{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_12420/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_12420","id":"gutenberg_12420","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12420","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Apocrypha. Bel and the Dragon -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible. Apocrypha. History of Susanna -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible. Apocrypha. Song of the Three Children -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible. Daniel -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"THE THREE ADDITIONS TO DANIEL\n\nA Study\n\nBY\n\nWILLIAM HEAFORD DAUBNEY, B.D.\n\nJEREMIE PRIZEMAN, 1873\n\nFORMERLY VICAR OF HARLINGTON, BEDFORDSHIRE, AND RECTOR OF LEASINGHAM,\nLINCOLNSHIRE; AUTHOR OF THE \"USE OF THE APOCRYPHA IN THE CHRISTIAN\nCHURCH,\" ETC.\n\n\n\u0395\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n--_Hist. Sus. v. 60._\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE\n\nDEIGHTON BELL AND CO.\n\nLONDON G. BELL & SONS\n\n1906\n\n\n\nTo my Wife\nAlice Daubney\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nThe three apocryphal portions of Daniel considered in this book have\noften been hardly judged. One of them had almost become a byword of\ncontempt for fabulous inventiveness. Yet the writer hopes that he has\nsucceeded in shewing that they are worthy of more serious attention than\nthey have frequently received. The prejudice long existing in this\ncountry against the Apocrypha as a whole has told heavily against two at\nany rate of these booklets; and he who attempts to investigate the\nnature and origin of the Additions to Daniel finds himself following a\ntrack which is anything but well beaten. The number of commentaries or\ntreatises in English dealing directly with these works is very small.\nIndeed, considering the position accorded to them by the Church, it is\nsurprisingly so. And of those which exist, some are not very valuable\nfor accurate study. Hence, in preparing a treatise of this kind,\nmaterials have to be quarried and brought together from varied and\ndistant sources; and the work, small as its result may be in size, has\nproved a laborious one. The conclusions arrived at on many points are\nbut provisional; for the writer thinks that the day has not yet come\nwhen the source and place of these Additions to Daniel can be surely and\nincontrovertibly fixed. It is to be hoped that further evidence and\nlonger study will eventually make these matters clearer than they are at\npresent. Meanwhile, careful and unprejudiced work upon the subject, by\nwhomsoever undertaken, cannot but tend towards that goal; and the author\ntrusts that he may have contributed something which will help, at least\na little, towards the solution of the difficult problem presented.\n\nThe Song of the Three and the Histories of Susanna and of Bel and the\nDragon are most interesting memorials of the spirit of their time,\nthough that time may be difficult to fix precisely. And when looked at\nfrom the religious point of view they are replete with valuable moral\nlessons for \"example of life and instruction of manners,\" to borrow the\nterms which the Sixth Article of Religion employs with regard to the\nApocryphal books. An attempt has been made, in a concluding chapter on\neach book, to draw some of these lessons out, so that they may be easily\navailable for such homiletic and other purposes as are contemplated in\nthat Article.\n\nThe study of these three pieces supplementary to Daniel has convinced\nthe writer that they are of more value than has been generally supposed,\nand are worthy of the attention of biblical scholars in a much higher\ndegree than that which has usually been accorded to them. If he has in\nany way helped in providing materials, or in suggesting ideas, which may\nfructify in abler hands, he will be rewarded for the researches he has\nmade.\n\nIt appears to him that there is much connected with these books which we\nare unable now fully to discover; much about which it is unwise to\ndogmatize; many questions which must be treated as open ones; many\nproblems which can at most only receive provisional solutions, till\nfurther facts are elicited and further insight given. The time is\napparently still distant when the origin and true standing of these\nAdditions can be certainly assigned to them: for, at the present,\nagreement amongst Christians on these points shews but little sign of\nbeing arrived at. Yet we trust that the time will come when deeper\nknowledge will make it possible for disputed points to be settled. \"The\npatience of the godly shall not be frustrate\" (Ecclus. xvi. 13).\n\nIn conclusion I must record my hearty thanks to Dr. Sinker, Librarian of\nTrinity College, Cambridge, for the great assistance he has given me in\ncorrecting the proof-sheets, as well as for his constant kindness in\nmany other ways, of which these words are but an insufficient\nacknowledgment.\n\nW.H.D.\n\nST. MARGARET'S GATE,\nBURY ST. EDMUNDS.\n\n_St. Matthias' Day_, 1906.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n  PREFACE\n\n  PART I.\n\n    INTRODUCTION\n\n  PART II.\n\n    THE SONG OF THE THREE HOLY CHILDREN.\n\n      Analysis\n\n      1. Title and Position\n\n      2. Authorship\n\n      3. Date and Place of Writing\n\n      4. For Whom and with what Object Written\n\n      5. Integrity and State of the Text\n\n      6. Language and Style\n\n      7. Religious and Social State\n\n      8. Theology\n\n      9. Chronology\n\n      10. Canonicity\n\n      11. Early Christian Literature and Art\n\n      12. Liturgical Use\n\n      13. \"Example of Life and Instruction of Manners\"\n\n  PART III.\n\n    THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA.\n\n      Analysis\n\n      1. Title and Position\n\n      2. Date and Place of Writing\n\n      3. Authorship\n\n      4. For Whom and with what Object Written\n\n      5. Integrity and State of the Text\n\n      6. Language and Style\n\n      7. Religious and Social State\n\n      8. Theology\n\n      9. Chronology\n\n      10. Canonicity\n\n      11. Early Christian Literature and Art\n\n      12. \"Example of Life and Instruction of Manners\"\n\n  PART IV.\n\n    THE HISTORY OF BEL AND THE DRAGON.\n\n      Analysis\n\n      1. Title and Position\n\n      2. Authorship\n\n      3. Date and Place of Writing\n\n      4. For Whom and with what Object Written\n\n      5. Integrity and State of the Text\n\n      6. Language and Style\n\n      7. Religious and Social State\n\n      8. Theology\n\n      9. Chronology\n\n      10. Canonicity\n\n      11. Early Christian Literature and Art\n\n      12. \"Example of Life and Instruction of Manners\"\n\n  INDEX OF PROPER NAMES\n\n  INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS\n\n[The text of the 'Additions' used throughout is that of Dr. Swete's\n_Old Testament in Greek_, Vol. III. ed. 2, Cambridge, 1899.]\n\n\n\n\nPART I\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nThese Additions differ from the other Apocryphal books, except the \"rest\nof\" Esther, in not claiming to be separate works, but appearing as\nsupplements to a canonical book. The Song of the Three Children takes\nits assumed place between vv. 23 and 24 of Dan. iii.; the History of\nSusanna in the language of the A.V. is \"set apart from the beginning of\nDaniel\"; and Bel and the Dragon is \"cut off from the end of\" the same\nbook. The first of these additions alone has an organic connection with\nthe main narrative; the other two are independent scenes from the life,\nor what purports to be the life, of Daniel--episodes, one in his\nearlier, one in his later, career. In the Song, Daniel personally does\nnot appear at all; in Susanna and in Bel he plays a conspicuous part; in\nSusanna appearing as a sort of 'deus ex machina' to set things right at\nthe end; and in Bel he is an essential actor in the whole story.\n\nIt is hoped to shew, amongst other things, that the dissimilarity\nsupposed to exist between these additions and the rest of Daniel is by\nno means so great as has sometimes been imagined. The opinion of one of\nthe latest commentators on Daniel (Marti, T\u00fcbingen, 1901, p. xx) may be\ntaken as a fair sample of this view. He thinks these pieces by no means\ncongruous with the canonical Daniel: \"Den Abstand dieser apokryphischen\nErz\u00e4hlungen von dem in hebraram. Dan. aufgenommen Volkstradition kann\nniemand verkennen.\" So far as these additions to the contents of Daniel\nare concerned, he would agree with the exaggerated statement of Trommius\nas to all the Apocrypha: \"ad libros canonicos S. Scriptur\u00e6 proprie non\npertinent nec cum Gr\u00e6ca eorum versione quicquam commune habent,\" etc.\n(_Concord. Pr\u00e6f._ \u00a7 xi.). The sharp distinction drawn by J.M. Fuller\nalso between the style and thought of these additions, and of the\ncanonical Daniel, is far too strong: \"as clearly marked as between the\ncanonical and apocryphal gospels.\" Few will think the separation between\nthem so wide as this (_Speaker's Comm. Introd. to Dan._ p. 221a).\nMoreover, they are much less obviously incongruous, less plainly meant\nfor edifying \"improvements\" by a later hand, than the Additions to\nEsther.\n\nBut beyond the connection, more or less strong, which these pieces have\nwith the canonical book, they have also a connection, by means of\ncertain similar features, with one another. All have this in common,\nviz. the celebration or record of some deliverance. God's persecuted\npeople are rescued from mortal danger. In the first and third cases they\nsuffer at the hands of idolaters; in the second, of Jewish\nco-religionists. In each case they provide us with a scene from\nIsraelitish life \"in a strange land.\" They are tales of the Babylonian\nCaptivity.\n\nIn each story the ministry of angels, giving aid against visible foes,\ntakes a prominent place; though in Susanna these appearances are\nsuppressed in Theodotion's version, an angel, however, being just\nmentioned in Daniel's sentences of condemnation. In each case too there\nis distinct progress under God's guiding hand; things are left much\nbetter at the end than at the beginning. There is a tone of confidence,\nbred of sure conviction, in one abundantly expressed, in the others\nlatent, as to the ultimate triumph of right. They agree in the certainty\nof God's defence, and shew complete reliance on Him. The Captivity had\ndone a purifying work.\n\nThese stories of rescue from oppressors would be specially acceptable\nto the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity; more so probably than to the\nJews of the Dispersion elsewhere. Howbeit they are records of zeal and\ntrust which have moved many hearts in all ages and places.\n\nIn the last two Daniel appears as a person of great knowledge and power,\nsuccessfully acting under the Divine guidance. In all three there is\nlittle which can properly be called strained or far-fetched. Almost\neverything is drawn naturally from what we may presume would be the\ncondition of Daniel's time. Both behind and through the details of the\nstories we can see the heart of one who praised God, loved justice, and\nhated idolatry; who took delight in what was noble, pure, and truthful,\nand waged a successful warfare with whatever he encountered of an\nopposite character.\n\nEach piece, moreover, has what may be thought to be its own allusion or\nreminiscence in the New Testament. And each of these parallels,\ncuriously enough, seems eminently characteristic of the addition whence\nit may have been taken.\n\nThus we find in the parallel of St. Matt, xxvii. 24 with Susanna 46 the\nassertion of innocency in respect of miscarriage of justice; in that of\nHeb. xii. 23 with the Song 64 (86), the utterance of the spirits and\nsouls of the righteous; and in that of Acts xvii. 23 with Bel and\nDragon 27, the mocker of idols.\n\nOne is from the beginning, one from the midst, one from the end of the\nGreek Daniel; the first by St. Matthew reporting Pilate; the second by a\nwriter not certainly identified; the third by St. Luke reporting St.\nPaul. These may be merely accidental resemblances, but their occurrence\nin this way is curious, and worthy of consideration.\n\nAs to the position of these pieces, whether in or out of the canon, it\nis probable, speaking generally, that those who used the Hebrew Bible,\nor versions uninfluenced by the LXX, disregarded them as not being part\nof Holy Scripture; and that those who used the LXX, or its versions,\naccepted them, either with or without hesitation. Under the chapters\nentitled \"Early Christian Literature\" it will be seen that those were by\nno means wanting who appear to attribute in practical use canonical\nauthority to each fragment; and at least what Otto St\u00e4helin says of\nClement of Alexandria, that he \"nicht geringer sch\u00e4tzte,\" may be held\ntrue of nearly all the Fathers who name them (_Clem. Alex, und LXX_,\nN\u00fcrnberg, 1901, p. 74). It is, however, surprising that this divergence\nof use, in so important a matter as the extent of the canon, did not\ngive rise to a more general controversy. What discussion there was on\nthis question lay chiefly between a few scholarly individuals, who\ntreated the matter as of private and personal, almost as much as of\npublic, interest.\n\nEven if it were admitted that these works were not in the Hebrew canon,\nthe question is still not absolutely settled. For it might be contended,\nwithout at all asserting that the Hebrew canon was erroneous or\ndeficient in its time, that these and other apocryphal works were\nreserved in the providence of God for the Christian Church to deal with\nas she thought fit. Nor is it clear that her powers as to them, when\ndeciding for canonicity or no, were of necessity more restricted than\nher powers as to the N.T. books on the same question. What Tertullian\nsays with regard to 'Enoch' might be extended to other books, \"Scio\nscripturam Enoch... non recipi a quibusdam quia nec in armarium\nJudaicum admittitur... a vobis quidem nihil omnino rejiciendum est quod\npertinent ad nos\" (_De cult. f\u00e6m._ I. 13).\n\nThe title 'Daniel,' it should be observed, in lists of Scripture books,\noften covers these additions; as for example in Origen's list, as\npreserved by Eusebius, _H.E._ vi. 25. For we know that Origen (_Ep. ad\nAfric._) defended these additions, and so almost certainly intended\nthis title to include them. So also with Athanasius and Cyril of\nJerusalem'(_see_ Sus. 'Canonicity,' p. 160). Probably it is on this\naccount that Loisy (_O.T. Canon_, Paris, 1890, p. 97) says that\nAthanasius received \"certainement les fragments de Daniel, sur la foi\ndes Septante, comme le font Orig\u00e8ne et tous les P\u00e8res grecs.\"\n\nEcclesiastical practice, as well as their distribution amongst the\ncanonical books of both Greek and Latin Bibles, told, as time went on,\nmore and more in favour of their inclusion.