← catalogue

The three additions to Daniel, a study

by William Heaford Daubney · English · Gutenberg #12420 · 324,616 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The three additions to Daniel, a study
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The three additions to Daniel, a study

Author: William Heaford Daubney


        
Release date: May 1, 2004 [eBook #12420]
                Most recently updated: October 28, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12420


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE THREE ADDITIONS TO DANIEL, A STUDY ***

THE THREE ADDITIONS TO DANIEL

A Study

BY

WILLIAM HEAFORD DAUBNEY, B.D.

JEREMIE PRIZEMAN, 1873

FORMERLY VICAR OF HARLINGTON, BEDFORDSHIRE, AND RECTOR OF LEASINGHAM,
LINCOLNSHIRE; AUTHOR OF THE "USE OF THE APOCRYPHA IN THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH," ETC.


Εὐλόγησαν τῷ θεῷ τῷ σώζοντι τοὺς ἐλπίζοντας ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.
--_Hist. Sus. v. 60._


CAMBRIDGE

DEIGHTON BELL AND CO.

LONDON G. BELL & SONS

1906



To my Wife
Alice Daubney




PREFACE

The three apocryphal portions of Daniel considered in this book have
often been hardly judged. One of them had almost become a byword of
contempt for fabulous inventiveness. Yet the writer hopes that he has
succeeded in shewing that they are worthy of more serious attention than
they have frequently received. The prejudice long existing in this
country against the Apocrypha as a whole has told heavily against two at
any rate of these booklets; and he who attempts to investigate the
nature and origin of the Additions to Daniel finds himself following a
track which is anything but well beaten. The number of commentaries or
treatises in English dealing directly with these works is very small.
Indeed, considering the position accorded to them by the Church, it is
surprisingly so. And of those which exist, some are not very valuable
for accurate study. Hence, in preparing a treatise of this kind,
materials have to be quarried and brought together from varied and
distant sources; and the work, small as its result may be in size, has
proved a laborious one. The conclusions arrived at on many points are
but provisional; for the writer thinks that the day has not yet come
when the source and place of these Additions to Daniel can be surely and
incontrovertibly fixed. It is to be hoped that further evidence and
longer study will eventually make these matters clearer than they are at
present. Meanwhile, careful and unprejudiced work upon the subject, by
whomsoever undertaken, cannot but tend towards that goal; and the author
trusts that he may have contributed something which will help, at least
a little, towards the solution of the difficult problem presented.

The Song of the Three and the Histories of Susanna and of Bel and the
Dragon are most interesting memorials of the spirit of their time,
though that time may be difficult to fix precisely. And when looked at
from the religious point of view they are replete with valuable moral
lessons for "example of life and instruction of manners," to borrow the
terms which the Sixth Article of Religion employs with regard to the
Apocryphal books. An attempt has been made, in a concluding chapter on
each book, to draw some of these lessons out, so that they may be easily
available for such homiletic and other purposes as are contemplated in
that Article.

The study of these three pieces supplementary to Daniel has convinced
the writer that they are of more value than has been generally supposed,
and are worthy of the attention of biblical scholars in a much higher
degree than that which has usually been accorded to them. If he has in
any way helped in providing materials, or in suggesting ideas, which may
fructify in abler hands, he will be rewarded for the researches he has
made.

It appears to him that there is much connected with these books which we
are unable now fully to discover; much about which it is unwise to
dogmatize; many questions which must be treated as open ones; many
problems which can at most only receive provisional solutions, till
further facts are elicited and further insight given. The time is
apparently still distant when the origin and true standing of these
Additions can be certainly assigned to them: for, at the present,
agreement amongst Christians on these points shews but little sign of
being arrived at. Yet we trust that the time will come when deeper
knowledge will make it possible for disputed points to be settled. "The
patience of the godly shall not be frustrate" (Ecclus. xvi. 13).

In conclusion I must record my hearty thanks to Dr. Sinker, Librarian of
Trinity College, Cambridge, for the great assistance he has given me in
correcting the proof-sheets, as well as for his constant kindness in
many other ways, of which these words are but an insufficient
acknowledgment.

W.H.D.

ST. MARGARET'S GATE,
BURY ST. EDMUNDS.

_St. Matthias' Day_, 1906.




CONTENTS

  PREFACE

  PART I.

    INTRODUCTION

  PART II.

    THE SONG OF THE THREE HOLY CHILDREN.

      Analysis

      1. Title and Position

      2. Authorship

      3. Date and Place of Writing

      4. For Whom and with what Object Written

      5. Integrity and State of the Text

      6. Language and Style

      7. Religious and Social State

      8. Theology

      9. Chronology

      10. Canonicity

      11. Early Christian Literature and Art

      12. Liturgical Use

      13. "Example of Life and Instruction of Manners"

  PART III.

    THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA.

      Analysis

      1. Title and Position

      2. Date and Place of Writing

      3. Authorship

      4. For Whom and with what Object Written

      5. Integrity and State of the Text

      6. Language and Style

      7. Religious and Social State

      8. Theology

      9. Chronology

      10. Canonicity

      11. Early Christian Literature and Art

      12. "Example of Life and Instruction of Manners"

  PART IV.

    THE HISTORY OF BEL AND THE DRAGON.

      Analysis

      1. Title and Position

      2. Authorship

      3. Date and Place of Writing

      4. For Whom and with what Object Written

      5. Integrity and State of the Text

      6. Language and Style

      7. Religious and Social State

      8. Theology

      9. Chronology

      10. Canonicity

      11. Early Christian Literature and Art

      12. "Example of Life and Instruction of Manners"

  INDEX OF PROPER NAMES

  INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS

[The text of the 'Additions' used throughout is that of Dr. Swete's
_Old Testament in Greek_, Vol. III. ed. 2, Cambridge, 1899.]




PART I

INTRODUCTION




INTRODUCTION.

These Additions differ from the other Apocryphal books, except the "rest
of" Esther, in not claiming to be separate works, but appearing as
supplements to a canonical book. The Song of the Three Children takes
its assumed place between vv. 23 and 24 of Dan. iii.; the History of
Susanna in the language of the A.V. is "set apart from the beginning of
Daniel"; and Bel and the Dragon is "cut off from the end of" the same
book. The first of these additions alone has an organic connection with
the main narrative; the other two are independent scenes from the life,
or what purports to be the life, of Daniel--episodes, one in his
earlier, one in his later, career. In the Song, Daniel personally does
not appear at all; in Susanna and in Bel he plays a conspicuous part; in
Susanna appearing as a sort of 'deus ex machina' to set things right at
the end; and in Bel he is an essential actor in the whole story.

It is hoped to shew, amongst other things, that the dissimilarity
supposed to exist between these additions and the rest of Daniel is by
no means so great as has sometimes been imagined. The opinion of one of
the latest commentators on Daniel (Marti, Tübingen, 1901, p. xx) may be
taken as a fair sample of this view. He thinks these pieces by no means
congruous with the canonical Daniel: "Den Abstand dieser apokryphischen
Erzählungen von dem in hebraram. Dan. aufgenommen Volkstradition kann
niemand verkennen." So far as these additions to the contents of Daniel
are concerned, he would agree with the exaggerated statement of Trommius
as to all the Apocrypha: "ad libros canonicos S. Scripturæ proprie non
pertinent nec cum Græca eorum versione quicquam commune habent," etc.
(_Concord. Præf._ § xi.). The sharp distinction drawn by J.M. Fuller
also between the style and thought of these additions, and of the
canonical Daniel, is far too strong: "as clearly marked as between the
canonical and apocryphal gospels." Few will think the separation between
them so wide as this (_Speaker's Comm. Introd. to Dan._ p. 221a).
Moreover, they are much less obviously incongruous, less plainly meant
for edifying "improvements" by a later hand, than the Additions to
Esther.

But beyond the connection, more or less strong, which these pieces have
with the canonical book, they have also a connection, by means of
certain similar features, with one another. All have this in common,
viz. the celebration or record of some deliverance. God's persecuted
people are rescued from mortal danger. In the first and third cases they
suffer at the hands of idolaters; in the second, of Jewish
co-religionists. In each case they provide us with a scene from
Israelitish life "in a strange land." They are tales of the Babylonian
Captivity.

In each story the ministry of angels, giving aid against visible foes,
takes a prominent place; though in Susanna these appearances are
suppressed in Theodotion's version, an angel, however, being just
mentioned in Daniel's sentences of condemnation. In each case too there
is distinct progress under God's guiding hand; things are left much
better at the end than at the beginning. There is a tone of confidence,
bred of sure conviction, in one abundantly expressed, in the others
latent, as to the ultimate triumph of right. They agree in the certainty
of God's defence, and shew complete reliance on Him. The Captivity had
done a purifying work.

These stories of rescue from oppressors would be specially acceptable
to the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity; more so probably than to the
Jews of the Dispersion elsewhere. Howbeit they are records of zeal and
trust which have moved many hearts in all ages and places.

In the last two Daniel appears as a person of great knowledge and power,
successfully acting under the Divine guidance. In all three there is
little which can properly be called strained or far-fetched. Almost
everything is drawn naturally from what we may presume would be the
condition of Daniel's time. Both behind and through the details of the
stories we can see the heart of one who praised God, loved justice, and
hated idolatry; who took delight in what was noble, pure, and truthful,
and waged a successful warfare with whatever he encountered of an
opposite character.

Each piece, moreover, has what may be thought to be its own allusion or
reminiscence in the New Testament. And each of these parallels,
curiously enough, seems eminently characteristic of the addition whence
it may have been taken.

Thus we find in the parallel of St. Matt, xxvii. 24 with Susanna 46 the
assertion of innocency in respect of miscarriage of justice; in that of
Heb. xii. 23 with the Song 64 (86), the utterance of the spirits and
souls of the righteous; and in that of Acts xvii. 23 with Bel and
Dragon 27, the mocker of idols.

One is from the beginning, one from the midst, one from the end of the
Greek Daniel; the first by St. Matthew reporting Pilate; the second by a
writer not certainly identified; the third by St. Luke reporting St.
Paul. These may be merely accidental resemblances, but their occurrence
in this way is curious, and worthy of consideration.

As to the position of these pieces, whether in or out of the canon, it
is probable, speaking generally, that those who used the Hebrew Bible,
or versions uninfluenced by the LXX, disregarded them as not being part
of Holy Scripture; and that those who used the LXX, or its versions,
accepted them, either with or without hesitation. Under the chapters
entitled "Early Christian Literature" it will be seen that those were by
no means wanting who appear to attribute in practical use canonical
authority to each fragment; and at least what Otto Stähelin says of
Clement of Alexandria, that he "nicht geringer schätzte," may be held
true of nearly all the Fathers who name them (_Clem. Alex, und LXX_,
Nürnberg, 1901, p. 74). It is, however, surprising that this divergence
of use, in so important a matter as the extent of the canon, did not
give rise to a more general controversy. What discussion there was on
this question lay chiefly between a few scholarly individuals, who
treated the matter as of private and personal, almost as much as of
public, interest.

Even if it were admitted that these works were not in the Hebrew canon,
the question is still not absolutely settled. For it might be contended,
without at all asserting that the Hebrew canon was erroneous or
deficient in its time, that these and other apocryphal works were
reserved in the providence of God for the Christian Church to deal with
as she thought fit. Nor is it clear that her powers as to them, when
deciding for canonicity or no, were of necessity more restricted than
her powers as to the N.T. books on the same question. What Tertullian
says with regard to 'Enoch' might be extended to other books, "Scio
scripturam Enoch... non recipi a quibusdam quia nec in armarium
Judaicum admittitur... a vobis quidem nihil omnino rejiciendum est quod
pertinent ad nos" (_De cult. fæm._ I. 13).

The title 'Daniel,' it should be observed, in lists of Scripture books,
often covers these additions; as for example in Origen's list, as
preserved by Eusebius, _H.E._ vi. 25. For we know that Origen (_Ep. ad
Afric._) defended these additions, and so almost certainly intended
this title to include them. So also with Athanasius and Cyril of
Jerusalem'(_see_ Sus. 'Canonicity,' p. 160). Probably it is on this
account that Loisy (_O.T. Canon_, Paris, 1890, p. 97) says that
Athanasius received "certainement les fragments de Daniel, sur la foi
des Septante, comme le font Origène et tous les Pères grecs."

Ecclesiastical practice, as well as their distribution amongst the
canonical books of both Greek and Latin Bibles, told, as time went on,
more and more in favour of their inclusion.

But they were not officially recognized as on a level in all respects
with Holy Scripture, even by the Roman Church, till the fourth session
of the Council of Trent (1546), when they were all placed on an equality
with, in fact treated as portions of, the book of Daniel. Probably the
phrase "libros integros _cum omnibus suis partibus_" was introduced into
the decree with special reference to these additions and those to
Esther. This decree, making them "sacred and canonical," was carried,
according to Loisy (p. 201), by 44 placets to 3 non-placets and 5
doubtful.[1] Dr. Streane, however, says (_Age of the Maccabees,_ 1898,
p. 102) it was passed by "a small majority." Even writers so late as
Nicholas de Lyra (†1340) and Denys the Carthusian (†1471) speak of
these additions as true, but not parts of Holy Scripture (Loisy, p. 223,
quoting Corn. à Lap. on Dan. xiii. 3). And they were of the Roman
obedience.

Bleek (_Introd. to O.T._ II. 336, Eng. tr.) says that the seventh decree
of the Council of Florence (1439), making mention of apocryphal books as
canonical, which no one was acquainted with before the Tridentine
Council, is very probably not genuine. Denys the Carthusian, it will be
observed, was subsequent to the supposed Florentine decree, and
seemingly ignorant of its existence.

The same writer states (pp. 336, 339) that while Karlstadt classed some
of the Apocrypha as "hagiographa extra canonem," he called these
supplements to Daniel, with the Prayer of Manasses, and others as "plane
apocryphos." He also represents Luther as prettily styling these pieces
corn-flowers plucked up, because not in the Hebrew, yet placed in a
separate garden or bed, because much that is good is found in them. They
are thus detached in his version, as in ours, from Daniel, and placed
among the apocryphal books. Calvin, however, in his Lectures on Daniel
entirely ignores these additions. His English translator barely mentions
them in his preface (Edinb. 1852, p. xlix.).

Far more contemptuous than Luther's estimate of these productions is
that of Professor (now Bishop) Ryle in the _Cambridge Companion to the
Bible_ (1894), where he writes: "The character of these stories is
trifling and childish."

But in reply to this and similar depreciatory opinions, it may be
pointed out that one does not look in these extra-Danielic stories for
such a knowledge of the human heart as is displayed in the Psalms, nor
for such knowledge of the Godhead as is revealed in St. John's Gospel.
If we look for fully developed doctrine of this kind, we shall no doubt
be disappointed. But we do find religious teaching after the tenor of
the old covenant, such as might be expected in compositions which are
mainly narrative; we meet with teaching which looks quite as clear as
that, say, of the books of Ruth, Chronicles, or Esther. Indeed, those
who have a mind to draw moral and spiritual instruction from these brief
works will not find it difficult to do so, or discover that the
religious teaching is out of harmony with that which is acknowledged to
exist in Daniel (_see_ chaps, on "Example of Life and Instruction of
Manners"). In point of fact, an overgrowth of unreasonable objections
has been too much encouraged; and if these pieces may not in all
respects secure a favourable vote, it is desirable that they may
receive at least an unprejudiced and equitable judgment.

The examples of patristic use given under the head of "Early Christian
Literature" will, it is hoped, sufficiently refute such statements as
that of Albert Barnes (_Daniel,_ Lond. 1853, pp. 79, 80): "It is seldom
that these additions to Daniel are quoted or alluded to at all by the
early Christian writers, but when they are, it is only that they may be
condemned." This may be taken as a specimen of a certain class of
adverse opinion, evidently formed without sufficient investigation of
the subject. In reality, these pieces are referred to, considering their
brevity, with surprising frequency; that the references are not
exclusively, or even generally, for purposes of condemnation, hardly
needs to be stated.

What effect these writings took on Jewish readers there is little or
nothing to shew. With the rest of the LXX, they seem to have lost ground
with Jews as they gained it with Christians. The closing scene of Bel
and the Dragon, however, is made use of in _Breshith Rabba_ to
illustrate Joseph's abandonment in the pit (Gen. xxxvii.)[2]. To
Christians indeed they have, from a very early date, constantly
presented themselves as highly valuable for purposes of edification.
Nor, with the possible exception of Susanna, is it easy to see in what
way they could have furthered, in that aspect, any undesirable end.

What will be the future of these pieces by which, in the Greek Bible,
the contents of Daniel were increased? It is not easy to say. Much will
surely depend on the eventual consensus of opinion as to the date of
that book itself. Neither the Roman nor Greek Churches shew any sign of
modifying their entire,[3] or very slightly qualified, acceptance of
these additions as integral parts of Holy Scripture. On the other hand,
English-speaking Protestant Dissenters shew almost as little sign of
rising to any religious appreciation of them.

Between these extremes the Church of England, and perhaps the German and
Scandinavian Lutherans, hold, as to these books, an intermediate
position, which in this, as in some other questions, may not improbably
prove to be the right one. In any case the English Church has always
treated them with great respect, a large part of one of them entering
into her Morning Prayer, and the other two having been appointed as
first lessons in her calendar from 1549 to 1872, except that Bel and
the Dragon was removed from 1604 to 1662. Previous to this last date
they were read, not as independent books, but as Dan. xiii. and xiv.

A patient waiting for the production of further evidence as to the
origin and position of these additions can hardly be unrewarded.
Meanwhile we may fitly agree with St. Gregory of Nazianzus' lines, which
apply as well to these as to the other books of the Apocrypha:

  Οὐκ ἅπασα βίβλος ἀσφαλὴς,
ἡ σεμνὸν ὄνομα τῆς Τραφῆς κεκτημένη.
εἰσὶν γὰρ, εἰσὶν ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε ψευδώνυμοι
βίβλοι· τινὲς μὲν ἔμμεσοι, καὶ γείτονες,
ὡς ἄν τις εἴποι, τῶν ἀληθείας λόγων.

(_Poems,_ lib. II., _ad Seleucum_, 252--256; Migne, _Patr. Gr._ xxxvii.
1593.)




PART II

THE SONG OF THE THREE HOLY CHILDREN

בָאֻרִים כַּבְּדוּ יְהוָׂה
(יש׳ כד׳ טו׳)



THE SONG OF THE THREE HOLY CHILDREN.


ANALYSIS.

vv.

1, 2. Narrative in continuation of the canonical text, describing
the procedure of the three children in the furnace.

3-22. Azarias' confession (3-10), and prayer (11-22), on behalf
of them all.

23-28. Narrative describing the fire, the descent of the Angel, and
the happy result.

29-68. The Song of praise itself, which may be subdivided thus: God
directly addressed in blessing (29-34); after all God's works,
celestial objects are addressed, including Angels[4] (35-41); objects
of the lower heaven or atmosphere are called upon, including those
immediately concerned, wind and dew being placed next to fire and heat
(42-51); then the earth[5] and its natural features, and the animals
inhabiting it, are called upon (52-59); then the human race, as a whole
and in various classes, down to the three children themselves (60-66).
In conclusion God is extolled for His ever-enduring mercy in phrases
culled from the Psalter (67, 68).


The tendency of the arrangement of the Song proper is to descend from
generals to particulars. It has a refrain at the end of each verse,
slightly differing in those preliminary verses which are addressed to
the Lord Himself, and wanting in the last three. The rendering of the
refrain in the preliminary verses does not seem very happy in its
English (A.V. and K.V.).


TITLE AND POSITION.


TITLE.

Forming, as it does, an integral portion of the third chapter of the
Greek Daniel, the principal MSS. give the Song, in that place, no
independent title. It falls of course under the general title of the
whole Book, Daniel.

Van Ess in his LXX (Lips. 1835) entitles it Προσευχὴ Ἀζαρίου καὶ ὕμνος
τῶν τριῶν, but as he puts this heading in curved brackets it is possibly
merely his own insertion. 'B' is the codex which he is professing to
follow in his text; but that MS. is credited with no such title in Dr.
Swete's Greek Old Testament; nor do Holmes and Parsons shew any
knowledge of it as existing in any of their MSS.

In the Veronese Graeco-Latin Psalter it is headed Ὕμνος τῶν πατέρων
ἡμῶν, and in the Turin Psalter Ὕμνος τῶν τριῶν παιδῶν, which title it
inserts again at v. 57, strangely regarding that verse as the
commencement of a fresh canticle with a new number, ιβ. Churton (_Uncan.
and Apocr. Script._, p. 391) suggests that the former title "may have
been wrongly transferred from Ecclus. xliv." at the head of which it
stands. He also calls it the title in the Alexandrian Psalter--the Odes,
presumably that is, at the end. But the title to Ecclus. xliv. is simply
πατέρων ὕμνος, so that the likelihood of the transfer, deemed possible
by Churton, having taken place is very small.

In the Odes, at the end of Cod. A, two canticles are extracted from this
piece; the first (Ode IX.) entitled Προσευχὴ Ἀζαρίου, the second (Ode
X.) Ὕμνος τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, each corresponding with the name given to
it. In the office of Eastern Lauds the two parts have separate titles,
being assigned to different days of the week (_D.C.A._ art. _Canticle_).

In the Syriac and Arabic versions of Daniel a separate title is given
after v. 23 of chap. iii., and in the latter after v. 52, according
to Churton in his marginal notes. He also says that "the prayer of the
companions of _Ananias_" is the Syriac title. The titles on the whole
are fairly suited to their purpose; but the use of the word "children"
(παιδῶν) in the common heading of the Song contemplates the three as of
the age indicated in Daniel i. rather than that in Daniel iii.


POSITION.

Obviously this is not meant for an independent work, since it has no
proper commencement of its own. "And they walked" is clearly intended
as a continuation of some foregoing history. Accordingly, its position
in the LXX, Theodotion, Vulgate, and other versions, is immediately
after the 23rd verse of Daniel iii., thus forming a portion of that
chapter. This is clearly its natural and appropriate place. It unites
well both at the beginning and the end with the canonical text, "Qui se
trouve entrelassée (_sic_) dans le texte," as D. Martin says in the
heading of the book in his French version. T.H. Home, however (_Introd._
1856, II. 936), mentions its "abrupt nature" as a reason for thinking
that the translator did not invent it, but made use of already existing
materials. But the abruptness is not so apparent to other eyes and ears.
Indeed G. Jahn, in his note on Dan. iii. 24 (Leipzig, 1904), considers
the gap between vv. 23 and 24 in the Massoretic text is filled up
satisfactorily in the LXX and Theodotion only.

By means of this insertion, and the inclusion of what in A.V. are the
first four verses of chap. iv., this chapter is lengthened out in the
Greek and Latin versions to exactly 100 verses.

Bishop Gray's note (_Key to O.T._ 1797, p. 608), in which he says "the
Song of the three holy children is not in the Vat. copy of the LXX," is
certainly a mistake. It is just possible, however, that he may have
meant that the true LXX version was absent from it. So Ball somewhat
obscurely (p. 310 "the Alex. MS. omits"[6]), and Bissell (p. 442),
though not very distinctly, suggest a like idea as to its omission from
Dan. iii. in A, and Zöckler in his commentary falls into the same
mistake (Munich, 1891, p. 231). It is not unlikely that these writers
successively influenced each other.

