Bel and the Dragon history or myth?

[Jesus4Madrid]

I have been listening to a Bible study on the book of Daniel from Partistic Nectar, led by Father Josiah Trenham, that has been deeply enriching. (I highly recommend these studies for those seeking to deepen their knowledge of Scripture.)

At the end of the 11 part series, Father Trenham discussed the story of Bel and the Dragon. I wonder how we Orthodox should consider this account. It comes from the Deuterocanical text of Daniel, chapter 14.

Should this be viewed as history or allegory? As far as I can tell, dragons have never existed.

Maybe Army Matt or other theologians here could enlighten me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, there are many stories in our saints lives where the saints deal with what are called dragons. probably not something like Smaug romping around though.

 

[gzt]

The entire book of Daniel was written rather late and these additions are even later. I would be skeptical of a factual basis for the pious tale.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Always seemed to be to be the same with St. George and the Dragon as far as that goes. Those stories "seem" apocryphal and mostly didactic in nature. It's hard to picture saints doing battle with Godzilla, Gidrah, Mothra, and Rodan.

I have been listening to a Bible study on the book of Daniel from Partistic Nectar, led by Father Josiah Trenham, that has been deeply enriching. (I highly recommend these studies for those seeking to deepen their knowledge of Scripture.)

At the end of the 11 part series, Father Trenham discussed the story of Bel and the Dragon. I wonder how we Orthodox should consider this account. It comes from the Deuterocanical text of Daniel, chapter 14.

Should this be viewed as history or allegory? As far as I can tell, dragons have never existed.

Maybe Army Matt or other theologians here could enlighten me.

 

[jckstraw72]

what did Fr. Josiah say?

 

[Petros2015]

"Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."

Hmm. What did the snake look like before the curse in Genesis? Just curious...

Dragon legends are world-wide, in the story, the Babylonians had something they called a dragon and worshipped and it was both impressive and mortal. I don't find it too far fetched. I'm sure it wasn't Smaug like ArmyMatt said, but that doesn't mean it wasn't Something. Humans tend to kill off dangerous predators and other species. It wouldn't surprise me too much if there were other animals that were more dragon-like in ancient times than things like the Komodo Dragon or the Nile crocodile that we have today. A fire breathing one is a bit far fetched, but a flying reptile isn't (pterodactyl for example)

I liked this bit in the story:

[34] But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, "Take the dinner which you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions' den."
[35] Habakkuk said, "Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den."
[36] Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head, and lifted him by his hair and set him down in Babylon, right over the den, with the rushing sound of the wind itself.

Here's an angel grabbing Habakkuk "but I don't know where Babylon is!" by the hair and air-dropping him into Babylon (probably screaming his lungs out for most of the flight lol)

So yeah, I don't have too much of a problem with dragons

 

[~Anastasia~]

Always seemed to be to be the same with St. George and the Dragon as far as that goes. Those stories "seem" apocryphal and mostly didactic in nature. It's hard to picture saints doing battle with Godzilla, Gidrah, Mothra, and Rodan.

I do tend to take them more as being a sort of allegory - probably a way of representing real virtue and fighting evil in general, but in a somewhat symbolic representation.

However, tbh, I wouldn't have trouble believing there was some sort of creature that posed a problem. Perhaps even a "dragon" (oversized lizard) ... large monitors, Komodo dragons, crocodiles, and such exist. Some relative is not out of the question. Something like a hippo could seem like a "monster" if one hadn't seen one. (Not that I'm saying it was a hippo, just that there are plenty of animals on earth that could give rise to such stories.) I never imagine Smaug, or Godzilla, or Mothra (lol!). If there was some actual creature involved, it seems people associated it with evil, at any rate.

Either way, it doesn't matter to me. That may just be my attempt to rationalize things and keep them within the realm of "Truth" for me. It's a natural human inclination. But I think it's important to focus on what I think we are really supposed to get out of such writings, and not let the rest stumble us, whether that means suspending disbelief entirely, or rationalizing, or or simply seeing an allegory.

As long as we don't begin to apply such tendencies to the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, and so forth.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Quite frankly, I imagined Monster Gigan, Godzilla's nemesis, as the principal baddie!

I do tend to take them more as being a sort of allegory - probably a way of representing real virtue and fighting evil in general, but in a somewhat symbolic representation.

However, tbh, I wouldn't have trouble believing there was some sort of creature that posed a problem. Perhaps even a "dragon" (oversized lizard) ... large monitors, Komodo dragons, crocodiles, and such exist. Some relative is not out of the question. Something like a hippo could seem like a "monster" if one hadn't seen one. (Not that I'm saying it was a hippo, just that there are plenty of animals on earth that could give rise to such stories.) I never imagine Smaug, or Godzilla, or Mothra (lol!). If there was some actual creature involved, it seems people associated it with evil, at any rate.

Either way, it doesn't matter to me. That may just be my attempt to rationalize things and keep them within the realm of "Truth" for me. It's a natural human inclination. But I think it's important to focus on what I think we are really supposed to get out of such writings, and not let the rest stumble us, whether that means suspending disbelief entirely, or rationalizing, or or simply seeing an allegory.

As long as we don't begin to apply such tendencies to the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, and so forth.

