And Gaster's recovered Aramaic text (which he believes to have been the basis of Theodotion's Greek) consists of the Dragon story only. The notion that it had a separate currency is therefore, to a certain extent, supported; and this would still be the case, even if Gaster's text is not an original, but a translation.

If Gaster's Aramaic were really the basis of T's version, it would follow that he did not confine himself to making a mere recension of the ?? text, though he evidently availed himself of it as far as he thought proper. It is highly probable that this would apply to the Bel as well as to the Dragon story, although the corresponding Aramaic of the former is not at present forthcoming.

Neither the ?? nor T's original text seem to have been materially tampered with, either in the way of addition or omission. Each has some clauses not contained in the other: ?? in vv. 9, 15, 31, 39; T in vv. 1, 12, 13, 36, 40. Yet Westcott (Smith's _D.B._ I. 397a, ed. 2, 714a) thinks that some of T's changes arose from a desire to give consistency to the facts. The change at the end of v. 27, however, is hardly a happy one, ?a? e?pe? being put immediately after ? d?????, thus suggesting the idea that the latter drew attention to the fact that he was destroyed.

The LXX. avoided this.

It is remarkable that Theodoret, in his _Commentary on Daniel_, comments on vv. 1 and 2 of Bel and the Dragon (T) only, treating them as the closing verse (14) of chap. xii., and introducing them with the words, ??t? p????sa? t?? ?p???????? ?p??a?e? ? p??f?t??? ?a? ? as??e??

?st?????, ?.t.?. This curious fact, combined with that of their omission from the ??, points to some arrangement of the text with which we are not acquainted. Theodoret also refers to these same verses previously, in commenting on chaps. v. 3 and x. 1. Though he says nothing of the rest of Bel and the Dragon, he shews, by his referring in Ep. cxlv.

(latter part) to Habakkuk's miraculous flight through the air, that he was well acquainted with the story, and approved of it.

The princ.i.p.al MSS. available are A, B, Q, G (vv. 2--4 only), and ? from v. 21 to 41, which has recently reinforced our somewhat scanty uncial authorities.

The text of A appears to have slightly better Greek (vv. 9, 10, 19, 21, 27); but the form a?a???? (occurs in Heb. xi. 34 in A), if not a slip,[67] seems Ionic (Wordsworth's _Greek Gram._ -- 16, Obs.), as has been already mentioned ('Authorship,' p. 193), and might perhaps be accounted for by T's connection with Ephesus. The subst.i.tution of p???

for t?, however, in v. 34 seems no improvement, A in this, as in several other instances (vv. 10, 28, 35), agreeing with the ?? reading. Taking, for convenience, B as the norm, we find that A's departures from it are somewhat larger than in the Song of the Three. In v. 7 ??d? p?p??e?

p?p?te is added, as also in Q, to the description of Bel's inability to consume food. In v. 11 da?t??? is curiously subst.i.tuted by A for da?t????; in v. 13 ?atef?????? for ?atef??????. Both these are suggestive of carelessness or of error _ex ore dictantis_ (Scrivener, _N.T. Criticism_, ed. 2, p. 10). In v. 36 the subst.i.tution of ?e???? for ????f?? is peculiar. The alteration of gender in v. 17, s?a? for s??? in its first occurrence, but not in its second, may come under the head of those "somewhat officious corrections" with which the editors of I.

Macc. in the _Camb. Bible for Schools_ (p. 48) charge this MS., as likewise perhaps the reading pa?d??? for t????? in v. 10.

Q not unfrequently agrees with it in differing from B. It stands alone, however, in reading ?a?? for ?e??? in v. 22, and in omitting the last six words of v. 41, perhaps as improbable when coming from Cyrus.

Together with A, it contains an additional clause in v. 24, putting words into Cyrus' mouth which connect the two stories together. G, having vv. 2--4 only, contains no important variation. ? (only from v.

21 to v. 41) contains in v. 22 the curious word ??d?a instead of ??d?t??.