\n\nBut they were not officially recognized as on a level in all respects\nwith Holy Scripture, even by the Roman Church, till the fourth session\nof the Council of Trent (1546), when they were all placed on an equality\nwith, in fact treated as portions of, the book of Daniel. Probably the\nphrase \"libros integros _cum omnibus suis partibus_\" was introduced into\nthe decree with special reference to these additions and those to\nEsther. This decree, making them \"sacred and canonical,\" was carried,\naccording to Loisy (p. 201), by 44 placets to 3 non-placets and 5\ndoubtful.[1] Dr. Streane, however, says (_Age of the Maccabees,_ 1898,\np. 102) it was passed by \"a small majority.\" Even writers so late as\nNicholas de Lyra (\u20201340) and Denys the Carthusian (\u20201471) speak of\nthese additions as true, but not parts of Holy Scripture (Loisy, p. 223,\nquoting Corn. \u00e0 Lap. on Dan. xiii. 3). And they were of the Roman\nobedience.\n\nBleek (_Introd. to O.T._ II. 336, Eng. tr.) says that the seventh decree\nof the Council of Florence (1439), making mention of apocryphal books as\ncanonical, which no one was acquainted with before the Tridentine\nCouncil, is very probably not genuine. Denys the Carthusian, it will be\nobserved, was subsequent to the supposed Florentine decree, and\nseemingly ignorant of its existence.\n\nThe same writer states (pp. 336, 339) that while Karlstadt classed some\nof the Apocrypha as \"hagiographa extra canonem,\" he called these\nsupplements to Daniel, with the Prayer of Manasses, and others as \"plane\napocryphos.\" He also represents Luther as prettily styling these pieces\ncorn-flowers plucked up, because not in the Hebrew, yet placed in a\nseparate garden or bed, because much that is good is found in them. They\nare thus detached in his version, as in ours, from Daniel, and placed\namong the apocryphal books. Calvin, however, in his Lectures on Daniel\nentirely ignores these additions. His English translator barely mentions\nthem in his preface (Edinb. 1852, p. xlix.).\n\nFar more contemptuous than Luther's estimate of these productions is\nthat of Professor (now Bishop) Ryle in the _Cambridge Companion to the\nBible_ (1894), where he writes: \"The character of these stories is\ntrifling and childish.\"\n\nBut in reply to this and similar depreciatory opinions, it may be\npointed out that one does not look in these extra-Danielic stories for\nsuch a knowledge of the human heart as is displayed in the Psalms, nor\nfor such knowledge of the Godhead as is revealed in St. John's Gospel.\nIf we look for fully developed doctrine of this kind, we shall no doubt\nbe disappointed. But we do find religious teaching after the tenor of\nthe old covenant, such as might be expected in compositions which are\nmainly narrative; we meet with teaching which looks quite as clear as\nthat, say, of the books of Ruth, Chronicles, or Esther. Indeed, those\nwho have a mind to draw moral and spiritual instruction from these brief\nworks will not find it difficult to do so, or discover that the\nreligious teaching is out of harmony with that which is acknowledged to\nexist in Daniel (_see_ chaps, on \"Example of Life and Instruction of\nManners\"). In point of fact, an overgrowth of unreasonable objections\nhas been too much encouraged; and if these pieces may not in all\nrespects secure a favourable vote, it is desirable that they may\nreceive at least an unprejudiced and equitable judgment.\n\nThe examples of patristic use given under the head of \"Early Christian\nLiterature\" will, it is hoped, sufficiently refute such statements as\nthat of Albert Barnes (_Daniel,_ Lond. 1853, pp. 79, 80): \"It is seldom\nthat these additions to Daniel are quoted or alluded to at all by the\nearly Christian writers, but when they are, it is only that they may be\ncondemned.\" This may be taken as a specimen of a certain class of\nadverse opinion, evidently formed without sufficient investigation of\nthe subject. In reality, these pieces are referred to, considering their\nbrevity, with surprising frequency; that the references are not\nexclusively, or even generally, for purposes of condemnation, hardly\nneeds to be stated.\n\nWhat effect these writings took on Jewish readers there is little or\nnothing to shew. With the rest of the LXX, they seem to have lost ground\nwith Jews as they gained it with Christians. The closing scene of Bel\nand the Dragon, however, is made use of in _Breshith Rabba_ to\nillustrate Joseph's abandonment in the pit (Gen. xxxvii.)[2]. To\nChristians indeed they have, from a very early date, constantly\npresented themselves as highly valuable for purposes of edification.\nNor, with the possible exception of Susanna, is it easy to see in what\nway they could have furthered, in that aspect, any undesirable end.\n\nWhat will be the future of these pieces by which, in the Greek Bible,\nthe contents of Daniel were increased? It is not easy to say. Much will\nsurely depend on the eventual consensus of opinion as to the date of\nthat book itself. Neither the Roman nor Greek Churches shew any sign of\nmodifying their entire,[3] or very slightly qualified, acceptance of\nthese additions as integral parts of Holy Scripture. On the other hand,\nEnglish-speaking Protestant Dissenters shew almost as little sign of\nrising to any religious appreciation of them.\n\nBetween these extremes the Church of England, and perhaps the German and\nScandinavian Lutherans, hold, as to these books, an intermediate\nposition, which in this, as in some other questions, may not improbably\nprove to be the right one. In any case the English Church has always\ntreated them with great respect, a large part of one of them entering\ninto her Morning Prayer, and the other two having been appointed as\nfirst lessons in her calendar from 1549 to 1872, except that Bel and\nthe Dragon was removed from 1604 to 1662. Previous to this last date\nthey were read, not as independent books, but as Dan. xiii. and xiv.\n\nA patient waiting for the production of further evidence as to the\norigin and position of these additions can hardly be unrewarded.\nMeanwhile we may fitly agree with St. Gregory of Nazianzus' lines, which\napply as well to these as to the other books of the Apocrypha:\n\n  \u039f\u1f50\u03ba \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03c2,\n\u1f21 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7.\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2,\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n(_Poems,_ lib. II., _ad Seleucum_, 252--256; Migne, _Patr. Gr._ xxxvii.\n1593.)\n\n\n\n\nPART II\n\nTHE SONG OF THE THREE HOLY CHILDREN\n\n\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u05bb\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05c2\u05d4\n(\u05d9\u05e9\u05f3 \u05db\u05d3\u05f3 \u05d8\u05d5\u05f3)\n\n\n\nTHE SONG OF THE THREE HOLY CHILDREN.\n\n\nANALYSIS.\n\nvv.\n\n1, 2. Narrative in continuation of the canonical text, describing\nthe procedure of the three children in the furnace.\n\n3-22. Azarias' confession (3-10), and prayer (11-22), on behalf\nof them all.\n\n23-28. Narrative describing the fire, the descent of the Angel, and\nthe happy result.\n\n29-68. The Song of praise itself, which may be subdivided thus: God\ndirectly addressed in blessing (29-34); after all God's works,\ncelestial objects are addressed, including Angels[4] (35-41); objects\nof the lower heaven or atmosphere are called upon, including those\nimmediately concerned, wind and dew being placed next to fire and heat\n(42-51); then the earth[5] and its natural features, and the animals\ninhabiting it, are called upon (52-59); then the human race, as a whole\nand in various classes, down to the three children themselves (60-66).\nIn conclusion God is extolled for His ever-enduring mercy in phrases\nculled from the Psalter (67, 68).\n\n\nThe tendency of the arrangement of the Song proper is to descend from\ngenerals to particulars. It has a refrain at the end of each verse,\nslightly differing in those preliminary verses which are addressed to\nthe Lord Himself, and wanting in the last three. The rendering of the\nrefrain in the preliminary verses does not seem very happy in its\nEnglish (A.V. and K.V.).\n\n\nTITLE AND POSITION.\n\n\nTITLE.\n\nForming, as it does, an integral portion of the third chapter of the\nGreek Daniel, the principal MSS. give the Song, in that place, no\nindependent title. It falls of course under the general title of the\nwhole Book, Daniel.\n\nVan Ess in his LXX (Lips. 1835) entitles it \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f08\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, but as he puts this heading in curved brackets it is possibly\nmerely his own insertion. 'B' is the codex which he is professing to\nfollow in his text; but that MS. is credited with no such title in Dr.\nSwete's Greek Old Testament; nor do Holmes and Parsons shew any\nknowledge of it as existing in any of their MSS.\n\nIn the Veronese Graeco-Latin Psalter it is headed \u1f5d\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, and in the Turin Psalter \u1f5d\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd, which title it\ninserts again at v. 57, strangely regarding that verse as the\ncommencement of a fresh canticle with a new number, \u03b9\u03b2. Churton (_Uncan.\nand Apocr. Script._, p. 391) suggests that the former title \"may have\nbeen wrongly transferred from Ecclus. xliv.\" at the head of which it\nstands. He also calls it the title in the Alexandrian Psalter--the Odes,\npresumably that is, at the end. But the title to Ecclus. xliv. is simply\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, so that the likelihood of the transfer, deemed possible\nby Churton, having taken place is very small.\n\nIn the Odes, at the end of Cod. A, two canticles are extracted from this\npiece; the first (Ode IX.) entitled \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f08\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, the second (Ode\nX.) \u1f5d\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, each corresponding with the name given to\nit. In the office of Eastern Lauds the two parts have separate titles,\nbeing assigned to different days of the week (_D.C.A._ art. _Canticle_).\n\nIn the Syriac and Arabic versions of Daniel a separate title is given\nafter v. 23 of chap. iii., and in the latter after v. 52, according\nto Churton in his marginal notes. He also says that \"the prayer of the\ncompanions of _Ananias_\" is the Syriac title. The titles on the whole\nare fairly suited to their purpose; but the use of the word \"children\"\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd) in the common heading of the Song contemplates the three as of\nthe age indicated in Daniel i. rather than that in Daniel iii.\n\n\nPOSITION.\n\nObviously this is not meant for an independent work, since it has no\nproper commencement of its own. \"And they walked\" is clearly intended\nas a continuation of some foregoing history. Accordingly, its position\nin the LXX, Theodotion, Vulgate, and other versions, is immediately\nafter the 23rd verse of Daniel iii., thus forming a portion of that\nchapter. This is clearly its natural and appropriate place. It unites\nwell both at the beginning and the end with the canonical text, \"Qui se\ntrouve entrelass\u00e9e (_sic_) dans le texte,\" as D. Martin says in the\nheading of the book in his French version. T.H. Home, however (_Introd._\n1856, II. 936), mentions its \"abrupt nature\" as a reason for thinking\nthat the translator did not invent it, but made use of already existing\nmaterials. But the abruptness is not so apparent to other eyes and ears.\nIndeed G. Jahn, in his note on Dan. iii. 24 (Leipzig, 1904), considers\nthe gap between vv. 23 and 24 in the Massoretic text is filled up\nsatisfactorily in the LXX and Theodotion only.\n\nBy means of this insertion, and the inclusion of what in A.V. are the\nfirst four verses of chap. iv., this chapter is lengthened out in the\nGreek and Latin versions to exactly 100 verses.\n\nBishop Gray's note (_Key to O.T._ 1797, p. 608), in which he says \"the\nSong of the three holy children is not in the Vat. copy of the LXX,\" is\ncertainly a mistake. It is just possible, however, that he may have\nmeant that the true LXX version was absent from it. So Ball somewhat\nobscurely (p. 310 \"the Alex. MS. omits\"[6]), and Bissell (p. 442),\nthough not very distinctly, suggest a like idea as to its omission from\nDan. iii. in A, and Z\u00f6ckler in his commentary falls into the same\nmistake (Munich, 1891, p. 231). It is not unlikely that these writers\nsuccessively influenced each other.\n\nE. Philippe's idea (Vigouroux, _Dict._ II. 1267a), that this piece was\nseparated from the original book because \"elle retarde le r\u00e9cit et est\nen dehors du but final\" seems unconvincing--as much so as Dereser's\n(quoted in Bissell, p. 444), from whom perhaps it was borrowed--that\n\"the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem shortened it for convenient use,\" An equally\nunsatisfying \"reason\" is that of H. Deane in _Daniel, his Life and\nTimes_, p. 70 (pref. 1888). \"There is no doubt as to the antiquity of\nthis addition, but probably on account of the feelings of hatred the\nthree children express with regard to their enemies, it was not\nuniversally received by the Church.\" In the face of many stronger\nexpressions in the O.T. received without hesitation, this explanation\nseems untenable, or at least insufficient. And the same may be said of\nG. Jahn's theory that some mention of the singing of the three,\ncontained in the original, was expunged by the Massoretes as too\nwonderful and apocryphal.\n\nMuch has been made of the omission of this and the other additions from\nthe original Syriac (_e.g._ Westcott, quoting Polychronius, Smith's\n_D.B._, ed. 2. 7136, Bissell, 448), but they are contained in the Syriac\ntext of Origen's _Hexapla_, in the MS. in the Ambrosian Library at Milan\n(Kautzsch, I. 172), published in facsimile by Ceriani. Bugati in his\nedition of Daniel gives this Syriac and the LXX text in parallel\ncolumns. In Jephet Ibn All's (the Karaite's) Arabic commentary on\nDaniel, translated by D.S. Margoliouth (Oxf. 1889), no notice is taken\nof the additions. The commentary was probably written about A.D. 1000.\n\nProfessor Rothstein (Kautzsch, I. 173) compares the situation of the\nprayer in ix. 4 _sqq._, which he deems, like this one, to have been\nperhaps a later insertion into the book.\n\nIt is beyond question that if this psalm of prayer and praise is to find\na place anywhere in the Book of Daniel, no more suitable position can be\nfound for it than that which it occupies so well in the Greek. If it is\na digression from the course of the original narrative it is very\nhappily placed, since it accounts satisfactorily for the statement \"the\nking was astonied\" in v. 24 (91). He was surprised at the voice of\npraise, instead of the shrieks of pain which he had expected to produce\nby the execution of his decree.\n\n\nAUTHORSHIP.\n\nIn the Greek of neither \u039f\u00b4 nor \u0398 is there variation sufficient to prove\nthat the writer differed from the one who translated the rest of the\nbook. Rather do the indications point to the same hand having been at\nwork throughout. Comely says of this and its companion pieces, \"Neque in\ntrium pericoparum argumentis quidquam invenitur quo illas Danielis\nauctori attribuere prohibeamur\" (_Compendium,_ Paris, 1889, p. 421).