E. Philippe's idea (Vigouroux, _Dict._ II. 1267a), that this piece was
separated from the original book because "elle retarde le récit et est
en dehors du but final" seems unconvincing--as much so as Dereser's
(quoted in Bissell, p. 444), from whom perhaps it was borrowed--that
"the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem shortened it for convenient use," An equally
unsatisfying "reason" is that of H. Deane in _Daniel, his Life and
Times_, p. 70 (pref. 1888). "There is no doubt as to the antiquity of
this addition, but probably on account of the feelings of hatred the
three children express with regard to their enemies, it was not
universally received by the Church." In the face of many stronger
expressions in the O.T. received without hesitation, this explanation
seems untenable, or at least insufficient. And the same may be said of
G. Jahn's theory that some mention of the singing of the three,
contained in the original, was expunged by the Massoretes as too
wonderful and apocryphal.

Much has been made of the omission of this and the other additions from
the original Syriac (_e.g._ Westcott, quoting Polychronius, Smith's
_D.B._, ed. 2. 7136, Bissell, 448), but they are contained in the Syriac
text of Origen's _Hexapla_, in the MS. in the Ambrosian Library at Milan
(Kautzsch, I. 172), published in facsimile by Ceriani. Bugati in his
edition of Daniel gives this Syriac and the LXX text in parallel
columns. In Jephet Ibn All's (the Karaite's) Arabic commentary on
Daniel, translated by D.S. Margoliouth (Oxf. 1889), no notice is taken
of the additions. The commentary was probably written about A.D. 1000.

Professor Rothstein (Kautzsch, I. 173) compares the situation of the
prayer in ix. 4 _sqq._, which he deems, like this one, to have been
perhaps a later insertion into the book.

It is beyond question that if this psalm of prayer and praise is to find
a place anywhere in the Book of Daniel, no more suitable position can be
found for it than that which it occupies so well in the Greek. If it is
a digression from the course of the original narrative it is very
happily placed, since it accounts satisfactorily for the statement "the
king was astonied" in v. 24 (91). He was surprised at the voice of
praise, instead of the shrieks of pain which he had expected to produce
by the execution of his decree.


AUTHORSHIP.

In the Greek of neither Ο´ nor Θ is there variation sufficient to prove
that the writer differed from the one who translated the rest of the
book. Rather do the indications point to the same hand having been at
work throughout. Comely says of this and its companion pieces, "Neque in
trium pericoparum argumentis quidquam invenitur quo illas Danielis
auctori attribuere prohibeamur" (_Compendium,_ Paris, 1889, p. 421).
This, like other R.C. writings, holds of course a brief for their
canonicity.

The Prayer, on the surface, claims to be by Azarias; the Song by all the
three. The introductory and intermediate narrative verses are given as
if from the same pen as the rest of Daniel's history; v. 4 (27)
reminds us in its terms of Daniel iv. 37 (34) very strongly, and, in
part, of ix. 14. In v. 24 (47) the mention of 49 (7 x 7) is paralleled
by the symbolic use of the number 7 in iv. 25, etc. But even if, as is
likely, they did not originate with the ostensible utterers, still it
is quite possible that the hand for the prayer, the narrative, and the
Song may not, in the first instance, have been identical.

Probably, however, we are intended, by the producer of the piece in its
present shape, to understand that the prayer and the Song are recorded,
even if not originated, by the author of the whole book. If not genuine
parts of Daniel, their parentage has not been assigned to any named
author; and the work must be treated as anonymous, for no clue has been
traced which points to a definite writer.

The putting forward in v. 2 (25) of the second person of the trio, not
otherwise distinguished from his fellows, is remarkable, and not
suggestive of a forgery. There is nothing to shew why he led the prayer,
as no special characteristics are attached to Abed-nego in our
knowledge. Most likely a forger would have put the prayer into the mouth
of Shadrach (Ananias), who always stands first, though the order of the
last two is reversed in the one place in which the three are named in
the uncanonical portion of the chapter. Ewald (_Hist. of Israel_, E. Tr.
Lond. 1874, V. 486) thinks that Azarias is introduced as the eldest, or
perhaps the teacher, of the other two; but this conjecture does not
account for the varying orders of the names of the three in v. 65.

However thick a veil may rest over the author's name, it may safely be
regarded as certain that he was a Jew, and a Jew who was well acquainted
with the Psalter. But the opinion as to whether he was of Babylonian,
Palestinian, or Alexandrian extraction will depend in a great measure on
the view taken as to the original language, whether Chaldee, Hebrew, or
Greek. Professor Rothstein (p. 174) admits the possibility of this
addition having been made to Daniel before its translation into Greek.
But Dean W.R.W. Stephens (_Helps to Study of P.B._, Oxf. n. d., prob.
1901, p. 45) may be taken as representing what has been the commonest
view. He thinks it "probably composed by an Alexandrine Jew." On the
other hand, Dr. Streane's remark tells against this increase of contents
having begun at Alexandria. "The tendency to diffuseness, characteristic
of later Judaism... operated much more slightly among Egyptian Jews
than with their brethren elsewhere" (quoted in Dr. Swete's _Introd. to
Greek O.T._, p. 259).

The assertion has gone the round of the commentators that the Song
proper is a mere expansion of Psalm cxlviii., leaving us to infer that
it is hardly a work of independent authorship. Perowne[7] writes, "the
earliest imitation of this psalm is the Song of the Three Children." And
J.H. Blunt, _in loc._, tells us that "the hymn in its original shape was
obviously an expanded form of the 148th Psalm." So even Gaster,
"modelled evidently on Ps. cxlviii."[8]; while Wheatley[9] goes so far
as to say that it is "an exact paraphrase" of that psalm, "and so like
it in words and sense that whoever despiseth this reproacheth that part
of the canonical writings."[10] But though the general idea for calling
upon nature to glorify God is the same, the author of _Benedicite_ is
much more than a mere expander or imitator. Naturally many of the same
objects are mentioned; but while comparison with the LXX version of the
psalm shews some resemblance in word and thought, it shews much more
variation in style, phraseology, and treatment. That the writer, as a
Jew, was acquainted with this psalm can scarcely be doubted; that he
consciously imitated it there is little to shew. Moreover, the use of
this psalm at Lauds in the Ambrosian, the Eastern, and Quignon's
service-books, together with the _Benedicite_, would hardly have
occurred if the Church had regarded the latter as a mere expansion of
the former, and not as a distinct production.

Whoever the author may have been, he was evidently strictly orthodox,
and quite in sympathy with his three heroes, in whose mouths he placed
this lively, agreeable, and most religious Song. He has added a much
appreciated treasure, at least among Christians, to the ecclesiastical
hooks; a most serviceable form of utterance for the Church's praiseful
voice. But the nature of the piece does not afford much scope for
display of the character or personality of the writer. He effaces
himself while extolling devotion to Jehovah, and, if he be Daniel, while
recording the faithfulness of the blessed friends of his youth. What
subject more likely to excite his enthusiastic sympathy? Honour to the
martyrs who endured, praise to the Lord who delivered, it was plainly a
pleasure to him to give.


DATE AND PLACE.


DATE.

Almost everything, excepting its absence from the original, points to
the Song having been from the beginning a part of the LXX text of
Daniel. Its date therefore in this case would be the date of that text.
The way in which it is worked into the canonical Daniel narrative
suggests that, if there be any variation as to date in the three
additions, this is seemingly the earliest.

That the LXX translator invented this enlargement out of his own genius
seems highly improbable; nor, were it not for its absence from the
original Daniel, few would have doubted that he obtained the whole of
his material from the same quarter. In such case our 'apocryphon' would
obviously ante-date the LXX text.

It is not unlikely that the Alexandrian translator worked up certain
traditions (J.M. Fuller, S.P.C.K. _Comm._; see also Bevan, _Dan._ Camb.
1892, p. 45), or, if Gaster's discovery be what he thinks, written
narratives. What sources, however, were used in preparing its LXX Greek
form can only be conjectured, and that on very slender data.

Rothstein in Kautzsch (I. 176) deems it to have been imported into the
text of Daniel before the LXX translation, which he dates at latest in
the first quarter of the last century B.C.

How an interpolation of this kind came to be admitted into the original
of Daniel is a difficult matter to explain. Even on the supposition that
the כתובים were less rigidly fixed than the Law or even the Prophets,
the insertion or omission of such a section as this seems a very bold
step. Ewald (_Hist. Israel,_ v. 86, 87, Eng. Tr.) thinks these additions
to be fragments of an enlarged Daniel based on the older book, which was
composed one or two centuries earlier.[11] Some later writer must have
compared this new book, which was originally written in Greek, with the
translation of the older book of Daniel, and transferred whatever he
thought proper from the former into the latter. The work, thus compiled
afresh, has been preserved in Greek shape, while the intervening book,
whose former existence is proved by clearest traces, is now lost. It is
only in this way, Ewald thinks, that we can explain the origin and
preservation of the portions which are not contained in the Hebrew.

Prof. Kautzsch (I. 121) deems III. Maccabees, in vi. 6 of which book
there is a reference to v. 27 (50) of the Song, to date from some time
between the end of the second century B.C. and 70 A.D. at the latest.
Within these limits he fixes upon the commencement of the Christian era
as the most likely time. Dr. Streane, moreover (_Age of Macc._ p. 157),
thinks that while century I. B.C. is very possible, it cannot be of
earlier date, on account of the proof given by this verse of
acquaintance with the Song. This reference, therefore, undoubted as it
is, does not greatly help us in solving the problem of date, except as
to its _ad quem_ limit.

Tob. xii. 6 and xiii. 10 (the latter especially in the Vulgate) are very
similar in phraseology to the refrain of the _Benedicite_; vv. 29, 30
(52) too, in both Greek versions, strongly suggest an acquaintance with
Tob. viii. 5, since κύριε appears more likely to have been added to,
than omitted from, the later document of the two. This is on the
assumption that Tobit is, as Streane thinks (p. 148), pre-Maccabean, or
at any rate earlier than this Song. But as the words used are not very
distinctive, it is quite possible that they might have been
independently prepared. The mention of Ananias, Azarias, and Misael in
I. Macc. ii. 59 is not conclusive as to its writer's knowledge of the
Song, but the order of the names, which does not occur elsewhere, makes
a remembrance of v. 88 not improbable. I. Macc. is dated by Kautzsch
(I. 31) from 100 to 90 B.C.; Streane (p. 149) allows slightly wider
limits; and Westcott (Smith's _D.B._ II. 173) suggests 120 to 100. As to
another possible indication given by v. 66 (88), see 'Chronology,' p.
69.

Of that scepticism which followed the refinements of rabbinism there is
no trace, either here, or in Susanna, or in Bel and the Dragon. The
tone of them all is that of an earlier time, free from any symptoms of
this later decline. But still the signs of date are not sufficiently
decided to justify us in fixing upon a narrow period with any degree of
certainty. Taking the piece as independent of the original Daniel, the
second century B.C. might perhaps be named as far from improbable. But a
closer date than this it is hardly safe to fix.


PLACE.

If we assume an _Aramaic original_, Babylonia most probably will be the
place for its production; Palestine somewhat less probably. But
indications of place in the piece itself are very faint. It is true,
however, that the order "nights and days" is "in conformity with the
Shemitic custom of fixing the beginning of the day at the preceding
evening" (McSwiney, _Psalms and Canticles_, 1901, p. 644).

Everyone must have noticed the frequency with which things watery and
things cold are mentioned in the Song. The number of times they occur
seems quite out of proportion with the scale on which it is conceived.
Water, showers, dew, cold, frost, snow,[12] sea, rivers, fountains, all
that move in the waters, are apostrophised in succession. The
preponderance of these objects is very noticeable, even to a cursory
reader. Now both Babylon and Alexandria are alike situated in hot
countries; but of the two, a resident in the former would be more likely
to have had these things brought before his eyes than a resident in the
latter. Lower Egypt with its almost rainless climate, and its one river,
does not seem the most likely locality to suggest a constant reference
to such topics. Chaldæa, on the other hand, is better watered and is
within the region of rain, and at any rate in its northern parts, of
frost and snow. Dura, according to Keith Johnston's map, is close to the
hills. But the position of "the plain of Dura," where the martyrdom took
place, has not been certainly identified. J.M. Fuller's note on v. 42
(64), "Rain and dew have that prominence which naturally belongs to them
in the parched East," is far from sufficing to explain the oft recurring
mention of these matters.

Still less does Bishop Forbes' remark[13] that "the element of water
seems specially to have received the benediction of the Lord," serve to
elucidate the cause of its preponderance here.

The slight anthropomorphism in v. 54, where 'sitting' is implied in Θ,
expressed in Ο´, is more conformable to Babylonian than Alexandrian
ideas; but this may be a mere reminiscence of Psalms lxxx. 1, xcix. 1.
The mention of pitch or bitumen is inconclusive, inasmuch as it is found
in both Babylonia and Egypt; but the mention of "heavens" and "stars of
heaven" (vv. 59, 63), agrees very well with Chaldean origin. So far,
therefore, as these considerations go, they turn the scale, to a small
extent, in favour of Babylonia.

The only natural object which may be regarded as telling in the opposite
direction is κήτη (v. 79), which might be thought to point to
knowledge of the Mediterranean Sea (_see_ Child Chaplin, _Benedicite,_
1879, p. 324).

The birthplace of the LXX text is surely Alexandria. The character of
this, as of the other additions, indicates, according to Westcott
(_D.B._ ed. 2, I. 1714a) and Wordsworth (on Dan. iii. 23), the hand of
an Alexandrian writer.

It is well, however, to notice that this, with its companion pieces, has
as few indications of Greek philosophy and habits of thought as any part
of the Apocrypha; and in common with most Alexandrian writers it has
little or nothing of purely Egyptian character. Still, Dereser's idea
that "Daniel may have written his book in Greek at Babylon with all the
additions" (quoted by Bissell, p. 444) seems most unlikely, and could
hardly have been advanced except under the necessity of supporting the
Roman view of the book.

Theodotion's version, so far as concerns the locality where it
originated, shares the obscurity which hangs over much of Theodotion's
personal life. Ephesus may be suggested, for Irenæus (III. xxiii.)
styles him ὁ Ἑφέσιος; though Epiphanius calls him Ποντικός (_D.C.B._
art. _Hexapla_, p. 22a). The latter author is, for the most part, the
less accurate of the two. In _De Mensuris, etc._, XVII. he states that
Θ's version was issued in the second Commodus' reign, 180--192,
"obviously too late."[14] The pre-Theodotionic version which Θ is thought
to have used may of course have been an Alexandrian production; but at
present little is known of it.

That Theodotion had some earlier rendering, besides the LXX as his
basis, the quotations in Rev. ix. 20, etc., and St. Matt. xii. 18,
coinciding with his version,[15] render highly probable, inasmuch as he
wrote subsequently to any likely date for those books. Possibly he may
have used Aquila's version, or that of some unknown translator.
Professor Gwynn's idea (_D.C.B._ art. _Theodotion_, 977a) of "two rival
Septuagintal Daniels"[16] seems to have more "inherent improbability"
than he is inclined to admit. But where this ground text, circulated
apparently in Palestine and Asia Minor, was made, who can say? But if we
take St. John as the author of Revelation, his connection with Ephesus,
and the probable publication of his work there, give some little support
to the theory of an Ephesian origin of Theodotion's translation.

It is strange that a version supposed to be made by one who was not an
orthodox Christian, if Christian at all, should have been preferred, as
far as concerns Daniel, by the Christian Church for ordinary use.[17]
Jerome (_Præf. in Dan._) says, as if he felt that some explanation was
needed, "et hoc cur acciderit nescio," though he proceeds to suggest
some possible reasons why the version of one "qui utique post adventum
Christi incredulus fuit" should have been so much honoured. The
religious work of a Jew, who lived before Christ, and that of one who
refused to acknowledge his advent after it had taken place, stand
obviously, for Christians, on a different footing.


FOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.


FOR WHOM.

Undoubtedly for Jewish readers, who were already interested in the story
of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; designed for those who had Daniel's
book in their hands, who felt the Three to be heroes rightly honoured.

Of course, if the words were really spoken by Azarias, they were for the
honour of God and the benefit of himself and his companions in the fire;
and the Song itself becomes a real thanksgiving, on the spur of the
moment, for the literal fulfilment of such promises as Isai. xliii. 2--a
form, for their own personal use, to express their immediate feelings.

Verse 24 (Ο´) might suggest the idea that the prayer (and perhaps the
Song also) were uttered in the interval between the issue and the
execution of the king's order for burning alive; but the words ἐν μέσῳ
τῷ πυρί in v. 25 forbid this view. (As to a possible subsequent
insertion of the prayer, see 'Integr. and State of Text,' p. 42.)
Theodotion also precludes this idea by his insertion of ἐν μέσῳ τῆς
φλογὸς in v. 24 itself, as well as ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ πυρὸς in v. 25. The
slight change in the case of the last two words lessens the likelihood
of their having been transferred from v. 25 of one version to v. 25
of the other. But it is quite possible that Θ may have purposely omitted
the clause in v. 24 of Ο´, beginning ὅτε αὐτοὺς, in order to shut out
the idea of these devotions having taken place in the interval suggested
above.

Dean Farrar even says that the Song is "not very apposite" (_Expositor's
Bible_, Daniel, Lond. 1895, p. 180), though other minds find it
remarkably so. In writing on v. 27 (50) he erroneously substitutes
νότιον for δρόσον. This is probably copied from Ball's note _in loc._ If
the latter part of v. 66 (88) was in the original Song, the reference
to their own position is of course apposite enough.

Even a writer of such a stamp as Albert Barnes (_Comm. on Dan._ iii. 23)
is obliged to confess that "with some things that are improbable and
absurd, the Song contains many things that are beautiful and that would
be highly appropriate if a song had been uttered at all in the furnace."
But to a contrary effect J. Kennedy goes even further than Dean Farrar,
calling it "an elaborate composition by some one whose imagination
failed to realise what was fitting and natural to men in the position of
the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace" (_Dan. from a Christian
Standpoint,_ 1898, p. 55).

The passage vv. 26 to 34 is provided in Littledale's _Priest's P.B._
(1876, p. 95) as a suitable Scripture reading for those "in fever."
Although there is a kind of appropriateness in the narrative of the fire
being driven off, many would regard this application of the extract as
highly fanciful, and not quite agreeable to the object with which the
piece was written.


OBJECT.

Unless we assume the writer to be purely an imaginative novelist, the
preservation of serviceable traditions as profitable records of
religion, is clearly his principal aim. This addition cannot reasonably
be said in any way to distort or disagree with, though it adds to, the
sacred narrative. It is very well fitted into the main story; and the
non-appearance of Daniel is quite in accord with his absence from the
scene in chap. iii.

An edifying purpose is most conspicuous, and, if we assume that it is
really an interpolation of the original book, we may well suppose with
Bishop Gray, that "some writer desirous of imitating and embellishing
the sacred text" has left us this specimen of his work; that the
veneration of some Hellenistic Jew probably induced him to fabricate
this ornamental addition to the history (_op. cit._ pp. 610, 611).

One aim would be to satisfy the interest awakened by the wonderful
experiences of the three, which afforded a narrative ground-work for
this extension; falling in this respect, as Prof. Ryssel points out
(Kautzsch I. 167), into the same category as the Prayer of Manasses and
the additions to Esther. It may be said that resistance to idolatry,
securing divine deliverance, is, as in Bel and the Dragon, the "motif"
of the piece. But this is not accomplished without great peril and
anxiety to these martyrs in will, who kept before them an uncompromising
standard, worthy of their noble lineage (Dan. i. 3), as well as of their
true religion.

In some respects we are reminded of Jonah's prayer, which had a similar
object, viz., to secure a deliverance from hopeless danger, a
deliverance as marvellous as that of the Three. The words by which it is
introduced are similar (καὶ προςηύξατο Ἰωνᾶς... ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας τοῦ
κήτους καὶ εἰπεν, Jon. ii. 2; καὶ συστὰς Ἀζαρίας προςηύξατο καὶ... ἐν
μέςῳ τοῦ πυρὸς εἰπεν, Dan. iii. 25, Θ); and the spirit of turning to God
in dire straits is the same. But Jonah's prayer differs from Azarias' in
containing much mention of his immediate danger. Yet the absence of this
from Azarias' prayer hardly amounts to a probable indication of
forgery; indeed the possibility of so long an utterance implies some
restraint of the consuming power of the furnace, such as is described in
v. 27 of the Chaldee.

A subsidiary purpose answered in the Song proper is that of joining
nature with ourselves, by addressing it in a series of invitations to
magnify Him who is its God and ours alike, thus interpreting the
feelings which nature maybe supposed to entertain. It is recognised that
the irrational as well as the rational have their rightful spheres of
action; and a wholesome sympathy is manifested with those portions of
nature--which we think are lower than ourselves. With this may be
compared Adam and Eve's morning hymn (in Milton's _Paradise Lost_, Book
V., 1. 153 _sq._), which is very similar in tone and in sequence of
objects apostrophized.

The Song so readily leads itself to use as a Canticle that the idea
inevitably arises of its having been composed with that purpose in view;
but proof that it was ever so used by the Jews seems entirely wanting.
The statements made in some P.B. manuals that it was so used appear to
have arisen from a misunderstanding of an ambiguous sentence of
Wheatley's (_see_ 'Liturgical Use,' p. 83). Still, there may have been
an _arrière pensée_ in the composer's mind of providing models of
prayer and of praise for others, in crisis of trial or deliverance, to
offer unto God. It is pleasing to note in this respect, that the
thanksgiving is not stinted, but is even longer than the prayer. Nowhere
is the manifold wealth of God's revelation in nature more fully and
comprehensively set forth in the most exalted spirit of praise; so that,
if this were one of the composer's objects, it is most abundantly
answered.


INTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.

It has been suggested by Prof. Rothstein (in Kautzsch I. 174, 175) that
the prayer of Azarias, the intermediate narrative, and the Song itself,
were not all written at the same time. But this view is based purely on
internal probability, and derives little or no support from any of the
MSS. or versions, unless the introduction of titles in the Arabic after
v. 28 (51), and in some Greek copies to the prayer of Azarias, be
thought to give it countenance; yet these may have crept in from their
convenience for liturgical use, and so be accounted for merely on
practical grounds.

To base this separation, however, on a supposed disagreement between v.
15 (38) and vv. 31 (53), 62 (84), is certainly insufficient cause, as
Ball points out (307b), for assigning Prayer and Song to different
writers (_see_ 'Chronology,' p. 67). But the observation that the
narrative passage between the Prayer and the Song fits in well after the
canonical v. 23[18] seems a stronger basis for supposing that the prayer
is a later introduction than the Song. Rothstein points out (p. 181,
note d) that v. 1 (24) in Θ has relation to the Song, but not to the
Prayer, and originally, as he imagines, took the place of the present v.
28 (91) of similar import. Corn. a Lap. notes of v. 1 (24) "est
hysterologia." This view is also mentioned with favour in Charles'
article on Apocrypha in the 1902 vols. of _Encycl. Brit._ (_cf._ 'For
whom written,' p. 36).

It is observable also that the statement of v. 26 (48) is not a mere
repetition of that in v. 22, but refers to the scorching of the
onlookers, while v. 22 speaks of those who executed the king's
order.[19]

The repetition of the same invocation at the commencement of the Prayer
and the Song is noteworthy; if the two are not contemporary, it has
probably been borrowed by the composer of the Prayer. But the difficulty
(often magnified) of reconciling the statements of v. 15 (38) with the
Jews' civil and ecclesiastical condition at the time of Daniel iii.
wears quite a different aspect if the Prayer is regarded as an
interpolation of later date by another hand. Altogether this theory of
the interpolation of the Prayer is surrounded with a considerable air of
probability.

