The former,
strangely enough, has 'end of Daniel' before this title. And in the
Syro-Chaldee version, given in Midrash _Rabbah de Rabbah_, Bel has a
subscription, and the Dragon a fresh title (_see_ Ball, 345a).
In v. 23 ????? ?„??· ?±????„??· ?„??????? (?????) are wanting as connecting words in B, but
the reference to Bel in v. 28 serves to consolidate the two portions of
the story. A and Q also, as well as correctors of B, have an additional
clause in v. 24, which pre-supposes the former portion of the piece, a
clause given in A.V. and R.V. The ???±?? of ????? ???±??¶ ?„????¦?„???? in ????? answers the
same purpose. Daniel's mocking tone at the end of v. 27 agrees well with
his sense of humour in v. 7. Cyrus' ready compliance, too, in v. 26 is
only accounted for fully by the shock given to his idolatrous beliefs in
the Bel part of the story. And so far the internal evidence argues for
the unity of the piece. But it is noticeable that the Epistle for
Tuesday after the Fifth Sunday in Lent in the Sarum and Roman Missals
consists of the Dragon story only, beginning at v.
Pages:
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224