The _Synopsis sacr. Script._--referred to by
Ball (350b) and Bissell (447) as if a genuine work of
Athanasius--perhaps affords ground for a third theory. For it makes
mention (after N.T. books, ?§ 75) of a certain pseudo-epigraphic writing
of ????????±???????? which might perhaps be the ???????†?·?„?µ???± named in the LXX title.
All things considered, the theory that the well-known prophet Habakkuk
was meant by LXX seems the most probable.
But if Bel and the Dragon be merely the crystallization of what is
called a 'fluid myth,' or traditional floating story, its original
authorship is not merely unknown, but is undiscoverable, and was
probably a doubtful matter even to those who first rendered it into
Greek. This view accounts too, as nothing else seems satisfactorily to
do, for the many changes, insertions, and omissions in different
versions. Such stories, at any rate in their earlier days, are subject
to variation in many points as the result of oral repetition. Still, the
'fluidity' of this piece is by no means so great as that of Tobit, where
the variations are on a much wider scale.
Pages:
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211