\nThis, like other R.C. writings, holds of course a brief for their\ncanonicity.\n\nThe Prayer, on the surface, claims to be by Azarias; the Song by all the\nthree. The introductory and intermediate narrative verses are given as\nif from the same pen as the rest of Daniel's history; v. 4 (27)\nreminds us in its terms of Daniel iv. 37 (34) very strongly, and, in\npart, of ix. 14. In v. 24 (47) the mention of 49 (7 x 7) is paralleled\nby the symbolic use of the number 7 in iv. 25, etc. But even if, as is\nlikely, they did not originate with the ostensible utterers, still it\nis quite possible that the hand for the prayer, the narrative, and the\nSong may not, in the first instance, have been identical.\n\nProbably, however, we are intended, by the producer of the piece in its\npresent shape, to understand that the prayer and the Song are recorded,\neven if not originated, by the author of the whole book. If not genuine\nparts of Daniel, their parentage has not been assigned to any named\nauthor; and the work must be treated as anonymous, for no clue has been\ntraced which points to a definite writer.\n\nThe putting forward in v. 2 (25) of the second person of the trio, not\notherwise distinguished from his fellows, is remarkable, and not\nsuggestive of a forgery. There is nothing to shew why he led the prayer,\nas no special characteristics are attached to Abed-nego in our\nknowledge. Most likely a forger would have put the prayer into the mouth\nof Shadrach (Ananias), who always stands first, though the order of the\nlast two is reversed in the one place in which the three are named in\nthe uncanonical portion of the chapter. Ewald (_Hist. of Israel_, E. Tr.\nLond. 1874, V. 486) thinks that Azarias is introduced as the eldest, or\nperhaps the teacher, of the other two; but this conjecture does not\naccount for the varying orders of the names of the three in v. 65.\n\nHowever thick a veil may rest over the author's name, it may safely be\nregarded as certain that he was a Jew, and a Jew who was well acquainted\nwith the Psalter. But the opinion as to whether he was of Babylonian,\nPalestinian, or Alexandrian extraction will depend in a great measure on\nthe view taken as to the original language, whether Chaldee, Hebrew, or\nGreek. Professor Rothstein (p. 174) admits the possibility of this\naddition having been made to Daniel before its translation into Greek.\nBut Dean W.R.W. Stephens (_Helps to Study of P.B._, Oxf. n. d., prob.\n1901, p. 45) may be taken as representing what has been the commonest\nview. He thinks it \"probably composed by an Alexandrine Jew.\" On the\nother hand, Dr. Streane's remark tells against this increase of contents\nhaving begun at Alexandria. \"The tendency to diffuseness, characteristic\nof later Judaism... operated much more slightly among Egyptian Jews\nthan with their brethren elsewhere\" (quoted in Dr. Swete's _Introd. to\nGreek O.T._, p. 259).\n\nThe assertion has gone the round of the commentators that the Song\nproper is a mere expansion of Psalm cxlviii., leaving us to infer that\nit is hardly a work of independent authorship. Perowne[7] writes, \"the\nearliest imitation of this psalm is the Song of the Three Children.\" And\nJ.H. Blunt, _in loc._, tells us that \"the hymn in its original shape was\nobviously an expanded form of the 148th Psalm.\" So even Gaster,\n\"modelled evidently on Ps. cxlviii.\"[8]; while Wheatley[9] goes so far\nas to say that it is \"an exact paraphrase\" of that psalm, \"and so like\nit in words and sense that whoever despiseth this reproacheth that part\nof the canonical writings.\"[10] But though the general idea for calling\nupon nature to glorify God is the same, the author of _Benedicite_ is\nmuch more than a mere expander or imitator. Naturally many of the same\nobjects are mentioned; but while comparison with the LXX version of the\npsalm shews some resemblance in word and thought, it shews much more\nvariation in style, phraseology, and treatment. That the writer, as a\nJew, was acquainted with this psalm can scarcely be doubted; that he\nconsciously imitated it there is little to shew. Moreover, the use of\nthis psalm at Lauds in the Ambrosian, the Eastern, and Quignon's\nservice-books, together with the _Benedicite_, would hardly have\noccurred if the Church had regarded the latter as a mere expansion of\nthe former, and not as a distinct production.\n\nWhoever the author may have been, he was evidently strictly orthodox,\nand quite in sympathy with his three heroes, in whose mouths he placed\nthis lively, agreeable, and most religious Song. He has added a much\nappreciated treasure, at least among Christians, to the ecclesiastical\nhooks; a most serviceable form of utterance for the Church's praiseful\nvoice. But the nature of the piece does not afford much scope for\ndisplay of the character or personality of the writer. He effaces\nhimself while extolling devotion to Jehovah, and, if he be Daniel, while\nrecording the faithfulness of the blessed friends of his youth. What\nsubject more likely to excite his enthusiastic sympathy? Honour to the\nmartyrs who endured, praise to the Lord who delivered, it was plainly a\npleasure to him to give.\n\n\nDATE AND PLACE.\n\n\nDATE.\n\nAlmost everything, excepting its absence from the original, points to\nthe Song having been from the beginning a part of the LXX text of\nDaniel. Its date therefore in this case would be the date of that text.\nThe way in which it is worked into the canonical Daniel narrative\nsuggests that, if there be any variation as to date in the three\nadditions, this is seemingly the earliest.\n\nThat the LXX translator invented this enlargement out of his own genius\nseems highly improbable; nor, were it not for its absence from the\noriginal Daniel, few would have doubted that he obtained the whole of\nhis material from the same quarter. In such case our 'apocryphon' would\nobviously ante-date the LXX text.\n\nIt is not unlikely that the Alexandrian translator worked up certain\ntraditions (J.M. Fuller, S.P.C.K. _Comm._; see also Bevan, _Dan._ Camb.\n1892, p. 45), or, if Gaster's discovery be what he thinks, written\nnarratives. What sources, however, were used in preparing its LXX Greek\nform can only be conjectured, and that on very slender data.\n\nRothstein in Kautzsch (I. 176) deems it to have been imported into the\ntext of Daniel before the LXX translation, which he dates at latest in\nthe first quarter of the last century B.C.\n\nHow an interpolation of this kind came to be admitted into the original\nof Daniel is a difficult matter to explain. Even on the supposition that\nthe \u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd were less rigidly fixed than the Law or even the Prophets,\nthe insertion or omission of such a section as this seems a very bold\nstep. Ewald (_Hist. Israel,_ v. 86, 87, Eng. Tr.) thinks these additions\nto be fragments of an enlarged Daniel based on the older book, which was\ncomposed one or two centuries earlier.[11] Some later writer must have\ncompared this new book, which was originally written in Greek, with the\ntranslation of the older book of Daniel, and transferred whatever he\nthought proper from the former into the latter. The work, thus compiled\nafresh, has been preserved in Greek shape, while the intervening book,\nwhose former existence is proved by clearest traces, is now lost. It is\nonly in this way, Ewald thinks, that we can explain the origin and\npreservation of the portions which are not contained in the Hebrew.\n\nProf. Kautzsch (I. 121) deems III. Maccabees, in vi. 6 of which book\nthere is a reference to v. 27 (50) of the Song, to date from some time\nbetween the end of the second century B.C. and 70 A.D. at the latest.\nWithin these limits he fixes upon the commencement of the Christian era\nas the most likely time. Dr. Streane, moreover (_Age of Macc._ p. 157),\nthinks that while century I. B.C. is very possible, it cannot be of\nearlier date, on account of the proof given by this verse of\nacquaintance with the Song. This reference, therefore, undoubted as it\nis, does not greatly help us in solving the problem of date, except as\nto its _ad quem_ limit.\n\nTob. xii. 6 and xiii. 10 (the latter especially in the Vulgate) are very\nsimilar in phraseology to the refrain of the _Benedicite_; vv. 29, 30\n(52) too, in both Greek versions, strongly suggest an acquaintance with\nTob. viii. 5, since \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 appears more likely to have been added to,\nthan omitted from, the later document of the two. This is on the\nassumption that Tobit is, as Streane thinks (p. 148), pre-Maccabean, or\nat any rate earlier than this Song. But as the words used are not very\ndistinctive, it is quite possible that they might have been\nindependently prepared. The mention of Ananias, Azarias, and Misael in\nI. Macc. ii. 59 is not conclusive as to its writer's knowledge of the\nSong, but the order of the names, which does not occur elsewhere, makes\na remembrance of v. 88 not improbable. I. Macc. is dated by Kautzsch\n(I. 31) from 100 to 90 B.C.; Streane (p. 149) allows slightly wider\nlimits; and Westcott (Smith's _D.B._ II. 173) suggests 120 to 100. As to\nanother possible indication given by v. 66 (88), see 'Chronology,' p.\n69.\n\nOf that scepticism which followed the refinements of rabbinism there is\nno trace, either here, or in Susanna, or in Bel and the Dragon. The\ntone of them all is that of an earlier time, free from any symptoms of\nthis later decline. But still the signs of date are not sufficiently\ndecided to justify us in fixing upon a narrow period with any degree of\ncertainty. Taking the piece as independent of the original Daniel, the\nsecond century B.C. might perhaps be named as far from improbable. But a\ncloser date than this it is hardly safe to fix.\n\n\nPLACE.\n\nIf we assume an _Aramaic original_, Babylonia most probably will be the\nplace for its production; Palestine somewhat less probably. But\nindications of place in the piece itself are very faint. It is true,\nhowever, that the order \"nights and days\" is \"in conformity with the\nShemitic custom of fixing the beginning of the day at the preceding\nevening\" (McSwiney, _Psalms and Canticles_, 1901, p. 644).\n\nEveryone must have noticed the frequency with which things watery and\nthings cold are mentioned in the Song. The number of times they occur\nseems quite out of proportion with the scale on which it is conceived.\nWater, showers, dew, cold, frost, snow,[12] sea, rivers, fountains, all\nthat move in the waters, are apostrophised in succession. The\npreponderance of these objects is very noticeable, even to a cursory\nreader. Now both Babylon and Alexandria are alike situated in hot\ncountries; but of the two, a resident in the former would be more likely\nto have had these things brought before his eyes than a resident in the\nlatter. Lower Egypt with its almost rainless climate, and its one river,\ndoes not seem the most likely locality to suggest a constant reference\nto such topics. Chald\u00e6a, on the other hand, is better watered and is\nwithin the region of rain, and at any rate in its northern parts, of\nfrost and snow. Dura, according to Keith Johnston's map, is close to the\nhills. But the position of \"the plain of Dura,\" where the martyrdom took\nplace, has not been certainly identified. J.M. Fuller's note on v. 42\n(64), \"Rain and dew have that prominence which naturally belongs to them\nin the parched East,\" is far from sufficing to explain the oft recurring\nmention of these matters.\n\nStill less does Bishop Forbes' remark[13] that \"the element of water\nseems specially to have received the benediction of the Lord,\" serve to\nelucidate the cause of its preponderance here.\n\nThe slight anthropomorphism in v. 54, where 'sitting' is implied in \u0398,\nexpressed in \u039f\u00b4, is more conformable to Babylonian than Alexandrian\nideas; but this may be a mere reminiscence of Psalms lxxx. 1, xcix. 1.\nThe mention of pitch or bitumen is inconclusive, inasmuch as it is found\nin both Babylonia and Egypt; but the mention of \"heavens\" and \"stars of\nheaven\" (vv. 59, 63), agrees very well with Chaldean origin. So far,\ntherefore, as these considerations go, they turn the scale, to a small\nextent, in favour of Babylonia.\n\nThe only natural object which may be regarded as telling in the opposite\ndirection is \u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7 (v. 79), which might be thought to point to\nknowledge of the Mediterranean Sea (_see_ Child Chaplin, _Benedicite,_\n1879, p. 324).\n\nThe birthplace of the LXX text is surely Alexandria. The character of\nthis, as of the other additions, indicates, according to Westcott\n(_D.B._ ed. 2, I. 1714a) and Wordsworth (on Dan. iii. 23), the hand of\nan Alexandrian writer.\n\nIt is well, however, to notice that this, with its companion pieces, has\nas few indications of Greek philosophy and habits of thought as any part\nof the Apocrypha; and in common with most Alexandrian writers it has\nlittle or nothing of purely Egyptian character. Still, Dereser's idea\nthat \"Daniel may have written his book in Greek at Babylon with all the\nadditions\" (quoted by Bissell, p. 444) seems most unlikely, and could\nhardly have been advanced except under the necessity of supporting the\nRoman view of the book.\n\nTheodotion's version, so far as concerns the locality where it\noriginated, shares the obscurity which hangs over much of Theodotion's\npersonal life. Ephesus may be suggested, for Iren\u00e6us (III. xxiii.)\nstyles him \u1f41 \u1f19\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2; though Epiphanius calls him \u03a0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (_D.C.B._\nart. _Hexapla_, p. 22a). The latter author is, for the most part, the\nless accurate of the two. In _De Mensuris, etc._, XVII. he states that\n\u0398's version was issued in the second Commodus' reign, 180--192,\n\"obviously too late.\"[14] The pre-Theodotionic version which \u0398 is thought\nto have used may of course have been an Alexandrian production; but at\npresent little is known of it.\n\nThat Theodotion had some earlier rendering, besides the LXX as his\nbasis, the quotations in Rev. ix. 20, etc., and St. Matt. xii. 18,\ncoinciding with his version,[15] render highly probable, inasmuch as he\nwrote subsequently to any likely date for those books. Possibly he may\nhave used Aquila's version, or that of some unknown translator.\nProfessor Gwynn's idea (_D.C.B._ art. _Theodotion_, 977a) of \"two rival\nSeptuagintal Daniels\"[16] seems to have more \"inherent improbability\"\nthan he is inclined to admit. But where this ground text, circulated\napparently in Palestine and Asia Minor, was made, who can say? But if we\ntake St. John as the author of Revelation, his connection with Ephesus,\nand the probable publication of his work there, give some little support\nto the theory of an Ephesian origin of Theodotion's translation.