Five extra verses are interspersed in the Syriac of the Song, calling
upon the hosts of the Lord, ye that fear the Lord, cold and heat (the
winter and summer of our _Benedicite_), the herbs of the field, and the
creeping things of the earth (Churton's translation). Of these "frigus
and aestus" is in the Vulgate, taken from Θ. The source of the others is
unapparent, though creeping things would very naturally follow beasts
and cattle, as in Gen. vii. 14.

The present ending of the Song, after the usual refrain in the middle of
v. 66 (88) is of a laboured nature with a decidedly "dragging" style. It
certainly has the appearance of being an afterthought, added by some not
very skilful composer, who fancied the original termination to be too
abrupt, and thought he could attach an appropriate supplement. But of
this theory no external evidence is at present forthcoming.

Θ agrees with the Ο´ text much more closely in this than in the other
additions. Most verses are the same, word for word; and many others have
but the slightest variations. He makes a few small omissions, as in
(Greek) vv. 24, 40, 67, 68; but in general he follows Ο´ exactly. Even
vv. 67, 68, are contained in A, in both places, in Daniel and in the
Odes at the end; also they are in the Turin Psalter, though omitted in
the Veronese (Swete's LXX). As they are found, with a little difference
in the Ο´ text, they may have fallen out of B and Q accidentally. The
identical refrain at the end of each verse would naturally facilitate an
error of this kind.

The principal MSS. available for Θ's text are the same as those for the
canonical part of Daniel, A, B, and Q. Γ fails us here, as in other
passages, except from vv. 37--52, in which its variations are
unimportant.

Taking B as the ground-work, A's changes are not generally of serious
moment, excepting in the case of the two inserted verses, 67 and 68, and
the transposition of vv. 73 and 74. Otherwise they chiefly consist of
small insertions or omissions which do not materially affect the sense
(_vv_ 36, 81); varying forms from the same root such as ὑπεραινετός for
αἰνετός (v. 54), εὐλογημένος for εὐλογητός (v. 56). The correctors of B
in v. 38, though unsupported by the chief codices, certainly seem right
in substituting οὐδε for οὐ. Q's variations not unfrequently agree with
A's; where they do not, they are scarcely more important, and often
partake of a similar character. In v. 88 a synonym is substituted, viz.,
ἔσωσεν for ἐρύσατο (2nd). In the few verses covered by Γ, B is generally
agreed with; a change of case, αὐτούς instead of αὐτοῖς, appearing in v.
50.


LANGUAGE AND STYLE.


LANGUAGE.

The probability of a Semitic original lying in the background of this
piece, has always been considerable. Those who have maintained Greek as
the original language, have generally spoken a little less confidently
with regard to this than with regard to its two companion pieces. So
Bissell writes (p. 443), though a supporter of the Greek (p. 43),
"undoubtedly more can be said in favour of such a theory" [of a Semitic
original] "than for a similar one in respect of the two remaining
additions." And since M. Gaster discovered in 1894 an Aramaic text, the
grounds for deeming the Greek to be the original, though not set aside,
have been partially undermined. Schürer, however, in Hauck's _Encycl._
(I. 639), appears to think that this is translated from Θ, and not _vice
versâ,_ as Gaster claims. In his third German ed. of _H.J.P._ (III. 333)
he agrees with Gaster in deeming תודוס to be Θ, but considers the
Aramaic to be a rendering of Θ's Greek, taken into the tenth-century
Chronicle of Jerahmeel.

It must be confessed that the existence of two Greek versions increases
the probability, though it does not prove the existence, of an original
in another language. It does not seem likely that Θ would have revised
the Ο´ of the additions in the same way as the canonical part, unless he
had a similar basis to go upon in both cases. If not, why, and on what
authority, did he alter the additions at all? And this consideration
applies to the other two, even more than to the one we are dealing with,
inasmuch as the version of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon involved
more numerous changes. Irenæus' statement that Theodotion "ἡρμήνευσεν,"
taken strictly, would of course always imply an original to translate;
but Irenæus may only have been thinking of the particular passage from
Isaiah which he refers to (III. xxiii.).

Many phrases may be instanced which point to a Semitic original, or at
least fit in well with the theory of its existence. Towards
counterbalancing this there is a much smaller number which may be
thought to tell in the opposite direction. But in the main, as Comely
truly writes (_op. cit._ p. 420), "accedit hebraismorum frequentia quum
in Alexandrini tum in Theodotionis versione."[20]

It is to be observed, however, that the names of the Three are Grecized
from their original Hebrew nomenclature,[21] although their Babylonian
names are employed in Dan. iii., and adopted by Ο´ and Θ in the
canonical portions, both before and after the apocryphal episode. An
apparent exception occurs in v. 23 of Ο´, where clauses of that verse
and of v. 22 have been transposed and slightly altered. Here Azarias
occurs in the same form as in the apocryphal portion. But this isolated
use of the Hebrew form of his name has probably been brought about by
the insertion of our piece into the chapter, the same form and phrase,
τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἀζαρίαν, being found in v. 49 of both Greek texts. A like
phrase occurs in Ezek. xxxviii. 6, and in Acts xiii. 13. The order of
names, too, differs in this Addition from their order elsewhere, the two
last changing places, thus bringing Azarias (Abed-nego) into the middle.
It is remarkable that he is twice, vv. 2 (25) and 8 (49), placed as if
he were the leading member of the trio, in the former verse as uttering
the prayer, in the latter as heading the party in the furnace; and so
also, as pointed out above, in v. 23 of Ο´. This last fact, however, is
counterbalanced in the same version by all three being named in v. 24 as
praying, Azarias not there figuring as the sole speaker. These small
indications certainly point to some ancient distinction between the
uncanonical insertion, as we have it, and the body of the book.

E. Philippe (in Vigouroux' _D.B._ II. p. 1266) argues for Hebrew and
not Greek originals, because of the existence of two Greek versions,
neither of which, he says, appears to be a revision of the other,
containing hebraisms suggestive of a Hebrew original. But as regards the
Song of the Three, this statement, that neither version is a revision of
the other, must be regarded as more than doubtful. He also says that
the Chisian and Syro-Hexaplar MSS. contain critical signs of Origen,
revealing a Hebrew text, and in 87 (Chisianus) at xiii. 1-5, Α´, Σ´, Θ´
indicate Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, all translators from the
Hebrew. This last point, however, may not stand as to the Song of the
Three (_see_ note in Kautzsch, p. 176) so far as Aquila is concerned.
For Origen, in his letter to Africanus, seems to imply that Aquila's
rendering did not contain the Song: Οὕτω γὰρ Ἀκύλας δουλεύων τῇ Ἑβραικῇ
λεξει ἐκδέδωκεν--§ 2.

Jerome's words in the Vulgate, after v. 23, "quæ sequuntur in Hebraeis
voluminibus non reperi," are very guarded, not absolutely denying the
existence of a Hebrew text, but merely asserting that he has not met
with it. Cod. Amiatinus, however, has 'non repperiuntur,' an expression
which asserts more comprehensively the absence of this passage in his
time.

The following are some specific indications of language which appear to
be of sufficient interest to be noted separately:

v. 27 Ο´, Θ. Δίκαιος εἶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν = צַרִּיק צַל rendered by ἐπὶ in Dan.
ix. 14 (in both versions) and in Neh. ix. 33. Δίκαιος ἐπὶ also occurs in
Bar. ii. 9, in that part of Baruch which is almost certainly a
translation from the Hebrew. Ball (_Speaker's Comm._) gives a similar
phrase from the _Iliad_, and Bissell a still more apposite one from
_Il._ IV. 28, to shew that it is not unknown in pure Greek. Gaster's
Aramaic has simply ל not צל.

v. 30 Ο´, Θ. Ὑπακούω governs the genitive correctly, but συντηρέω,
coupled with it, is made to govern the same noun. Exigencies of
translation might easily cause this awkwardness, but hardly original
Greek composition.

v. 31 Ο´. Καὶ νῦν = וְצַתָּה So translated in II. Chron. vi. 16, 17 at
the beginning of the verse, as here; it occurs again in vv. 33 and 41 in
both versions, as also in ix. 15, 17. It is not a very natural beginning
of a Greek sentence.

v. 32 Ο´, Θ. Why ἁποστατῶν, a title which does not seem very applicable
to the Babylonians? It may be merely a rendering of טרך as in Ezra iv.
12, 15. The Vulgate here has 'prævaricator.' In Gaster's Aramaic the
verse is different. But _cf._ use of ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι in Eph. ii. 12 of
those who had never belonged to Israel.

v. 33 Ο´, Θ. Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἀνοῖξαι looks very like a translation of
אֵין לָנוּ, an idiom used in II. Chron. xxxv. 3, 15 in the sense of
'cannot,' followed by a verb in the infinitive. _Cf._ Heb. ix. 5.

v. 34 Ο´, Θ. Εἰς τέλνς = לְכָלָה or לָנֶצַח as in II. Chron. xii. 12,
Ps. xv. 11. Διασκεδάσῃς σου τὴν διαθήκην. This curious expression may be
the rendering of such a phrase as that in I. Kings xv. 19,
הָפֵרָה אֶת בְּרִיתְךָ, there translated by the same words; also in Jer. xi. 10.

v. 36 Ο´, Θ. Ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, as in viii. 10, xii. 3, both Ο´.

v. 37 Ο´, Θ. Ταπεινοὶ ἐν. Did the translators read בכל for מכל?

v. 38 Ο´, Θ. Καρπῶσαι. _Cf._ Lev. ii. 9, 11, קטר אשה being similarly
translated. Καρπόω is also used in the same sense in I. Esd. iv. 52.
Deissmann has an interesting 'study' of this word in his _Bible Studies_
(Eng. transl., Edinb. 1901, p. 135).

v. 40 Ο´, Θ. Ἐνώπιον... ὄπισθεν = אחרי... לפני. Ἐκτελέσαι is thought
by Ball to have arisen from some confusion between כליל and כלל, but
this is dubious. Marshall (Hastings' _D.B._ IV. 755b) suggests שׁלם in
Kal or Piel.

v. 44 Ο´, Θ. Ἐνδικνύμενοι, Grotius (in _Critici Sacri_) says "Expressit
Hebræum הראה quod est in Ps. lx. 3 (5) et alibi." The verb is so
translated in Exod. ix. 16.

v. 49 Ο´, Θ. The apparent Grecism of οἱ περὶ τόν Ἀζαρίαν occurs in the
LXX of Ezek. xxxviii. 6 and elsewhere. Συγκατέβη ἄμα, Ball suggests
ירד אחרי from Ps. xlix. 18. Gaster gives נחית צם. Ἐξετίναξε Gaster
characterises as a "senseless" rendering of ואיצטנין "and it cooled
down," which word certainly gives an excellent sense.

v. 50 Ο´, Θ. The well known "crux" of πνεῦμα δρόσου διασυρίζον appears
in the Aramaic as די מינשבא טלא כרוחא which Gaster translates "as a wind that blows
(and causes) the dew (to descend)."

v. 51 Ο´. καὶ ἐγέντο = וַיְהִי.

v. 54 Ο´. Δὀξης τῆς βασιλείας, _cf._ Dan. iv. 36 (33) Θ´, τιμὴν τῆς
βασιλείας. יקר מלכות is the Aramaic in both places. θρόνου δόξης, as in
Jer. xiv. 21. θρόνος is used of God's throne in Dan. vii. 9, end.

v. 59 Ο´, Θ. Οὐρανοί = שָׁמַיִם (not in Gaster's Aramaic).

vv. 64, 68 Ο´. Repetition of δρόσος, and vv. 67, 69 Ο´, of ψῦχος,
suggests possible difficulty of a translator, causing him to fall back
on same word.

vv. 65, 86 Ο´, Θ. The different senses of πνεύματα point to רוּחוׂת as
the underlying original of both.

v. 87 Ο´, Θ. Ταπεινοὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ; Luther renders "elend und betrübt
sind," since these words, if of literal and immediate application, would
indicate the depression of the Babylonian exiles; and so would tell in
favour of a Semitic original, Greek being unfamiliar to them.

v. 88 Ο´, Θ. Ἐκ μέσου καιομένης φλογός, _cf._ Dan. iii. 21, 29; vii. 11
(יקד, Chald. in first and third of these cases, and also in Gaster's
Aramaic of this piece).

v. 89 Ο´, Θ. Ἐξείλετο does not seem a very suitable word, as they had
not yet been into ᾅδης. It may be a translation of ישצ as in Jer. xlii.
11, if from a Hebrew original. שיזבנא is given by Gaster as the original
of both ἐξείλατο (Θ) and ἐρρύσατο.

v. 90 Ο´, Θ. Οἱ  σεβόμενοι, used of proselytes of the gate in Acts xvii.
17, may have this meaning here also, as coming last, and in connection
with τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶν, a possible reference to the "gods of the
nations." Gaster's Aramaic has nothing answering to σβόμενοι. Grotius
suggests "יראי אלהים ut Job i. I, 8, ii. 3," where θεοσεβής is the word.

The writer deems the evidence of language to point on the whole to a
Semitic rather than to a Greek base. The difficulty of balancing the
indications however of the original language is shewn by the names of
important authorities which may be ranged on either side, Ball,
Rothstein, and Swete regarding the Semitic as probable; Westcott,
Schürer, and Fritzsche holding a similar opinion as to the Greek.

When a Semitic original is pronounced for, the further question arises,
was it Hebrew or Aramaic? The grounds unfortunately appear too
indecisive to warrant a distinct choice between these alternatives.


STYLE.

This is the only one of the three Additions which takes a devotional and
poetical form. The Song has perhaps exceeded the others in the great
estimation accorded to it. The frequent liturgical use made of it is
both a sign and a cause of this.

The style of the Greek is Hellenistic, and is not out of character with
the versions of which it is a part; nor in particular with the Book of
Daniel with which it is incorporated. It is spirited, interesting, and
agreeable, mainly Hebraic in the character of its thought and cast of
its language.

The Prayer may possibly be accused of the needless repetition of similar
sentiments; especially in vv. 4, 5, and 8 as to God's truth and justice;
and in vv. 6 and 7 as to Israel's disobedience, which are somewhat
over-insisted upon. But perhaps this may be attributed to earnest
pleading. It is instructive to compare and contrast Daniel's Prayer,
chap. ix., remembering that a different person would naturally have a
different style; a consideration which may also help to account for the
change we are conscious of when we pass from the prayer of Azarias to
the Song which purports to he the composition of the Three.

The principle on which πᾶς is inserted in some verses and omitted in
others does not seem clear. Rhythmical considerations do not
sufficiently account for it. Something other than style seems to have
influenced its use; but what that something may have been it is
difficult to discern. Nor does the principle seem clearer in the Aramaic
than in the Greek.

The poem has a simple yet majestic structure, with a refrain apt to
linger in the ear, either in Greek or English, Εὐλογεῖτε, ὑμνεῖτε, καὶ
ὑπρυψοῦτε αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, "Bless ye the Lord, praise Him, and
magnify Him for ever." In Gaster's Aramaic the refrain is slightly
varied, לצלמא being used where God is addressed, בצלמא where His
creatures are exhorted. Dr. Gaster understands the former to mean "for
ever," but the latter "in the world."[22] This distinction, if a just
one, is entirely obliterated in the versions. In the Vulgate however the
refrain sounds less agreeably, for "superexaltate " is a cumbrous word
for frequent repetition. It is one of those exaggerated compounds of
which the translator of Daniel seems to have been too fond, such as
"superlaudabilis," "supergloriosus" (v. 52), "deambulo" and
"discoöperio" (Sus. vv. 8, 32). This inconvenience was evidently felt in
liturgical use, as in the Roman Breviary and Missal the repetition of
"superexaltate" is avoided. Psalm cxxxvi. affords a biblical instance of
a refrain similarly repeated at the end of each verse; and Deut. xxvii.
15-26 may be regarded as containing a liturgical repetition of another
species.

The use of a symbolic multiple of 7 in v. 24 (47) accords well with a
similar practice in Daniel iii. 19, ix. 24, and x. 2,13. The number 3
itself (v. 28) may also be symbolic; but this is merely continued from
the canonical part of the story, being quite of a piece with it. No
other numbers occur.

There is a remarkable resemblance between the natural objects mentioned
in Ecclus. xliii. and in the Song. Especially v. 22[23] of the former is
like v. 27 (50) of the latter in its leading idea. The furnace, κάμινος,
is also named in v. 4 of the Ecclus. passage; and the aim of glorifying
God is most prominent in both. But the resemblance in style to Psalm
cxlviii. is not so great as has sometimes been imagined. (See what is
said on this point under 'Authorship,' p. 26.) On the whole, the style
of the work, whether supplicatory, narrative, or poetic, is well suited
to the purpose for which it is designed; and although the influence of
previous writers is evident, the manner of the author is not that of a
mere imitator of their compositions. He has a form of his own in which
to present his subject.


RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.


RELIGIOUS.

So far as the Jewish actors in the scene are concerned, they exhibit a
true religious spirit from the O.T. standpoint, with an unshakeable
firmness of conviction that Jehovah alone should be worshipped.

The episode shews (in common with the canonical part) that the Captivity
had already produced a stubborn opposition to idolatrous temptations
among the Jews. The tendency to follow after other gods, and to depart
from Jehovah in this way, had been outrooted from the habits of these
exiles; and their example now would be for all time an incentive to
others to resist, at any cost, the pressing inducements to become
idolaters.

It is difficult to find anything really inconsistent with the religious
position, so far as we know it, of Israel in Babylon. Bissell, however,
writes strongly to the contrary, in company as he avers, with almost all
non-Romish scholars. This opinion is based on little more than the
supposed inappropriateness of the Prayer and Song to the occasion, and
on the discrepancy of v. 15 (38) with the circumstances of the time, and
with other parts of the composition (p. 445 and on v. 15). This
"discrepancy" is dealt with under 'Chronology.' Bissell also quotes with
approval the exaggerated comparison of Eichhorn, who deems the three
"like dervishes gifted in penitential exclamations, which they interrupt
by abuse of Nebuchadnezzar." A consistent religious ground is maintained
throughout by the three; there is for them no "doing at Rome as Rome
does" in vital matters of religion. And their condition is evidently
compassionated by God, their faithfulness approved, amid the
persecutions of a foreign land.

Considerable talent and art in devotional composition are manifested in
confession, petition, and praise--talent and art of which the Christian
Church has widely availed herself from a very early period. The tone of
Azarias' prayer is not discordant with Daniel's description of his own
prayer in ix. 20, nor with the prayer itself immediately preceding that
verse, either in sentiment or phraseology. They may well have come from
the same editor, whether the prime author of the whole book or not.
Verse 16 (39) apparently contains phrases culled from Pss. xxxiv. 18,
li. 17. M. Parker on Deut. xxviii. 56 (_Bibliotheca Biblica_, Oxf. 1735)
thinks that the declaration of the three in v. 9 (32) corresponds with
Deut. xxviii. 49, 50, being in fact a public acknowledgment that
national impiety had brought upon them the distress in which they were
at present involved. If so, it shews knowledge of the law on their part.
But the connection is one solely of idea, and not of phraseology. There
is a strong connection in phraseology, however, between v. 27 and Deut.
xxxii. 4 in LXX. In any case the religious tone of the whole production
is not inconsistent with what we might have expected.


SOCIAL.

The nature of this piece does not afford much scope for the display of
the social condition of Babylon and its inhabitants. It is to be
expected therefore that it will shew us far less of these matters than
either Susanna or Bel and the Dragon. But so far as it gives any
indications, it is in accord with the canonical Daniel, and with what we
know from other sources of the customs of the country. Evidently Israel
was in a state of subjection to the Babylonian king, who ordered
idolatry to be practised by captives and natives alike. It is shewn by
v. 9 (32) _sqq._ that the former smarted under his tyranny, and appealed
to God for redress, like their forefathers in Egyptian bondage.

The punishment of burning, on which the whole story turns, is quite
Babylonian. Jer. xxix. 22 is another instance, so that there is no lack
of _vraisemblance_ in its introduction here. (_See_ Hastings' _D.B._
art. _Crimes and Punishments_, I. 523, for other instances). It has been
thought (Smith's _D.B._ ed. 2 art. _Furnace_, I. 1092b) that this
furnace in Daniel is alluded to by our Lord in St. Matt. xiii. 42, 50;
but how opposite on this occasion are the consequences of being cast
into it! Here prayer and praise from the righteous, there weeping and
gnashing from the wicked. The allusion must be considered a very
doubtful one.

The subservience of the king's servants[24] in performing their cruel
work, and the absence of a protesting voice or of a helping hand from
any quarter, is very characteristic of the results of Eastern despotism.
All, except the three martyrs, were afraid of Nebuchadnezzar, whose
murderous rage under contradiction is of a piece in both the Chaldee and
the Greek portions of the chapter. No one else on this occasion dared to
disobey his decree, and there is no sign of anyone venturing so much as
to intercede for the Jewish victims.

In such small glimpses as are given, in this extension of chap. iii., of
the social state of Babylonia there is nothing clearly indicating that
the interpolation (if such it be) is of an unhistoric or untrustworthy
character, nothing wholly irreconcilable with the rest of the book.
Indeed the author (W.T. Bullock) of the note on Daniel iii. 23 in the
S.P.C.K. _Commentary_ goes so far as to write of "that noble canticle
_Benedicite_," as an "historical document." This expression may require
qualification, but it is not beyond the bounds of possible fact.


THEOLOGY.

The theology appears to be of a perfectly orthodox character, quite what
might have been expected from the three children; nor is it inconsistent
with that contained in the rest of the book of Daniel. The exile had not
now contaminated the Jewish religion, but had rather purged it of its
corruptions, and eradicated in particular the fatal tendency to "serve
other gods." Such sins are thoroughly confessed by Azarias in a style
not without resemblance to Daniel's confession. (_Cf._ v. 6 (29) with
ix. 5 in both versions; also Esther xiv. 6, 7.)

The God of their fathers is He alone to whom prayers and praises are to
be addressed. He is regarded as the Lord of all creation, both as a
whole and in its specific parts. He is looked up to to make good the old
promises (13), being full of mercy (19), as well as of power and glory
(20, 22, 68). He is a king (33), just (4), and gracious (67), with an
ear open to the addresses of his people. The righteousness of even His
heavy judgements is acknowledged in the prayer; and the hymn throughout
shews that the gratitude of man is plainly deemed acceptable to Him.

As to the question of praise being called for from inanimate things or
irrational beings, we must remember that though unfitted, so far as we
understand them, for conscious praise, their creation, maintenance, and
usefulness give evidence of God's greatness and goodness. As Cornelius à
Lapide notes on v. 35 (57) "Inanimes creaturæ benedicunt Deum creatorem
suum, non ore sed opere, ait S. Hieronymus," giving, however, no
reference to the passage in Jerome. Ps. civ. 4 and Heb. i. 7 afford
some helpful clues to the operations of Nature in this connection. Man
is treated by our author as the interpreter of Nature, with a right, as
made in the image of God, to call upon it to glorify its Maker. He
offers vocal praise on its hehalf as well as on his own; though things
without life praise God silently, by fulfilling the parts for which He
made them. A somewhat similar idea of the elevating influence exerted by
natural beings may be discerned in the second of the _New sayings of
Jesus_ as restored by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt (Lond. 1904, p. 15). And
Addison fitly writes (_Spect._ No. 393), "The cheerfulness of heart
which springs up in us from the survey of Nature's works, is an
admirable preparation for gratitude "(_cf._ 'Early Christian Literature
and Art,' _s.v._ 'Hippolytus').