All things considered, the text of both versions may be said to be in as fair condition as in the canonical part of Daniel.

LANGUAGE AND STYLE.

LANGUAGE.

[_See_ corresponding t.i.tle in Susanna.]

The indications of a Semitic original give this fragment, in that respect, a middle place between the other two. Less numerous than in the Song of the Three, they are more so than in the History of Susanna, though this is a shorter piece than that.

The non-discovery by Origen and others of Hebrew originals in their own day by no means goes so far as to prove that such never existed, as Rothstein in Kautzsch (I. 179) truly says.

Since Gaster's discovery of an Aramaic text of the Dragon (not of Bel), the probability of a Semitic rather than a Greek original seems strengthened. But see what Schurer thinks, under the corresponding t.i.tle in the Song of the Three, as also of the Syriac version at the end of Neubauer's _Tobit._ C.H. Toy, too, in his article in the _Jewish Encyclopaedia_, Vol. II, says: "In the present state of knowledge it seems better to reserve opinion as to its antiquity."

Delitzsch, at the end of his _Commentatio de Hab. proph. vita atque oetate_ (Lips. 1842), prints in Rabbinic characters a Persian rendering, "ex codice Paris-Reg. judaico-persico," which he says "ex textu hebraico vel aramaico factam esse, ex crebris hebraismis patet" (p. 105). And on pp. 26, 27 he prints the LXX from v. 28 to the end, and adds: "Haec omnia ad verb.u.m Hebraico vel Aramaico translata esse dictionis simplicitas, structura ac tota indoles clamat atque testatur." But on p. 41 he quotes the opinion of Prof. Solomon Munk, of Paris (_Notice sur Rab. Saadia Gaon_, p. 84), that this Hebrew text, translated into Persian, was itself made by some European Rabbi from the Greek or Latin Bible. And a similar origin for Gaster's text is now thought far from unlikely.

It may be well here to give a few brief notes on the separate phrases as they occur:

v. 3 T. With ?dapa???t?, _cf._ ???????? ?? of Deut. x.x.xii. 23 ("I will spend my arrows upon," etc.). ?apa??? occurs with ?? and ?p? in N.T.

Greek, but apparently not with e??, nor yet in the canonical O.T.

Deissmann, however, attempts to shew that this use of e??, instead of 'dativus commodi,' is an Alexandrian idiom (_Bible Studies_, Eng. tr., Edinb. 1900, p. 127). ??? is also used in Aramaic in the same sense in Pahel.

v. 6 ??. The same phrase as the last recurs, inverted: e?? a?t??

dapa??ta?.

v. 7 ??. Here the accusative after ???? might be taken as favouring a Greek original, since ?? for ? would seem natural in a translation of Hebrew or Aramaic.

v. 7 T; v. 11 ??, T; v. 27 ??. The occurrence of as?e? in these verses suggests a rendering of ???????? which is used several times in the Aramaic portion of Daniel, while it never occurs in the vocative in the Hebrew portion. This indication, small though it be, inclines of course towards an Aramaic rather than a Hebrew original.

v. 10 ??, T. Scholz's suggestion that ????? and ??t?? are translations of ??? is more probable than some of his ideas, for it is rendered by both these words more than once in the Greek O.T.

v. 12 T. ? ?e?d?e??? ?a?? ??? might be a translation of ?????? ??? or ???.?????? ??? is occasionally rendered by ?at?, as in Job x.x.xiii. 10, in a hostile sense. Liddell and Scott, however, give one example of ?e?d? with ?at?, and Arnold an anonymous one in his _Greek Grammar_ (1848, p. 265).

v. 13 T. ?????? looks like a translation of ??????? (or ?????????), as in I. Kings x. 8, where it is so rendered.

v. 14 ??. sf?a??s?e??? presents a difficulty here, which may be solved by supposing that ????? had been read by mistake for ?????, a kind of error characteristic of the LXX translators. To 'shut' seems more in place here than to 'seal,' which naturally follows later in the verse; shutting first, sealing second, seems the only intelligible order.

