?„.?». Theodoret comments
no further on Bel and the Dragon, though his remarks in other parts of
the commentary shew that he favourably regarded it. See his observations
on v. 31, x. 1.
The disappearance in one case, and the displacements in the others of
this verse, evidently point to some uncertainty in early times as to its
right connection. But the difficulties raised as to this verse even
where it stands are not so serious as was once thought. As Ball says _in
loc._, "The cuneiform records have thrown unexpected light on
difficulties which were the despair of bygone generations of scholars,"
and quotes one which makes Astyages the captive of Cyrus. J.H. Blunt
attempts to shew, not very satisfactorily, that the king of v. 2 was
Darius. A note in Husenbeth's Douay version, still less so, quietly says
"Astyages, or Darius"!
It has also been suggested, with regard to this and difficulty C, that
another Daniel is here intended, to be identified with the Daniel of
Ezra viii. 2 (Bissell).
The second difficulty, B, is raised by the asserted destruction of Bel's
temple in v.
Pages:
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252