Azarias desires that the rescue of the party may redound to the
knowledge among all men of the sole deity of Jehovah (22)--a petition
for the conversion of the Gentiles. The phrase in the last verse of the
Song, θεὸς τῶν θεῶν, might be taken as an admission of the existence of
other gods over whom Jehovah was supreme. But clearly this is not so
intended, as may be proved from the use of the phrase in Deut. x. 17,
Pss. xlix. I (LXX), cxxxvi. 2. Yet it is not unlikely that
Nebuchadnezzar used the phrase in this acceptation in ii. 47. The other
occasion, however, on which it is used in Daniel (xi. 36), allows it to
be taken only in an orthodox sense; nor is any other likely in the mouth
of Azarias, who resisted to the utmost the command to sin by idolatry.
It is observable that Azarias omits the clause "in thy seed shall all
nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen. xxii. 18, xxvi. 4) from his
quotation of the patriarchal promise. This might arise from dislike to
the nations, who had conquered Israel; but on the other hand, the gist
of it is contained in his concluding petition in v. 22.

The objection that Ananias, Azarias, and Misael are invoked as saints
(which probably caused the omission in 1789 of v. 66 (88) from the
American P.B.) is sufficiently answered by pointing out that the Song is
praise, not prayer; and that these three do not stand on a different
footing in this respect from the other objects apostrophized. Moreover,
a highly poetical composition of this kind is not to be too literally
interpreted. As Liddon remarks in his _Elements of Religion_ (Lond.
1892, p. 182), "The apostrophes of the Psalms and Benedicite are really
acts of praise to God, of which his creatures furnish the occasion;" and
Addison again (_Spect._ No. 327), "Invocations of this nature fill the
mind with glorious ideas of God's works." v. 43 (65) is oddly applied
by Archdeacon Frank, _Serm._ XLII. to Pentecost (Oxf. 1849, II. 254).

Belief is plainly shewn in an angelic ministry, sent down to help God's
suffering servants, and endued with miraculous powers. The angel comes,
too, after their humble confession and prayer for rescue (vv. 43--45),
and before their song of praise. The very propriety however of this
arrangement, from a theological point of view, induces Rothstein to deem
the prayer a subsequent introduction, in order to supply the want of
request for deliverance before praise for its accomplishment; and he
thinks that the opening in the narrative for the insertion of the prayer
(between vv. 23 and 46) was not, in the Ο´, very deftly effected
(Kautzsch, I. 175, 181).

The natural and the supernatural, without any incongruity, are blended
as being all under one control, all subserving the same great ends, as
in the Hebrew Bible. But there is no increase of the miraculous element
beyond that in chapter iii., in which this piece is inserted; and at a
later age increase would have been highly probable. What essential
difference is there to be found between the miracles of the Chaldee and
of the Greek Daniel? Surely none.

A typical resemblance was discerned by St. Antony of Padua (_Moral
Concordances_, ed. Neale, p. 123), between v. 26 (44) and the
Annunciation, but this will be regarded by many minds as a very fanciful
theological discovery, and one surely not in the purview of the composer
of the passage.


CHRONOLOGY.

There is but little in the way of chronological indication in this
addition; considerably less than in the other two, and what there is, is
indirectly brought in.

A time after the Captivity is evidently pointed to in vv. 26, 32, 37,
38. Jerusalem was lying under a heavy visitation, the people delivered
over to the enemy, almost denationalized, and deprived of the
sacrificial worship to which they had been accustomed. Yet this position
of affairs is spoken of as if it were not one of very long standing.
(_Cf._ the use of νῦν in vv. 31, 33, 42, though in the last of these
instances its use may not perhaps be temporal.)

It has been objected, quite unnecessarily, that v. 38 is inconsistent
with v. 53, the one implying the destruction of the temple, the other
recognizing its existence; v. 84, too, may be taken as supposing priests
to be still capable of performing their offices. It is even possible
that the corrections of Cod. A in v. 38 may have had behind them some
idea of softening a discrepancy. This supposed lack of consistency has
been taken as an indication of double authorship of the Prayer and the
Song; and of course, if the Prayer were a later interpolation than the
Song, even the appearance of contemporary inconsistency is avoided. But
if we were to decline this hypothesis, and take Prayer and Song as from
the same pen, there is still no real difficulty; for v. 38 is thinking
of the earthly temple, v. 53 of the heavenly. Grotius (_Critici Sacri_),
apparently accepting the statements of v. 38 as correct, writes: "Harum
rerum penuria animos venture Evangelio præparabit."

Another chronological difficulty, that of "no prophet,"[25] in the same
verse (38) has even been offered as a 'proof' of non-canonicity
(Cloquet, _Articles_, p. 113). So T.H. Horne in Vol. IV. of his
_Introduction_, quoted by A. Barnes on Daniel (I. 81), says that "v. 15
(38) contains a direct falsehood"; and in Vol. II. 937 of his
_Introduction_ (ed. 1852), he asserts that the author "slipped in the
part he assumed." More just is his observation that "Theodotion does not
appear to have marked the discrepancy." Ball, too, joins in the
condemnation, by expressing an opinion that the writer had "lost his
cue" (_Introd. to Song_, p. 308); and Reuss, "Hier verrät sich der
Verfasser" (_O.T._, Brunswick, 1894, VII. 166). It has been suggested
(J.H. Blunt _in loc._) that Ezekiel, who was both priest and prophet,
had just finished his utterances, while Daniel, if he had commenced his,
would, out of modesty, not reckon himself. The same commentator also
attempts, still less successfully, to overcome the difficulty of "no
prince." Probably, however, this merely means that no monarch was
actually reigning, and that Jewish rulers were themselves ruled and
their authority superseded, not that no member of the royal house or of
the ruling classes was in existence. And this seems to fit in better
with an early period of the Captivity than with a later age, when Simon
Maccabeus is said to have had the title נָשִֹיא on his coins: and
Mattathias is called ἄρχων in I Macc. ii. 17. Gesenius says in his
_Thesaurus_ under נשיא on the authority of F.P. Bayer (_de numis
hebraeosamaritanis_, p. 171, append, p. xv.), that Simon's coins had the
inscription שמצון נשיא ישראל[26]; but it is now doubted whether the
coins formerly attributed to Simon are really of his time. (_Cf._ Bp.
Wordsworth of Lincoln on I Macc. xv. 6.) Zöckler's idea (_Comm. in
loc._) that ἡγούμενος must be understood here as equivalent to "priest"
is unsupported and needless. כּׄהֵן is never so translated by LXX.

Cornelius à Lap. (Paris, 1874), deals with the difficulty of "no
prophet" in a different way. He writes, "Quia Dan. potius somniorum
regiorum erat interpres, quam propheta populi; Ezech. autem propheta
aberat agebatque in Chobar aliisque Chaldaeae locis, eratque is unus et
captivus. Itaque 'non est,' _i.e._ vix nullus erat." Of "princeps et
dux" he says nothing; but Peronne adds a note to say that Daniel was
thinking of Judaea only. It is not unlikely that Hos. iii. 4 was in the
mind of the writer of the Song, as being fulfilled in his days.

If, however, we assume a date for the whole piece considerably later
than that of the canonical book, it is quite conceivable that the author
may have made a backward transference of the circumstances of his own
time to that of the earlier exile. For this is a species of error all
traces of which even expert forgers find it difficult to remove.

It is generally assumed, and probably rightly, that v. 88 is intended as
a contemporary utterance of the Three calling upon themselves;
nevertheless it is quite intelligible as the expression of a later
writer summoning them, with the rest of creation, to praise their
Maker. And, assuming this verse to be contemporary with the rest, this
latter idea would of course mark the hymn as not really issuing from the
mouths of the Three.

Everything said and done in this piece takes place within one day, the
day on which Nebuchadnezzar's subjects were ordered to worship the
golden image. There is therefore much less scope than in Bel and the
Dragon, or even Susanna, for those who seek to discover chronological
difficulties, because devotional compositions afford fewer openings than
narrative matter for the raising of such questions.


CANONICITY.

Like Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, the Song of the Three Children
formed, so far as we know, part of the original LXX text of Daniel,
having a connection with it closer even than theirs. For while they take
their places at the beginning or the end, this one is incorporated into
the narrative of chapter iii. as one connected whole. Prof. Robertson
Smith does indeed write (_O.T. in Jewish Church_, 1895, p. 154), "these
are perhaps later additions to the Greek version"; but this is only
conjecture, and as such he puts it forward.

Until the correspondence of Origen with Africanus, the canonicity of
these pieces does not seem to have been called in question by Christians
who used Greek or Latin Bibles; nor do Greek-speaking Jews appear to
have disputed the matter seriously. "Commonly quoted by Greek and Latin
Fathers as parts of Daniel," says Westcott (Smith's _D.B._, ed. 2, I.
713b). So Schürer (II. III. 185), "Julius Africanus alone among the
older Fathers disputes the canonicity of these fragments." See also
Bissell's admission on p. 448 of his _Apocrypha._ But Jerome seriously
called their canonicity in question (_Præf. in Dan._), although he
included them in his translation, with a notice that they were not found
in the Hebrew. Polychronius, Theodore of Mopsuestia's brother, refused
to comment on this piece because it was not part of the original Daniel,
nor in the Syriac, οὐ κεῖται ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραϊκοῖς ἢ ἐν τοῖς Συριακοῖς
βιβλίοις. In this latter respect it keeps company with the Catholic
Epistles in the earliest stage of the Syriac N.T. (Carr, _St. James_, p.
XLVII). But it gained a place in the Peshitto (_D.C.B._ arts.
_Polychronius & Polycarpus Chorepisc._). Buhl (_Kanon und Text des
A.T._, 1891, p. 52) says that the Nestorians recognise "die
apokryphischen Zusätze zum Daniel als kanonisch;" and the Malabar
Christians regard this, with its two companions, "as part and parcel of
the book of Daniel." (Letter to the writer from F. Givargese, Principal
of Mar Dionysius' Seminary, Kottayam, 1902.) They formed part of the
Sahidic, and probably other Egyptian versions of Daniel, which may be as
early as century II.; as also of the Ethiopic and, seemingly, of the Old
Latin (Swete, _Introd._ 96, 107, 110).

It seems very difficult to prove that the Alexandrian Jews who used the
LXX did not regard this piece as canonically valid; though how they
reconciled their canon with the Palestinian one is not clear. Their
frequent communication with Palestinian Jews must have brought any
considerable discrepancy to the notice of both sides. F.C. Movers (_Loci
quidam Hist. can. V.T._, Breslau, 1842, pp. 20, 22) solves the
difficulty by imagining that this and the other Apocrypha were similarly
regarded both in Palestine and Alexandria, "vix credibile est alios
libros a Palestinensibus inter profanos repositos ab Alexandrinis codici
sacro adscitos esse." Acts ii. 10 proves the presence of Egyptian Jews
at Jerusalem for Pentecost, and vi. 9 that they had a synagogue there.
This close connection must have brought their religious practices to one
another's knowledge, and any differences, considered seriously
important, could hardly have failed to raise disputes. Now Bleek
(_Introd. to O.T._, II. 303, Engl. transl, Lond. 1869), says "the
additions to Esther and Daniel were certainly looked upon by the
Hellenistic Jews in just the same light as the portions of the books
which are in the Hebrew." And this seems to have been done almost
without question, difficulty, or protest, although Alexandrian ideas
must have been, brought under the notice of the religious authorities in
Jerusalem. (_Cf._ Meyer's note on Acts vi. 9, and Jos. _cond. Ap._ I. 7,
as to regular intercourse between Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews.)

Professor, now Bishop, Ryle (_Can. of Script_, p. 157) thinks that the
amplification of Daniel, as of Esther, may have been tolerated because
Daniel was not then deemed canonical. But we must remember that
additional sections, though smaller in extent, appear in other books of
the LXX, of whose canonicity there appears to have been no question,
_e.g._ Job xlii. 17, Prov. xxiv. 22, I. Kings xvi. 28, this last being
taken from chap, xxii., though still left there. It has also been
suggested by Prof. Swete (_Introd._ p. 217) that the כתובים were
probably attached to the canon by a looser bond at Alexandria than in
Palestine. However this may be, certain it is that this addition was
frequently quoted or referred to by early Christian writers as if part
of Dan. iii., without qualification or sign of misgiving, as may be
seen in the quotations given in the chapter on 'Early Christian
Literature,' p. 76 _sqq._ Loisy's contention is a noticeable one (_A.T._
p. 236), "Presque tous les auteurs catholiques, anciens et modernes, qui
ont emis des reserves touchant l'autorité des deutero-canoniques, ont
regardés ces livres comme inspirés. Ils ne les croyaient pas bons pour
établir le dogme; mais cela est parfaitement compatible avec
l'inspiration, attendu qu'un livre peut-être inspiré sans être
dogmatique, et que s'il n'est pas dogmatique par son contenu il ne
saurait regler le dogme." But this contention savours somewhat of clever
special pleading in order to evade the force of opposing evidence.
Loisy, however, for a Roman Catholic, is a wonderfully frank and fair
writer on these matters.

The explanation of the early mixture of non-canonical books with
canonical, by reason of their having been kept as separate papyrus rolls
in the same chest (Swete's _Introd._ p. 225), seems not an unlikely one
in the case of independent works such as Judith or Wisdom. But it
appears to lose its force in the case of additions such as these, or
those to the book of Esther. For the Song of the Three, Susanna, and Bel
and the Dragon are hardly likely to have had separate rolls assigned to
them; least of all this first piece, which fits into the middle of the
accepted narrative, and is scarcely intelligible without it. Something
more therefore is wanting to explain the inclusion of those portions in
the Greek Bible.

Bengel's explanation (_Gnomon on Matt._ xxiv. 15), that the apocryphal
books in Latin Bibles were mixed with the canonical "pro argumenti
affinitate," though distinguished at first by marks (afterwards omitted)
in the index, however likely so far as it goes, fails to account for
their admission on so slender a plea into Biblical MSS. at all.

If the additions are to be regarded with Streane (_Age of the Macc._ p.
161) as "specimens of fiction," this one, more strongly than the other
two, shews the pre-existence of the canonical Daniel; but it is very
hard to understand how 'fiction' of this kind could be introduced into
the Bible with no general protest, and ultimately come to be treated as
of Divine authority; and this position is defended, even in these
critical days, by the greater number of Christians in the world.

When the Council of Trent made the canon of Scripture co-extensive with
the Vulgate, this, with the other additions, was of course included in
the decree. But in the Roman Church up to the present day attempts have
not been wanting to minimize the force of this decision, which, if it
removes some difficulties, certainly introduces others. Outside the
Roman Church the position of these books, in common with the rest of the
Apocrypha, remains, as always, more or less insecure.

A. Scholz, in condemning the principle that Christians are tied to the
O.T. canon, rather amusingly supposes: "Wenn Jemand sich bei den Juden
jetzt als Prophet geltend machen und ein Buch schreiben würdem so müsste
es nach diesem Grundsatz von den Protestanten als kanonisch wohl
anerkannt werden" (_Esther und Susanna_, Würzburg, 1892, p. 140). But
such argument is mere polemic, which cannot be seriously taken into
account in establishing the position of this or the other additions.
Something is needed much deeper and more convincing in character.


EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART


LITERATURE.

In the N.T. _possible_ references may be found in St. Matt. xi. 29
(ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ) from v. 65 (87); II. Tim. i. 18 (εὑρεῖν ἔλεος) from
v. 15 (38); [in Numb. xi. 15 only does the phrase elsewhere occur, but
in another tense]; Heb. xii. 23 (πνεύματα δικαίων) from v. 64 (86).

Our 'apocryphon' is often referred to or quoted by early Fathers to a
remarkable extent, considering the brevity of the piece and its merely
episodic character in the main narrative. The following are specimens:

JUSTIN MARTYR (†167?), _Apol._ I. 46, Ἐν βαρβάριος δε Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἀνανίας
καὶ Ἀζαρίας καὶ Μισαὴλ καὶ Ἠλίας καὶ ἄλλοιπολλοὶ. The names of the Three
occur in this form and order in v. 88 of the Song only.

CLEM. ALEX. (†220) in his _Eclogæ propheticæ_, § I, quotes several
verses with ἐν τῷ Δανιὴλ γέγραπται.

HIPPOLYTUS (†230) recognizes the Song of the Three in his comment on
Daniel, _in loc._, as well as in the Fragment preserved in the "Catena
Patrum in Psalmos et Cantica" (_Ante-Nic. Christian Lib._ p. 484). In
the former place he comments on the words καὶ διεχεῖτο ἡ φλόξ, and says
that the Three ἐδροσίζοντο in reference to v. 50; in the latter, on the
verse "O Ananias, Azarias," etc., he notes that everything is called to
praise, ἵνα μὴ ὡς ἐλεύθερον αὐτεξούσιον νομισθῇ.

TERTULLIAN (†240) _de Orat._ § 15, says that they prayed, "in fornace
Babylonii regis orantes." In § 29 he quotes vv. 26, 27.

ORIGEN (†254) _Comm. in Ep. ad Rom._ I. c. 10, II. c. 9, VII. c. 1;
_Comm. in Matt._ XIII. c. 2 (naming the LXX); and in _de Oratione_ XIII.
XIV.

CYPRIAN (†258) _De lapsis_ 31 and _De dom. orat. 8_, quotes this piece,
in the latter case agreeing with Θ rather than Ο´. Pseudo-Cypr. (some of
whose writings Professor Swete, _Patristic Study_, 1902, p. 67, deems to
be contemporary with Cyprian or nearly so) in _Oratio_ II. 2 says
"misisti angelum tuum cum roribus tuis," agreeing with Ο´.

EUSEBIUS (†342), in his first _Fragm. on Daniel_, comments on iii. 49,
ὡσει πνεῦμα δρόυ διασυρίζον (Θ), and quotes Psalm xxviii. 7 as
illustrative. (In Constantine's "To the Convention of Saints," given in
the translation of Eusebius (Camb. 1683), much mention is made of Daniel
in Babylon, but there is no clear indication of knowledge of the
additions.)

ATHANASIUS (†373) quoted the Song in _Ep. Pasch._ x. 3; and in _Agst.
Avians_ II. 71 he employs the Song to "arraign the Arian irreligion"
(Newman's translation).

EPHREM SYRUS (†378). His commentary on Daniel does not embrace the
additions, but in his _Morning Hymn_, rendered by H. Burgess (Lond.
1853), we have "Sprinkle me with Thy dew, like the young men in the
furnace."

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (†386) quotes both the Prayer of Azarias (v. 29) and
the Song (v. 54) in _Catech._ II. 18 and IX. 3 respectively, without
hesitation (ed. Reischl, Munich, 1848).

AMBROSE (†397) _in Luc._ VII "Cantaverunt Hebræi cum vestigia eorum
tactu flammæ rorantis humescerent."

HIERONYMUS GRÆCUS THEOLOGUS (cent. IV?) _de Trin._ treats the hymn,
flames and dew in the furnace, μία κάμινος οὐσα, as an emblem of the
Three in One.

SULPICIUS SEVERUS (†400?) _Hist. sacr._ II. § 5 shews knowledge of this
Song by writing of the Three as "deambulantes in camino psalmum Deo
dicere cernerentur."

CHRYSOSTOM (†407) _De incomprehensibili Dei natura_ V. 7, οί τρεῖς
παῖδες ἐν καμίνῳ διῆγον... λέγουσιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν κ.τ.λ. _In Isaiam_
VI. ἐπεὶ καὶ οἱ παἱδες οἱ τρεῖς τοῦτο αὐτὸ ἔλεγον σχεδὸν ἐν τῇ καμίνῳ
ὄντες· οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἀνοῖξαι τὸ τόμα. _Hom._ IV. _ad pop. Antioch._ (de
statuis) τὰς ίερὰς ἐκείνας ἀνπεμπον εὐχας. Also _De incarnatione_ VI.

RUFINUS (†410) _adv. Hieron._ lib. II. upbraids Jerome for not reckoning
the piece canonical.

JEROME (†420). In the _Comes_ or Lectionary, the Song is made use of,
but probably the Comes is not really Jerome's. (_See_ art. _Lectionary,
D.C.A._ 962a.)

THEODOERT (†457) in _Letter_ CXLVI. quotes v. 63 amongst a string of
canonical texts; and also deals with the whole in his _Commentary on
Daniel_, as consolidated with chap. iii.

SEDULIUS (†460?). In his poem _De tribus pueris_ there is nothing which
goes beyond the canonical record; but, strangely enough, in his
_Miraculorum recapitulatio proedictorum_ there are the lines

    ".... flagrante camino
Servavit sub rore pios."

And equally in the prose version "rore sydereo puerorum membra proluit
in camino." This shews a recognition of v. 50 (de la Bigne, _Bibliotheca
Patrum_, ed. 4, 1624, pp. 660, 661, 914).

VERECUNDUS (†552) wrote a comment on some of the ecclesiastical
canticles including the prayers of Azarias and Manasses (printed in
_Spicilegium, Solesmense,_ Vol. IV.).

It is manifest, therefore, that Early Christian writers regarded the
Song as of much value and importance; were well acquainted with it, and
often quoted it in much the same manner as the canonical books.
Occasionally, however, a knowledge of it is not shewn where we should
have expected it; and in some cases we know that those who quoted it
denied, or doubted, its canonicity.


ART.

This Greek insertion in the book of Daniel has, on the whole, offered
less scope for the exercise of artistic talent than the history of
Susanna or even than that of Bel and the Dragon. The nature of its
contents, which consists in the main of a prayer and a song, reasonably
accounts for this paucity of illustration. It does not lend itself so
readily as its two companions to pictorial treatment. Nevertheless a
certain number of examples are not wanting.

Loisy in his _Canon of the O.T._ (1890, p. 95) remarks, "Dès avant le
IV<sup>e</sup> siècle, on ornait les catacombes de peintures dont les sujets
avaient été fournis par Tobie et les fragments de Daniel."

In a fresco from the cemetery of St. Hermes, the Three Children are
represented, each over a separate stoke-hole (or what looks like one),
with hands elevated as if in prayer or praise, most likely in reference
to v. 1 (24), (_see D.C.A._ art. _Fresco_, p. 700a). Another picture
of figures somewhat different, yet with outstretched hands, is given
from Bottari in the same Dictionary under art. _Furnace._ There are
sculptured representations of the Three on the high crosses at Moone
Abbey, and at Kells (M. Stokes, _Early Christian Art in Ireland_, Lond.
1887, II. 22).

In the Utrecht Psalter, over the Song are depicted, as well as in other
places, the sun and the moon, very appropriately (_D.C.A._ art. _Sun_),
and in other illuminated Psalters, pictures of the Three in the furnace
are not uncommon. Thus Brit. Mus. MS. Additional 11836 has an
illumination of the furnace scene.

The under side of the wooden roof of Trinity College Chapel, Cambridge,
was painted about 1870 with the series of natural objects mentioned in
the Song proper, and with the words appertaining to each. A few extracts
from _Benedicite_ are on scrolls in a modern window on the south side of
the chancel of St. James' Church, Bury St. Edmunds.

It is a little surprising that the series of objects named in this Song
has not been more frequently chosen for decorative purposes on roofs,
walls, or windows of ecclesiastical buildings, where a long series would
be appropriate. Perhaps the length of the series, and the difficulty of
making any but an arbitrary selection, has something to do with the
rarity of its appearance.

A set of not very satisfactory wood-engravings by MacWhirter and others,
one illustration to each verse, was published in a small book under the
title of the _Song of the Three Children illustrated_ (London, 1887)

The verse "O ye wells," etc., is said to be a frequent motto for the
floral well-dressings at Tissington, in Derbyshire, and elsewhere, on
Ascension Day; and a more appropriate one could hardly be found. But in
general the Song of the Three Children has not, for the reason given
above, and doubtless others besides, proved a popular subject in art.


