§ 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) G (i.e. the LXX) has been preserved in but one MS., 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 G (in parallel pages with Θ), and in Tischendorf’s G. This unique MS. is quoted by Field and Swete as Cod. 87, which must be distinguished from that so designated by the Oxford editors, Holmes and Parsons.

(2) Of Theodotion’s text (Θ) of Bel and the Dragon the following MSS. exist: B, A, Γ (vv. 2–4 only), Δ (from v. 21 to v. 41).

Besides the above majuscules (uncials) there also several valuable minuscules (cursives), as e.g. those numbered 34, 49.

For details and explanations, see Swete’s edition of G and his Introduction to the O. T. in Greek.

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

A careful comparison of G and Θ of Bel and the Dragon has led the present writer to these conclusions. (a) That G is a translation from a Hebrew original. This is made exceedingly probable by the presence of a large number of Hebraisms (see § 4, Original Language), though there is another possible explanation (see below, § 4, ( c) 5). (b) That Θ contains a much larger number of Hebraisms than G: see on vv. 1 f., 5 f., 16, 18, 27, 39, &c., suggesting what other considerations make likely that Theodotion corrected G with the aid of a Hebrew original before him.

Yet, on the contrary, Θ corrects at times the Greek of G (see on vv. 26, 40, 42), and it avoids the Hebraism Κύριος without the article (= Hebrew יהוה), preferring Θεός: see v. 5.

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

(2) Syriac. In this language there are two principal versions:

(a) The Peshiṭta, best preserved in the Cod. Ambrosianus B 21 (sixth century), reproduced in Walton’s Polyglot and critically edited by Lagarde (Leipzic, 1861). In Bel and the Dragon this version follows Θ very closely, though at times (see on vv. 2, 18, 25) it agrees with G against Θ. There are several cases where this version and Θ agree against G (see on v. 21). In a few cases this version diverges from both the Greek texts (see on v. 27). In the notes Walton’s Polyglot has been used, the version consulted being designated Syr W. But Lagarde’s critical edition has always been compared.

(b) The Hexapla’s Syriac version is that made by Paul of Tella in 617 from Col. VI (G) of Origen’s Hexapla. It exists in manuscript form (Cod. Ambrosianus, C. 313). This most valuable MS. has been edited, photographed, and published by Ceriani (Milan, 1874). In the notes it is quoted as Syr H. As might have been expected from its origin, it is in general agreement with G, rather than with Θ, and thus differs from the other Syriac version, which follows Θ closely.

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

There are no Targums on Ezra, Nehemiah, or Daniel, a lack easily explained if it could be assumed that all these books were written originally in Aramaic as portions of the existing books of Ezra and Daniel are.

(4) Latin. (a) Fragments of the Old Latin version occur in Sabatier’s work, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae, 1743, &c., vol. 2. Judging from the specimens therein preserved it may be confidently stated that in Daniel and its Additions this version follows Θ closely.

(b) Jerome’s version—Vulgate simply reproduces it—is also based on Θ, though in some parts (see on v. 42) 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; see Walton, Proleg. 14. 17 f., and Cornill on Ezekiel, p. 49.