\n\nIt is strange that a version supposed to be made by one who was not an\northodox Christian, if Christian at all, should have been preferred, as\nfar as concerns Daniel, by the Christian Church for ordinary use.[17]\nJerome (_Pr\u00e6f. in Dan._) says, as if he felt that some explanation was\nneeded, \"et hoc cur acciderit nescio,\" though he proceeds to suggest\nsome possible reasons why the version of one \"qui utique post adventum\nChristi incredulus fuit\" should have been so much honoured. The\nreligious work of a Jew, who lived before Christ, and that of one who\nrefused to acknowledge his advent after it had taken place, stand\nobviously, for Christians, on a different footing.\n\n\nFOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.\n\n\nFOR WHOM.\n\nUndoubtedly for Jewish readers, who were already interested in the story\nof Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; designed for those who had Daniel's\nbook in their hands, who felt the Three to be heroes rightly honoured.\n\nOf course, if the words were really spoken by Azarias, they were for the\nhonour of God and the benefit of himself and his companions in the fire;\nand the Song itself becomes a real thanksgiving, on the spur of the\nmoment, for the literal fulfilment of such promises as Isai. xliii. 2--a\nform, for their own personal use, to express their immediate feelings.\n\nVerse 24 (\u039f\u00b4) might suggest the idea that the prayer (and perhaps the\nSong also) were uttered in the interval between the issue and the\nexecution of the king's order for burning alive; but the words \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af in v. 25 forbid this view. (As to a possible subsequent\ninsertion of the prayer, see 'Integr. and State of Text,' p. 42.)\nTheodotion also precludes this idea by his insertion of \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 in v. 24 itself, as well as \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 in v. 25. The\nslight change in the case of the last two words lessens the likelihood\nof their having been transferred from v. 25 of one version to v. 25\nof the other. But it is quite possible that \u0398 may have purposely omitted\nthe clause in v. 24 of \u039f\u00b4, beginning \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, in order to shut out\nthe idea of these devotions having taken place in the interval suggested\nabove.\n\nDean Farrar even says that the Song is \"not very apposite\" (_Expositor's\nBible_, Daniel, Lond. 1895, p. 180), though other minds find it\nremarkably so. In writing on v. 27 (50) he erroneously substitutes\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd for \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd. This is probably copied from Ball's note _in loc._ If\nthe latter part of v. 66 (88) was in the original Song, the reference\nto their own position is of course apposite enough.\n\nEven a writer of such a stamp as Albert Barnes (_Comm. on Dan._ iii. 23)\nis obliged to confess that \"with some things that are improbable and\nabsurd, the Song contains many things that are beautiful and that would\nbe highly appropriate if a song had been uttered at all in the furnace.\"\nBut to a contrary effect J. Kennedy goes even further than Dean Farrar,\ncalling it \"an elaborate composition by some one whose imagination\nfailed to realise what was fitting and natural to men in the position of\nthe three Hebrews in the fiery furnace\" (_Dan. from a Christian\nStandpoint,_ 1898, p. 55).\n\nThe passage vv. 26 to 34 is provided in Littledale's _Priest's P.B._\n(1876, p. 95) as a suitable Scripture reading for those \"in fever.\"\nAlthough there is a kind of appropriateness in the narrative of the fire\nbeing driven off, many would regard this application of the extract as\nhighly fanciful, and not quite agreeable to the object with which the\npiece was written.\n\n\nOBJECT.\n\nUnless we assume the writer to be purely an imaginative novelist, the\npreservation of serviceable traditions as profitable records of\nreligion, is clearly his principal aim. This addition cannot reasonably\nbe said in any way to distort or disagree with, though it adds to, the\nsacred narrative. It is very well fitted into the main story; and the\nnon-appearance of Daniel is quite in accord with his absence from the\nscene in chap. iii.\n\nAn edifying purpose is most conspicuous, and, if we assume that it is\nreally an interpolation of the original book, we may well suppose with\nBishop Gray, that \"some writer desirous of imitating and embellishing\nthe sacred text\" has left us this specimen of his work; that the\nveneration of some Hellenistic Jew probably induced him to fabricate\nthis ornamental addition to the history (_op. cit._ pp. 610, 611).\n\nOne aim would be to satisfy the interest awakened by the wonderful\nexperiences of the three, which afforded a narrative ground-work for\nthis extension; falling in this respect, as Prof. Ryssel points out\n(Kautzsch I. 167), into the same category as the Prayer of Manasses and\nthe additions to Esther. It may be said that resistance to idolatry,\nsecuring divine deliverance, is, as in Bel and the Dragon, the \"motif\"\nof the piece. But this is not accomplished without great peril and\nanxiety to these martyrs in will, who kept before them an uncompromising\nstandard, worthy of their noble lineage (Dan. i. 3), as well as of their\ntrue religion.\n\nIn some respects we are reminded of Jonah's prayer, which had a similar\nobject, viz., to secure a deliverance from hopeless danger, a\ndeliverance as marvellous as that of the Three. The words by which it is\nintroduced are similar (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\u03b7\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2... \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, Jon. ii. 2; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\u03b7\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76... \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c2\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, Dan. iii. 25, \u0398); and the spirit of turning to God\nin dire straits is the same. But Jonah's prayer differs from Azarias' in\ncontaining much mention of his immediate danger. Yet the absence of this\nfrom Azarias' prayer hardly amounts to a probable indication of\nforgery; indeed the possibility of so long an utterance implies some\nrestraint of the consuming power of the furnace, such as is described in\nv. 27 of the Chaldee.\n\nA subsidiary purpose answered in the Song proper is that of joining\nnature with ourselves, by addressing it in a series of invitations to\nmagnify Him who is its God and ours alike, thus interpreting the\nfeelings which nature maybe supposed to entertain. It is recognised that\nthe irrational as well as the rational have their rightful spheres of\naction; and a wholesome sympathy is manifested with those portions of\nnature--which we think are lower than ourselves. With this may be\ncompared Adam and Eve's morning hymn (in Milton's _Paradise Lost_, Book\nV., 1. 153 _sq._), which is very similar in tone and in sequence of\nobjects apostrophized.\n\nThe Song so readily leads itself to use as a Canticle that the idea\ninevitably arises of its having been composed with that purpose in view;\nbut proof that it was ever so used by the Jews seems entirely wanting.\nThe statements made in some P.B. manuals that it was so used appear to\nhave arisen from a misunderstanding of an ambiguous sentence of\nWheatley's (_see_ 'Liturgical Use,' p. 83). Still, there may have been\nan _arri\u00e8re pens\u00e9e_ in the composer's mind of providing models of\nprayer and of praise for others, in crisis of trial or deliverance, to\noffer unto God. It is pleasing to note in this respect, that the\nthanksgiving is not stinted, but is even longer than the prayer. Nowhere\nis the manifold wealth of God's revelation in nature more fully and\ncomprehensively set forth in the most exalted spirit of praise; so that,\nif this were one of the composer's objects, it is most abundantly\nanswered.\n\n\nINTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.\n\nIt has been suggested by Prof. Rothstein (in Kautzsch I. 174, 175) that\nthe prayer of Azarias, the intermediate narrative, and the Song itself,\nwere not all written at the same time. But this view is based purely on\ninternal probability, and derives little or no support from any of the\nMSS. or versions, unless the introduction of titles in the Arabic after\nv. 28 (51), and in some Greek copies to the prayer of Azarias, be\nthought to give it countenance; yet these may have crept in from their\nconvenience for liturgical use, and so be accounted for merely on\npractical grounds.\n\nTo base this separation, however, on a supposed disagreement between v.\n15 (38) and vv. 31 (53), 62 (84), is certainly insufficient cause, as\nBall points out (307b), for assigning Prayer and Song to different\nwriters (_see_ 'Chronology,' p. 67). But the observation that the\nnarrative passage between the Prayer and the Song fits in well after the\ncanonical v. 23[18] seems a stronger basis for supposing that the prayer\nis a later introduction than the Song. Rothstein points out (p. 181,\nnote d) that v. 1 (24) in \u0398 has relation to the Song, but not to the\nPrayer, and originally, as he imagines, took the place of the present v.\n28 (91) of similar import. Corn. a Lap. notes of v. 1 (24) \"est\nhysterologia.\" This view is also mentioned with favour in Charles'\narticle on Apocrypha in the 1902 vols. of _Encycl. Brit._ (_cf._ 'For\nwhom written,' p. 36).\n\nIt is observable also that the statement of v. 26 (48) is not a mere\nrepetition of that in v. 22, but refers to the scorching of the\nonlookers, while v. 22 speaks of those who executed the king's\norder.[19]\n\nThe repetition of the same invocation at the commencement of the Prayer\nand the Song is noteworthy; if the two are not contemporary, it has\nprobably been borrowed by the composer of the Prayer. But the difficulty\n(often magnified) of reconciling the statements of v. 15 (38) with the\nJews' civil and ecclesiastical condition at the time of Daniel iii.\nwears quite a different aspect if the Prayer is regarded as an\ninterpolation of later date by another hand. Altogether this theory of\nthe interpolation of the Prayer is surrounded with a considerable air of\nprobability.\n\nFive extra verses are interspersed in the Syriac of the Song, calling\nupon the hosts of the Lord, ye that fear the Lord, cold and heat (the\nwinter and summer of our _Benedicite_), the herbs of the field, and the\ncreeping things of the earth (Churton's translation). Of these \"frigus\nand aestus\" is in the Vulgate, taken from \u0398. The source of the others is\nunapparent, though creeping things would very naturally follow beasts\nand cattle, as in Gen. vii. 14.\n\nThe present ending of the Song, after the usual refrain in the middle of\nv. 66 (88) is of a laboured nature with a decidedly \"dragging\" style. It\ncertainly has the appearance of being an afterthought, added by some not\nvery skilful composer, who fancied the original termination to be too\nabrupt, and thought he could attach an appropriate supplement. But of\nthis theory no external evidence is at present forthcoming.\n\n\u0398 agrees with the \u039f\u00b4 text much more closely in this than in the other\nadditions. Most verses are the same, word for word; and many others have\nbut the slightest variations. He makes a few small omissions, as in\n(Greek) vv. 24, 40, 67, 68; but in general he follows \u039f\u00b4 exactly. Even\nvv. 67, 68, are contained in A, in both places, in Daniel and in the\nOdes at the end; also they are in the Turin Psalter, though omitted in\nthe Veronese (Swete's LXX). As they are found, with a little difference\nin the \u039f\u00b4 text, they may have fallen out of B and Q accidentally. The\nidentical refrain at the end of each verse would naturally facilitate an\nerror of this kind.\n\nThe principal MSS. available for \u0398's text are the same as those for the\ncanonical part of Daniel, A, B, and Q. \u0393 fails us here, as in other\npassages, except from vv. 37--52, in which its variations are\nunimportant.\n\nTaking B as the ground-work, A's changes are not generally of serious\nmoment, excepting in the case of the two inserted verses, 67 and 68, and\nthe transposition of vv. 73 and 74. Otherwise they chiefly consist of\nsmall insertions or omissions which do not materially affect the sense\n(_vv_ 36, 81); varying forms from the same root such as \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 for\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 (v. 54), \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 for \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 (v. 56). The correctors of B\nin v. 38, though unsupported by the chief codices, certainly seem right\nin substituting \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5 for \u03bf\u1f50. Q's variations not unfrequently agree with\nA's; where they do not, they are scarcely more important, and often\npartake of a similar character. In v. 88 a synonym is substituted, viz.,\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd for \u1f10\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf (2nd). In the few verses covered by \u0393, B is generally\nagreed with; a change of case, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 instead of \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, appearing in v.\n50.\n\n\nLANGUAGE AND STYLE.\n\n\nLANGUAGE.\n\nThe probability of a Semitic original lying in the background of this\npiece, has always been considerable. Those who have maintained Greek as\nthe original language, have generally spoken a little less confidently\nwith regard to this than with regard to its two companion pieces. So\nBissell writes (p. 443), though a supporter of the Greek (p. 43),\n\"undoubtedly more can be said in favour of such a theory\" [of a Semitic\noriginal] \"than for a similar one in respect of the two remaining\nadditions.\" And since M. Gaster discovered in 1894 an Aramaic text, the\ngrounds for deeming the Greek to be the original, though not set aside,\nhave been partially undermined. Sch\u00fcrer, however, in Hauck's _Encycl._\n(I. 639), appears to think that this is translated from \u0398, and not _vice\nvers\u00e2,_ as Gaster claims. In his third German ed. of _H.J.P._ (III. 333)\nhe agrees with Gaster in deeming \u05ea\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05e1 to be \u0398, but considers the\nAramaic to be a rendering of \u0398's Greek, taken into the tenth-century\nChronicle of Jerahmeel.\n\nIt must be confessed that the existence of two Greek versions increases\nthe probability, though it does not prove the existence, of an original\nin another language. It does not seem likely that \u0398 would have revised\nthe \u039f\u00b4 of the additions in the same way as the canonical part, unless he\nhad a similar basis to go upon in both cases. If not, why, and on what\nauthority, did he alter the additions at all? And this consideration\napplies to the other two, even more than to the one we are dealing with,\ninasmuch as the version of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon involved\nmore numerous changes. Iren\u00e6us' statement that Theodotion \"\u1f21\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\"\ntaken strictly, would of course always imply an original to translate;\nbut Iren\u00e6us may only have been thinking of the particular passage from\nIsaiah which he refers to (III. xxiii.).