LITURGICAL USE.


GENERAL.

There is, strange to say, no record of the Song's employment in this way
amongst the Jews. Statements sometimes made to the contrary in works on
the P.B., _e.g._ by W.G. Humphry, F. Procter, E. Daniel, and J.M. Fuller
(S.P.C.K. _Comm._ "Introd. to the Song"), "in the _later_ Jewish
Church," all appear to have originated in a misunderstanding of an
ambiguous sentence in Wheatley's _Rational Illustration_ (1875, p. 143).
He says that it "was an ancient hymn in the Jewish Church." But this
does not necessarily imply that it formed any part of Jewish services.
Nor did Wheatley probably intend to assert that it did. In point of fact
no evidence of such use is forthcoming, though it certainly would not
have been surprising if the Song had been so used, at least among the
Hellenistic Jews. For as Rothstein says in Kautzsch's Apocrypha, like
Ps. cxxxvi. it is "offenbar antiphonisch aufzufassen" and
"litaneiartig."

Notwithstanding the previous neglect, as it would seem, of this Song in
Jewish worship, its use by Christians dates from an early period. So Bp.
Gray (_O.T.,_ p. 611) says, "It was sung in the service of the primitive
Church;" and Ball, "the instinct of the Church, which early adopted the
_Benedicite_ for liturgical use, was right" (p. 307). Yet after it had
come into high esteem with Christians its chances of Jewish acceptance
would of course be largely diminished.


EARLY.

The liturgical use however was generally confined to the Song proper,
commencing with v. 29, and not always extending to the whole even of
that. In the Greek Church it is divided into two odes, said at Lauds on
two different days, vv. 3--34 (A.V. verses) forming one, and the
remainder of the Song the other (art. _Canticle D.G.A._). In the
Ambrosian rite the first part only of the Song is used as an invitatory
before the Matin Psalms, under the title, somewhat confusing to us, of
"Benedictus" (_D.G.A._ art. _Benedictus_).[27]

For some reason not easy to assign, the Song, whether divided or entire,
has always been treated as a morning canticle, although there is nothing
in its words to suggest any time of day as specially appropriate.

Rufinus, according to Dr. Salmon (_Speaker's Comm._ Introduction to
Apocr. XXVIIb), speaks of the Song as "sung on Festivals in the Church
of God." No reference is given to the passage quoted. But in Rufinus'
_Apol. in Hieron._ II. 35 we find the words, "Omnis Ecclesia per orbem
terrarum... quicunque Hymnum trium puerorum in Ecclesia Domini
cecinerunt," etc. Whether this be the passage Dr. Salmon intends or not,
it is at any rate sufficient to prove that the canticle was in use in
and before Rufinus' time, who is believed to have died in the year 410.

Bishop Barry (_Teacher's P.B._) notes that it was used at Lauds (τὸ
ὄρθρον) in the East as well as in the West: and so Mr. Hotham in his
art. _Canticle_ in _D.C.A._ In his art. _Psalmody_, however, no mention
is made of its Eastern use; but in the Western Church in the Gregorian
and its derived rites, including the Roman and cognate Breviaries, he
says, "Benedictiones sive canticum trium puerorum" comes in Sunday
Lauds, and likewise in the Benedictine Psalter.

In the Ambrosian Psalter, while the first part "Benedictus es" is said
daily at Matins as stated above, the usual _Benedicite_ is said at Lauds
on Sundays. In the Mozarabic Psalter an abridgment of both parts is said
at Lauds, but not "in feriis." "Benedictus es" also comes on weekdays at
Prime. In the Mozarabic Missal _Benedicite_ occurs in the service for
the first Sunday in Lent. In the use arranged by Cæsarius of Aries
(†542) for the Gallican Church _Benedicite_ was sung at Sunday Lauds.

Duchesne says (_Christian Worship_, Eng. tr. S.P.C.K. 1903, p. 195), "In
the Gallican Mass between the Apostolic and the Evangelic lections the
Hymn of the Three Children was sung. It was known also by the name of
the Benediction (_Benedicite_) because in it the word 'Benedicite' is
continually repeated." In a note he adds, "The Luxeuil Lectionary,
however, prescribes for the Nativity, _Daniel cum Benedictione, i.e._,
the Hymn of the Three Children before the Apostolic Lection. It is true
that in the Mass of _Clausum Paschale_ it places it after this lection."

The fourth council of Toledo in 633, condemns the omission of the Song
at Mass, threatens with excommunication those who in Spain or Gaul (or
Gallicia, margin) persist in leaving it out, and styles it "Hymnum
quoque trium puerorum in quo universa coeli terræque creatura dominum
collaudat et quem ecclesia catholica per totum orbem diffusa celebrat"
(Mansi, _Concil._, Florence, 1764, X. 623).

In the Roman Missal at the end of the Canon, the last Rubric is
"Discedens ab Altari, pro gratiarum actione dicit Antiphonam Trium
Puerorum cum reliquis, ut habetur in principio Missalis;" where is given
as an antiphon before it these words, "Trium puerorum cantemus hymnum
quem cantabant sancti in camino ignis, benedicentes Dominum."

Possibly there is a reference to this Eucharistic use in Bishop
Wordsworth's Michaelmas Hymn, No. CII. in his _Holy Year_, 1864.

Angelic voices we shall hear
  Joined in our jubilee,
In this thy Church and echoing
  Our Benedicite.

Angelic faces we shall see
  Angelic songs o'erspread
Above thy holy Altar, Lord,
  And Thou, the Living Bread.

In the Saram Breviary (and in Cardinal Quignon's) _Benedicite_ is a
canticle at Lauds on Sundays only. It is to be said without "Glory";
"dicatur sine Gloria Patri per totum annum quandocunque dicitur"
(Procter, p. 188); but a doxology is provided in the Roman Breviary,
"Benedicamus Patrem et Filium cum Sancto Spiritu," etc., and 'Amen' is
directed not to be said at the end. This doxology is said to have been
added by Pope Damasus I., who also transposed v. 56 to stand as the
finale of the Song (_see_ James M'Swiney, _Psalms and Canticles_, Lond.
1901, p. 643). This R.C. writer calls the use of the canticle on Sundays
"a thanksgiving for the resurrection of the Crucified, the earnest of
the glories wherewith nature is to be invested at His second coming."
But this sounds like an _ex post facto_ reason for its appropriateness.

_Benedicite_ appears, at any rate sometimes, to have been said
subsequently to _Te Deum_ after the election of an Abbot (_see_ Jocelin
of Brakelond's _Chronicle_, Sir E. Clarke's ed., 1903, p. 38). It also
appears in the _Cantica_ after the Psalter, between _Te Deum_ and
_Benedictus_, in the Scottish _Breviarium Bothanum_, which is thought to
be of about 15th century (Lond. 1900).

Thus it is evident that the use of this hymn became general at an early
period, and so continued, having never receded in Christian esteem as a
valued factor in public worship.

Besides the use of the Song, or part of it, as a canticle, verses or
small portions often occur in liturgies; _e.g._, vv. 28--30 are borrowed
in an Ἐκφώνησις before the offertory prayers in the Liturgy of St.
James; at the censing of the Gospel in that of St. Mark; in a Byzantine
Liturgy of the ninth century in the second prayer of the faithful; in
that of St. Chrysostom immediately before the lections in the Mass of
the Catechumens; and v. 19 in the Ἐπίκλησις in that of the Coptic
Jacobites (Brightman's _Liturgies_, I. Oxf. 1896). In the Leonine
_Sacramentary_, in a Preface, Mense Junio, IIII. 1. 13, ad Fontem, the
last words of the Song appear to be cited "plena sunt omnia saccula
misericordia tua" (Dr. Feltoe's ed., Camb. 1896, p. 31). The verse
"Benedicite omnes angeli" occurs in a "Communio" for Michaelmas in the
Rosslyn Missal; "Benedictus es Domine patrum nostrorum" occurs in the
Mass of the Holy Trinity in the Westminster Missal as a "gradale," also
in a Mass "pro sponsis", and other places (Hen. Bradshaw Soc., Lond.
1899, p. 70, 1897, p. 1239). v. 34 (56) occurs in the Sarum Compline
after the Creed, as also in the Roman.

In the Greek Euchologion a great part of the Song is embodied, with
other Scripture odes, in what is styled "the Canon at Great Matins in
the All Night Vigil" (_Euchology_, translated by G.V. Shann,
Kidderminster, 1891, p. 34).


LATER ENGLISH USE.

Burbidge (_Liturgies and Offices of the Church_, 1885, p. 268), gives a
number of instances of the use of _Benedicite_ in foreign service books,
and says, "In other churches _Benedicite_ has been held in higher esteem
than amongst ourselves." Esteem for it has never been entirely lacking,
however, as its prominence in the P.B. shews.

In a Prymer of circ. 1400, as given by Maskell (_Mon. rit._ 1882, Vol.
III. p. 21), _Benedicite_ occurs in Matins, beginning "Alle werkis of
the Lord, bless ye to the Lord: herie ye and overhize ye him in all
time." On the same page, note 49, he gives a quotation from _Gemma
animae_, II. 53, "canticum trium puerorum est festivius et ideo in
omnibus festis dicitur." Also in his _Append, to Prymer_, p. 243,
another version is given, from Bodl. Douce MS. 275, fol. 9b: "Alle
werkes of the Lord, bless ye the Lord: praise and overheie ye him in to
the worldes." There was an authorized translation into Welsh early in
the 14th century, according to H. Zimmer (_Urtext und Uebersetz_,
Leipzig, 1897, p. 172), together with _Magnificat, Benedictus_, and
several Psalms, evidently for liturgical purposes.

In the P.B. of 1549 the use of the _Benedicite_ as a substitute for the
_Te Deum_ was confined to Lent "all the which time" its recital was
obligatory. It has been suggested by W.G. Wyon (_Letter to "Guardian,"_
May 14, 1902) that mediæval devotion read into it an allegoric meaning
of deliverance from temptations and dangers of this naughty world, and
this made the Song suitable for Lent. He also suggests that the 'Oratio'
of the Roman Missal in the 'Gratiarum actio' after Mass, which contains
it, shews us its suitability for penitential seasons indirectly, "Deus
qui tribus," etc. No doubt hope of deliverance from fierce spiritual
perils may be in Lent a proper frame of mind; but this attempt to prove
the _Benedicites_ special appropriateness to that season is more
ingenious than satisfying. It is strained and far-fetched. Compare what
is said above (p. 88), where M'Swiney is cited as shewing in similar
style its special appropriateness to Sunday. The tone of the canticle is
unmistakeably joyful, and the 1549 rubric disappeared in 1552, leaving
_Benedicite_ as a simple alternative to the _Te Deum_, at any time
according to the taste of the officiant. And so it still remains, though
often preferred to the _Te Dewm_ during Lent. Septuagesima and Trinity
XXI. are, on account of their first lessons, fitting Sundays for its
use; nor is it by any means unsuitable for a harvest festival. An
entirely different kind of reason for its Lenten suitability is provided
by H.P. Cornish (_Notes on P.B._, Evans, Redditch, n.d., p. 17). Lent,
he says, is the time "when all nature begins to wake from its Lenten
sleep": hence its appropriateness in spring. It is questionable,
however, whether mediæval liturgical authorities paid much attention to
the natural seasons of the year; and the variety of 'reasons' proves the
difficulty of discovering a really conclusive one. The idea that the
_Benedicite_ is consonant with Lenten feelings is singularly out of
accord with the opinion expressed as to its character as being
'festivius' in the _Gemma animae_, given above, p. 90. Indeed it can
hardly be disputed that its tone is joyful. But though its special
aptness for a fasting-time is not easy to make out clearly, few
unprejudiced people will dissent from the opinion of Freeman as to its
scope when he writes, that "though wanting in the grand structure of
the _Te Deum_, in point of range it is in no way inferior" (_Divine
Service_, Lond. 1855, I. 356).

In the scheme for the revision of the Prayer-Book in William III.'s
reign it was actually arranged to expunge _Benedicite_, and to
substitute Ps. cxlviii. It would have been extruded in good company
however, as _Magnificat_ and _Nunc Dimittis_ were to be replaced by
psalms in a similar way. Happily the deplorable proposals of 1689 came
to nothing. But strange to say, previously to this, in the Laudian
Scottish Prayer-Book, Psalm xxiii. had been substituted for
_Benedicite_. In England, however, in 1662, the Church, taught by the
persecution of the Commonwealth, declined "to appoint some psalm or
scripture hymn instead of the apocryphal _Benedicite"_, as demanded by
the Puritans at the Savoy Conference (Procter, _P.B._, 1872, p. 119).

At a rather earlier period, Dean Boys of Canterbury, in his quaint
_Prayer-Book Notes_ (1615?) says: "I finde this hymne less martyred than
the rest, and therefore dismisse it, as Christ did the woman (John
viii.), 'Where be thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? No more
doe I; goe thy way.'"

At least three English metrical renderings of _Benedicite_ exist, one
of the 18th and two of the 19th century, by J. Merrick, J.S. Blackie,
and Richard Wilton respectively. The first of these writers, who expands
freely, concludes with a stanza designed to put the Song unmistakeably
into the mouths of the Three:

Let us, who now impassive stand,
Plac'd by the Tyrant's stern Command
     Amid the fiery Blaze,
(While thus we triumph in the Flame)
Rise, and our Maker's Love proclaim
     In hymns of endless praise.

The objection that in using this hymn we pray to angels and heavens, to
ice and snow, etc., shews how hard it is to find reasonable cause of
complaint against its use. (_See_ p. 62).

The whole canticle was however actually omitted in the P.B. printed at
Oxford in 1796, an edition notorious for the liberties taken with the
book in many ways (A.J. Stephens' _P.B._, Lond. 1849).[28] The last
verse, "O Ananias," etc., which was omitted in the United States' P.B.
is, as well as the above, dealt with under 'Theology,' p. 64.

In an _Altar Service Manual_, ed. 1837, which was very popular in the
middle of the 19th century, by S. Isaacson, certain extracts from the
_Benedicite_, with presumably original additions, are formed into what
is called "the canticle" in an "Evening Liturgy for use after Holy
Communion." The five added verses, in rather unrhythmical English, are
modelled in imitation of the Song, _e.g._ "O ye who have partaken of the
Holy Communion, bless ye the Lord: praise Him and magnify Him for ever."

The Song of the Three Children is, with other canticles, frequently
found in appendices to both Greek and Latin Psalters. And on this
account it is included sometimes in commentaries on the Psalter, as in
that of de Muis (†644), Louvain, 1770, beginning with v. 51, "tunc hi
tres quasi ex uno ore laudabant," etc. It stands in this book between
Hezekiah's and Jonah's prayers. In the mediæval Psalters, _Benedicite_
may constantly be found, though its place in the series of canticles
varies considerably.

Many of the LXX MSS. too contain these canticles, or some of them,
repeated from their regular places in the text, such as Alexandrinus and
the Veronese and Turin Psalters; of these the first has vv. 26 to 45 and
52 to 58, as two separate canticles between the Prayer of Manasses and
Magnificat; the second, vv. 52 to 90 after Magnificat as its last
canticle; and the third has vv. 26 to 45, 52 to 56, and 57 to 90 as
three separate canticles between the P. of M. and Benedictus. In each
case, it will be observed, the narrative portion is naturally excluded.

In the first and third of these MSS., A. and T., it may here be noted
that there is a non-biblical Morning Hymn, Ὕμνος ἑωθινός, a kind of
Eastern "Gloria in excelsis," which contains an apparent extract from
vv. 29, 30 (52), or v. 3 (26) of our Apocryphon, in line 34 of the hymn.
Very nearly the same words occur in Tobias' song (Tob. viii. 5), which
curiously enough (in common with the song of Deborah), is not included
in these canticles. Doubtless it was not in ecclesiastical use; but the
reason why the Christian Church abstained from availing herself of it
for choral purposes is not evident; any more than why the Jewish Church
abstained from the use of _Benedicite_.

Although the employment of _Benedicite_ in the services of the Church
is interesting, as shewing the value set upon, and the use made of, this
canticle, it reflects little or no light on its origin, or indeed on any
of the heads under which it has been previously discussed.


"EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION OF MANNERS."

The conduct of Azarias and its results shew us the _value of Prayer_
made by those under persecution. He led the way, and his comrades joined
him.

Azarias is not so taken up with the wrongs of himself and his fellows as
to forget the wrongs which his own nation had done; therefore his prayer
commences with a _humble Confession_. Then he relies on the great
promises of the past (vv. 12, 13). It may be thought that _Humility_ is
also shewn in the Song by the Three putting their own names in the last
place of the series. But another cause may have contributed to the
choice of this order; for, so far as animal life is concerned, the Song
follows the order of Gen. i., bringing in human beings last, not as
being least important, but as forming the crown of creation.

Although Nebuchadnezzar is severely spoken of in v. 9, A.V. (and in iv.
27 of the canonical book 'sins and iniquities' are attributed to
Nebuchadnezzar), there is great _Self-restraint_ shewn in wishing for
retribution (vv. 20, 21); and indeed it is asked that he and his
servitors may be brought to the knowledge of God (v. 22).

The pleasure of _Thanksgiving and Praise_ on delivery are exemplified by
the Three in the production of the Song itself. As soon as ever their
prayer was answered, before they emerged from the furnace, they united
their voices in thanking God with a glow of fervid faith, recognizing in
Him the universal Lord and Benefactor.

They sang in harmonious accord their song of praise at once (v. 28).
Though staunchly refusing to worship in a wrong way, they were very
ready to do so in a right, and lost no time in proving it, publicly and
before all creation. As de Muis (†1644) says in his _Comm. in Psalmos_
(Louvain, 1770, II. 705), "Ut calamitatibus tanquam igne probatur;
fidelis animus non modo non deficiat sed etiam animata inanimaque omnia
ad Dei laudes provocet." Eager to honour God, they join in unreserved
devotion.

Their _Reliance upon God_ is obviously great. To Him they turn in their
martyrdom with prayer and praise; to Him they address themselves with
the heart and voice of sure conviction. He is their unfailing resource.

A _Love of Nature_, as created by the same hand as ourselves, is very
apparent in this canticle; there is a thorough fellow-feeling with
natural objects, as derived from, and responding to, the same Almighty
source. This love of nature appears in Holy Scripture most strongly, as
here, in the poetical books, and hardly anywhere does it take a deeper
tone than in this canticle.




PART III

THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA

כְּשׁוׄשַׁנָּה בֵּין הַחוׄחִים
(שיר ב׳ ב׳)




THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA.


ANALYSIS. (Θ)

vv.

1--4. Susanna--her husband, family, and house.

5,6. Two newly-appointed Elders resort thither for official purposes.

7--14. How they yielded to the 'lust of the eye,' and laid their plot.

15--21. How they attempted to carry it out.

22--26. Susanna's soliloquy and cry.

27--41. The Elders' false accusation in private and in public, resulting
in her condemnation to death.

42--44. Her prayer.

45--49. The inspiration of Daniel to clear her.

50--59. He re-opens the case, and proves the Elders to be false.

60--62. The death-penalty is transferred to them, and Susanna is
delivered,

63, 64. Whose family thank God; while Daniel's reputation is
established.

N.B.--It is not clear why the 'heading' or 'contents' in the A.V.
_begins_ with v. 16. _Cf._ the heading of Bel and the Dragon for a
similar ignoring of the early verses, as also that of I. Macc. i.


TITLE AND POSITION.


TITLE.

This is in general simply Σουσάννα, as in the true LXX.

In Cod. A (Θ) it is designated at the end ὅρασις α', our chap. i. being
ὅρασις β', and so on. It is therefore included in the number of the
visions.[29] Ὅρασις also occurs in the title of Holmes and Parsons'
cursive 235.

In the Syriac of Heraclius (=W₂ of Ball, pp. 323a, 330a) it is entitled
"The Book of the child Daniel," or "The Book of little Daniel" (Churton,
3896). This last title also seems applied to Bel and the Dragon in a
Nestorian list mentioned by Churton (on the same page), and in Ebed
Jesu's list of Hippolytus' works (_D.G.B._ art. _Hippolytus_, p. 104a),
When applied to Bel and the Dragon, however, 'little' must refer to the
size of the book, and not, as is usually understood when it heads
Susanna, to Daniel's youthful age. To this Bar Hebræus (†1286), in his
Scholia on Susanna, expressly attributes it (ed. A. Heppner, Berlin,
1888, p. 18). He also remarks that neither Syriac version is equal to
the Greek.

"The Judgments of Daniel," Διακρίσεις Δανιήλ, is a good title given by
Arnald, by Churton (p. 390), and by Westcott (Smith's _D.B._ art.
_Additions to Daniel_, ed. 1, 3966, ed. 2, 713b), none of whom specify
any source or authority for it, Arnald alone giving the Greek. It may be
traced back, however, through Sabatier to Flaminius Nobilius, who
writes, "In multis [vetustis libris] inscribitur Daniel, in quibusdam
Susanna, in aliquo διάκρισις Δανιήλ, Judicium Daniel" (Append, to Bp.
Walton's _Polyglott_, Lond. 1657, p. 191). He gives no information as to
what this 'certain' copy at the end of his descending climax might be in
which he had found this title; nor does it quite agree with the plural
form in which Arnald gives it, presumably with regard to the double
sentence passed by Daniel. Holmes and Parsons give no such reading, and
no one now seems able to identify the 'liber' intended by Flaminius.
Delitzsch (_di Hab. Vita_, etc., Lips. 1842, p. _25n_) says that "Unus
Cod. qui ex coenobiis montis Athos advectus est" gives the title περὶ
τῆς Σωσάννης.

As this piece describes one episode only in Susanna's life, "the History
of Susanna" in both A.V. and R.V. is not a good title. 'History' and
'story,' however, were not so clearly differentiated in English formerly
as they are now. Possibly this title was taken from Jerome, who speaks
of "Susannæ historiam" twice in his Preface to Daniel. It is given also
in Syr. W₁. In Article VI., and in the "Names and Order of the Books" in
A.V., it takes the form, "Story of Susanna."

The name שׁוׄשַׁנָּה is so eminently fitted to the subject of the story
as to suggest its intentional choice; and, so far, would tell in favour
of the allegoric, and against the historic, nature of the piece[30]. Or
even supposing the piece to be historic, the name may have been assumed
in order to avoid identification of the heroine. The word occurs in its
masculine form, שֵׁשָׁן, in I. Chron. ii. 31, 34, 35; and in its
feminine form in II. Chron. iv. 5, Cant. ii. 1, 2 (here in a phrase most
readily lending itself as a motto for the tale), and Hos. xiv. 5. The
place Shushan, too, is thought to have been named from the abundance of
lilies which grew there. This name, derived from the plant world, is
paralleled by that of Habakkuk in the companion story of Bel and the
Dragon, according to Marti on Hab. i. 1 (_Hand-Commentar,_ Tübingen,
1904).


POSITION.

In Cod. Chisianus, and in the Vulgate, Susanna forms chap. xiii. of
Daniel. So also in the Syro-Hexaplar version (Ball, p. 330b). Cajetanus
Bugati (_Syriac Daniel_, Milan, 1788, p. 163), endeavours to explain
this (against Michaelis) by supposing Susanna to have been removed from
its original place at the beginning of the book.