 

[gzt]

This one isn't so much about the virtues or whatever. The dragon story is part of a polemic against polytheism and idolatry - it's inseparable from the "whodunnit" that precedes. In the preceding story, the food sacrificed to the idols is not really eaten by the idols, the pagan priests and their families sneak in. So the gods of the nations aren't really alive. In the next story, we see that just because some powerful thing can eat, that doesn't mean it's a god, it can be killed just like anything else. Chessmate, pagans.

St George is interesting because the stories about the dragon are very late - IIRC they pop up in like the 10th century but the earliest lives are like the 5th century or something.

 

[Petros2015]

Quite frankly, I imagined Monster Gigan, Godzilla's nemesis, as the principal baddie!

Just for you gurney

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would just add that when I was in Afghanistan, we had a 2 meter long monitor lizard that lived on our firing point. so if you have something like that with some mutation or whatever that increased its size or gave it weird coloring or whatever, I could see that being the dragon

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

what did Fr. Josiah say?

He treated it as true.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Maybe it was another thread - someone posted something to the effect that the Fathers considered the stories of the pagan Greek gods for example, to be real (albeit demonic).

I always thought of them as completely literary.

Then last night I happened to read a rather long account of a Saint's life (the one who was trained in sorcery and eventually converted because of his inability to capture St. Justinian for a young man who lusted after her) and it mentioned him going to Mt. Olympus and learning many of his wicked arts there, and interacting with demons.

That was rather a surprise.

I'd been taught this as a Protestant regarding some Asian deities, and assumed it of some OT ones, but never considered Greek gods in this way, which probably led me to see St. George more likely to be literary, along with the Arthurian legends.

Interesting ...

 

[LizaMarie]

"Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."

Hmm. What did the snake look like before the curse in Genesis? Just curious...

Dragon legends are world-wide, in the story, the Babylonians had something they called a dragon and worshipped and it was both impressive and mortal. I don't find it too far fetched. I'm sure it wasn't Smaug like ArmyMatt said, but that doesn't mean it wasn't Something. Humans tend to kill off dangerous predators and other species. It wouldn't surprise me too much if there were other animals that were more dragon-like in ancient times than things like the Komodo Dragon or the Nile crocodile that we have today. A fire breathing one is a bit far fetched, but a flying reptile isn't (pterodactyl for example)

I liked this bit in the story:

[34] But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, "Take the dinner which you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions' den."
[35] Habakkuk said, "Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den."
[36] Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head, and lifted him by his hair and set him down in Babylon, right over the den, with the rushing sound of the wind itself.

Here's an angel grabbing Habakkuk "but I don't know where Babylon is!" by the hair and air-dropping him into Babylon (probably screaming his lungs out for most of the flight lol)

So yeah, I don't have too much of a problem with dragons

This is my take on it. The fact that Dragon legends are world wide and have a basis in all cultures makes me think they may have been based on something- or some sort of creature that once existed maybe even prior to the Flood?

 

[gzt]

The Flood narrative as well is a polemic against polytheism by reinterpreting pagan mythology and makes sense only in an Ancient Near East cosmology.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Flood narrative as well is a polemic against polytheism by reinterpreting pagan mythology and makes sense only in an Ancient Near East cosmology.

I can't agree with this one. Christ is pretty clear in the Gospel that the Flood happened, as are the Apostles. so while one could make the argument that the Flood was local over the Middle East, to imply that it is a polemic against polytheism and simply a reinterpretation of Ancient Near East Cosmology is incorrect. especially since non Near East cultures have the Flood in them (and I am not simply talking about other Mediterranean cultures).

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Flood narrative as well is a polemic against polytheism by reinterpreting pagan mythology and makes sense only in an Ancient Near East cosmology.

I'm almost afraid to ask, but are you saying that the flood never happened, and Noah was not a real person, and all that attaches to that?

 

[gzt]

I don't think reference to a commonly known story that makes a point his listeners would understand to this day necessarily means it has a factual basis as such. I would only categorically deny that there was a worldwide flood, just as anybody here would undoubtedly deny that there is a thin metal firmament dividing the waters above the heavens from the sky and the flooding took place in part by opening up the doors there - which makes sense when one looks at the cosmology of Genesis 1.

EDIT: you may find some of the reflections here enlightening in some ways, since he discusses some aspects of modern critical readings of the Bible at times. https://frted.wordpress.com/category/noah-and-the-flood/

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't think reference to a commonly known story that makes a point his listeners would understand to this day necessarily means it has a factual basis as such. I would only categorically deny that there was a worldwide flood, just as anybody here would undoubtedly deny that there is a thin metal firmament dividing the waters above the heavens from the sky and the flooding took place in part by opening up the doors there - which makes sense when one looks at the cosmology of Genesis 1.

EDIT: you may find some of the reflections here enlightening in some ways, since he discusses some aspects of modern critical readings of the Bible at times. https://frted.wordpress.com/category/noah-and-the-flood/

OK, ty.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have to say, it was not until I came to TAW that I first heard Orthodox Christians actually claim allegory and symbolism and such for men like Noah. I was shocked frankly. I don't think you could find one single solitary soul in my parish who would conjecture such a thing. My priest and the clergy I know would flip their lids. My priest VERY much believes in our first parents LITERALLY as well as Noah, the Flood, etc.