If the 'fluid myth' theory be accepted, the original becomes an
anonymous story, built up on the renown of Daniel, a piece of Haggadah
in fact, as some, not unreasonably, have ventured to think; such as J.W.
Etheridge, who classes these pieces under that head, or, as he styles
them, "histories coloured with fable" (_Jerusalem and Tiberias_, Lond.
1856, p. 109). Reuss regards it as still more imaginative, deeming all
except the temple to be "reine Erfindung, und zwar eine ziemlich
geistlose" (_O.T._ VII. 269). But Prof. Sayce thinks that "the author
was better acquainted with Babylon and Babylonian history than the other
apocryphal writers" (_Temple Bible_, 'Tobit,' etc., Lond. 1903, pp. xiv,
95).
Furthermore it must be remembered that even if Bel and the Dragon was
added to Daniel as an appendix by a later hand, there may still be truth
in the story; its erroneousness is not necessarily proved, nor is it
needful to assume, as is sometimes done, that all its events are
fictitious. This seems to be done by G.H. Curteis (S.
Pages:
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212