In Codd. A, B, Q, Susanna stands at the beginning, before our chap. i.
of Daniel. This is its position also in the Old Latin, and in the Arabic
versions (Ball, p. 330b). Rothstein in Kautzsch (p. 172) thinks that
this was not its original place, but the one in which Theodotion fixed
it, or perhaps that which found favour when Theodotion's translation was
substituted for LXX. And this position appears to be contemplated by the
A.V. and R.V. titles, "set apart from the beginning of," etc. Driver,
however, thinks (_Comm. on Dan._, p. xviii.) that the chap. xiii.
position (before Bel and the Dragon) was perhaps its original place.
"The fact that it contains an anecdote of Daniel's youth might readily
have led to its subsequent transference to the beginning of the book."

St. Hippolytus, a writer subsequent to Theodotion, evidently regards it
as the commencement of the book (Schürer, _H.J.P._ ii. iii., 185).
Flaminius Nobilius in his "Notae," as given in the Appendix to Bryan
Walton's _Polyglott_, writes, "Hæc Susannas historia in omnibus
vetustis libris est principium Danielis, quemadmodum etiam apud S.
Athan. in Synopsi." This Synopsis is now considered to be of
post-Athanasian date; and the position which its writer gives to
Susanna in § 41 does not look quite consistent with that he gives
afterwards in § 74 (_see_ 'Canonicity,' p. 157).

Although in the Vulgate this moveable fragment forms Daniel xiii.,
Jerome, notwithstanding, in his Preface names these additions in the
order, Susanna, The Three, Bel and the Dragon; yet in the immediately
following "capitula Danihelis," it stands as in the text after chap.
xii. This clearly points to some uncertainty as to its proper place.

The statements made by E.L. Curtis at the end of art. _Daniel_ in
Hastings' _B.D._, that this and Bel and the Dragon are separate books in
the LXX, have question marks justly affixed to them. In the Jacobite
Syriac, Susanna is joined with Judith, Ruth, and Esther, as a "Female
Book" (_Urtext und Uebersetz._ p. 230). Gwynn says (D.C.B. art.
_Thecla_, IV. 895b), that in "Syriac O.T.'s these are usually placed
together and classed as the four books of the 'Book of Women.'"

Yet another position is suggested by J. Fürst (quoted in Bissell, p.
444), who thinks its proper place is after Dan. i. 20. This is a very
plausible conjecture, but evidence to support it is at present wanting.
A slight confirmation of it however is afforded by the _Byzantine Guide
to Painting_ (_see_ 'Art,' p. 171); and by the position given by Sulpicius
Severus to his epitome of the story (_see_ 'Christian Literature,' p.
167). E. Philippe (Vigouroux, _Dict._ II. 1267a) attempts to account for
its removal from, or want of position in, the Massoretic Daniel, "parce
qu'elle est infamante pour les juges d'Israel," obviously adopting
Origen's reason (_see_ 'Canonicity,' p. 157) which is not a very
satisfactory one.

All things considered, the position of Susanna in the A.V. as a detached
piece, along with Bel and the Dragon, is as suitable as any which have
been suggested. For its original place cannot now, from the information
in our hands, be determined with absolute certainty.


DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.


DATE.

Susanna is deemed by J.M. Fuller (_Speaker's Comm., Introd. to Dan._,
221a) to be probably the oldest of the three additions. This opinion is
however by no means universally accepted.

If a Semitic original really existed, it no doubt preceded the Greek
texts. R.C. opinion (_e.g._ Dereser, quoted by Bissell, p. 444), as that
of all who regard the booklet as canonical, treats it as part of Daniel,
and therefore whatever date is assigned to that book is made to apply to
this also. Professor A.A. Bevan (_Comm. on Dan._, Camb. 1892, p. 45)
thinks that this piece and Bel and the Dragon "appear to have been
circulated independently before they were incorporated with the book of
Daniel." C.J. Ball ascribes the origin of the piece to the struggles
between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, B.C. 94-89 (p. 330a). But to
attribute it thus to the outcome of these quarrels, brings the original
down to a later date than is at all probable, in view of its
incorporation with the LXX.[31] Nor does the bitterness of those
disputes seem stamped with sufficient strength upon the document itself
to compel us to see in them its period of origin.

J.T. Marshall (Hastings' _D.B._ IV., 631-2) conjectures that the latter
part of the story arose out of Simon ben Shetach's efforts, about 100
B.C., to get the law as to witnesses in criminal cases altered. This
view is perhaps a trifle more probable than Ball's.

As to the true LXX text, Bissell (p. 444) rather inclines to deem it to
have been from the first a part of the LXX. So Pusey, quoted by Churton
(p. 389), says that it is "admitted to have been contemporary with the
LXX version;" and W. Selwyn (_D.B._ III., p. 1210a) thinks that this,
with the other additions, was "early incorporated with the LXX."
Rothstein in Kautzsch, very hesitatingly and with much caution, suggests
(I., p. 178) the second century before Christ.

On the other hand, A. Kamphausen (_Encyclop. Bibl._ I. 1013) writes,"
When [Daniel] first began to be translated by the Egyptian Jews into
Greek, the legends of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, which may very
well have had an independent circulation, had certainly not as yet been
taken up into it.... We cannot tell at what date it was that these
apocryphal additions (which are contained in all MSS. that have reached
us), were taken up into the Greek and Syriac Daniel." How he knows so
"certainly" that they were not in it at the period named, he does not
explain; and before this positive statement can be unreservedly accepted
strong proof is wanted.

As to Theodotion's version, there is no reason to suppose that the
portion consisting of Susanna differs in date from the rest of the book.
It may probably be assigned to the latter half of the second century
A.D. Behrmann, in Nowack's _Hand Kommentar_, p. xxx. says, "um 150."

Most writers on this subject, such as Westcott, Streane, and Marshall,
as well as some of those previously mentioned, markedly avoid any
approach to definite dates as to the original, or as to the LXX Greek.
And justly so; for the evidence in our hands does not, unfortunately,
admit of anything closer than a "period" being safely fixed. The
materials we have are not sufficiently precise for closer approximation
with any decree of security. Rothstein (Kautzsch, I., p. 178) very
wisely says, "Natürlich lasst sich mit irgend welcher Sicherheit über
diese Frage nichts ausmachen." With this, until further evidence be
forthcoming, it is well to agree.


PLACE.

_Of Original._ As to the place of origin nearly every writer on Susanna
is silent except Scholz, who (p. 147) favours a non-Alexandrian
birthplace, giving a preference to the land of the Captivity. And if we
assume, as he does, a Semitic original, Babylonia is no doubt its
probable birthplace, or, failing that, Palestine.

It might appear, if the trees named could be botanically identified with
a reasonable degree of certainty, that a valuable sign would thus be
given of the place of origin. But inasmuch as Joacim's park or garden
would be a likely place for the cultivation of exotics, perhaps no safe
theory could be built upon the identification of the trees, unless they
were shewn to be such as would not live in the climate of the country
suggested.

There is no trace of Alexandrian philosophy or speculation, nor of
commercial interests, some of which generally betray themselves in
writings of Alexandrian origin. And the same may be said of the Song of
the Three, and Bel and the Dragon. But in such short pieces it is not
wise to build much on the absence of these traces.

_Of LXX Greek._ That this was made at Alexandria admits of little doubt.
From the similarity of style, too, it would appear that the translator
(or editor) was identical with the translator of the canonical Daniel.
This is the opinion of Rothstein (in Kautzsch, I. 178). Schürer
(_H.J.P._ II. III.), who denies the existence of a Semitic original,
classes this (with the other additions) not in his
'Palestinian-Jewish,' but in his 'Graeco-Jewish' section.

The mention of Sidon in v. 56 (where Θ has Canaan) may perhaps suggest a
writer in the original, whatever language he may have used, who was
connected with the north of Palestine. But it is quite as probable that
the writer (or translator) had some idea of Gen. x. 15 in his mind,
"Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn." After him, according to Josephus
(_Ant._ I. VI. 2), the city was named: Σιδώνιος ὃς καὶ πόλιν ἐπώννμον
ἔκτισεν ἐν τῇ Φοινίκῃ, Σιδὼν δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ Ἑλλήνων καλεῖται. It is worth
noticing that in St. Matt. xi. 21 our Lord speaks of the city more
favourably.

_Of Theodotion's Greek._ Of the 'provenance' of the Greek version
bearing Theodotion's name very little is known. But Ephesus may be
suggested as not altogether improbable with regard to what little we
know of Theodotion's life. If we take the Revelation of St. John, too,
as having been written at Ephesus, this will accord well with the use
made of Theodotion's version of Daniel in that book. Or if Theodotion
made use, in whole or in part, of some previous version, as seems
certain, this fact would not at all militate against St. John at Ephesus
having also made use of the same earlier version. And it is quite
possible that this version may have been of Alexandrian origin, although
worked up by Theodotion elsewhere.

Whatever the place of origin may have been, it is very remarkable that a
version by one who was either a Jew or a heretic Christian should have
been preferred to the LXX of Daniel and the Additions so as practically
to supersede it. Prof. J.J. Blunt describes Theodotion as one who
"attempts to wrest the Hebrew from the cause of the Gospel" (_Christian
Church_, p. 129). This was indicated by Irenæus, III. xxiii. 1. If,
however, the previous version used by him was due to a pre-Christian
Jew, this may have smoothed the way for its acceptance among Christians.
For Jews B.C. and Jews A.D. were regarded by the Church, as was natural,
in very different lights, and their writings likewise.


AUTHORSHIP.

Like some other of the apocryphal books, this is a traditional story of
great popularity. It is not necessary to suppose that its author's name
has been lost from the title, as it may always have been anonymous. The
nature of its contents would not be unlikely to give offence to the
Sanhedrin, and therefore a motive for anonymity is not far to seek.

Bishop Gray (_Introd. to O.T._ p. 613) seems, as he often does, to hit
the mark, as nearly as we can tell, when he deems it to be "by some Jew
who invented the history, or collected its particulars from traditionary
relations in praise of Daniel." This observation is little more than
paraphrased by J.H. Blunt, when he writes (_in loc._) "probably inserted
into LXX from some ancient Jewish authority." The variations of text
certainly suggest an oral tradition, perhaps even more strongly than in
Bel and the Dragon.

Bissell says that Susanna "contains nothing which might not have come
from the pen of a Hellenist" (p. 445); and Westcott sees in this and
other additions "the hand of an Alexandrian writer" (Smith's _D.B._ ed.
2 I. 714a), but thinks it not unlikely that he worked up earlier
traditions. Certainly v. 22 seems to shew that the author of the Greek
of Θ was evidently acquainted with the LXX of II. Sam. xxiv. 14. "Wer
die Susanna (in Walton's _Polygl._ 4) nach Theodot. frei übersetzt hat,"
says Nestle, "wissen wir nicht" (_Urtext und übersetz._ 236).

It is noteworthy that Josephus shews no acquaintance with this or the
other additions, though he makes some use of other uncanonical legends
of Daniel (_Jud. Ant._ X., 10, 1; 11, 6 and 7). Schürer in Hauck's
_Encylop._ (I. 639), thinks Susanna and Bel and the Dragon may well
originally have had independent existences. If so, this might help to
explain Josephus' disregard of them.

It is a reasonable inference from v. 57, that the author was a Jew in
the strictest sense, and not from one of the ten tribes. Yet it should
not escape notice that in v. 48 "Israel" is apparently used for the
entire people, including all the tribes.[32] The invidious contrast
between the Israelitish and Jewish women is omitted in what Dr. Salmon
calls, "the second Syriac recension" of Susanna, termed erroneously at
one time "the Harklensian" (_Speaker's Comm._, p. xlvi.). The contrast
in v. 56 between Israel and Canaan is made into a stinging reproach, but
is hardly to be understood literally as to the Elder's family descent.

J. Kennedy in _Daniel from a Christian standpoint_ (p. 55), says of this
and the other Additions that there is "no means of determining when,
where, or by whom written." He adds (p. 56), "those who conceived and
wrote the additions were both intellectually and spiritually incapable
of appreciating the book [of Daniel] and its contents," and he concludes
that they "belong to different ages and to entirely different conditions
of thought." This estimate is a much too severe one, and very different
from the opinion formed by some other equally qualified judges. The fear
lest a favourable opinion of the quality of these pieces should lend any
countenance to the Tridentine decree as to the Apocrypha, or seem to
weaken the Protestant position with regard to them, appears to have
operated, consciously or unconsciously, in shaping the views on this
subject expressed by such writers. Probably acting under similar
sentiments Ludovicus Cappellus, †1658 (quoted by Ball, 325a), calls
the author "a trifler" (nugator), and styles his production "fabula
ineptissima."

Jerome, in the Prologue to his _Commentary on Daniel_, says that
Eusebius and Apollinarius replied to Porphyry's objection to these
additions that "Susannæ Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in
Hebraico, sed partem esse prophetæ Abacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi;"
and apparently acquiesces in this statement. As there appears to be no
other authority for attributing Susanna to Habakkuk, it is a question
whether the LXX title to Bel and the Dragon was not applied to Susanna
also "per incuriam." A. Scholz escapes the difficulty of Habakkuk both
here and in Bel and the Dragon by regarding it as a merely symbolic
title, which he renders by "Kämpfe" on very slender grounds (_Esther und
Susanna_, Würzburg, 1892, p. 138; and _Judith und Bel und der Drache_,
1896, p. 204).

It must not be forgotten, however, that the authorship of Daniel is of
course suggested by most of those who defend the canonicity of the book.
Origen in his Epistle to Africanus maintains the solidarity of the piece
with the book of Daniel. And it should be remembered, as a point of some
strength, that Julius Africanus' correspondence with Origen at the
beginning of century III., is the first record we have of any dispute as
to its genuineness.

Professor Rothstein, in Kautzsch (i. 172) gives very decidedly a
contrary opinion, stating that Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, "haben
mit dem Danielbuche nur insofern zu thun, als in ihnen Daniel eine Rolle
spielt." But it is hard to offer conclusive proof that Susanna and Bel
and the Dragon differ greatly in character from the independent
historical "scenes" of which the first six chapters of Daniel consist;
each, in nearly all respects, being intelligible when standing alone. It
is hard also to shew that their incorporation, and constant acceptance,
with the LXX was a deplorable mistake. And this difficulty is enhanced
when we see that, so far as is known, all the Greek and Latin speaking
Christians before Julius Africanus, and most of them after, fell
unquestionably into what, if Rothstein and those who think with him are
right, must be deemed a grave error. But even if it could be proved that
these pieces were by the author of Daniel, the recent questions as to
who that writer may have been, still further complicate the at present
insoluble problem of the authorship of Susanna.


FOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.


FOR WHOM.

That this story was originally prepared for the use of Jews there can be
no doubt. Probably it was designed for readers and admirers of Daniel,
who would be glad of this example of the prophet's insight. Certainly
it was for those who loved to dwell on the interventions of God for His
people, and especially on a recent manifestation of His particular care
for oppressed individuals. Possibly also the case of those may have been
regarded who were dissatisfied with the current methods of administering
justice and conducting trials. J.W. Etheridge (_Jerusalem and Tiberias_,
1856, p. 109) deems it to be an example of Haggadah in common with its
two companion pieces, "histories coloured with fable," as he styles
them--a sort of legendary appendix to carry on the interest of readers
of the canonical text.

But since the Christian era this writing has been employed by Christians
far more than by Jews. Perhaps its ready acceptance by the former may
have diminished the chance of popularity amongst the Israelites of later
times. They would look upon it with more suspicion, though it was
clearly connected with the literature of their race. And obviously this
enlarged acceptance among Christians was beyond the aim of the tale's
author.


WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.

The holding up an example of purity, maintained under circumstances of
great distress, is the leading object which Christians have seen in
this piece. It is probable, however, that other aims as well as this
entered into the mind of the writer.

A dissatisfaction with the method of conducting trials such as Susanna's
is clearly manifested. A Pharisaic, or at least an anti-Sadducean,
tendency has been observed, particularly in the latter part of the
story. Then the utility of investigating small particulars is
demonstrated, and the necessity of a rigorous punishment of false
witnesses, points on which the Pharisees insisted, according to Ball
(329b, 330a), who quotes Simon ben Shetach as saying from the
Mishnah (_Pirke Avoth_, I. 9) את הצדים הוי מרבה לחקור. Bissell (p. 447)
also thinks that "to reform the method of conducting legal processes"
was an object of the author. And certainly the story does teach the need
for a close investigation of testimony.

The author shews up the unscrupulousness and injustice practised even in
the leading circles of the Jewish community; and in so doing he
manifests throughout a good knowledge of the workings of the human
heart. Marshall (in Hastings' _D.B._) assumes "that we have here an
ethical mythus" (631b).[33] But to imagine that the story had no
other origin than this is, to say the least, unproved, and, as many
think, unproveable.

Another object may have been to extol Daniel and his judicial acumen.
There is a resemblance in this respect to the tone of several chapters
of the Book of Daniel, _e.g._, ii. and iv. His penetration and his
prophetic gifts as a young man are set forth. Indeed the last two verses
of the Ο´ version almost make the praise of youthful piety the moral of
the book. But this, edifying as it may be, is scarcely to be taken as
the chief object of the composition; and Θ substitutes another
conclusion as to the gratitude of Susanna's family and the growth of
Daniel's reputation.

Still, apart from the question of historic value, many worthy objects
may have lain within the purview of the composer; and to shew that
righteous youths are better than unrighteous elders may very well have
been one of these. To prove that even men of riper years are not
unerring in judgment may well also, as G. Jahn (quoted by Ball in
_Speaker's Comm._ 325a) points out, have been a subsidiary aim.

The kind of judicial acumen displayed strikes one, too, as being very
similar to that of the young Solomon in his judgment on the two women
(I. Kings iii.); but the story here is not an imitation of that. It is a
wholly distinct instance of the same class, a most popular one for
narration in Eastern countries.

Another object in writing this history (and certainly the most useful
object from a Christian point of view) is to give an example of the
maintenance of purity and right, even at the risk of losing both life
and reputation.

It may be questioned, however, whether the idea of depressing the
estimation of elders, or of raising that of Susanna and of Daniel, was
uppermost in the writer's mind. Almost equal prominence is given to each
of these ideas. The latter, perhaps, would throw over the piece a
somewhat less attractive character than the former. But there is that in
the cast of the composition which suggests that its object may have been
quite as much to raise disgust at the elders' crime as to raise
admiration at Susanna's purity; in fact that the whiteness of her
character was designed as a foil to make more prominent the blackness of
her oppressors. On this account Jer. xxix. 23 might perhaps be taken as
a verse which gave his cue to the writer. But these are points on which
opinions will inevitably vary according to the impression made on
different minds by a matter so nearly balanced.

This, the only one of our three booklets in which women appear, presents
them in a very favourable light. Beyond the imputation suggested against
those of Israel at the beginning of v. 57, it contains nothing but what
is creditable to the female sex. The present Archbishop of Armagh's
poem, "The Voyage to Babylon," thus prettily depicts Susanna's purity:

      ".... garden bed of balm,
In one whereof old Chelcias' daughter
Went to walk down beside the water,
The lily both in heart and name,
Whose white leaf hath no blot of shame."

Abp. ALEXANDER'S _Poems_ (Lond. 1900).


INTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.

In Θ we appear to have the story presented to us without material
interpolation; but there are omissions of some not very important
matters contained in the LXX text. A. Scholz accounts for variations by
supposing changes in the Hebrew original between the times of the two
translations. Of Θ he says, "Θ ist nichts als Uebersetzer; er setzt de
suo kein wort bei" (p. 142)--an exaggerated statement.

The true LXX version was long supposed to be lost; but a cursive MS. of
it (9th or 10th century) was found in Cardinal Chigi's library at Some,
and was first printed in 1772. From its owner's name it has received the
title of Cod. Chisianus, and is now numbered 87.

It is almost certain that Θ must have had the Ο´ text before him, since
the coincidences of diction, though not so continuous as in the Song of
the Three, are still far too numerous to be accidental. Bissell (p. 443)
says of all the three pieces, "Θ simply recast the version of LXX." This
dictum, however true of the Three, must not be quite literally taken of
Susanna, as he does introduce some fresh matter, particularly at the
opening and the close. Prof. Rothstein in Kautzsch (pp. 176-7) thinks
that the two Greek versions are two independent forms of the same story,
based on some common narrative material; but when the obvious idea
presents itself that this last was an Hebraic original, he speaks with
much guardedness (p. 178), lest he should commit himself to this view.

Θ's recension is rather more polished in language, less elaborate in
some of its details.[34] Fritzsche, quoted in Kautzsch (pp. 176-7), says
that "he worked over the LXX text, expanded the narrative, rounded it
off, and gave it a greater air of probability." Westcott's opinion to a
similar effect, however (Smith's _D.B._ ed. 2 I. 714a), is called in
question by Professor Salmon (_Speaker's Comm._ XLVI.a), who thinks
that there is quite as much to be said for the opposite views, and this
opinion is reasonable.

In the LXX text there is surely something wanting at the true beginning
at v. 5, which, as it stands, is awkwardly abrupt. Both Bissell (and
Brüll, quoted by him, p. 457) approve of the idea that the beginning was
suppressed because of its containing damaging reflections on the elders.
Then the present opening (vv. 1--5) was borrowed from Θ, and is marked
in both Cod. Chis. and Syro-Hex. as not part of the original work, but a
foreign exordium. Rothstein (p. 184, note) thinks that in place of the
present borrowed commencement there stood a short introductory remark on
the two judging elders. Though lacking proof, this conjecture is well
within the bounds of possibility. Yet in the Syro-Hexaplar text the
first five verses are obelised, indicating, according to Bugati (p.
163), that they are omitted in Θ, but present in Ο´.

There are in the LXX extra clauses, which are not in Θ, scattered
throughout the book; three verses between 14 and 15, one at the end, and
considerable enlargements of vv. 45, 52; also curious substitutions,
such as that in v. 39, where in the LXX the imaginary young man escaped
because he was disguised; in Theodotion, because he was stronger than
the Elders. These alternative reasons are of course not of necessity
incompatible.

The Syriac W₂ (=Harklensian) contains many further particulars inserted
here and there, such as the Elders' names (Amid and Abid)[35], v. 5,
Daniel's age of twelve years, and some words in praise of him, v. 64.
But most of these added clauses may not unfairly be regarded as
'paddings,' put in by way of embellishment. Those in v. 41 (ninth hour),
v. 45 (twelve years of age), v. 64 (increase in favour) have a Christian
look, the last two being suggestive of a knowledge of St. Luke's Gospel
(_cf._ 'Style,' p. 140). Also the continuation of v. 43 in Lagarde's
second Syriac version has rather a Christian air, "appear for me and
send a Redeemer from before thee," etc. (Hastings' _D.B._ art. _Sus._ p.
631b).

An attempt has been made to account for the numerous, but not generally
very important, variations in different texts and versions by supposing
the story to have been a favourite oral narrative, long continuing in a
fluid state. This is far from improbable.

The Vulgate, which follows Θ closely, appends the first verse of Bel and
the Dragon as the conclusion of this story. If this was done in order to
avoid chronological difficulty there, it was at the expense of
introducing it here, and that, to all appearance, very meaninglessly.

The chief uncial MS. authorities for Θ's text are A,B,Q, and from v. 51
onward, Γ. A often agrees with Q, as in vv. 19, 24, and elsewhere, in
substituting πρεσβύτεροι (Ο´'s word) for πρεσβῦται; in vv. 10, 11, etc.,
in substituting ἀπαγγέλλω for ἀναγγέλλω; and in v. 46, καθαρός for
ἀθῷος. In the canonical part of Daniel the substitution of ἀπαγγέλλω for
ἀναγγέλλω mostly holds good also so far as A is concerned (ii. 9,
16).[36] In v. 36, A has a transposition of a clause, and in v. 39
another of its changes of prepositions in composition, not easily
accounted for. Q (alone) has such changes in vv. 4, 32, 38. The above
are all changes from B. Γ often agrees with A and Q, or both, but has
nothing of importance independently.