\n\nMany phrases may be instanced which point to a Semitic original, or at\nleast fit in well with the theory of its existence. Towards\ncounterbalancing this there is a much smaller number which may be\nthought to tell in the opposite direction. But in the main, as Comely\ntruly writes (_op. cit._ p. 420), \"accedit hebraismorum frequentia quum\nin Alexandrini tum in Theodotionis versione.\"[20]\n\nIt is to be observed, however, that the names of the Three are Grecized\nfrom their original Hebrew nomenclature,[21] although their Babylonian\nnames are employed in Dan. iii., and adopted by \u039f\u00b4 and \u0398 in the\ncanonical portions, both before and after the apocryphal episode. An\napparent exception occurs in v. 23 of \u039f\u00b4, where clauses of that verse\nand of v. 22 have been transposed and slightly altered. Here Azarias\noccurs in the same form as in the apocryphal portion. But this isolated\nuse of the Hebrew form of his name has probably been brought about by\nthe insertion of our piece into the chapter, the same form and phrase,\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, being found in v. 49 of both Greek texts. A like\nphrase occurs in Ezek. xxxviii. 6, and in Acts xiii. 13. The order of\nnames, too, differs in this Addition from their order elsewhere, the two\nlast changing places, thus bringing Azarias (Abed-nego) into the middle.\nIt is remarkable that he is twice, vv. 2 (25) and 8 (49), placed as if\nhe were the leading member of the trio, in the former verse as uttering\nthe prayer, in the latter as heading the party in the furnace; and so\nalso, as pointed out above, in v. 23 of \u039f\u00b4. This last fact, however, is\ncounterbalanced in the same version by all three being named in v. 24 as\npraying, Azarias not there figuring as the sole speaker. These small\nindications certainly point to some ancient distinction between the\nuncanonical insertion, as we have it, and the body of the book.\n\nE. Philippe (in Vigouroux' _D.B._ II. p. 1266) argues for Hebrew and\nnot Greek originals, because of the existence of two Greek versions,\nneither of which, he says, appears to be a revision of the other,\ncontaining hebraisms suggestive of a Hebrew original. But as regards the\nSong of the Three, this statement, that neither version is a revision of\nthe other, must be regarded as more than doubtful. He also says that\nthe Chisian and Syro-Hexaplar MSS. contain critical signs of Origen,\nrevealing a Hebrew text, and in 87 (Chisianus) at xiii. 1-5, \u0391\u00b4, \u03a3\u00b4, \u0398\u00b4\nindicate Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, all translators from the\nHebrew. This last point, however, may not stand as to the Song of the\nThree (_see_ note in Kautzsch, p. 176) so far as Aquila is concerned.\nFor Origen, in his letter to Africanus, seems to imply that Aquila's\nrendering did not contain the Song: \u039f\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f08\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd--\u00a7 2.\n\nJerome's words in the Vulgate, after v. 23, \"qu\u00e6 sequuntur in Hebraeis\nvoluminibus non reperi,\" are very guarded, not absolutely denying the\nexistence of a Hebrew text, but merely asserting that he has not met\nwith it. Cod. Amiatinus, however, has 'non repperiuntur,' an expression\nwhich asserts more comprehensively the absence of this passage in his\ntime.\n\nThe following are some specific indications of language which appear to\nbe of sufficient interest to be noted separately:\n\nv. 27 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u0394\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd = \u05e6\u05b7\u05e8\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7 \u05e6\u05b7\u05dc rendered by \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 in Dan.\nix. 14 (in both versions) and in Neh. ix. 33. \u0394\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 also occurs in\nBar. ii. 9, in that part of Baruch which is almost certainly a\ntranslation from the Hebrew. Ball (_Speaker's Comm._) gives a similar\nphrase from the _Iliad_, and Bissell a still more apposite one from\n_Il._ IV. 28, to shew that it is not unknown in pure Greek. Gaster's\nAramaic has simply \u05dc not \u05e6\u05dc.\n\nv. 30 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u1f59\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9 governs the genitive correctly, but \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9,\ncoupled with it, is made to govern the same noun. Exigencies of\ntranslation might easily cause this awkwardness, but hardly original\nGreek composition.\n\nv. 31 \u039f\u00b4. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd = \u05d5\u05b0\u05e6\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 So translated in II. Chron. vi. 16, 17 at\nthe beginning of the verse, as here; it occurs again in vv. 33 and 41 in\nboth versions, as also in ix. 15, 17. It is not a very natural beginning\nof a Greek sentence.\n\nv. 32 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. Why \u1f01\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, a title which does not seem very applicable\nto the Babylonians? It may be merely a rendering of \u05d8\u05e8\u05da as in Ezra iv.\n12, 15. The Vulgate here has 'pr\u00e6varicator.' In Gaster's Aramaic the\nverse is different. But _cf._ use of \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 in Eph. ii. 12 of\nthose who had never belonged to Israel.\n\nv. 33 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u039f\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 looks very like a translation of\n\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05b8\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc, an idiom used in II. Chron. xxxv. 3, 15 in the sense of\n'cannot,' followed by a verb in the infinitive. _Cf._ Heb. ix. 5.\n\nv. 34 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u0395\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bd\u03c2 = \u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4 or \u05dc\u05b8\u05e0\u05b6\u05e6\u05b7\u05d7 as in II. Chron. xii. 12,\nPs. xv. 11. \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd. This curious expression may be\nthe rendering of such a phrase as that in I. Kings xv. 19,\n\u05d4\u05b8\u05e4\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8, there translated by the same words; also in Jer. xi. 10.\n\nv. 36 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u1f0c\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6, as in viii. 10, xii. 3, both \u039f\u00b4.\n\nv. 37 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u03a4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd. Did the translators read \u05d1\u05db\u05dc for \u05de\u05db\u05dc?\n\nv. 38 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. _Cf._ Lev. ii. 9, 11, \u05e7\u05d8\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 being similarly\ntranslated. \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03cc\u03c9 is also used in the same sense in I. Esd. iv. 52.\nDeissmann has an interesting 'study' of this word in his _Bible Studies_\n(Eng. transl., Edinb. 1901, p. 135).\n\nv. 40 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u1f18\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd... \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd = \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9... \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9. \u1f18\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 is thought\nby Ball to have arisen from some confusion between \u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc and \u05db\u05dc\u05dc, but\nthis is dubious. Marshall (Hastings' _D.B._ IV. 755b) suggests \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05dd in\nKal or Piel.\n\nv. 44 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u1f18\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, Grotius (in _Critici Sacri_) says \"Expressit\nHebr\u00e6um \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 quod est in Ps. lx. 3 (5) et alibi.\" The verb is so\ntranslated in Exod. ix. 16.\n\nv. 49 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. The apparent Grecism of \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f08\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd occurs in the\nLXX of Ezek. xxxviii. 6 and elsewhere. \u03a3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b1, Ball suggests\n\u05d9\u05e8\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9 from Ps. xlix. 18. Gaster gives \u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea \u05e6\u05dd. \u1f18\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b5 Gaster\ncharacterises as a \"senseless\" rendering of \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e6\u05d8\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \"and it cooled\ndown,\" which word certainly gives an excellent sense.\n\nv. 50 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. The well known \"crux\" of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd appears\nin the Aramaic as \u05d3\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d8\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05d0 which Gaster translates \"as a wind that blows\n(and causes) the dew (to descend).\"\n\nv. 51 \u039f\u00b4. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf = \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9.\n\nv. 54 \u039f\u00b4. \u0394\u1f40\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, _cf._ Dan. iv. 36 (33) \u0398\u00b4, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea is the Aramaic in both places. \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2, as in\nJer. xiv. 21. \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is used of God's throne in Dan. vii. 9, end.\n\nv. 59 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u039f\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af = \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd (not in Gaster's Aramaic).\n\nvv. 64, 68 \u039f\u00b4. Repetition of \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, and vv. 67, 69 \u039f\u00b4, of \u03c8\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2,\nsuggests possible difficulty of a translator, causing him to fall back\non same word.\n\nvv. 65, 86 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. The different senses of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 point to \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05d5\u05c2\u05ea as\nthe underlying original of both.\n\nv. 87 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u03a4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3; Luther renders \"elend und betr\u00fcbt\nsind,\" since these words, if of literal and immediate application, would\nindicate the depression of the Babylonian exiles; and so would tell in\nfavour of a Semitic original, Greek being unfamiliar to them.\n\nv. 88 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u1f18\u03ba \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2, _cf._ Dan. iii. 21, 29; vii. 11\n(\u05d9\u05e7\u05d3, Chald. in first and third of these cases, and also in Gaster's\nAramaic of this piece).\n\nv. 89 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u1f18\u03be\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf does not seem a very suitable word, as they had\nnot yet been into \u1f85\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2. It may be a translation of \u05d9\u05e9\u05e6 as in Jer. xlii.\n11, if from a Hebrew original. \u05e9\u05d9\u05d6\u05d1\u05e0\u05d0 is given by Gaster as the original\nof both \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf (\u0398) and \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nv. 90 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u039f\u1f31  \u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, used of proselytes of the gate in Acts xvii.\n17, may have this meaning here also, as coming last, and in connection\nwith \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, a possible reference to the \"gods of the\nnations.\" Gaster's Aramaic has nothing answering to \u03c3\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. Grotius\nsuggests \"\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd ut Job i. I, 8, ii. 3,\" where \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03c2 is the word.\n\nThe writer deems the evidence of language to point on the whole to a\nSemitic rather than to a Greek base. The difficulty of balancing the\nindications however of the original language is shewn by the names of\nimportant authorities which may be ranged on either side, Ball,\nRothstein, and Swete regarding the Semitic as probable; Westcott,\nSch\u00fcrer, and Fritzsche holding a similar opinion as to the Greek.\n\nWhen a Semitic original is pronounced for, the further question arises,\nwas it Hebrew or Aramaic? The grounds unfortunately appear too\nindecisive to warrant a distinct choice between these alternatives.\n\n\nSTYLE.\n\nThis is the only one of the three Additions which takes a devotional and\npoetical form. The Song has perhaps exceeded the others in the great\nestimation accorded to it. The frequent liturgical use made of it is\nboth a sign and a cause of this.\n\nThe style of the Greek is Hellenistic, and is not out of character with\nthe versions of which it is a part; nor in particular with the Book of\nDaniel with which it is incorporated. It is spirited, interesting, and\nagreeable, mainly Hebraic in the character of its thought and cast of\nits language.\n\nThe Prayer may possibly be accused of the needless repetition of similar\nsentiments; especially in vv. 4, 5, and 8 as to God's truth and justice;\nand in vv. 6 and 7 as to Israel's disobedience, which are somewhat\nover-insisted upon. But perhaps this may be attributed to earnest\npleading. It is instructive to compare and contrast Daniel's Prayer,\nchap. ix., remembering that a different person would naturally have a\ndifferent style; a consideration which may also help to account for the\nchange we are conscious of when we pass from the prayer of Azarias to\nthe Song which purports to he the composition of the Three.\n\nThe principle on which \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 is inserted in some verses and omitted in\nothers does not seem clear. Rhythmical considerations do not\nsufficiently account for it. Something other than style seems to have\ninfluenced its use; but what that something may have been it is\ndifficult to discern. Nor does the principle seem clearer in the Aramaic\nthan in the Greek.\n\nThe poem has a simple yet majestic structure, with a refrain apt to\nlinger in the ear, either in Greek or English, \u0395\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03c1\u03c5\u03c8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \"Bless ye the Lord, praise Him, and\nmagnify Him for ever.