translated by T. Witton Davies, in R. H. Charles's Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913)

Bel and the Dragon is a pair of satirical tales appended to the Book of Daniel, mocking the idols of Babylon by exposing the very human fraud that sustains them. In the first tale, Daniel proves that the great idol Bel eats nothing at all — its nightly feast is quietly devoured by the priests and their families through a hidden door — and the enraged king puts the priests to death and destroys the image. In the second, Daniel kills a living serpent worshipped as a god by feeding it a lethal cake of pitch, fat, and hair, and is thrown into a den of lions for it, only to be miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk and vindicated. Both stories turn on the same joke: gods who must be fed, guarded, and defended by human hands are no gods at all, and the man who trusts the true, living God alone walks out unharmed.

Introductory Note (1913, T. Witton Davies)

Bel and the Dragon forms the third of the Apocryphal Additions to Daniel, and was written originally almost certainly in Hebrew, though none of the Hebrew original has survived. The other two Additions are the Song of the Three Children and Susanna. In the Greek and Latin texts the three Additions to Daniel constitute an integral part of the canonical Book of Daniel, and were recognized as such, and therefore as themselves canonical, by the Council of Trent. The Song of the Three Children is, however, the only one of the three which has a necessary connexion with the Hebrew canonical Book of Daniel, standing in the Greek and Latin texts between Dan. iii. 24 and 25. The other two Additions are appended, and appear to have an origin independent of the book to which they are attached and also of each other, though in all three, as also in the canonical book, the name and fame of Daniel forms the principal theme.

§1. Name and Position in the Canon

In the Greek codices Bel and the Dragon stands at the end of the canonical Book of Daniel, bearing therefore no distinct title. In Codices A and B of Theodotion it is, however, preceded by the words "Vision (ὅρασις) xii"; that is, it forms the twelfth and last of the series of visions into which this enlarged Book of Daniel is divided. In the LXX it is called "Part of the prophecy of Habakkuk the Son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi": see the note on verse 1. In the Vulgate, Bel and the Dragon forms chapter xiv of Daniel.

In the Syriac version quoted as Syr W (see §3) the Story of Bel is preceded by the heading "Bel the idol", that of the Dragon having at its beginning the words "Then follows the Dragon."

Bel and the Dragon is the title in all the Protestant versions of the Apocrypha, these versions keeping the books now known as Apocryphal apart as being, it was thought, deutero- or non-canonical. In a Nestorian list of biblical works mentioned by Churton it is called "The Lesser Daniel".

§2. Contents

The two stories, as told in common by the LXX (the Old Greek) and Theodotion, may be thus summarized.

1. The Story of Bel (vv. 1–22). There is in Babylon an image of Bel (Marduk, Merodach) which Daniel refuses to worship, though no form of worship is mentioned besides that of supplying the god with food. The king, identified in Theodotion with Cyrus, remonstrates with the delinquent Hebrew, pointing him to the immense quantity of food consumed daily by Bel as proof that the god thus recognized is a living, true deity. Daniel denies that the food is eaten by the god, and asks permission to put the matter to a test. This request being granted, he is shown the sacred tables covered with food which it is alleged the god will consume during the night. It is agreed that the doors of Bel's temple shall be closed and sealed for the night after the departure of the priests. But in addition, Daniel takes the precaution of having, without the priests' knowledge, the floor of the temple strewn lightly with ashes. When the morning breaks, the doors are still closed and the seals intact, but the food has disappeared — evidence, the king thinks, that it has been consumed by Bel. Daniel, however, points to the tracks of bare feet on the ash-strewn floor as evidence that the priests have entered the temple by secret doors and removed the food. Angered by the trick which the priests had played on him, the king has them put to death and the image destroyed.

2. The Dragon Story (vv. 23–42). There is in Babylon a great live serpent (dragon) worshipped by a large number of the inhabitants, who feed it lavishly. In the present case the god is represented by a living creature which can be fed and which needs feeding. Daniel refuses to bow down before the serpent, and throws out a challenge to the king that, if permission is given him, he will destroy the creature alleged to be a god. Receiving the requested permission, Daniel makes a mixture of which pitch is the principal ingredient, and, thrusting it down the serpent's throat, this creature bursts asunder and dies. Infuriated at the death of their god, the populace demand the death of this god-murderer. The king yields, and has Daniel cast into the den of lions, the usual punishment of persons found guilty of capital charges. But though Daniel remained in the company of seven lions for seven days, he suffers no injury. On the sixth day Daniel, being naturally hungry, is miraculously supplied with food. The prophet Habakkuk has prepared the midday meal for his reapers, and is on the way to the field where they are. An angel arrests him, telling him he is to carry the meal to Daniel in the lions' den in Babylon. On his alleging his ignorance of the location of the lions' den, and even of Babylon itself, the angel lays hold of the hair on the crown of his head and conveys the prophet to the den, where, seeing Daniel, he hands him the food, and seems as safe among the lions as Daniel himself. The angel then restores Habakkuk to his Palestinian home. Seeing that Daniel was preserved (the Habakkuk incident is an evident interpolation), the king magnifies God, sets Daniel at liberty, and substitutes for him in the den Daniel's accusers, who are at once devoured by the lions.

