{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015739769150052464, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001049317943336831, 'mean_word_length': 4.546511627906977, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How Bel and the Serpent Went from Addition to Edition of Daniel

Abstract:The textual witnesses to the Book of Daniel are complex. They present a challenge to any scholar wishing to investigate the production and transmission of the book in the ancient world. The difficulties with the text are not limited to the twelve-chapter masoretic tradition but extend also to the so-called additions to Daniel. These not only appear in divergent locations within different editions and manuscripts but also appear in different forms. In this study, I argue that at least some of the differences between the Old Greek of Bel and the Serpent and the Theodotion edition of the story should be attributed to a pronounced interest on the part of Theodotion to link its version of the story to Daniel 6, the other story of Daniel in the lions’ den. To prove this point I examine the introductory verses, the use of divine names, and the description of the lions’ den.