\" In Gaster's Aramaic the refrain is slightly\nvaried, \u05dc\u05e6\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 being used where God is addressed, \u05d1\u05e6\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 where His\ncreatures are exhorted. Dr. Gaster understands the former to mean \"for\never,\" but the latter \"in the world.\"[22] This distinction, if a just\none, is entirely obliterated in the versions. In the Vulgate however the\nrefrain sounds less agreeably, for \"superexaltate \" is a cumbrous word\nfor frequent repetition. It is one of those exaggerated compounds of\nwhich the translator of Daniel seems to have been too fond, such as\n\"superlaudabilis,\" \"supergloriosus\" (v. 52), \"deambulo\" and\n\"disco\u00f6perio\" (Sus. vv. 8, 32). This inconvenience was evidently felt in\nliturgical use, as in the Roman Breviary and Missal the repetition of\n\"superexaltate\" is avoided. Psalm cxxxvi. affords a biblical instance of\na refrain similarly repeated at the end of each verse; and Deut. xxvii.\n15-26 may be regarded as containing a liturgical repetition of another\nspecies.\n\nThe use of a symbolic multiple of 7 in v. 24 (47) accords well with a\nsimilar practice in Daniel iii. 19, ix. 24, and x. 2,13. The number 3\nitself (v. 28) may also be symbolic; but this is merely continued from\nthe canonical part of the story, being quite of a piece with it. No\nother numbers occur.\n\nThere is a remarkable resemblance between the natural objects mentioned\nin Ecclus. xliii. and in the Song. Especially v. 22[23] of the former is\nlike v. 27 (50) of the latter in its leading idea. The furnace, \u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\nis also named in v. 4 of the Ecclus. passage; and the aim of glorifying\nGod is most prominent in both. But the resemblance in style to Psalm\ncxlviii. is not so great as has sometimes been imagined. (See what is\nsaid on this point under 'Authorship,' p. 26.) On the whole, the style\nof the work, whether supplicatory, narrative, or poetic, is well suited\nto the purpose for which it is designed; and although the influence of\nprevious writers is evident, the manner of the author is not that of a\nmere imitator of their compositions. He has a form of his own in which\nto present his subject.\n\n\nRELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.\n\n\nRELIGIOUS.\n\nSo far as the Jewish actors in the scene are concerned, they exhibit a\ntrue religious spirit from the O.T. standpoint, with an unshakeable\nfirmness of conviction that Jehovah alone should be worshipped.\n\nThe episode shews (in common with the canonical part) that the Captivity\nhad already produced a stubborn opposition to idolatrous temptations\namong the Jews. The tendency to follow after other gods, and to depart\nfrom Jehovah in this way, had been outrooted from the habits of these\nexiles; and their example now would be for all time an incentive to\nothers to resist, at any cost, the pressing inducements to become\nidolaters.\n\nIt is difficult to find anything really inconsistent with the religious\nposition, so far as we know it, of Israel in Babylon. Bissell, however,\nwrites strongly to the contrary, in company as he avers, with almost all\nnon-Romish scholars. This opinion is based on little more than the\nsupposed inappropriateness of the Prayer and Song to the occasion, and\non the discrepancy of v. 15 (38) with the circumstances of the time, and\nwith other parts of the composition (p. 445 and on v. 15). This\n\"discrepancy\" is dealt with under 'Chronology.' Bissell also quotes with\napproval the exaggerated comparison of Eichhorn, who deems the three\n\"like dervishes gifted in penitential exclamations, which they interrupt\nby abuse of Nebuchadnezzar.\" A consistent religious ground is maintained\nthroughout by the three; there is for them no \"doing at Rome as Rome\ndoes\" in vital matters of religion. And their condition is evidently\ncompassionated by God, their faithfulness approved, amid the\npersecutions of a foreign land.\n\nConsiderable talent and art in devotional composition are manifested in\nconfession, petition, and praise--talent and art of which the Christian\nChurch has widely availed herself from a very early period. The tone of\nAzarias' prayer is not discordant with Daniel's description of his own\nprayer in ix. 20, nor with the prayer itself immediately preceding that\nverse, either in sentiment or phraseology. They may well have come from\nthe same editor, whether the prime author of the whole book or not.\nVerse 16 (39) apparently contains phrases culled from Pss. xxxiv. 18,\nli. 17. M. Parker on Deut. xxviii. 56 (_Bibliotheca Biblica_, Oxf. 1735)\nthinks that the declaration of the three in v. 9 (32) corresponds with\nDeut. xxviii. 49, 50, being in fact a public acknowledgment that\nnational impiety had brought upon them the distress in which they were\nat present involved. If so, it shews knowledge of the law on their part.\nBut the connection is one solely of idea, and not of phraseology. There\nis a strong connection in phraseology, however, between v. 27 and Deut.\nxxxii. 4 in LXX. In any case the religious tone of the whole production\nis not inconsistent with what we might have expected.\n\n\nSOCIAL.\n\nThe nature of this piece does not afford much scope for the display of\nthe social condition of Babylon and its inhabitants. It is to be\nexpected therefore that it will shew us far less of these matters than\neither Susanna or Bel and the Dragon. But so far as it gives any\nindications, it is in accord with the canonical Daniel, and with what we\nknow from other sources of the customs of the country. Evidently Israel\nwas in a state of subjection to the Babylonian king, who ordered\nidolatry to be practised by captives and natives alike. It is shewn by\nv. 9 (32) _sqq._ that the former smarted under his tyranny, and appealed\nto God for redress, like their forefathers in Egyptian bondage.\n\nThe punishment of burning, on which the whole story turns, is quite\nBabylonian. Jer. xxix. 22 is another instance, so that there is no lack\nof _vraisemblance_ in its introduction here. (_See_ Hastings' _D.B._\nart. _Crimes and Punishments_, I. 523, for other instances). It has been\nthought (Smith's _D.B._ ed. 2 art. _Furnace_, I. 1092b) that this\nfurnace in Daniel is alluded to by our Lord in St. Matt. xiii. 42, 50;\nbut how opposite on this occasion are the consequences of being cast\ninto it! Here prayer and praise from the righteous, there weeping and\ngnashing from the wicked. The allusion must be considered a very\ndoubtful one.\n\nThe subservience of the king's servants[24] in performing their cruel\nwork, and the absence of a protesting voice or of a helping hand from\nany quarter, is very characteristic of the results of Eastern despotism.\nAll, except the three martyrs, were afraid of Nebuchadnezzar, whose\nmurderous rage under contradiction is of a piece in both the Chaldee and\nthe Greek portions of the chapter. No one else on this occasion dared to\ndisobey his decree, and there is no sign of anyone venturing so much as\nto intercede for the Jewish victims.\n\nIn such small glimpses as are given, in this extension of chap. iii., of\nthe social state of Babylonia there is nothing clearly indicating that\nthe interpolation (if such it be) is of an unhistoric or untrustworthy\ncharacter, nothing wholly irreconcilable with the rest of the book.\nIndeed the author (W.T. Bullock) of the note on Daniel iii. 23 in the\nS.P.C.K. _Commentary_ goes so far as to write of \"that noble canticle\n_Benedicite_,\" as an \"historical document.\" This expression may require\nqualification, but it is not beyond the bounds of possible fact.\n\n\nTHEOLOGY.\n\nThe theology appears to be of a perfectly orthodox character, quite what\nmight have been expected from the three children; nor is it inconsistent\nwith that contained in the rest of the book of Daniel. The exile had not\nnow contaminated the Jewish religion, but had rather purged it of its\ncorruptions, and eradicated in particular the fatal tendency to \"serve\nother gods.\" Such sins are thoroughly confessed by Azarias in a style\nnot without resemblance to Daniel's confession. (_Cf._ v. 6 (29) with\nix. 5 in both versions; also Esther xiv. 6, 7.)\n\nThe God of their fathers is He alone to whom prayers and praises are to\nbe addressed. He is regarded as the Lord of all creation, both as a\nwhole and in its specific parts. He is looked up to to make good the old\npromises (13), being full of mercy (19), as well as of power and glory\n(20, 22, 68). He is a king (33), just (4), and gracious (67), with an\near open to the addresses of his people. The righteousness of even His\nheavy judgements is acknowledged in the prayer; and the hymn throughout\nshews that the gratitude of man is plainly deemed acceptable to Him.\n\nAs to the question of praise being called for from inanimate things or\nirrational beings, we must remember that though unfitted, so far as we\nunderstand them, for conscious praise, their creation, maintenance, and\nusefulness give evidence of God's greatness and goodness. As Cornelius \u00e0\nLapide notes on v. 35 (57) \"Inanimes creatur\u00e6 benedicunt Deum creatorem\nsuum, non ore sed opere, ait S. Hieronymus,\" giving, however, no\nreference to the passage in Jerome. Ps. civ. 4 and Heb. i. 7 afford\nsome helpful clues to the operations of Nature in this connection. Man\nis treated by our author as the interpreter of Nature, with a right, as\nmade in the image of God, to call upon it to glorify its Maker. He\noffers vocal praise on its hehalf as well as on his own; though things\nwithout life praise God silently, by fulfilling the parts for which He\nmade them. A somewhat similar idea of the elevating influence exerted by\nnatural beings may be discerned in the second of the _New sayings of\nJesus_ as restored by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt (Lond. 1904, p. 15). And\nAddison fitly writes (_Spect._ No. 393), \"The cheerfulness of heart\nwhich springs up in us from the survey of Nature's works, is an\nadmirable preparation for gratitude \"(_cf._ 'Early Christian Literature\nand Art,' _s.v._ 'Hippolytus').\n\nAzarias desires that the rescue of the party may redound to the\nknowledge among all men of the sole deity of Jehovah (22)--a petition\nfor the conversion of the Gentiles. The phrase in the last verse of the\nSong, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, might be taken as an admission of the existence of\nother gods over whom Jehovah was supreme. But clearly this is not so\nintended, as may be proved from the use of the phrase in Deut. x. 17,\nPss. xlix. I (LXX), cxxxvi. 2. Yet it is not unlikely that\nNebuchadnezzar used the phrase in this acceptation in ii. 47. The other\noccasion, however, on which it is used in Daniel (xi. 36), allows it to\nbe taken only in an orthodox sense; nor is any other likely in the mouth\nof Azarias, who resisted to the utmost the command to sin by idolatry.\nIt is observable that Azarias omits the clause \"in thy seed shall all\nnations of the earth be blessed\" (Gen. xxii. 18, xxvi. 4) from his\nquotation of the patriarchal promise. This might arise from dislike to\nthe nations, who had conquered Israel; but on the other hand, the gist\nof it is contained in his concluding petition in v. 22.\n\nThe objection that Ananias, Azarias, and Misael are invoked as saints\n(which probably caused the omission in 1789 of v. 66 (88) from the\nAmerican P.B.) is sufficiently answered by pointing out that the Song is\npraise, not prayer; and that these three do not stand on a different\nfooting in this respect from the other objects apostrophized. Moreover,\na highly poetical composition of this kind is not to be too literally\ninterpreted. As Liddon remarks in his _Elements of Religion_ (Lond.\n1892, p. 182), \"The apostrophes of the Psalms and Benedicite are really\nacts of praise to God, of which his creatures furnish the occasion;\" and\nAddison again (_Spect._ No. 327), \"Invocations of this nature fill the\nmind with glorious ideas of God's works.\" v. 43 (65) is oddly applied\nby Archdeacon Frank, _Serm._ XLII. to Pentecost (Oxf. 1849, II. 254).\n\nBelief is plainly shewn in an angelic ministry, sent down to help God's\nsuffering servants, and endued with miraculous powers. The angel comes,\ntoo, after their humble confession and prayer for rescue (vv. 43--45),\nand before their song of praise. The very propriety however of this\narrangement, from a theological point of view, induces Rothstein to deem\nthe prayer a subsequent introduction, in order to supply the want of\nrequest for deliverance before praise for its accomplishment; and he\nthinks that the opening in the narrative for the insertion of the prayer\n(between vv. 23 and 46) was not, in the \u039f\u00b4, very deftly effected\n(Kautzsch, I. 175, 181).\n\nThe natural and the supernatural, without any incongruity, are blended\nas being all under one control, all subserving the same great ends, as\nin the Hebrew Bible. But there is no increase of the miraculous element\nbeyond that in chapter iii., in which this piece is inserted; and at a\nlater age increase would have been highly probable. What essential\ndifference is there to be found between the miracles of the Chaldee and\nof the Greek Daniel? Surely none.\n\nA typical resemblance was discerned by St. Antony of Padua (_Moral\nConcordances_, ed. Neale, p. 123), between v. 26 (44) and the\nAnnunciation, but this will be regarded by many minds as a very fanciful\ntheological discovery, and one surely not in the purview of the composer\nof the passage.\n\n\nCHRONOLOGY.\n\nThere is but little in the way of chronological indication in this\naddition; considerably less than in the other two, and what there is, is\nindirectly brought in.\n\nA time after the Captivity is evidently pointed to in vv. 26, 32, 37,\n38. Jerusalem was lying under a heavy visitation, the people delivered\nover to the enemy, almost denationalized, and deprived of the\nsacrificial worship to which they had been accustomed. Yet this position\nof affairs is spoken of as if it were not one of very long standing.\n(_Cf._ the use of \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd in vv. 31, 33, 42, though in the last of these\ninstances its use may not perhaps be temporal.)\n\nIt has been objected, quite unnecessarily, that v. 38 is inconsistent\nwith v. 53, the one implying the destruction of the temple, the other\nrecognizing its existence; v. 84, too, may be taken as supposing priests\nto be still capable of performing their offices. It is even possible\nthat the corrections of Cod. A in v. 38 may have had behind them some\nidea of softening a discrepancy. This supposed lack of consistency has\nbeen taken as an indication of double authorship of the Prayer and the\nSong; and of course, if the Prayer were a later interpolation than the\nSong, even the appearance of contemporary inconsistency is avoided. But\nif we were to decline this hypothesis, and take Prayer and Song as from\nthe same pen, there is still no real difficulty; for v. 38 is thinking\nof the earthly temple, v. 53 of the heavenly. Grotius (_Critici Sacri_),\napparently accepting the statements of v. 38 as correct, writes: \"Harum\nrerum penuria animos venture Evangelio pr\u00e6parabit.