The meaning of the word "dragon". The Greek word (δράκων) translated "dragon" denotes originally a large serpent. Homer uses δράκων and ὄφις interchangeably without the least apparent difference. Even the drakōn of Greek mythology remains essentially a serpent. In the East the serpent came to be commonly used as a symbol of the principle of evil. In the LXX δράκων translates most frequently (twelve times) the Hebrew tannin, rendered in the Authorized Version generally (eight times) "dragon", sometimes (thrice) "serpent". In two passages (Amos ix. 3, Job xxvi. 13) the usual Hebrew word for serpent is represented in the LXX by δράκων. There is no good reason for departing from the simple impression which the narrative gives, that in the present tale the dragon is a live snake worshipped as a god. Perhaps such worship is to be regarded as a survival of totemism. There is abundant evidence of snake worship in various parts of the ancient world, and there is good reason for believing that it obtained in Babylon: the god Nina was worshipped in the form of a serpent; on Babylonian seals men are figured worshipping gods apparently serpentine in form, their lower parts consisting of serpent coils, with worshippers in front; both Berosus and Helladius speak of gods worshipped as serpents in Babylon; and Jensen, as quoted by Baudissin, says there was a serpent god called in Sumerian Serah. For traces of serpent worship among the Hebrews, see Num. xxi. 8 f. and 2 Kings xviii. 4. There is no certain proof that in ancient Babylon the live serpent, as distinct from the image of a serpent, was worshipped, but there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary, and the analogy of other countries favours a decision in the affirmative.

Fritzsche holds that the story was composed in Egypt, where serpent worship is known to have existed in early times, but that the author inaccurately transferred it to Babylon. Since Fritzsche's time, however, fresh evidence of such worship in Babylon has presented itself.

Modern writers generally maintain that the dragon in this story represents a mythical monster with a serpent's head and neck, an eagle's legs, a lion's body, and a unicorn's horn. In this or some similar form a very large number of Babylonian inscriptions picture this monster, or other monsters, in conflict with Marduk or some other Babylonian deity. The monster has been very commonly identified with the mythological dragon Tiamat, though no decisive proof of the identity has been furnished. W. Hayes Ward has made a careful attempt to bring together the various forms in which the "dragon-myth" has been portrayed on Babylonian-Assyrian inscriptions, assuming throughout that in all of them it is the Marduk-Tiamat conflict of the Babylonian Creation legend that is set forth, but he gives no proof of this, for the name Tiamat is not once connected with the representation. Indeed it seems now generally understood that Tiamat was a snake deity, and that the dragon of the story now under consideration is no other than Tiamat: so hold Sayce, Ball, Gunkel, Marshall, and Toy.

The present writer ventures, with Jensen and Baudissin, to dispute and even deny this, for the following reasons:

1. There is no evidence in the Babylonian-Assyrian inscriptions that Tiamat was conceived as a serpent. The serpentine forms pointed out cannot be shown to be intended for Tiamat.

2. Berosus does not once translate the Babylonian Tiamat by "dragon" or by any word denoting serpent. He uniformly transliterates the word, though not as we should do now, but as Thalatth.

3. The idea embodied in Tiamat differs from that of the dragon or serpent. In Babylonian mythology Tiamat stands for the female principle, expressing itself in darkness and disorder, older than the gods themselves, since the birth of the gods took place through their separation from the primaeval chaos (= Tiamat). Tiamat is usually identified with the primaeval ocean, wild and rebellious, needing to be subdued. We are probably to see a reference to it in the Hebrew word rendered by English versions "the deep": LXX ἄβυσσος, Vulgate abyssus.

4. In the present story the dragon is a god alongside of Bel in the preceding story: there is not the remotest hint that he is regarded as other than a Babylonian deity worshipped in the form of a serpent or dragon.

