BEL AND THE DRAGON (Gr. δράκων, G1532, dragon, serpent). The third of the additions to Daniel which appear in the Gr. text, though they are not found in the Heb. The other two are the Song of the Three Children and Susanna. All of these were recognized as canonical by the Council of Trent, and were considered to be an integral part of the text of Daniel. Origen defended these additions as Scripture, and maintained that the Jews had deliberately removed them from their own texts.
Name. In the Gr. codices, Bel stands at the end of the canonical Book of Daniel and has no distinct title. In Codices A and B of Theod., however, it bears the title “Vision 12,” and is part of the twelfth and final vision of Daniel. In the Lat. Vul. it appears as ch. 14, but has no heading. In the LXX it follows Susanna, and is given the title “From the prophecy of Habakkuk the son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi.” There is no doubt but that this means the Biblical prophet Habakkuk. In the Pesh. the story of Bel is preceded by “Bel the idol,” and the Dragon by “Then follows the Dragon.” All Protestant VSS use the title Bel and the Dragon, but they separate this material from their canonical books.
Texts. (1) Greek. The Gr. text has been preserved in two basic edd. (a) The LXX text has survived in only one original MS, the Codex Chisianus (or Christianus; named after the Chigi family which owned it), a 9th cent. cursive MS. (b) The text of Theod. is found in several MSS, the most important of which are B, A, Q, Γ (vv. 2-4) and Δ (vv. 21-41).
(2) Syrian. There is an 8th cent. MS of the VS made by Paul of Tella in 617 from Origen’s Hexapla (col. 6). It agrees generally with the LXX.
Versions. (1) Greek. (a) The LXX. Only the Codex Chisianus, mentioned above, preserves this text. (b) Theod. This is prob. a revision of the LXX. It is a much better tr. than the LXX, but there are times when Heb. words are transliterated rather than tr. This seems to argue for a Heb. original consulted during the revision process. The Christian church discarded the Alexandrian LXX in favor of Theod., and because of the former’s lack of popularity, it disappeared almost completely. The reason behind the rejection of the LXX is not definite, but it is thought that Christians objected to mistranslations, and what they considered to be an erroneous understanding of the Heb. text by the LXX tr. in such passages as Daniel 9:24-27. Theodotion prepared his text in the period a.d. 100-130, and Bel and the Dragon were a part of the text. The first ed. of the Alexandrian VS, published before 100 b.c., seems also to have contained these stories.
(2) Syrian. There are two Syr. VSS: (a) the Syro-Hexapla taken from Origen, and (b) a Pesh. VS which sometimes follows Theod. against the LXX, sometimes agrees with the LXX against Theod., and at times diverges from both texts.
(3) Latin. (a) An Old Lat. VS which follows Theod. closely. (b) The Vul. which depends much on Jerome’s work (which was based on Theod., but on occasions is independent of any other text or VS) and follows Theod. closely.
(4) Aramaic. An Aram. VS of the Chronicles of Yerahmeel published by M. Gaster, which he claimed to be the original text.
Original language. It was the general consensus until about the turn of the cent. that Bel and the Dragon was written originally in Gr. Scholars argued that no Sem. original of any real authority had been discovered, and Origen, Eusebius and Jerome assert that no Heb. form of this material was known in their time. In spite of these arguments, scholars are more and more expressing the opinion that the original was composed either in Heb. or Aram. Some argue that Theod. made use of a Sem. original when he revised the LXX. The large number of Semitisms in the work would also lend weight to this view, and the type of Semitism—the use of kai and kai egeneto with the force of the waw-consecutive—would point to a Heb. original. This view is proposed and supported by Davies in a convincing manner.
J. T. Marshall calls attention to the possible confusion of זַעֲפָה (storm wind) and זַעַף (pitch), which could occur only with Aram. He cites several other similar illustrations. Davies points out that the concoction of Daniel also included fat and hair as well as pitch. He suggests that Marshall has been led astray by his desire to assimilate the dragon story to the Babylonian creation-myth of Marduk (Bel) and Tiamat.
M. Gaster made what he considered to be an important discovery of the dragon story in an Aram. work called the Chronicles of Yerahmeel. This work dates to the 10th cent. Gaster believed that it was a part of the original Bel and the Dragon. Davies, however, rejects this view on the basis of insufficient support, and argues in opposition that if there had been an Aram. original, then we should have learned about this from early Jewish and Christian writers. At present, the argument seems to be in favor of Heb. as the original language of the document.
Author, place and date. Nothing definite is known about the author, place or date of composition of Bel and the Dragon. If the original was in Heb. or Aram., then Pal. would be the probable place of origin. If the LXX is original, then the author could have lived anywhere in the E Mediterranean, and the date of composition would be that of the original Gr. tr. of the Heb. text. It is almost certain, in any case, that the work was composed sometime in the 2nd cent. b.c.
Purpose. A casual reading of Bel and the Dragon should convince anyone that the author is casting ridicule on idols and the worship of any heathen god. A second purpose may be to point up Daniel’s genius in detective work and chemistry. The chief value of these accounts seems to be to amuse and entertain the reader.
Content. Bel.—The LXX asserts that this material is from the prophecy of Habakkuk, and Daniel is made a priest and companion of the king of Babylon. The text of Theod. begins with the death of Astyages and the reign of Cyrus the Pers. Daniel is said to be living with the king.
There was an idol in Babylon called Bel. A great quantity of food was given each day to this idol, consisting of flour, sheep (LXX, four; Theod., forty), and liquid (LXX, oil; Theod., wine). The king worshiped this idol, and asked Daniel why he did not do likewise. Daniel replied that he worshiped only the Creator God. The king reminded Daniel of the food consumed by Bel. But Daniel countered with the claim that an idol of clay and bronze cannot eat anything. This angered the king, and he called the priests to demand of them, on penalty of death, who ate all the food. They claimed Bel ate it. Daniel offered to prove to the king that Bel did not eat the food. All went to the temple. The food was set before the idol. (Theodotius informs us that the priests, seventy in number, had a secret entrance under the table.) When all had gone out, Daniel had his servants sprinkle ashes over the floor. Then the doors were shut and sealed.
In the morning the doors were inspected, then opened. The food was gone. The king rejoiced, but Daniel pointed to the footprints in the ashes. The priests confessed, and they were delivered to Daniel. Bel was destroyed, and according to Theod., the temple also was destroyed.
The Dragon.—A great dragon was worshiped in Babylon. The king asked Daniel about the dragon, whether he considered it also of bronze, since this beast both ate and drank. Daniel asked permission to kill the dragon without the use of sword or staff. Permission received, Daniel made a concoction of pitch, fat and hair, boiled them together and made cakes. These he fed to the dragon who then burst asunder. The people threatened the king and had Daniel thrown into a den of seven lions. Usually two carcasses (LXX specifies bodies of persons condemned to death) and two sheep (Theod.), were provided for the lions each day. On the sixth day, Habakkuk was brought from Pal. by an angel with food for Daniel. When Daniel had eaten, Habakkuk was returned to his home. The king released Daniel and threw the opposition into the den where they were immediately devoured.
Bibliography J. T. Marshall, “Bel and the Dragon,” HDB, I (1899), 267, 268; T. Witton Davies, “Bel and the Dragon” in R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, I (1913), 652-664; and “Bel and the Dragon,” ISBE, I (1929), 427-431; R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times (1949), 436-444, 455, 456; B. M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (1957), 115-122.