\"\n\nAnother chronological difficulty, that of \"no prophet,\"[25] in the same\nverse (38) has even been offered as a 'proof' of non-canonicity\n(Cloquet, _Articles_, p. 113). So T.H. Horne in Vol. IV. of his\n_Introduction_, quoted by A. Barnes on Daniel (I. 81), says that \"v. 15\n(38) contains a direct falsehood\"; and in Vol. II. 937 of his\n_Introduction_ (ed. 1852), he asserts that the author \"slipped in the\npart he assumed.\" More just is his observation that \"Theodotion does not\nappear to have marked the discrepancy.\" Ball, too, joins in the\ncondemnation, by expressing an opinion that the writer had \"lost his\ncue\" (_Introd. to Song_, p. 308); and Reuss, \"Hier verr\u00e4t sich der\nVerfasser\" (_O.T._, Brunswick, 1894, VII. 166). It has been suggested\n(J.H. Blunt _in loc._) that Ezekiel, who was both priest and prophet,\nhad just finished his utterances, while Daniel, if he had commenced his,\nwould, out of modesty, not reckon himself. The same commentator also\nattempts, still less successfully, to overcome the difficulty of \"no\nprince.\" Probably, however, this merely means that no monarch was\nactually reigning, and that Jewish rulers were themselves ruled and\ntheir authority superseded, not that no member of the royal house or of\nthe ruling classes was in existence. And this seems to fit in better\nwith an early period of the Captivity than with a later age, when Simon\nMaccabeus is said to have had the title \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05b9\u05d9\u05d0 on his coins: and\nMattathias is called \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd in I Macc. ii. 17. Gesenius says in his\n_Thesaurus_ under \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0 on the authority of F.P. Bayer (_de numis\nhebraeosamaritanis_, p. 171, append, p. xv.), that Simon's coins had the\ninscription \u05e9\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05df \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc[26]; but it is now doubted whether the\ncoins formerly attributed to Simon are really of his time. (_Cf._ Bp.\nWordsworth of Lincoln on I Macc. xv. 6.) Z\u00f6ckler's idea (_Comm. in\nloc._) that \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 must be understood here as equivalent to \"priest\"\nis unsupported and needless. \u05db\u05bc\u05c4\u05d4\u05b5\u05df is never so translated by LXX.\n\nCornelius \u00e0 Lap. (Paris, 1874), deals with the difficulty of \"no\nprophet\" in a different way. He writes, \"Quia Dan. potius somniorum\nregiorum erat interpres, quam propheta populi; Ezech. autem propheta\naberat agebatque in Chobar aliisque Chaldaeae locis, eratque is unus et\ncaptivus. Itaque 'non est,' _i.e._ vix nullus erat.\" Of \"princeps et\ndux\" he says nothing; but Peronne adds a note to say that Daniel was\nthinking of Judaea only. It is not unlikely that Hos. iii. 4 was in the\nmind of the writer of the Song, as being fulfilled in his days.\n\nIf, however, we assume a date for the whole piece considerably later\nthan that of the canonical book, it is quite conceivable that the author\nmay have made a backward transference of the circumstances of his own\ntime to that of the earlier exile. For this is a species of error all\ntraces of which even expert forgers find it difficult to remove.\n\nIt is generally assumed, and probably rightly, that v. 88 is intended as\na contemporary utterance of the Three calling upon themselves;\nnevertheless it is quite intelligible as the expression of a later\nwriter summoning them, with the rest of creation, to praise their\nMaker. And, assuming this verse to be contemporary with the rest, this\nlatter idea would of course mark the hymn as not really issuing from the\nmouths of the Three.\n\nEverything said and done in this piece takes place within one day, the\nday on which Nebuchadnezzar's subjects were ordered to worship the\ngolden image. There is therefore much less scope than in Bel and the\nDragon, or even Susanna, for those who seek to discover chronological\ndifficulties, because devotional compositions afford fewer openings than\nnarrative matter for the raising of such questions.\n\n\nCANONICITY.\n\nLike Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, the Song of the Three Children\nformed, so far as we know, part of the original LXX text of Daniel,\nhaving a connection with it closer even than theirs. For while they take\ntheir places at the beginning or the end, this one is incorporated into\nthe narrative of chapter iii. as one connected whole. Prof. Robertson\nSmith does indeed write (_O.T. in Jewish Church_, 1895, p. 154), \"these\nare perhaps later additions to the Greek version\"; but this is only\nconjecture, and as such he puts it forward.\n\nUntil the correspondence of Origen with Africanus, the canonicity of\nthese pieces does not seem to have been called in question by Christians\nwho used Greek or Latin Bibles; nor do Greek-speaking Jews appear to\nhave disputed the matter seriously. \"Commonly quoted by Greek and Latin\nFathers as parts of Daniel,\" says Westcott (Smith's _D.B._, ed. 2, I.\n713b). So Sch\u00fcrer (II. III. 185), \"Julius Africanus alone among the\nolder Fathers disputes the canonicity of these fragments.\" See also\nBissell's admission on p. 448 of his _Apocrypha._ But Jerome seriously\ncalled their canonicity in question (_Pr\u00e6f. in Dan._), although he\nincluded them in his translation, with a notice that they were not found\nin the Hebrew. Polychronius, Theodore of Mopsuestia's brother, refused\nto comment on this piece because it was not part of the original Daniel,\nnor in the Syriac, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. In this latter respect it keeps company with the Catholic\nEpistles in the earliest stage of the Syriac N.T. (Carr, _St. James_, p.\nXLVII). But it gained a place in the Peshitto (_D.C.B._ arts.\n_Polychronius & Polycarpus Chorepisc._). Buhl (_Kanon und Text des\nA.T._, 1891, p. 52) says that the Nestorians recognise \"die\napokryphischen Zus\u00e4tze zum Daniel als kanonisch;\" and the Malabar\nChristians regard this, with its two companions, \"as part and parcel of\nthe book of Daniel.\" (Letter to the writer from F. Givargese, Principal\nof Mar Dionysius' Seminary, Kottayam, 1902.) They formed part of the\nSahidic, and probably other Egyptian versions of Daniel, which may be as\nearly as century II.; as also of the Ethiopic and, seemingly, of the Old\nLatin (Swete, _Introd._ 96, 107, 110).\n\nIt seems very difficult to prove that the Alexandrian Jews who used the\nLXX did not regard this piece as canonically valid; though how they\nreconciled their canon with the Palestinian one is not clear. Their\nfrequent communication with Palestinian Jews must have brought any\nconsiderable discrepancy to the notice of both sides. F.C. Movers (_Loci\nquidam Hist. can. V.T._, Breslau, 1842, pp. 20, 22) solves the\ndifficulty by imagining that this and the other Apocrypha were similarly\nregarded both in Palestine and Alexandria, \"vix credibile est alios\nlibros a Palestinensibus inter profanos repositos ab Alexandrinis codici\nsacro adscitos esse.\" Acts ii. 10 proves the presence of Egyptian Jews\nat Jerusalem for Pentecost, and vi. 9 that they had a synagogue there.\nThis close connection must have brought their religious practices to one\nanother's knowledge, and any differences, considered seriously\nimportant, could hardly have failed to raise disputes. Now Bleek\n(_Introd. to O.T._, II. 303, Engl. transl, Lond. 1869), says \"the\nadditions to Esther and Daniel were certainly looked upon by the\nHellenistic Jews in just the same light as the portions of the books\nwhich are in the Hebrew.\" And this seems to have been done almost\nwithout question, difficulty, or protest, although Alexandrian ideas\nmust have been, brought under the notice of the religious authorities in\nJerusalem. (_Cf._ Meyer's note on Acts vi. 9, and Jos. _cond. Ap._ I. 7,\nas to regular intercourse between Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews.)\n\nProfessor, now Bishop, Ryle (_Can. of Script_, p. 157) thinks that the\namplification of Daniel, as of Esther, may have been tolerated because\nDaniel was not then deemed canonical. But we must remember that\nadditional sections, though smaller in extent, appear in other books of\nthe LXX, of whose canonicity there appears to have been no question,\n_e.g._ Job xlii. 17, Prov. xxiv. 22, I. Kings xvi. 28, this last being\ntaken from chap, xxii., though still left there. It has also been\nsuggested by Prof. Swete (_Introd._ p. 217) that the \u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd were\nprobably attached to the canon by a looser bond at Alexandria than in\nPalestine. However this may be, certain it is that this addition was\nfrequently quoted or referred to by early Christian writers as if part\nof Dan. iii., without qualification or sign of misgiving, as may be\nseen in the quotations given in the chapter on 'Early Christian\nLiterature,' p. 76 _sqq._ Loisy's contention is a noticeable one (_A.T._\np. 236), \"Presque tous les auteurs catholiques, anciens et modernes, qui\nont emis des reserves touchant l'autorit\u00e9 des deutero-canoniques, ont\nregard\u00e9s ces livres comme inspir\u00e9s. Ils ne les croyaient pas bons pour\n\u00e9tablir le dogme; mais cela est parfaitement compatible avec\nl'inspiration, attendu qu'un livre peut-\u00eatre inspir\u00e9 sans \u00eatre\ndogmatique, et que s'il n'est pas dogmatique par son contenu il ne\nsaurait regler le dogme.\" But this contention savours somewhat of clever\nspecial pleading in order to evade the force of opposing evidence.\nLoisy, however, for a Roman Catholic, is a wonderfully frank and fair\nwriter on these matters.\n\nThe explanation of the early mixture of non-canonical books with\ncanonical, by reason of their having been kept as separate papyrus rolls\nin the same chest (Swete's _Introd._ p. 225), seems not an unlikely one\nin the case of independent works such as Judith or Wisdom. But it\nappears to lose its force in the case of additions such as these, or\nthose to the book of Esther. For the Song of the Three, Susanna, and Bel\nand the Dragon are hardly likely to have had separate rolls assigned to\nthem; least of all this first piece, which fits into the middle of the\naccepted narrative, and is scarcely intelligible without it. Something\nmore therefore is wanting to explain the inclusion of those portions in\nthe Greek Bible.\n\nBengel's explanation (_Gnomon on Matt._ xxiv. 15), that the apocryphal\nbooks in Latin Bibles were mixed with the canonical \"pro argumenti\naffinitate,\" though distinguished at first by marks (afterwards omitted)\nin the index, however likely so far as it goes, fails to account for\ntheir admission on so slender a plea into Biblical MSS. at all.\n\nIf the additions are to be regarded with Streane (_Age of the Macc._ p.\n161) as \"specimens of fiction,\" this one, more strongly than the other\ntwo, shews the pre-existence of the canonical Daniel; but it is very\nhard to understand how 'fiction' of this kind could be introduced into\nthe Bible with no general protest, and ultimately come to be treated as\nof Divine authority; and this position is defended, even in these\ncritical days, by the greater number of Christians in the world.\n\nWhen the Council of Trent made the canon of Scripture co-extensive with\nthe Vulgate, this, with the other additions, was of course included in\nthe decree. But in the Roman Church up to the present day attempts have\nnot been wanting to minimize the force of this decision, which, if it\nremoves some difficulties, certainly introduces others. Outside the\nRoman Church the position of these books, in common with the rest of the\nApocrypha, remains, as always, more or less insecure.\n\nA. Scholz, in condemning the principle that Christians are tied to the\nO.T. canon, rather amusingly supposes: \"Wenn Jemand sich bei den Juden\njetzt als Prophet geltend machen und ein Buch schreiben w\u00fcrdem so m\u00fcsste\nes nach diesem Grundsatz von den Protestanten als kanonisch wohl\nanerkannt werden\" (_Esther und Susanna_, W\u00fcrzburg, 1892, p. 140). But\nsuch argument is mere polemic, which cannot be seriously taken into\naccount in establishing the position of this or the other additions.\nSomething is needed much deeper and more convincing in character.\n\n\nEARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART\n\n\nLITERATURE.\n\nIn the N.T. _possible_ references may be found in St. Matt. xi. 29\n(\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3) from v. 65 (87); II. Tim. i. 18 (\u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2) from\nv. 15 (38); [in Numb. xi. 15 only does the phrase elsewhere occur, but\nin another tense]; Heb. xii. 23 (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd) from v. 64 (86).\n\nOur 'apocryphon' is often referred to or quoted by early Fathers to a\nremarkable extent, considering the brevity of the piece and its merely\nepisodic character in the main narrative. The following are specimens:\n\nJUSTIN MARTYR (\u2020167?), _Apol._ I. 46, \u1f18\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f28\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76. The names of the Three\noccur in this form and order in v. 88 of the Song only.\n\nCLEM. ALEX. (\u2020220) in his _Eclog\u00e6 prophetic\u00e6_, \u00a7 I, quotes several\nverses with \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u1f74\u03bb \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nHIPPOLYTUS (\u2020230) recognizes the Song of the Three in his comment on\nDaniel, _in loc._, as well as in the Fragment preserved in the \"Catena\nPatrum in Psalmos et Cantica\" (_Ante-Nic. Christian Lib._ p. 484). In\nthe former place he comments on the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f21 \u03c6\u03bb\u03cc\u03be, and says\nthat the Three \u1f10\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf in reference to v. 50; in the latter, on the\nverse \"O Ananias, Azarias,\" etc., he notes that everything is called to\npraise, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7.\n\nTERTULLIAN (\u2020240) _de Orat._ \u00a7 15, says that they prayed, \"in fornace\nBabylonii regis orantes.\" In \u00a7 29 he quotes vv. 26, 27.\n\nORIGEN (\u2020254) _Comm. in Ep. ad Rom._ I. c. 10, II. c. 9, VII. c. 1;\n_Comm. in Matt._ XIII. c. 2 (naming the LXX); and in _de Oratione_ XIII.\nXIV.\n\nCYPRIAN (\u2020258) _De lapsis_ 31 and _De dom. orat. 8_, quotes this piece,\nin the latter case agreeing with \u0398 rather than \u039f\u00b4. Pseudo-Cypr. (some of\nwhose writings Professor Swete, _Patristic Study_, 1902, p. 67, deems to\nbe contemporary with Cyprian or nearly so) in _Oratio_ II. 2 says\n\"misisti angelum tuum cum roribus tuis,\" agreeing with \u039f\u00b4.\n\nEUSEBIUS (\u2020342), in his first _Fragm. on Daniel_, comments on iii. 49,\n\u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd (\u0398), and quotes Psalm xxviii. 