The present writer would like to add that he does not now, as he once did, agree with Gunkel and the bulk of recent Bible scholars in seeing reflections of the Marduk-Tiamat legend in innumerable passages of the Old Testament. Later writers have too blindly followed Gunkel's Schöpfung und Chaos.

§3. Textual Authorities: Manuscripts and Versions

1. Manuscripts. The Greek text exists in two principal forms throughout the Book of Daniel, including the Apocryphal Additions.

(1) The Old Greek (LXX) has been preserved in but one manuscript, the Codex Chisianus (from the Chigi family which owned it), published in Rome in 1772 in Cozza's Sacrorum Bibliorum Vetustissima Fragmenta Graece et Latine, in Swete's edition (in parallel pages with Theodotion), and in Tischendorf's edition. This unique manuscript is quoted by Field and Swete as Cod. 87, which must be distinguished from the manuscript so designated by the Oxford editors, Holmes and Parsons.

(2) Of Theodotion's text of Bel and the Dragon the following manuscripts exist: B, A, Γ (verses 2–4 only), and Q (from verse 21 to verse 41).

Besides the above majuscules (uncials) there are also several valuable minuscules (cursives), such as those numbered 34 and 49. For details and explanations, see Swete's edition of the Septuagint and his Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek.

2. Versions. (1) Greek. It may not be strictly correct to speak of the two best-known texts (the Old Greek and Theodotion) as "versions", since no Hebrew or Aramaic original has come down to us. Yet according to the view of a lost Hebrew original advocated by the present writer (see below), these so-called versions are correctly thus described.

A careful comparison of the two Greek texts of Bel and the Dragon has led the present writer to these conclusions: (a) that the Old Greek is a translation from a Hebrew original — made exceedingly probable by the presence of a large number of Hebraisms (see §4, Original Language), though there is another possible explanation (see below); (b) that Theodotion contains a much larger number of Hebraisms than the Old Greek, suggesting, along with other considerations, that Theodotion corrected the Old Greek with the aid of a Hebrew text before him. Yet, on the contrary, Theodotion at times corrects the Greek of the Old Greek version, and avoids the Hebraism "Lord" without the article, preferring "God".

Theodotion's version of Daniel displaced the Old Greek at a very early time, for though in his Hexapla Origen uses the true Old Greek, in his own writings he almost invariably cites Theodotion. In his preface to Daniel, Jerome points to the fact that in his own time the Christian Church had rejected the Old Greek in favour of Theodotion, on account of the defective renderings of the former. Even Irenaeus (d. 202) and Porphyry (d. 305) preferred Theodotion. Field was the first to indicate clearly that what has for centuries been treated as the Old Greek of 1 Esdras and other books, including Daniel and its Additions, is really the version of Theodotion.

(2) Syriac. In this language there are two principal versions: (a) the Peshitta, best preserved in the Codex Ambrosianus B 21 (sixth century), reproduced in Walton's Polyglot and critically edited by Lagarde (Leipzig, 1861). In Bel and the Dragon this version follows Theodotion very closely, though at times it agrees with the Old Greek against Theodotion. In the notes Walton's Polyglot has been used, the version being designated Syr W, though Lagarde's critical edition has always been compared. (b) The Hexaplaric Syriac version, made by Paul of Tella in 617 from Origen's Hexapla, exists in manuscript (Codex Ambrosianus C. 313), edited, photographed, and published by Ceriani (Milan, 1874); in the notes it is quoted as Syr H. As might be expected from its origin, it agrees in general with the Old Greek rather than Theodotion, and thus differs from the other Syriac version, which follows Theodotion closely.

(3) Aramaic other than the Syriac. For the Aramaic text of parts of Bel and the Dragon, see §4, Original Language.

(4) Latin. Fragments of the Old Latin version occur in Sabatier's Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae (1743), vol. ii; judging from the specimens preserved, this version follows Theodotion closely in Daniel and its Additions. Jerome's version — which the Vulgate simply reproduces — is also based on Theodotion, though in some parts it is independent of any other version or text known to us.

(5) Arabic. The Arabic version of Saadias (a.d. 892–942) was made from the Hebrew and therefore lacks the Apocrypha. The Arabic version of Bel and the Dragon in Walton's Polyglot has no critical value, being due to a priest living in Egypt in the sixteenth century.

§4. Original Language

Until comparatively recent years the prevailing view was that Bel and the Dragon was composed and first written in the Greek language: so held Eichhorn, Ewald, De Wette, Schrader, Fritzsche, Schürer, and König.

