The proclamation of Cyrus shows that he was not a Zoroastrian like Darius and Xerxes, but that as he claimed to be the successor of the Bab. kings, so also he acknowled^d the supremacy of Bel- Merodach the supreme Babylonian god. tience the restoration of the Jewish exiles was not due to any sympathy with monotheism, but was part of a general policy. Experience had taught him the danger of allowing a disaffected population to exist in a country which might be invaded by an enemy ; his own conquest of Babylonia had been assisted by the revolt of a part of its population ; and he therefore reversed the policy of deportation and denationalization which had been attempted by the Assyr. and Bab. kings. The exiles and the images of their gods were sent back to their old homes ; only in the case of the Jews, who had no images, it was the sacred vessels of the temple which were restored (Ezr 1'-"). See RP, New Series, v. pp. 143 a".
LnKRATCRg.— Herodotus 1. 95, 108-130, 177-214 ; Xen. Cymp. \ Ctesias, Persika, ed. Gilmore, vii.-xi. ; Nicotaua Dama$e*nus, (rg. 6ft-68 (Muller'8 Fragm. iiL pp. 406 ff.); L>io<ioru8 Sioilua, i»d. 19, Exc. pp. 239 f.; RP new scr. v. pp. 143-176 (where references are given to the various editions of the cuneiform texts); Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, i. ii. ; Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies, iv. ch. vii.; Dunclter, Uist. of Antiquity, Eng. ed. V. ; Bildinger in the Sitzungsberichte of the Academy of Vienna, ic\-ii. 711 (I8S0); HaWvy in Rev. del Etudet Juives L (18S0) ; Floigl, Ci/rus and Herodot (1881) ; Bauer, Die Kurnnitage und r<mramff« (1882) ; Keiper. Die netientd^ckten Injtrhri/frn Ober Cyru« (1SS2) ; Sayce, Lt Mu»ion (1SS2). pp. 648, 696. lUrodotva l.-iii. pp. 386 f., 438 ff.; Evere. Emporkominen dfr xyersiachen Macht vnter Kvros (1S84); Justi, Getch. der orignt. YittUr im AUertum.pp. 3719. (1884); Tiele, Bab. ■ Aiiyr. Gench. iv. 85 (1886) ; Winckler, Untersuch. zur altorient. lietch. i. pp. 109-132 ; Sayce. UCil ch. xi. (1893); PrAiek, Italian und rfajt Uatu da Ki/nxarex (1S90), Kamtryses und die Ccbcrtu'/frum} des Alter- thuinjiClS9~y, Tiele. 'CvnisdeOrooteen (legod'Jdienstvan Babel,' in MUanjrg Charles dt HarUz (1896). The latest ed. of Cyrus" Annalistic Tablet is bv Uager in DeUtzscb and Haupt's Beitragt iur^MVr. 11.(1881), 216 fl. . A. H. SAYCK.
D
DAGGER
543
D
D. — In critical notes on the text of the Gospels and Acta this symbol is used to indicate the readings of C'orfex Beza, a Grseco-Latin MS of the Gth cent, presen-ed in the Cambridge University Library. The text, both Greek and Latin, is wTitten sticho- metrically, i.e. in lines of unequal len^'th, divided according to the sense — the Greek on the left, the Latin on the right hand pa"e of each opening.
The Gospels are arranged in the order, Mt, Jn, Lk, Mk — an order found also in many old Latin MSS, the Gothic version, and in Const. Apost. ii. 57.
Between Mk and Ac there is a gap wliich, according to the original numbering of the quires, must have contained 67 leaves (8 quires and 3 leaves). It closes with a fragment of a Latin version of 3 Jn """. Clearly, therefore, the Epp. of Jn occuj^icd part of the vacant space (14 or 15 leaves). \\ liat else the missing leaves contained it is impossible to say. The other Catholic Epistle.s, if they were all present, would require about 30 leaves. This would leave 16 leaves (=2 quires) tinaccounted for ; and it is pos.sible, though not veiT likelj', that, as Scrivener suggests, the scribe had made a mistake of 2 in numbering bis quires at this point in the MS.
About 37 leavi-s are missing in other parts of the MS, and 12 are more or less mutilated. It is also mutilated at the end. The following passages are in consequence wanting in the (ireek Text — Mt ji-jo [37.1JJ gai.gj 27-''-", Jn P'-S^" [18"-20'-J, [Mk le"-*], Ac 8^-10" 21ii>-'8 22'»-»' 22» end. The gaps In the Latin are Mt 1'"" 6»-8" 26"-27', Jn l°-3'" [18»-20'], [Mk W-'^l The passages in square brackets have been supplied by a 9tli cent. hand.
The MS was written in all probability in Gaul, and Ilendel Harris has given good reason for believing that it did not travel far from its birth- place for the first 1000 years of its existence. During this period it was corrected at various times by eight or nine ditt'erent hands.
Its modern history begins with the Council of Trent, whither apparently it was taken in 1546 by the Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne. Stephens, in his 1550 edition, published readings from it derived from collations made for him by his friends in Italy — ^perhaps during this visit to the Council. When Beza pre.sented the MS to the University of Cambridge in I.')81, he stated that it had been taken from the Abbey of St. Irenseus in Lyons at the sack of that city in 1562. It is for the most part the only witness among Greek MSS to a type of text which we know from the evidence of patristic quotations and the earliest versions to have been widely current as early as the 2nd cent. It has in consequence, especially in recent years, received a great deal of attention, notably in a most ingenious work by J. Kendel Harris, A Study of Codex Bezm ("Texts and .Studies'), 18!ll, and in two careful but not altogether convincing volumes. The Old Syrinc Element in Codex Bezn^, 1893, and The Syro-Lotin Text of the Goxpds, by F. H. Chase, 1895. The problems raised by these writers will rui|uiro fuller treatment in connexion with the whole subject of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.