The genitive Σουσαννάς (instead of ης) occurs occasionally in all the
above MSS. (vv. 27, 28, 62; also in LXX, v. 30). _cf._ Μάρθας in St.
John xi. I.

Two cursive MSS. (234 Moscow, S. Synod; 235 Rome, Vat.) consist of
Susanna only; but whether they are perfect, or only fragments, is not
clear. Holmes and Parsons give no particulars. On the whole, the text of
either version is fairly trustworthy, the average of variations being
not at all above that in the canonical Daniel.


LANGUAGE AND STYLE.


LANGUAGE.

As with the Three, so here, the question at once arises, Is the Greek of
the LXX more probably the original language or a translation? The
acceptance of a Semitic original seems on the whole to be more in the
ascendant than formerly; but still, the greater part of those who have
expressed an opinion on the subject incline to Greek as the language
chosen by the author.

The Hebraic style is somewhat less strongly marked than in the other two
fragments, nor has an Aramaic text of this one yet been discovered.
Still, the Greek can be rendered into Hebrew rather more easily than
most Hellenistic Greek. The Greek of the "rest of" Esther differs much
more in style and tone from that of the canonical book to which it is
attached than does the Greek of Susanna from that of the canonical
Daniel; and, so far as this fact goes, it points to a closer linguistic
connection in this case than in the other (_see_ Streane, _Age of Macc._
p. 160; Bissell, p. 203). Delitzsch (_op. cit._ pp. 31, 101) says that
"particulæ quædam citantur a Nachmanide" (entitled מגלת ששן) as well as
of Wisdom. The citations of the latter book are discredited by Farrar
(_Speaker's Comm._ p. 411) however, and probably those of the former are
in a similar position.

The early place of verbs in the sentences is here also, as in the other
pieces, to some extent noticeable as conforming to the theory of a
Semitic original. If the etymology of the name דניאל is supposed to be
drawn from his 'judgments' in this story, such an original is probably
involved in the supposition (_cf._ 'Title,' p. 104). The Hexaplaric
marks mentioned by Bugati (_op. cit._ 156), as occurring at the
beginning of Cod. Chisianus (Α, Σ, Θ), are strongly suggestive of
translation (_cf._ Song, 'Language,' p. 49).

The controversy which was started by Africanus with Origen (and resumed
by Porphyry[37] with Eusebius of Cæsarea, and by Rufinus with Jerome) as
to the famous play upon the names of the trees (vv. 54--60) is still
unsettled. Some see in the paronomasiæ conclusive proof of the
originality of the Greek; others still contend with Origen that they are
no certain evidence as to determination of language. But few will think
the analogous case which he (Origen) gives from Gen. ii. 23 a very
convincing one (_D.C.B._ art. _Heb. Learning_, p. 858b). Still we must
remember that the Hebrew language was fond of paronomasiæ, and that
Daniel employs the figure in the canonical book (v. 25--28). In other
O.T. instances of its use it is, however, difficult to to see that the
LXX made any attempt to reproduce the word-play, _e.g._ Isai. v. 7, Mic.
i. 10; nor does either Greek version in Dan. v. 25--28.[38] But ἄνεσις
and ἄφεσις in I. Esd. iv. 62 looks like a word-play in what may not be
original Greek; though a Semitic original of that section of I. Esd.
(iii. 1 to v. 6) is by no means proved.

It has been shewn, however, in the case before us, how an adequate play
might be produced in Aramaic, as also in English (Hastings' _D.B._ art.
_Sus._). A. Scholz, too, in his Commentary attempts this, with only
moderate success, in Hebrew[39]; and Delitzsch (_op. cit._ 102) gives
some Aramaic possibilities of it from Plessner. As the precise
punishments named were not carried out, this passage in the original,
whatever it may have been, was clearly constructed with a view to
introduce their names.

It is interesting to compare and contrast the account of the Woman taken
in Adultery (St. John viii.) with that of Susanna, the one truly, the
other falsely, accused. There are, as might be expected, some verbal
parallels, but not sufficient to prove that the N.T. writer was
influenced by the History of Susanna, nor to give us material assistance
in deciding its original language (_cf._ III. 'Language,' p. 49).
Notwithstanding the general inclination towards Greek, this must at
present be left in doubt, and a verdict of 'non liquet' given.

In the following observations on specific points in the language,
instances telling in both directions have been included:

v. 3 Ο´, Θ. The use of κατά after διδάσκω, instead of a double
accusative, suggests a translation of למד followed by a ב or מן, with
either of which it is sometimes constructed.

v. 5 Ο´, Θ. If Aramaic be the original language, ἐδόκουν may well
represent צְבָא, as in IV. 14, V. 23 and elsewhere.

v. 6 Ο´, Θ. Scholz deems κρίσεις and κρινόμενοι to be based on a
confusion between משפטים and נשפטים.

vv. 7, 15, 19, 28 Θ. καὶ ἐγένετο is suggestive of ויהי.

vv. 8, 14, 56 Ο´, Θ. The use of ἐπιθυμία in a bad sense, and of ἐπιθυμέω
in a perfectly innocent one in v. 15 Θ, seems careless, and may point to
translation from an original, where different roots were used, _e.g._
אהב,חמד,אוה. _Cf._ LXX of Deut. v. 21 (18) for a rendering of two
different Hebrew roots by the same word, ἐπιθυμέω, though in that case
they are both employed in a bad sense.

v. 15 Θ. καθὼς ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτης ἡμέρς looks like כִּתְמוׄל שִׁלְשֹׁם, as
in Gen. xxxi. 5 and II. Kings xiii. 5. "Wörtlich hebräisch," as Reuss
notes _in loc._ If Aramaic were the original, it might be
וּמִדֳקדְמוׄהִי כְּמֵאֶתְמָלֵי.

v. 17 Θ. σμήγμασα, "exprimere voluit Heb. בורית," but תמרוק (Esth. ii.
3, 9, 12) seems quite as likely as this suggestion of Grotius. Both
roots are Aramaic as well as Hebrew.

vv. 11, 30, 39, 63 Θ. An instance similar to that given above (vv. 8,
14, 56) is the use of συγγενέσθδι in a bad sense in vv. 11, 39, and
συγενεῖς innocently in vv. 30, 63.

v. 19 Ο´. συνθέμενοι = זמן either in Aramaic or Hebrew, as in ii. 9,
while ἐξεβιάζοντο = כבש, as in Esth. vii. 8.

v. 22 Θ. Συενά μοι πάντοθεν occurs also in David's choice, II. Sam.
xxiv. 14 (closer than I. Chron. xxi. 13). The certainty of its being a
translation in the one place increases the probability of its being so
in the other, suggesting a common original, unless we suppose a Greek
author borrowing a Septuagintal phrase.

v. 23 Ο´, Θ. On the other hand, the participial clause in this verse in
both versions seems un-Hebraic in form; as also the phrase ὁ τῶν κρυπτῶν
γνώστης in v. 42 Θ, which is not very like a translation from the
Hebrew. There is a certain resemblance to Dan. ii. 28, 29 (Ο´, Θ), ὁ
ἀποκαλύπτων μυστήρια, however; but the latter contemplates God as
revealing mysteries to others, the former as knowing secrets Himself.

v. 26 Θ. Scholz' idea that πλαγίας = קרי (as in Lev. xxvi. 21, etc.)
would suit either Aramaic or Hebrew.

v. 27 Θ. Adduced as Hebraism in Winer's _G.T. Grammar_ (_E.T._ 1870, p.
214); apparently, but not very clearly, on the strength of the phrase
πώποτε οὐκ ἐρρέθη.

v. 36 Θ. The genitive absolute is Greek in character, but does not occur
in Ο´.

v. 44 Θ. Εἰσήκουσεν... τῆς φωνῆς. A Hebraism, as in Gen. xxi. 17, and
often.

v. 53 Ο´, Θ. The quotation is exact in both versions from the LXX of
Lev. xxiii. 7. This fact may be thought to tell slightly in favour of a
Greek original. In the canonical Dan. ix. 13 there is a reference,
without precise quotation, to Moses' law, so that this mention is not
out of character. The phraseology of the verse in Θ has a distinctly
Hebraistic look, much more so than in Ο´.

v. 55 Ο´, Θ. ψυχήν, κεφαλήν = נֶפֶשׁ Isai. xliii. 4.

v. 56 Ο´. The epithet μικρά, as applied to the ἐπιθυμήα of the Elder, is
inappropriate, and suggests an error of translation. Now טםאה is
rendered by μικρά in Josh. xxii. 19[40], and this word would yield a
very good sense in a Semitic original here, supposed to lie in the
background.

v. 57 Ο´, Θ. If an animus against Israel, as Judah's inferior, is really
shewn here it would point to a Babylonian, and therefore Semitic,
original, inasmuch as the enmity between Israel and Judah does not
appear to have been so strong at Alexandria. The use of 'Israel,'
however, in v. 48 seems to include all in the first instance, and to be
employed of Susanna specially in the second, who was presumably of
Judah. The Syro-Hexaplar omits what was most likely deemed an invidious
reflection. The reference to Hos. iv. 15 in the _Speaker's Comm._ (note)
does not seem apposite as to its mention of Israel and Judah in the LXX;
only in the Hebrew.

The phrase τὴν νόσον ὑμῶν comes in strangely, as Θ, by omitting it,
apparently thought. It is suggestive of a translation, perhaps of חֳלִי,
which seems to be used of moral disease in Hos. v. 13, and is there
rendered by νόσος.

v. 59 Ο´, Θ. Why ὑμᾶς? In LXX it comes in very awkwardly, where σε would
naturally be expected.

Scholz, not improbably, suggests that μένει (Θ) and ἕστηκεν (Ο´) have
been caused by reading קוה and קום respectively, renderings which are
actually found of those words elsewhere in the LXX, _e.g._ Isai. v. 2
and Dan. ii. 31. That confusion sometimes occurred between ה and the
final ם is known.

v. 61 Θ. Τῷπλησίον, though referring to Susanna, may be a translation of
רֵצַ, a word apparently regarded by Gesenius as epicene; so in Gen.
xxiii. 3, 4, 8 τὸν νεκρόν is the rendering of מֵת, meaning Sarah's
corpse, "sine sexus discrimine" (Ges.). But πλησίον may be used here of
'neighbour' collectively without exclusive reference to Susanna.

v. 62 Ο´. Φάραγξ, a frequent translation of גַּיְא or נַחַל. As it does
not appear that there are any natural ravines in Babylon, this might
refer to a deep moat outside the wall.

v. 64 (62) Ο´. Scholz says, "Εἰς ist sclavische Uebersetzung von ל das
der Hervorhebung des Objektes dienen soll." This is probable, though
'sclavische' seems an unnecessary epithet.


STYLE.

The style is that of a clearly-told narrative, with little of a strained
or rhetorical character about it; indeed there is less of this than in
much of the canonical Daniel. Ideas are well expressed and the story
well proportioned. There is nothing superfluous; everything bears on the
main theme. Nor is it unnatural that Daniel is made to use a play on
words out of the Elders' own mouths in order to render his sentence of
condemnation more strikingly emphatic.

There is high literary skill in the simple yet effective way of
narration. The story is a practical example of the saying, "Ars est
celare artem," a fact which will be best appreciated by any who will try
to tell the tale as well in their own words.[41] Holtzmann calls it,
"besonders von der Kunst vielfach gefeierte Novelle" (Schenkel's _Bibel
Lex._ 1875).

The lack of spontaneity and original freshness sometimes charged[A]
against the apocryphal books is by no means conspicuous here, nor,
though perhaps less decisively, in the next addition, Bel and the
Dragon. The exciting interview between Daniel and the Elders is so drawn
as to arouse much interest. By the first incident the whole current of
Susanna's life is abruptly changed, and her destiny is made to hang in
the balance for some time in a natural, but very effective, manner. The
writer has a deep knowledge of the principles and actions of human
feeling, and a thorough grasp of the art, by no means so easy as it
looks, of telling a short story in a very engaging style. Plot,
surprise, struggle, unfolding of character, and much else which is
regarded as contributing to excellence in such a composition, we find
here.

In the so-called Harklensian (W₂ of Salmon = Churton's Syr.[42]) various
details are added, such as the judgment chair brought out, which Daniel
refuses, standing up to judge; Susanna's chains (27, 50); her tears (33,
42); and her condemnation to death at the ninth hour (41). These are
obviously designed to heighten, by the introduction of more detailed
particulars, the effect of the narrative. The tale is so interesting and
so true to nature that its popularity is easily explained. That it
became a favourite story, in an age not given to prudery, for reading
and for oral repetition, is not surprising. Like all such, it was
subject to changes of form and gradual accretions. Oral repetition, as
well as non-canonicity amongst the Jews will, to a considerable extent,
account for the divergences between the LXX and Theodotion's recensions.
The latter, in Reuss' opinion (VI. 412), "ist reicher an Einzelnheiten
und auch besser stilisiert." With this view, in the main, most will feel
themselves in accord.


RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.


RELIGIOUS.

An unexceptionable O.T. moral standard on the part of the writer is
maintained throughout, so that no 'difficulties' arise on this score.
There is not a suggestion of any worship beside that of the Lord; no
idolatry is even hinted at. The Captivity had done its work in that
respect. Nor is there any symptom of the later developments of
rabbinism; not even in their inception.[43] It requires a very sharp
eye to find here so much as the germs of error in faith.

The Law of Moses is acted upon; taught by parents to children (v. 3);
regarded as the great authority (v. 62). The institution of Elders is in
full force, as contemplated in Jer. xix. 1 and xxvi. 17. I. Kings xx. 7
and xxi. 8, 11 shew that this body had been continued among the
separated tribes, and so naturally carried with them to their new home.
The appearance of corruption among officials in high places, who ought
to have been most free from it, is quite in accord with the religious
history of mankind in general, and of Israel in particular. Such
references as the above to Jeremiah, and that in v. 5 to Jer. xxix. 23,
are paralleled by a reference in the canonical Dan. ix. 2 to Jer. xxxv.
12.

When Daniel's plan was efficacious for revealing the Elders' guilt, the
just decision was approved; the right is thoroughly commended and the
wrong condemned. The heart of the people rings sound; their instincts at
the trials are in favour of justice. Morality is supported by popular
sympathy, which has been purified and elevated by the discipline of
exile.

In v. 57 some prejudice is suggested as existing in the writer's mind
against the women of Israel as being less chaste than those of Judah.
Possibly he was of the latter tribe himself (_see_ 'Language' on v. 57,
p. 137). The reproach to the second Elder of Canaanitish descent is in
keeping with Ezek. xvi. 3, where it is hurled against Jerusalem and her
abominations.

It is objected in Hastings' _D.B._ (IV. 631b) that "Daniel loudly
condemns both culprits before he adduces any proof of their guilt." But
surely this was justified by the prophetic office and the spirit within
him, which endowed him with an abnormal insight into the true state of
affairs. Personally he was assured, from the outset, of their guilt, but
secured public proof to satisfy the people. This objection is rather
poor ground on which to assail the historic character of the piece. In
fine, a religious tone, befitting the time intended, is consistently
maintained throughout.


SOCIAL.

Incidentally a pleasing picture of home life is outlined, before the
Elders tried to corrupt it.

Some of the Jews were apparently living in wealth and comfort during
the Captivity; but the end of v. 4 shews that Joacim's estate was
pre-eminent, not a sample of the general condition of the exiles. If not
royal (as Jul. Afric. in his letter to Origen hints, and Origen doubts
in his reply, § 14), it was evidently of an upper class; and a kind of
tribunal was held at his house. The state of life here depicted agrees
with Jeremiah's advice in xxix. 5; and with II. Esd. iii. 2, if that
too could be applied to the captives.

The King of Babylon was content with the subjugation and deportation of
the Jews, allowing them considerable liberty when he got them into
Babylonia. In this connection Ps. cv. 46 naturally occurs to the mind.
The captives evidently had alleviations granted them in Babylon by their
conquerors, witness Evil-Merodach's kindness to Jehoiachin, II. Kings
xxv. 28. There is, however, no indication even of the beginnings of that
trade and commerce which was so characteristic of much of the dispersion
in later years.

Great freedom to regulate their own affairs is shewn, including, to all
appearance, the power of inflicting the death-penalty, v. 62. This last
power has been objected to as unhistoric. But J.J. Blunt[44]
illustrates the possibility of this, by citing Origen's letter to
Africanus to shew that the Jews under the Romans enjoyed a similar power
in his day. Origen defends the correctness of v. 62 by adducing this as
a similar instance in his own knowledge. Blunt treats the matter as a
kind of "undesigned coincidence," rendering credible the death penalties
spoken of in Acts ix. 1, xxii. 4, xxiv. 6.[45] So Edersheim (_D.C.B._
art. _Philo_, p. 365b), "The rule of the Jewish community in
Alexandria had been committed by Augustus to a council of Elders." This
is also stated in the Jewish Encyclopædia (New York and Lond.,
_Alexandria_ I., 362a): "Philo distinctly states that at the time of
Augustus the 'gerusia' assumed the position of the 'genarch.' This is
the word he uses for 'ethnarch,' _Contra Flaccum_, § 10. Origen to
Africanus, § 14, writes of this privilege as having been granted by
'Cæsar' without specifying which Cæsar, and though he does not name
Alexandria, his words ἴσμεν οἱ πεπειραμένοι probably imply that place."
These references do not of course prove that the Jews in Babylonia had
the like privileges, but they shew, as Origen saw, a parallel case.
Perhaps those who are in favour of the Alexandrian origin of Susanna
might use this to shew that the writer had transferred to Babylonia the
circumstances of his own day; but his own day would almost certainly be
before the time of Augustus.

There is no mention of any government except the Jews' internal
administration; but then the native population of Babylon (unless
perchance it be in the shape of the servants) does not enter into the
story. The legal working at Babylon of this little "imperium in imperio"
had plainly an unsatisfactory side, although Susanna's rights were
vindicated by another power against injustice and oppression. Still, it
may not be fair to condemn the whole system on the strength of this
single instance.

The main drift of the tale indicates the existence of much
corruption[46] in the presbytery; yet the heart of the exiled people in
general had a healthy tone; witness the sorrowful sympathy with Susanna
(v. 33), and the delight at justice being ultimately done (vv. 60, 63).

The Elders grossly abused Joacim's hospitality. Seemingly they had
plenty of time to waste, and worse. It is noteworthy that two 'judges'
were chosen, annually, it would seem, from the 'elders of the people.'
This last phrase occurs in Numb. xi. 16, and is frequent in the N.T.,
but not with ἐκ as here.

The modest veiling of Susanna in _v. 32_, more distinctly expressed (ἠν
γὰρ κατακαλυμμένη) in Θ than in Ο´, reminds one of Rebekah's veiling in
Gen. xxiv. 65, and is quite in accordance with the custom of the
country. So are the "oil and washing balls" of _v. 17_ (A.V. and R.V.);
this last term is peculiar, and is used apparently for soap.[47] It is
so employed in Gerard's _Herbal_, ed. 1633, p. 1526, where he says, "of
this gum [storax] there are made sundry excellent perfumes... and sweet
washing balls." The 'sawing' or 'cutting asunder' of _v. 35_ was a
Babylonian punishment, as is shewn in ii. 5 and iii. 29 of the canonical
book.

The death penalty for adultery (_vv. 43, 45_) is in agreement with Lev.
xx. 10, Deut. xxii. 22, and Ezek. xvi. 38, though not with the laxity of
later times (_see_ art. _Adultery_, Smith's _D.B._; _Marriage_,
Hastings' _D.B._). The Syriac W₂ interpolation after _v. 41_ seems to
regard precipitation as equivalent to stoning. In the Ο´ of v. 62 both
this punishment and that of fire are meted out to the Elders as
retributive justice. Reuss' note on the trial is amusing, "die Richter
sich als Dummköpfe erwissen und Susanna vollständig den ihrigen verloren
hatte."

But we are disposed on the whole to agree with J.M. Fuller (S.P.C.K.
_Comm., Introd. to Sus._) when he writes, "The facts underlying the
story are in themselves probable," rather more than with Churton (p.
392), who deems the narrative to be "probably apocryphal, without strict
regard to historical facts."


THEOLOGY.

This 'History' does not appear to have been written with a view of
supporting any erroneous or debateable points in theology.

God is represented as being in heaven, as One on whom the heart relies
(v. 35); as eternal, a knower of secrets, of entire foreknowledge (v.
42); One to be appealed to by His servants in danger (v. 43),
efficaciously answering humble requests. The value of ejaculatory prayer
to Him in sudden peril is shewn (v. 44).

God had not so entirely cast off His people as to cease from caring for
separate souls. He hears the prayers of individuals (v. 35, end, Ο´),
for the individual, as well as the nation, is under His eye. He is
spoken of as raising up "the holy spirit" of a man (v. 45); as
conferring the eldership, regarded as a divine institution (v. 50); as
forbidding injustice (v. 53); as giving sentence to an angel to
execute upon an individual (v. 55); as worthy to be praised for saving
those who hope in Him (v. 61). A special Providence is recognised as
watching over the destinies of separate souls; inspiring Daniel for a
special effort; rescuing Susanna from a special danger. Heaven is
regarded as the seat of the Divine Judge, towards which the innocent
Susanna turned her eyes (v. 35), but from which the guilty Elders
averted theirs (v. 9).

In v. 5 God is termed ὁ δεσπότης (_cf._ St. Luke ii. 29, Acts iv. 24);
in vv. 24, 44, κύριος in vv. 55, 59 (Θ) θεός, for which Ο´ has
κύριος, a word which it seems to prefer, as in i. 17, ii. 45, ix. 18.
The fear of the Lord is evidently approved (v. 2), and instruction in
the Law of Moses regarded as proper (v. 3), which is also referred to
in vv. 33 and 62 (Θ only), and in act in v. 34. It would appear
likely too that II. Sam. xxiv. 14 is quoted in v. 22 (Θ), Susanna in
her strait borrowing the exclamation of David in his, and the words of
both may well be contrasted with the idea of Hos. iv. 16b. Adultery is
condemned as "sin before the Lord" (v. 23).

An angel is spoken of in vv. 44, 45 (Ο´ only) as giving a spirit of
understanding to Daniel. The former verse might be taken to mean that he
was visible.[48] He enabled Daniel to clear Susanna from her false
accusation. An angel is also named in v. 55, in both versions, as likely
to execute God's vengeance on the lying Elders. He is also mentioned in
v. 62 of Ο´ as bringing a judgment of fire. This frequent mention of
angels is quite in keeping with the canonical Daniel and other late
books. And as E. Bunsen remarks, "the apocryphal doctrine about angels
and evil spirits is sanctioned by the recorded doctrine of Christ"
(_Hidden Wisd. of Christ_, 1865, I. 186). But it is singular that what
has generally been considered the later recension should have less of it
in this case than the earlier.

The description (v. 9) of the workings of conscience, while overt sin
was under consideration, but before it was actually committed, shews a
deep knowledge of the human heart, such as is found in the biblical
writers. A process the reverse of 'turning unto God,' 'having the eyes
unto Him' (II. Chron. xx. 12, Ps. xxv. 14), is very accurately depicted,
as the dwelling upon some attractive lust is allowed to engage the mind.
A better way of narrating such a matter it would be hard to devise.