(a) In favour of this conclusion the following reasons have been given: (1) No traces of any Semitic original with reasonable claims have been discovered; Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome distinctly say that no Hebrew or Aramaic form of this tract was known in their day. (2) It is denied that the Hebraisms are more numerous than can be accounted for on the assumption of a Greek original. (3) In the Greek of Susanna there are certain word-plays inconsistent with a translation, but no such word-plays have been discovered in Bel and the Dragon; where in Susanna they do occur, they can easily be due to a translator, for why should a translator not adopt alliteration? Moreover, it is noteworthy that Bel and the Dragon is more Hebraic than Susanna, though less so than the Song of the Three Children.

(b) On the other hand, the opinion has been growing among recent scholars that the work was written originally in a Semitic language, Hebrew or Aramaic. Drs. Marshall and Gaster contend for an Aramaic original, but there is evidence conclusive to the present writer that the author of Bel and the Dragon wrote in Hebrew: (1) Theodotion introduces Hebraisms absent from the Old Greek, a change due to the fact that Theodotion had before him a Hebrew text as well as the Old Greek, which he corrected by means of the former. (2) The extraordinary extent to which the syntactical construction called parataxis (co-ordination) exists points to a Hebrew rather than an Aramaic original; the recurrence of the Greek "and" with all the shades of meaning borne by the Hebrew waw is characteristic of Hebrew much more than of Aramaic, which is richer in conjunctions and adverbs and therefore tends toward subordination of sentences, in the manner of Greek — especially true of Syriac, which came under Greek influence. (3) There are many examples, especially in Theodotion, which imply the Hebrew "waw consecutive" construction and cannot otherwise be explained; sentences often begin with "and it was" followed by a finite verb (see verses 14 and 18). This construction is peculiar to Hebrew at its best; even late Biblical Hebrew has almost lost it. (4) There are many other Hebraisms throughout the text, in vocabulary, idiom, and construction. (5) There are sometimes textual mistakes best explained on the assumption of a Hebrew original. (6) It is in favour of a Hebrew original that these two tales have been actually found, in a more or less complete form, in that language, in the Midrash Rabba de-Rabba.

(c) Dr. M. Gaster discovered an Aramaic form of the Dragon story embedded in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel, a work of the tenth century, and maintains that in this fragment we have a portion of the original text of Bel and the Dragon — an opinion with which Dr. Marshall seems to sympathize; in that case the original text of the three Additions was Aramaic. The present writer does not think that Dr. Gaster has proved his case, for the following reasons: (1) there are constructions in all the Additions which are not Greek and which can be explained from Hebrew but not from Aramaic; (2) only two of the three Additions occur in the Aramaic version found by Dr. Gaster, and only a part (the Dragon story) of the third — what has become of the rest? (3) this Aramaic form of the Dragon story differs from that in the Greek and Syriac in several particulars; (4) the compiler of the Chronicles of Jerahmeel distinctly says that he took the Song of the Three Children and the Dragon story from the writings of Theodotion, having himself turned the Greek into Aramaic; Dr. Gaster's argument that the compiler's words point to an Aramaic original rests on an ambiguity that should, in the absence of other evidence, be decided according to the facts otherwise established.

There is, of course, another explanation of the apparent Semiticisms in Bel and the Dragon. It is probable, as Wellhausen held, that the language of the Old Greek represents a Hebrew-Greek jargon actually spoken, much as Yiddish is spoken today. In favour of this are, in addition to the innumerable Hebraisms, the large number of Hebrew words transliterated instead of translated even where the sense is not obscure. These and other Hebrew words were perhaps taken over into the Greek spoken by these Jews, just as Polish-Russian-German Jews today speak a German interlarded with Hebrew words.

§5. Authorship, Date, and Place of Origin

Nothing whatever is known of the author of this work, and nothing definite of the place or date of composition; we have no Hebrew or Aramaic original from the style of which conclusions as to date might be drawn.

It is quite certain that Bel and the Dragon presuppose the canonical Book of Daniel and belong therefore to a later date, for they show subsequent developments of the Daniel legends. The canonical Daniel is dated by modern scholars at about 160 b.c. The general character of this tract suggests that, like the canonical Daniel, it arose at a period when the Jewish religion was bitterly persecuted — such as the reign of Antiochus VII (Sidetes), 139–128 b.c., who reconquered Palestine and did his utmost to suppress Judaism. At that time Hebrew was, even in Palestine, more a literary than a spoken language, which might explain why the waw consecutive, a feature of the classical language, is preserved. The place of origin is assumed to be Palestine, and not, as Bissell and most others hold, Babylon: the references to Babylon, as in the canonical Daniel, are only a literary device, and this can be said also of the mention of clay and bronze, which Bissell cites as proof of Babylonian origin.