vv. 14, 28 T; vv. 15, 33 ??. The ?a? ????et? of these verses is suggestive of ??????? in the original.

v. 18 T. (?????) ??d? e?? has an 'ungreek' look, and may have been a rendering of ??? ?????, as in Exod. xiv. 28. ??? (???) for ??? (???) might account for the king's 'rejoicing' in ?? becoming his 'seeing' in T.

v. 19 ??, T. The reading of ?daf?? by T instead of d???? by ?? may be accounted for by supposing ???? to have been subst.i.tuted for ????, as suggested in Hastings' _Dict._

v. 26 ??, T. The use of ?a? instead of ??a, to begin a clause signifying purpose, is very Hebraic.

v. 27 ??, T. The ingenious idea of A. Scholz that t? se?sata ??? and ?? ta?ta s?es?e are renderings of ??????? and ?????? respectively, ? in the first case being the article, and in the second merely the interrogative particle, like other conjectures on p. 202 of his _Commentary_, can hardly stand. He appears to have forgotten that the article must not be placed before a noun with a p.r.o.nominal suffix.[68]

v. 28 ??, T. ?p? looks like a translation of ?? (_cf._ Sus. 29). In ??

it is used against Daniel, and in T against the king.

v. 33 ??. Delitzsch suggests (p. 27) ???? ???? ???? ???? for the beginning of this verse, with much likelihood.

v. 36 T. The reading ?e???? in A for ????f?? may have arisen from ?????

being corrupted by h.o.m.oeoteleuton into ???, for which A has read ???. A.

Scholz's notion of explaining this by Isai. xlv. 1 (where de??? is used, not ?e??) is unsatisfactory.

v. 40 ??, T. The attempt to explain (Marshall in Hastings' _D.B._ art.

_Bel and the Dragon_) the 'in medio' of Vulg. v. 39 by a reading ??? for ??? is not very likely, since they do not occur in corresponding clauses.

v. 42 ??. ????a?e? is used of the king here in a good sense, in v. 22 in a bad one. This is possibly a rendering of ????? in the latter case, of ???? in the former.

The Greek of the writer is hardly such as we should expect, unless he was narrating a story which had reached him from a Hebrew source. The frequency with which verbs occur very early in the construction of sentences is a point in favour of a Semitic original, which does appear to have been dwelt upon, _e.g._ vv. 11, 20 (??), and 14, 16, 22 (T).

It is a matter of considerable nicety to estimate the value of these and similar indications. They are not decisive. They tell with varying force upon varying minds; but they distinctly tend, in the writer's opinion, to increase the probability of the Greek having been grounded upon a Hebrew or an Aramaic form of the story, the likelihood of the latter being slightly the stronger.

In view of the introduction of Habakkuk into the story of the Dragon, Delitzsch's opinion as to the similarity of Daniel's Hebrew to the Hebrew of that prophet (_see_ Streane, _Age of Macc._ p. 262) becomes of importance. A. Scholz, too, is of opinion (p. 146) that the Habakkuk t.i.tle makes for a Hebrew original, because the real prophecy of Habakkuk was undoubtedly Hebrew, and this piece, whether genuine or fict.i.tious, would hardly have been appended in another language.

The LXX version was certainly known to Theodotion, since he copies much of it, yet not quite so largely as in the Song of the Three. But it is evident that he had other doc.u.ments or traditions to use, of which he freely availed himself; possibly some previous translation other than LXX, as has been suggested under Susanna ('Date and Place,' p. 114).

There seems nothing in either Greek recension to imply that the two parts of Bel and the Dragon (separated in Luther's version) are not by the same hand.

It is noteworthy that the word ??d?t??, applied to Bel when handed over to Daniel (v. 22, T), is used of our Lord in Acts ii. 23, these two being its only Biblical occurrences.

STYLE.