Diametrically opposite views are steadily maintained by authorities on
both sides; although among English-speaking Protestants there is perhaps
a decrease in the contempt with which this story was once treated.
Among the Syriac-using Christians of the Malabar coast, Bel and the
Dragon, with the other additions, is reckoned as "part and parcel of the
book of Daniel" (Letter to present writer of Aug. 8, 1902, from Rev.
F.V.J. Givargese, Principal of Mar Dionysius Seminary, Kottayam).
Bar-Hebr?¦us, too, comments on it, but says at the head of his remarks
that "some do not receive this story" (_op. cit._ p. 27).
The many, resemblances and coincidences between this and the canonical
book pointed out under other heads ('Language and Style,' 'Religious and
Social State,' etc.) of course tell, so far as they go, in its favour.
Schrader (Schenkel's _Bibel Lex._ 1869, art. _Habak._ p. 556) classes
Bel and the Dragon with pseudo-Epiphanius' and Rabbinic legends of the
same tale, as "reine Fabeln und Legenden zu erkennen." This seems too
positive an opinion of their untrustworthiness.
Pages:
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261