It is to be noted that Judaism in the narrow technical sense is entirely absent from these two stories — what is taught is the absurdity of idolatry and the duty of worshipping the only true God, Yahweh. The Judaism of Babylon was of a definite orthodox kind and could hardly have given rise to a tract so vaguely religious as this one. The universalism of Bel and the Dragon marks it as a product of the Wisdom school of Judaism, though the positive characteristics of that school's literature (Ecclesiastes and the like) are lacking.

Assuming a date of about 136 b.c. for the Hebrew text, the Septuagint translation must be later. It may be taken for granted that when 1 Maccabees ii. 59 f. was written (about 100 b.c.) the three Additions formed no part of the Book of Daniel and did not perhaps even exist in Greek, though they exist in all extant manuscripts of the Greek and Syriac texts. The character of the Greek in the Old Greek version and other considerations suggest that this version was made at Alexandria at a date not much later than 100 b.c., though the evidence for this conclusion is slight.

Theodotion is generally believed to have lived and completed his translation at Ephesus toward the close of the second century of our era, which accords with the fact that Irenaeus, who died a.d. 202, used and preferred Theodotion's version.

§6. Integrity

With the exception of small parts to be indicated in the notes, and verses 33–39, these two tales seem to have been written by one author, who nevertheless used pre-existing materials. The incident of the miraculous transportation of the prophet Habakkuk from his home in Palestine to the lions' den in Babylon (vv. 33–39) is certainly a later piece having no necessary connexion with the rest of the story.

§7. Teaching

These two stories teach the doctrines of the oneness and absoluteness of Yahweh, called "Lord" in Theodotion — a translation of the Hebrew name substituted by Jews from about 300 b.c. for Yahweh, which about that time took on a mystic and esoteric sense.

Little is told us of Yahweh's character. He is great, the only true God, a living God in contrast with Bel. Nothing is said of the nature of the demand He makes, ritual or ethical.

There is no allusion to any distinctively Jewish belief or practice. The law is not mentioned, nor is the existence of a divine revelation to man implied. This tract is silent as to sacrifice and temple, and even as regards priesthood, except that in one version Daniel the prophet is spoken of as a priest — all strong evidence of the low place assigned by the writer to the external side of the Jewish religion. We do, however, read of an angel, but in a part of the Dragon story (vv. 33–39) which is certainly introduced by an outside editor.

For further introductory notes, including references to special literature, see "Bel and the Dragon" by the present writer in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago), vol. i.

Chapter 1

I. The Story of Bel

1 And king Astyages was gathered to his fathers, and Cyrus the Persian received his kingdom.

2 And Daniel lived with the king, and was honoured above all his friends.

3 Now the Babylonians had an idol, called Bel, and there were spent upon him every day twelve great measures of fine flour, and forty sheep, and six firkins of wine.

4 And the king did honour to it, and went daily to worship it: but Daniel worshipped his own God.

5 And the king said unto him, Why dost thou not worship Bel? And he said, Because I may not do honour to idols made with hands, but to the living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh.

6 Then said the king unto him, Thinkest thou not that Bel is a living God? or seest thou not how much he eateth and drinketh every day?

7 Then Daniel laughed, and said, O king, be not deceived: for this is but clay within, and brass without, and did never eat or drink anything.

8 So the king was wroth, and called for his priests, and said unto them, If ye tell me not who this is that devoureth these expenses, ye shall die.

9 But if ye can show me that Bel devoureth them, then Daniel shall die: for he hath spoken blasphemy against Bel. And Daniel said unto the king, Let it be according to thy word.

10 Now the priests of Bel were threescore and ten, beside their wives and children. And the king went with Daniel into the temple of Bel.

11 So Bel's priests said, Lo, we will get us out: but thou, O king, set on the meat, and mingle the wine and set it forth, and shut the door fast, and seal it with thine own signet;

12 and when thou comest in the morning, if thou find not that Bel hath eaten up all, we will suffer death: or else Daniel, that speaketh falsely against us.

13 And they little regarded it: for under the table they had made a privy entrance, whereby they entered in continually, and consumed those things.