Hippolytus, in his _Comm. on Dan._, treats the whole story as having an
allegoric meaning. Joacim represents Christ, Susanna the Christian
Church; the bath represents Holy Baptism; and the two Elders the Jews
and Gentiles persecuting the faithful (_D.C.B._ art. _Hippolytus_, p.
104a. For Christian sarcophagi with like symbolism, _see_ 'Art'). M.
de Castillo (Madrid, 1658) reflects in symbolism the increments of a
later age when he sees in Susanna a type of the Virgin Mary--"Maria
Virgo in illa figurata."

There does not appear to be anything 'Messianic' in this writing, unless
Daniel himself be regarded as a type of Christ, executing just judgment,
separating the righteous publicly from the wicked. There is also
Origen's statement bearing upon this matter (_ad Afric._, see _Speaker's
Comm._ 327b), as to the prospect of becoming Messiah's mother, which
the Elders held out to Susanna. St. Jerome, at the end of his
_Commentary on Jeremiah_, has a slightly different version of their
outrageous pretences.

Standing on surer ground than such speculations the theology of the
piece itself is sound and proper.


CHRONOLOGY.

The period in which this trial befel Susanna is plainly that of the
Babylonian Captivity, after the Jews were well settled in their
conqueror's land, but not very long after.

The time covered by the narrative itself is obviously a very short one,
probably only a few days at the outside.

If the suggestion in Julius Africanus' letter to Origen is correct,
Joacim, Susanna's husband, was none other than Jehoiachin, the captive
king of Judah. But Africanus is not by any means confident of this; nor
does Hippolytus so identify them,[49] but contents himself with
commenting on the statement of the text (v. 4) that Joacim was a very
rich man. Nor is there anything in the Greek of either version to
indicate his royalty, though the assertion that "he was more honourable
than all others" fits in well with the notion. But if the story was
coëval in its first form with the events narrated in it, the fact might
be taken as universally known; or it might be thought politic to
suppress it, as likely to be unpalatable to the reigning Babylonian
monarch, in the written record. Thus it is possible to answer to a great
extent Bissell's objection on v. 7, "that there seems to be no good
reason why it should not have been definitely stated."

His name is given as Ἰωακείμ both here, in II. Kings xxiv. 8, 12, and in
I. Esd. i. 43, exactly the same as that of his father and predecessor
Jehoiakim in I. Esd. i. 37 (39). Elsewhere the name is transliterated
Ἰεχονίας and Ἰωαχίμ (Bar. i. 3, Jer. xxii. 24, _var. lect._, II. Chron.
xxxvi. 8, 9). In Judith iv. 6, xx. 8 we have Ἰωακείμ without variation,
as the name of the high priest.

If this identification be correct the date must be subsequent to 597
B.C., the year of Jehoiachin's captivity; and probably not long after,
since Daniel, who was taken to Babylon in or soon after the third year
of Jehoiakim's reign in 603-4,[50] is represented as being still
παιδάριον νεωτέρον in v. 45. This phrase is somewhat tautologically
rendered by A.V. as a 'young youth,' an instance which might be cited in
support of the view that the English of the apocryphal was less
excellent than that of the canonical books[51]; but, strange to say, the
awkward expression is continued in R.V.

Without necessarily implying it, v. 2 might easily be taken to convey
the impression that Jehoiachin married in Babylon. Thus Hippolytus
asserts, Ἰωακεὶμ πάροικος γενόμενος ἐν Βαβυλῶνι λαμβάνει τὴν Σωσάνναν
εἰς γυναῖκα (Migne, _Patr. gr._ X. 689). And, on 'the same year' of v.
5, Reuss gives the interrogative note, "Im Jahre der Verheiratung des
Joakim?"

If Susanna's husband really be Jehoiachin, he is the Jechonias who finds
a place in the genealogy of Christ, St. Matt. i. 11, 12, Jehoiakim
(Eliakim) being omitted. Bugati (_Dan._ p. 166) argues that Joakim is
not Jehoiachin because of the name: "quo circa erroris arguendus est
Jacobus Edessenus, sive auctor scholii ad calcem historiae Susannas
adjecti in codice Parisiensi, qui Joacem virum Susannæ eum Joachin rege
confundat." Bugati was probably unaware of the above-mentioned
variations in the spelling of the name, which neutralize the force of
his argument.

Two other doubtful indications of time are given by Hippolytus, viz.
that Chelchias was Jeremiah's brother, making Susanna therefore his
niece (Westcott's art. _Chelcias_, Smith's _D.B._), and that 'a fit
time' in v. 15 intimated the Feast of the Passover. Unsupported
tradition and conjecture look like the grounds of these two indications
respectively. Bardenhewer (_op. cit._ p. 75) not unreasonably deems that
Hippolytus is thinking of Christian Baptism in connection with Easter,
and so throws back the idea into the 'bath' and 'the fit time' of the
Passover.

The Harklensian Syriac (W₂, Walton's second Syriac[52]) asserts both in
vv. 1 and 45 that Daniel was twelve years old at the date of the story;
also that Susanna was a widow after a married life of a few days only
(v. 5), a statement to which neither Greek version lends any
countenance. In fact, v. 63 (Θ) supposes Joakim to be alive at the end
of the tale. Now we know from II. Kings xxv. 27 and Jer. xxviii. (xxxv.)
1-4 that Jehoiachin lived some years at least after his deportation.
These Syriac insertions therefore as to Daniel's age and Susanna's
widowhood are hardly compatible with one another on the supposition
that she was the wife of Jehoiachin, king of Judah.

It has been pointed out in the _Speaker's Commentary_, xlvib, that the
insertion of 'twelve years old' into the text of the Syriac of Susanna
may be due to "Christian re-handling," as also the extension of the
final verse about Daniel's fame, "and he increased in favour with the
family of Susanna," etc., so as to produce a correspondence with St.
Luke ii. 42, 52. This is a possible theory, but one lacking, so far, the
support of evidence. The condemnation of Susanna "at the ninth hour" (v.
41) might likewise be attributed to the same Christian influence. This
was no doubt operative here, as it was with Hippolytus.

In this connection it is worthy of note that in the longer recension of
the "Ignatian" _Epist. ad Magnes.,_ § III., Daniel is spoken of as
δωδεκαετής when he γέγονε κάτοχος τῷ θείῳ πνεύματι, a phrase evidently
reminiscent of the history of Susanna. Bishop Lightfoot notes on this:
"His age is not given in the narrative, and it is difficult to see
whence it could have been derived." He dates the longer Ignatian
epistles in the second half of the 4th century (I. 246), while Thomas
of Harkel lived in the 6th and 7th centres. But, though so much later,
this Syriac translation may perhaps afford some clue to the ultimate
discovery of Ignatius', or rather his expander's, source of information.
The words παιδάριον νεώτερον do not of course necessarily imply such
extreme youth as twelve years; nor are we in any way tied to the
accuracy of this or other Harklensian variations.

Though this Addition therefore has its chronological difficulties, they
need not be regarded as absolutely insurmountable.


CANONICITY.

Before the correspondence of Origen with Julius Africanus, whose letter
is "a model of sober criticism" (Swete, _Patristic Study_, p. 56)--a
correspondence renewed between Eusebius of Cæsarea and Porphyry[53],
and between Rufinus and Jerome, with less sobriety--we have no record of
the point having been mooted. For, as Bissell writes (p. 448), "We have
no evidence that these pieces were not regarded as fully on a level with
the remainder of the book." Africanus heard Origen use Susanna in
controversy with one Bassus, and subsequently wrote to remonstrate, he
himself being resident in Palestine. Some of his objections in this
famous letter have considerable force, while others are very weak
(_D.C.B._ I. p. 54b).

Origen deems Susanna part of the genuine Daniel, cut out by the Jews, as
he suggests in his _Epistle_ to Africanus. Bishop Gray (_O.T._ p. 612)
describes this Epistle as 'suspected'; but it appears now to be
generally accepted. Origen thinks that the motive of Susanna's exclusion
was its relation of particulars discreditable to the Jewish nation. But
the Bishop truly says, "there is no foundation for this improbable
fancy." It is, however, maintained by Philippe in Vigouroux' _Dict._
(_cf._ 'Title and Position,' p. 109).

Origen also asserts the canonicity of Susanna in _Hom. in Levit._ § 1
(middle): "Sed tempus est nos adversus improbos presbyteros uti sanctæ
Susannæ vocibus, quas illi quidem repudiantes, historiam Susannæ de
catalogo divinorum voluminum desecrarunt. Nos autem et suscipimus, et
opportune contra ipsos proferimus, dicentes 'Angustiæ mihi undique,'"
etc. (v. 22).

Again, Origen refers to the matter in his _In Matthæum Commentariorum
Series_. He quotes Daniel's words in v. 55, "angelus Domini habens
gladium scindet te medium," and also "ausi sumus uti in hoc loco, Dan.
exemplo, non ignorantes quoniam in Hebræo positum non est, sed quoniam
in ecclesiis tenetur. Alterius autem temporis est requirere de
huiusmodi" (Migne, _Patr. gr._ XIII. 1696). Delitzsch (_op. cit._ p.
103) says, on second thoughts, that he "adductum esse, ut ipsos libros
apocryphos ab Origine pro γνησίοις et divinis habitos esse censeam."

About the same time, or probably a little earlier, St. Hippolytus (†230)
gives a similar reason for the extrusion of this episode. He notes on v.
8, ταῦτα μὲν οὐν οἱ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἄρχοντες βούλονται νῦν περικόπτειν τῆς
βίβλου, φάσκοντες μὴ γενέσθαι ταῦτα ἐν Βαβυλῶνι· αἰσχυνόμενοι τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν
πρεσβυτέρων κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν γεγενημένον. On which Bardenhewer
(_op. cit._ p. 76) remarks, "Susanna soll also früher auch in dem
jüdischen Kanon gestanden haben und erst später (unliebsamen Vorwürfen
gegenüber) aus demselben entfernt worden sein."

A. Scholz, however, who treats the book allegorically as a 'vision,'
attributes early opinions adverse to its canonicity to the
"Missverstehen der Erzählung und die unlösbaren Schwierigkeiten, die
dieselbe bei der historischen Auffassung macht" (p. 139). The 'vision'
theory, however, is a difficult one to maintain, serviceable though it
may be in evading historic difficulties.

Lists of books of the canon do not help us much, as it is often
uncertain whether 'Daniel' covers the Additions or not. We may safely
conclude, however, that it does in Origen's own list, as preserved for
us by Eusebius (_H.E._ VI. 25).

In the pseudo-Athanasius' _Synopsis sacr. script._ § 74, Susanna is
named, after the books he deems canonical, as ἐκτὸς δὲ τούτων, along
with four books of Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon. In this case we
might conclude that Δανιήλ does not cover Susanna; but in the beginning
of the _Synopsis of Daniel_ (§ 41) the story is mentioned as part of
that book, and Bel and the Dragon, at the end, in the same way. This
author's view, then, for and against the canonicity looks somewhat
undecided. So in Cyril of Jerusalem's list in _Catech._ IV. § 35,
'Daniel' pretty certainly includes Susanna and probably the other two
Additions, because in _Cat._ XVI. § 31, "de Spiritu sancto," he quotes
Susanna 45 in company with Dan. iv. 6 as if on an equal footing.

It is quoted as Scripture before Origen's time by Irenæus IV. xxxv. 2,
xli. 1; Tert. _de Cor. IV._; Clem. Alex. _Proph. Ecl._ 1. Methodius,
Bishop of Tyre, introduces Susanna into his Virgins' Songs as an example
of brave sanctity, calling upon Christ[54] (see exact words under'Early
Christian Literature,' p. 166).

In the _Apost. Const._ II. 49, 'concerning accusers and witnesses,' this
trial is instanced ὡς τοὺς δύο πρεσβυτέρους κατὰ Σωσάννης ἐν Βαβυλῶνι,
and again in cap. 51 (Mansi, _Concil._ Florence, 1759, I. 352, 353).

Though Jerome (_Pref. to Dan._) calls this and the other Additions
'fabulæ' (twice), it is pointed out by Peronne in his note to Corn. à
Lap. on Dan. xiii. 1 (Paris, 1874) that Jerome uses the same word of the
story of Samson (no ref. given), which he certainly regarded as
canonical. He claims therefore that here it has "verum et nativum sensum
vocis fabulæ, quæ quidem significat 'historiam, sermonem.'" But even if
any disparaging sense could be eliminated from this particular word,
Jerome's opinion is otherwise expressed.

The only possible reference to Susanna observable, I think, in the N.T.
is in Matt, xxvii. 24, unless the name of Susanna in St. Luke viii. 3 be
taken from our heroine's. It is of course emblematic of lily-like
purity, and therefore very suitable for a woman. The story, with some
omissions, forms the Epistle for Saturday after the third Sunday in Lent
in the Sarum and Roman Missals.

Luther says that this and Bel are "beautiful and spiritual compositions,
just as Judith and Tobias " (Bleek, _O.T._, Venables' transl., 1869, II.
339).

In the Greek Church the Synods of Constantinople and Jerusalem in 1672
expressly decided, in opposition to Cyril Lucar and the Calvinists, that
Susanna and Bel (with some other apocryphal books) were genuine elements
of Divine Scripture, and denounced Cyril Lucar's conduct in styling them
Apocrypha as ignorance or wickedness (Bleek, II. 343; Loisy, _O.T._ p.
243). The present Eastern Church reckons them, with the Song of the
Three, canonical, as Bishop Nectarius expressly states (_Greek Manuals
of Church Doctrine_, publ. by Eng. Ch. Assoc., Lond., 1901, p. 19). Also
Bar-Hebræus (†1286), the Monophysite, comments on these fragments as if
Holy Scripture (Loisy, p. 245). We see then that the testimonies to
canonicity are of considerable strength, more so than is perhaps
generally realised, even though the arguments to the contrary may be
still stronger. The statement of Fritzsche (_Libri apocryphi_, 1871, p.
xiii) is moderate and reasonable, fitting in well as it does with the
views of our own Church, "Liber Danielis canonicus iam eo ipso tempore,
quo primum in linguam græcam transferebatur, additamentis græcis auctus
est, quorum tria maiora fere inde a seeulo quarto in eccl. christiana
vulgo a viris doctis apocrypha iudicata sunt."


EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART.


LITERATURE.

NEW TESTAMENT. In St. Matt. xxvii. 24 Pilate possibly adopts Daniel's
words in v. 46, or at least accidentally falls in with them. In Heb. xi.
23 and Sus. 7 (Ο´) there is a strong similarity in the use of the word
ἀστεῖος, as well as in Exod. ii. 2.

"Among names taken from the O.T., that of Susanna is not uncommon"
(_D.C.A._ art. _Names_, 1374a). Not improbably therefore Susanna, in
St. Luke viii. 3, may have been named after the Susanna of this history,
as already mentioned under 'Canonicity,' p. 161. St. Susanna of the
Roman Calendar, who is dated _circ._ 293, is most likely an example of
this. She is not given an article in _D.C.B._, but there is a short
notice of her in _D.C.A._, as commemorated in various Martyrologies on
August 11th.

IRENÆUS (†200). In _Adv. Hær._III. xlii. 1 there is an apparent
reference to v. 55; in IV, xxxv. 2 to v. 42; and in IV. xli. 1, 'de
presbyteris injustis,' vv. 20, 26 are quoted as "a Daniele propheta
voces" in reproof of Christian presbyters. It is probable, too, that
"Deum qui absconsa manifestat" (IV. xxxi. 2) may be a reminiscence of
the phrase ὁ τῶν κρυπτῶν γνώστης in v. 42; and still more probably
perhaps "qui est absconsorum cognitor" in IV. xxxv. 2 has its origin in
this same verse.

CLEMENT or ALEXANDRIA (†220). In _Strom._ IV. (Heinsius' ed., Paris,
1629, p. 522) he speaks of Susanna and Miriam together, as if their
biblical positions were on a par. In Hort and Mayor's edit. (1902) of
_Strom._ VII. the words πρὸ τῆς γενέσεως in § 37 are referred to Susanna
43 (Θ); but it is hardly safe to assume that we have here more than an
accidental approximation of wording.

HIPPOLYTUS (†230) distinctly recognizes Susanna at the end of his
_Preface to Daniel_, as well as in his _Commentary_ itself. This last,
Bardenhewer (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1877, p. 69) deems, on account of its
homiletic phrases, to be "Bruchstücke einer Homilie" (_cf._ art.
_Hippolytus, D.C.B._ iii. 102a).

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (third century?). Susanna's trial is instanced
in II. 49, "Concerning accusers and witnesses" (_see_ quotation under
'Canonicity,' p. 161), and again in cap. 51.

TERTULLIAN (†240). In _de Corona militis_, 4, after instancing Rebecca,
he goes on to say of Susanna: "si et Susanna in iudicio revelata
argumentum velandi præstat, possum dicere: et his velamen arbitrii
fuit," etc. Also _de Pudic._ 17, etc.

ORIGEN (†254) frequently refers to Susanna in his commentaries, many
references to which are collected by Schürer, _H.J.P._, II. III. 186. In
the middle of § 1 of his _Hom._ I. _in Levitic._ he quotes Susanna's
words in v. 22 as if appropriate to the mouth of the book itself,
surrounded, by those who doubted its canonicity (words quoted under
'Canonicity,' p. 158). In Eusebius' Præp. Ev. VI. 11, Origen is given as
quoting v. 42 as a proof of God's foreknowledge, ὰπὸ τῶν γραφῶν τοῦτο
παραστῆσαι. In his _Commentary_ on St. John (bk. XX. § 5) he quotes v.
56 with ὡς ὁ Δανιήλ φησι.

CYPRIAN (†258), in _Ep._ XLIII. 4, illustrates his remarks by a
reference to "Susannam pudicam."

Bleek (_O.T._ II. 316) says that Bel and the Dragon and Susanna were
used by both Irenæus and Cyprian in a similar way to the Scriptures of
the Hebrew canon.

METHODIUS (†330), in his "Song of the Virgins" (II. 2). Ἄνωθεν, παρθένοι
βοῆς, includes Judith and Susanna:

ὁρῶντες εἶδος εὐπρεπὲς, ὑφ᾽ ἧς
δύο κριταὶ Σουσάννας ἐμμανεῖς,
ἔρωτι λέξαν, Ὠ γύναι, κ.τ.λ.

(Migne, _Patr. gr._ XVIII. 212).

HILARY OF POITIERS (†367), _de Trin._ IV. 8 (Migne, _Patr. lat._ 10,
101), quotes Susanna 42, "Sicut beata Sus. dicit, Deus æternus
absconditorum cognitor, sciens omnia," etc.

ATHANASIUS (†373) also, in his _Disc, against Arians_, I. 13, quotes
this popular verse (42) as "in Daniel." In the _Life of Anthony_, § 43,
he refers to Susanna, as well as in the 'doubtful' _Synopsis S.S._

EPHREM SYRUS (†378) refers both in his _Ep. ad Johann. monachum_, and in
his 15th _Parænesis_, to the blessed Susanna.

GRATIAN (†383) notes on Can. XI. of Neocæsarea (315 A.D.) in _Decreta_
I. 78, c. iv., "Daniel, we read, received the spirit of prophecy before
he had arrived even at youth." The Canon itself, as given by Hefele,
makes no mention of Daniel.

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (†386) refers (_Catech._ I. 31) to Daniel's
inspiration to rescue Susanna, and quotes v. 45 with γέγραπται γάρ.

GREGORY OF NYSSA (†396) quotes, in his _Hexaëmeron_ (Migne, _Patr. gr._
XLIV. p. 71) and in his _Making of Man_, v. 42, twice as a prophetic
writing (XXIX. 1).

AMBROSE (†397) has, Sermons XLIX. and L., "de accusato Domino apud
Pilatum et de Susanna," in which he draws a parallel between them, as to
silence under false charges, at considerable length (Basel, ed. 1527,
III. 549).

SULPICIUS SEVERUS (†400?), in his _Hist. Sacr._ lib. II. § 1, gives an
outline of the story of Susanna, after the events of Dan. i. and before
those of chap, ii., evidently regarding it as historical.

CHRYSOSTOM (†407) has a sermon "de Susanna," in which he compares her to
the "garden enclosed" of Solomon's Song iv. 12 (quoted in Arnald's
_Commentary_).

JEROME (†420), in his _de Nominibus Hebraicis_, includes, under the Book
of Daniel, Susanna and Joacim without any distinction from the names in
the rest of the book (ed. Vallarsi, vol. III.).

AUGUSTINE (†430) draws, in _de Civ. Dei_, I. 19, a parallel between
Susanna and Lucretia, greatly to the advantage of the former. Arnald,
on v. 23, gives some extracts from this.

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (†444) quotes v. 56 at least twice, viz. on Hos.
xii. 8 and on Zeph. i. 11. In the latter case he speaks of it as παρά γε
τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν, giving it thus explicitly a high position.

THEODORET (†457) quotes in Letter CX., Susanna 22; but in his comment on
Daniel, Susanna is not contained.

MAMERTUS CLAUDIANUS (†474). The following occurs in a hymn attributed to
this writer, "_In Jacobum magistrum equitum_," but which Migne says is
'dubiæ auctoritatis': "Sic tibi det vires sancta Susanna suas."

NICEPHORUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE (†828) classes Susanna among his
"antilegomena." As he makes no separate mention in his lists of the
Song, or of Bel and the Dragon, he presumably reckons them under
'Daniel'[55] (Migne, _Patr. gr._ c. 1056). At the end of
pseudo-Athanasius' _Synopsis S.S._ comes a list of κανονιζόμενα, so
similar to Nicephorus' list in order and contents as to suggest that
they had some close connection; and it is possible that this appendage
may be of even later date than the Synopsis itself, which may be
attributed to the 6th century (Loisy, _A.T._, p. 147).

The above are specimens of the numerous references made to Susanna by
early Christian writers, both Greek and Latin, who evidently found in
her a favourite instance to adduce in support of their teaching. Nor
ought we, in such a matter, to treat lightly the tenor of Christian
antiquity so remarkably manifested.


ART.

From early times scenes from Susanna were often chosen for artistic
treatment. In "a list of the symbols most frequently represented in
painting or sculpture by the Church of the first seven centuries"
Susanna is included (_D.C.A._ art. _Symbolism_).

Frescoes of Susanna and the Elders occur, though not with great
frequency, in the Catacombs (_D.C.A._ I. art. _Fresco_, 700a). W.
Lowrie, in his _Christian Art_ (N.Y. and Lond. 1901, p. 210), mentions a
second-century fresco of Susanna and the Elders judged by Daniel, in the
cemetery of Callistus; also he says, "in the Capella græca in St.
Priscilla the story is depicted with unusual dramatic interest in
several scenes." Three old Italian sarcophagi have bas-reliefs of
Susanna and the Elders as emblematic of the Church enduring
persecution; others are known in southern Gaul (_D.C.A._ art. _Church,
Symbols of_). A woodcut is given in this article of a sheep (ewe?)
between two wild beasts (wolves?), 'Susanna' and 'Senioris' being
written over them respectively, the artist evidently fearing that the
symbolism might otherwise not be perceived.

Scenes from the history of Susanna carved on sarcophagi are more
frequent in France than in Italy. It has been thought that the two
Elders may be taken to represent the two older forms of religion, the
Pagan and the Jewish (_D.C.A., O.T. in Art_, II. 1459b). In the same
Dict. (_Sculpture_, II. 1867a) it is noted that the cycle of subjects
has a remarkable correspondence with those named in the Roman Breviary
"Ordo commendationis animæ," where "Libera, Dom. animam servi tui sicut
liberasti Sus. de falso crimine," is one of the petitions.

It is fair to presume that Delitzsch refers to some of the above when he
writes, "Susannæ historia in sarcophagis veterum Christianorum cum
sacris historiis insculpta

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/12420