29, with some slight
introductory changes.
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 ??'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 ??'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; ?? in vv. 1,
12, 13, 36, 40. Yet Westcott (Smith's _D.B._ I. 397a, ed.
Pages:
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225