An artistic friend asked me to elaborate on a reference I had made about how I did not find the artists depictions of Daniel in the lion's den as very realistic.
I don't fault artists for the limits of their best effort in depicting something they have not seen. It is unfair to compare what you have seen with what someone else has not seen. However, anyone can google a video of how a pack of lions acts around humans. It is very clear that humans are food to them. One step further would be to avail oneself of the lion parks in South Africa, where the palpable feeling of being on the menu and the knowledge that the only separation between you and these terrifying animals is a piece of auto glass somehow helps you see otherwise invisible cues of the desire of the lions to tear apart your flesh with their relatively blunt teeth, long claws, and fearfully large, rippling muscles. This is the lion's "I am going to eat you" gaze. Any artist could/should study the natural examples of what approaches what they are trying to depict.[1]
Description
Present in the cave were the lions, who were emaciated because they were kept hungry, Daniel, and the angel sent to protect him.[2]
It was pitch black in this sealed cave. The only source of light would have been the glory of the angel.
In the glow of the angel's light, what was visible? The angel's light shined on the face of Daniel, who assumed his natural state of complete humility in kneeling to the Lord (which was well practiced in his daily life), a look of complete submission and peace on his face. Highlights of the eyes and teeth of the lions, as well as a glimpse of the ribs and other body parts of the lions to indicate their emaciated state.
I think a good perspective of this scene would be to have the angel's back facing the left side of the viewer, Daniel in the center of the painting, on the other side of the angel, with the panorama of the cave as the background, the lions prowling in the darkness ready to eat him.
[1] - When Disney's "Lion King" cartoon came out, I remember seeing a documentary of how the animators studied real lions to learn how to depict their movements more realistically. Their efforts paid off.
[2] - Daniel was remarkably righteous. He was held out by God as an example of a very righteous man, one of few whose righteousness could effect blessings for other people (see Ezekiel 14 and James 5:16). However, we can see the limits of the portion of God's glory he had received within himself due to the inadequacy of his flesh to stand in the presence of mighty angel sent to him to show him things pertaining to the future (see Daniel 10). A person who can comfortably stand in the presence of a being of great light has sufficient light to change their surroundings based on that light, but Daniel was not such a person. The animals in Noah's presence, on the other hand, temporarily changed in their nature in the presence of Noah. It was not Daniel's glory that repelled the lions, but the glory of the angel that came to protect him.
Critiques
I was going to list paintings that others have done here, pointing out what is incorrect about each, but I can't justify the time that would take relative to the benefit. Instead, I will list generic errors, and leave the reader to do an image search and apply them to specific paintings.
- The disposition of the lions. They were not peaceful or subdued, and they were not congregating around Daniel as if they wanted to be around him.
- The disposition of Daniel. He was not pacing around as if he were pondering the meaning of life. He was praying to God, in total abased humility, with his eyes shut and his head bowed. He was not standing or sitting. He was prostrate before the Lord, as he always was when praying daily. He was a very meek and humble man before the Lord, as all truly courageous men in the world are.
- The cave. It was not some lighted room or human constructed finished room. It was a black, damp cave.
- The lions were not freakishly large. Some species of lions--especially ancient ones--were larger than today's lions, and even today, there are smaller and larger lion species. However, the lions in this story did not have heads as big as Daniel.
Of the several dozen paintings I examined, all were absolutely wrong, with the exception of this one, which is less wrong than the others.