14 And it came to pass, when they were gone forth, the king set the meat before Bel. Now Daniel had commanded his servants to bring ashes, and they strewed all the temple with them in the presence of the king alone: then went they out, and shut the door, and sealed it with the king's signet, and so departed.

15 Now in the night came the priests with their wives and children, as they were wont to do, and did eat and drink up all.

16 In the morning betime the king arose, and Daniel with him.

17 And the king said, Daniel, are the seals whole? And he said, Yea, O king, they be whole.

18 And as soon as he had opened the door, the king looked upon the table, and cried with a loud voice, Great art thou, O Bel, and with thee is no deceit at all.

19 Then laughed Daniel, and held the king that he should not go in, and said, Behold now the pavement, and mark well whose footsteps are these.

20 And the king said, I see the footsteps of men, women, and children.

21 And then the king was angry, and took the priests with their wives and children, who showed him the privy doors, where they came in, and consumed such things as were upon the table.

22 Therefore the king slew them, and delivered Bel into Daniel's power, who overthrew him and his temple.

II. The Dragon

23 And in that same place there was a great dragon, which they of Babylon worshipped.

24 And the king said unto Daniel, Wilt thou also say that this is of brass? lo, he liveth, and eateth and drinketh: thou canst not say that he is no living God: therefore worship him.

25 Then said Daniel, I will worship the Lord my God: for he is a living God.

26 But give me leave, O king, and I shall slay this dragon without sword or staff. The king said, I give thee leave.

27 Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon's mouth, so the dragon did eat and burst in sunder: and Daniel said, Lo, these are the gods ye worship.

28 When they of Babylon heard that, they took great indignation, and conspired against the king, saying, The king is become a Jew, and he hath pulled down Bel, and slain the dragon, and put the priests to the sword.

29 So they came to the king, and said, Deliver us Daniel, or else we will destroy thee and thine house.

30 Now when the king saw that they pressed him sore, being constrained, the king delivered Daniel unto them:

31 who cast him into the lions' den: where he was six days.

32 And in the den there were seven lions, and they had given them every day two carcases, and two sheep: which then were not given to them, to the intent that they might devour Daniel.

33 Now there was in Jewry the prophet Habakkuk, who had made pottage, and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field, for to bring it to the reapers.

34 But the angel of the Lord said unto Habakkuk, Go carry the dinner that thou hast into Babylon unto Daniel, in the lions' den.

35 And Habakkuk said, Lord, I never saw Babylon; neither do I know where the den is.

36 Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown, and lifted him up by the hair of his head, and with the blast of his breath set him in Babylon over the den.

37 And Habakkuk cried, saying, O Daniel, Daniel, take the dinner which God hath sent thee.

38 And Daniel said, Thou hast remembered me, O God: neither hast thou forsaken them that love thee.

39 So Daniel arose, and did eat: and the angel of God set Habakkuk in his own place again immediately.

40 Upon the seventh day the king came to bewail Daniel: and when he came to the den, he looked in, and, behold, Daniel was sitting.

41 Then cried the king with a loud voice, saying, Great art thou, O Lord, thou God of Daniel, and there is none other beside thee.

42 And he drew him out, and cast those that were the cause of his destruction into the den: and they were devoured in a moment before his face.

Colophon

Prepared from R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Vol. 1: Apocrypha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), translation and introduction by T. Witton Davies. Source: archive.org item apocryphapseudep01charuoft (University of Toronto copy).

This edition prints Bel and the Dragon as a synoptic text: two parallel Greek recensions running side by side, the Old Greek (Septuagint, translated by Davies himself) and Theodotion's later Greek text (reprinted from the Revised Version, 1894), each with its own independent verse division, plus a dense per-verse textual-critical apparatus comparing the two against the Syriac, Latin, and Arabic versions. This transcription reproduces only the verse-numbered Theodotion/R.V. text (verses 1–42) — the standard, familiar English versification used in most Apocrypha editions — and omits the parallel Old Greek rendering and the entire per-verse apparatus. Both survive complete in the 1913 printed edition and in the cited scan. In the Introductory Note, footnote citation numbers and their bottom-of-page bibliographic references (page and volume citations to works such as Swete, Sayce, and Baudissin) have been silently dropped from the flowing prose for readability; all substantive explanatory content of the introduction is reproduced in full, including the discussion of dragon-mythology in §2. No translation-text word required an "[illegible in scan]" marker; the numbered translation was clear throughout the source scan.

Prepared for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church with AI-assisted transcription and editorial work.

🌲