likely to have been written for Jews, the original language was probably Greek; there is nothing in the composition which indubitably stamps it as having been translated from a Semitic original. We are inclined to regard it as belonging to the same type of literature as the Sibylline Oracles, and written for the purpose of Jewish propaganda; cp. verse 28, “The king has become a Jew,” and verse 41, “And the king cried out and said, Great is the Lord God, and there is no other god beside Him.” The universalistic attitude of the writer, and his silence about the Law, the sacrifices, and the priesthood, also point in the direction indicated. As the author chooses Babylon as the scene of his story, it is not unnatural that he should make Daniel his hero; this would account for the addition having subsequently been appended to the Book of Daniel.