7 as\nillustrative. (In Constantine's \"To the Convention of Saints,\" given in\nthe translation of Eusebius (Camb. 1683), much mention is made of Daniel\nin Babylon, but there is no clear indication of knowledge of the\nadditions.)\n\nATHANASIUS (\u2020373) quoted the Song in _Ep. Pasch._ x. 3; and in _Agst.\nAvians_ II. 71 he employs the Song to \"arraign the Arian irreligion\"\n(Newman's translation).\n\nEPHREM SYRUS (\u2020378). His commentary on Daniel does not embrace the\nadditions, but in his _Morning Hymn_, rendered by H. Burgess (Lond.\n1853), we have \"Sprinkle me with Thy dew, like the young men in the\nfurnace.\"\n\nCYRIL OF JERUSALEM (\u2020386) quotes both the Prayer of Azarias (v. 29) and\nthe Song (v. 54) in _Catech._ II. 18 and IX. 3 respectively, without\nhesitation (ed. Reischl, Munich, 1848).\n\nAMBROSE (\u2020397) _in Luc._ VII \"Cantaverunt Hebr\u00e6i cum vestigia eorum\ntactu flamm\u00e6 rorantis humescerent.\"\n\nHIERONYMUS GR\u00c6CUS THEOLOGUS (cent. IV?) _de Trin._ treats the hymn,\nflames and dew in the furnace, \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03b1, as an emblem of the\nThree in One.\n\nSULPICIUS SEVERUS (\u2020400?) _Hist. sacr._ II. \u00a7 5 shews knowledge of this\nSong by writing of the Three as \"deambulantes in camino psalmum Deo\ndicere cernerentur.\"\n\nCHRYSOSTOM (\u2020407) _De incomprehensibili Dei natura_ V. 7, \u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b9\u1fc6\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd... \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. _In Isaiam_\nVI. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u1f31\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1. _Hom._ IV. _ad pop. Antioch._ (de\nstatuis) \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03af\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2. Also _De incarnatione_ VI.\n\nRUFINUS (\u2020410) _adv. Hieron._ lib. II. upbraids Jerome for not reckoning\nthe piece canonical.\n\nJEROME (\u2020420). In the _Comes_ or Lectionary, the Song is made use of,\nbut probably the Comes is not really Jerome's. (_See_ art. _Lectionary,\nD.C.A._ 962a.)\n\nTHEODOERT (\u2020457) in _Letter_ CXLVI. quotes v. 63 amongst a string of\ncanonical texts; and also deals with the whole in his _Commentary on\nDaniel_, as consolidated with chap. iii.\n\nSEDULIUS (\u2020460?). In his poem _De tribus pueris_ there is nothing which\ngoes beyond the canonical record; but, strangely enough, in his\n_Miraculorum recapitulatio proedictorum_ there are the lines\n\n    \".... flagrante camino\nServavit sub rore pios.\"\n\nAnd equally in the prose version \"rore sydereo puerorum membra proluit\nin camino.\" This shews a recognition of v. 50 (de la Bigne, _Bibliotheca\nPatrum_, ed. 4, 1624, pp. 660, 661, 914).\n\nVERECUNDUS (\u2020552) wrote a comment on some of the ecclesiastical\ncanticles including the prayers of Azarias and Manasses (printed in\n_Spicilegium, Solesmense,_ Vol. IV.).\n\nIt is manifest, therefore, that Early Christian writers regarded the\nSong as of much value and importance; were well acquainted with it, and\noften quoted it in much the same manner as the canonical books.\nOccasionally, however, a knowledge of it is not shewn where we should\nhave expected it; and in some cases we know that those who quoted it\ndenied, or doubted, its canonicity.\n\n\nART.\n\nThis Greek insertion in the book of Daniel has, on the whole, offered\nless scope for the exercise of artistic talent than the history of\nSusanna or even than that of Bel and the Dragon. The nature of its\ncontents, which consists in the main of a prayer and a song, reasonably\naccounts for this paucity of illustration. It does not lend itself so\nreadily as its two companions to pictorial treatment. Nevertheless a\ncertain number of examples are not wanting.\n\nLoisy in his _Canon of the O.T._ (1890, p. 95) remarks, \"D\u00e8s avant le\nIV<sup>e</sup> si\u00e8cle, on ornait les catacombes de peintures dont les sujets\navaient \u00e9t\u00e9 fournis par Tobie et les fragments de Daniel.\"\n\nIn a fresco from the cemetery of St. Hermes, the Three Children are\nrepresented, each over a separate stoke-hole (or what looks like one),\nwith hands elevated as if in prayer or praise, most likely in reference\nto v. 1 (24), (_see D.C.A._ art. _Fresco_, p. 700a). Another picture\nof figures somewhat different, yet with outstretched hands, is given\nfrom Bottari in the same Dictionary under art. _Furnace._ There are\nsculptured representations of the Three on the high crosses at Moone\nAbbey, and at Kells (M. Stokes, _Early Christian Art in Ireland_, Lond.\n1887, II. 22).\n\nIn the Utrecht Psalter, over the Song are depicted, as well as in other\nplaces, the sun and the moon, very appropriately (_D.C.A._ art. _Sun_),\nand in other illuminated Psalters, pictures of the Three in the furnace\nare not uncommon. Thus Brit. Mus. MS. Additional 11836 has an\nillumination of the furnace scene.\n\nThe under side of the wooden roof of Trinity College Chapel, Cambridge,\nwas painted about 1870 with the series of natural objects mentioned in\nthe Song proper, and with the words appertaining to each. A few extracts\nfrom _Benedicite_ are on scrolls in a modern window on the south side of\nthe chancel of St. James' Church, Bury St. Edmunds.\n\nIt is a little surprising that the series of objects named in this Song\nhas not been more frequently chosen for decorative purposes on roofs,\nwalls, or windows of ecclesiastical buildings, where a long series would\nbe appropriate. Perhaps the length of the series, and the difficulty of\nmaking any but an arbitrary selection, has something to do with the\nrarity of its appearance.\n\nA set of not very satisfactory wood-engravings by MacWhirter and others,\none illustration to each verse, was published in a small book under the\ntitle of the _Song of the Three Children illustrated_ (London, 1887)\n\nThe verse \"O ye wells,\" etc., is said to be a frequent motto for the\nfloral well-dressings at Tissington, in Derbyshire, and elsewhere, on\nAscension Day; and a more appropriate one could hardly be found. But in\ngeneral the Song of the Three Children has not, for the reason given\nabove, and doubtless others besides, proved a popular subject in art.\n\n\nLITURGICAL USE.\n\n\nGENERAL.\n\nThere is, strange to say, no record of the Song's employment in this way\namongst the Jews. Statements sometimes made to the contrary in works on\nthe P.B., _e.g._ by W.G. Humphry, F. Procter, E. Daniel, and J.M. Fuller\n(S.P.C.K. _Comm._ \"Introd. to the Song\"), \"in the _later_ Jewish\nChurch,\" all appear to have originated in a misunderstanding of an\nambiguous sentence in Wheatley's _Rational Illustration_ (1875, p. 143).\nHe says that it \"was an ancient hymn in the Jewish Church.\" But this\ndoes not necessarily imply that it formed any part of Jewish services.\nNor did Wheatley probably intend to assert that it did. In point of fact\nno evidence of such use is forthcoming, though it certainly would not\nhave been surprising if the Song had been so used, at least among the\nHellenistic Jews. For as Rothstein says in Kautzsch's Apocrypha, like\nPs. cxxxvi. it is \"offenbar antiphonisch aufzufassen\" and\n\"litaneiartig.\"\n\nNotwithstanding the previous neglect, as it would seem, of this Song in\nJewish worship, its use by Christians dates from an early period. So Bp.\nGray (_O.T.,_ p. 611) says, \"It was sung in the service of the primitive\nChurch;\" and Ball, \"the instinct of the Church, which early adopted the\n_Benedicite_ for liturgical use, was right\" (p. 307). Yet after it had\ncome into high esteem with Christians its chances of Jewish acceptance\nwould of course be largely diminished.\n\n\nEARLY.\n\nThe liturgical use however was generally confined to the Song proper,\ncommencing with v. 29, and not always extending to the whole even of\nthat. In the Greek Church it is divided into two odes, said at Lauds on\ntwo different days, vv. 3--34 (A.V. verses) forming one, and the\nremainder of the Song the other (art. _Canticle D.G.A._). In the\nAmbrosian rite the first part only of the Song is used as an invitatory\nbefore the Matin Psalms, under the title, somewhat confusing to us, of\n\"Benedictus\" (_D.G.A._ art. _Benedictus_).[27]\n\nFor some reason not easy to assign, the Song, whether divided or entire,\nhas always been treated as a morning canticle, although there is nothing\nin its words to suggest any time of day as specially appropriate.\n\nRufinus, according to Dr. Salmon (_Speaker's Comm._ Introduction to\nApocr. XXVIIb), speaks of the Song as \"sung on Festivals in the Church\nof God.\" No reference is given to the passage quoted. But in Rufinus'\n_Apol. in Hieron._ II. 35 we find the words, \"Omnis Ecclesia per orbem\nterrarum... quicunque Hymnum trium puerorum in Ecclesia Domini\ncecinerunt,\" etc. Whether this be the passage Dr. Salmon intends or not,\nit is at any rate sufficient to prove that the canticle was in use in\nand before Rufinus' time, who is believed to have died in the year 410.\n\nBishop Barry (_Teacher's P.B._) notes that it was used at Lauds (\u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) in the East as well as in the West: and so Mr. Hotham in his\nart. _Canticle_ in _D.C.A._ In his art. _Psalmody_, however, no mention\nis made of its Eastern use; but in the Western Church in the Gregorian\nand its derived rites, including the Roman and cognate Breviaries, he\nsays, \"Benedictiones sive canticum trium puerorum\" comes in Sunday\nLauds, and likewise in the Benedictine Psalter.\n\nIn the Ambrosian Psalter, while the first part \"Benedictus es\" is said\ndaily at Matins as stated above, the usual _Benedicite_ is said at Lauds\non Sundays. In the Mozarabic Psalter an abridgment of both parts is said\nat Lauds, but not \"in feriis.\" \"Benedictus es\" also comes on weekdays at\nPrime. In the Mozarabic Missal _Benedicite_ occurs in the service for\nthe first Sunday in Lent. In the use arranged by C\u00e6sarius of Aries\n(\u2020542) for the Gallican Church _Benedicite_ was sung at Sunday Lauds.\n\nDuchesne says (_Christian Worship_, Eng. tr. S.P.C.K. 1903, p. 195), \"In\nthe Gallican Mass between the Apostolic and the Evangelic lections the\nHymn of the Three Children was sung. It was known also by the name of\nthe Benediction (_Benedicite_) because in it the word 'Benedicite' is\ncontinually repeated.\" In a note he adds, \"The Luxeuil Lectionary,\nhowever, prescribes for the Nativity, _Daniel cum Benedictione, i.e._,\nthe Hymn of the Three Children before the Apostolic Lection. It is true\nthat in the Mass of _Clausum Paschale_ it places it after this lection.\"\n\nThe fourth council of Toledo in 633, condemns the omission of the Song\nat Mass, threatens with excommunication those who in Spain or Gaul (or\nGallicia, margin) persist in leaving it out, and styles it \"Hymnum\nquoque trium puerorum in quo universa coeli terr\u00e6que creatura dominum\ncollaudat et quem ecclesia catholica per totum orbem diffusa celebrat\"\n(Mansi, _Concil._, Florence, 1764, X. 623).\n\nIn the Roman Missal at the end of the Canon, the last Rubric is\n\"Discedens ab Altari, pro gratiarum actione dicit Antiphonam Trium\nPuerorum cum reliquis, ut habetur in principio Missalis;\" where is given\nas an antiphon before it these words, \"Trium puerorum cantemus hymnum\nquem cantabant sancti in camino ignis, benedicentes Dominum.\"\n\nPossibly there is a reference to this Eucharistic use in Bishop\nWordsworth's Michaelmas Hymn, No. CII. in his _Holy Year_, 1864.\n\nAngelic voices we shall hear\n  Joined in our jubilee,\nIn this thy Church and echoing\n  Our Benedicite.\n\nAngelic faces we shall see\n  Angelic songs o'erspread\nAbove thy holy Altar, Lord,\n  And Thou, the Living Bread.\n\nIn the Saram Breviary (and in Cardinal Quignon's) _Benedicite_ is a\ncanticle at Lauds on Sundays only. It is to be said without \"Glory\";\n\"dicatur sine Gloria Patri per totum annum quandocunque dicitur\"\n(Procter, p. 188); but a doxology is provided in the Roman Breviary,\n\"Benedicamus Patrem et Filium cum Sancto Spiritu,\" etc., and 'Amen' is\ndirected not to be said at the end. This doxology is said to have been\nadded by Pope Damasus I., who also transposed v. 56 to stand as the\nfinale of the Song (_see_ James M'Swiney, _Psalms and Canticles_, Lond.\n1901, p. 643). This R.C. writer calls the use of the canticle on Sundays\n\"a thanksgiving for the resurrection of the Crucified, the earnest of\nthe glories wherewith nature is to be invested at His second coming.\"\nBut this sounds like an _ex post facto_ reason for its appropriateness.\n\n_Benedicite_ appears, at any rate sometimes, to have been said\nsubsequently to _Te Deum_ after the election of an Abbot (_see_ Jocelin\nof Brakelond's _Chronicle_, Sir E. Clarke's ed., 1903, p. 38). It also\nappears in the _Cantica_ after the Psalter, between _Te Deum_ and\n_Benedictus_, in the Scottish _Breviarium Bothanum_, which is thought to\nbe of about 15th century (Lond. 1900).\n\nThus it is evident that the use of this hymn became general at an early\nperiod, and so continued, having never receded in Christian esteem as a\nvalued factor in public worship.\n\nBesides the use of the Song, or part of it, as a canticle, verses or\nsmall portions often occur in liturgies; _e.g._, vv. 28--30 are borrowed\nin an \u1f18\u03ba\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 before the offertory prayers in the Liturgy of St.\nJames; at the censing of the Gospel in that of St. Mark; in a Byzantine\nLiturgy of the ninth century in the second prayer of the faithful; in\nthat of St. Chrysostom immediately before the lections in the Mass of\nthe Catechumens; and v. 19 in the \u1f18\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in that of the Coptic\nJacobites (Brightman's _Liturgies_, I. Oxf. 1896). In the Leonine\n_Sacramentary_, in a Preface, Mense Junio, IIII. 1. 13, ad Fontem, the\nlast words of the Song appear to be cited \"plena sunt omnia saccula\nmisericordia tua\" (Dr. Feltoe's ed., Camb. 1896, p. 31). The verse\n\"Benedicite omnes angeli\" occurs in a \"Communio\" for Michaelmas in the\nRosslyn Missal; \"Benedictus es Domine patrum nostrorum\" occurs in the\nMass of the Holy Trinity in the Westminster Missal as a \"gradale,\" also\nin a Mass \"pro sponsis\", and other places (Hen. Bradshaw Soc., Lond.\n1899, p. 70, 1897, p. 1239). v. 34 (56) occurs in the Sarum Compline\nafter the Creed, as also in the Roman.\n\nIn the Greek Euchologion a great part of the Song is embodied, with\nother Scripture odes, in what is styled \"the Canon at Great Matins in\nthe All Night Vigil\" (_Euchology_, translated by G.V. Shann,\nKidderminster, 1891, p. 34).\n\n\nLATER ENGLISH USE.\n\nBurbidge (_Liturgies and Offices of the Church_, 1885, p. 268), gives a\nnumber of instances of the use of _Benedicite_ in foreign service books,\nand says, \"In other churches _Benedicite_ has been held in higher esteem\nthan amongst ourselves.\" Esteem for it has never been entirely lacking,\nhowever, as its prominence in the P.B. shews.\n\nIn a Prymer of circ. 1400, as given by Maskell (_Mon. rit._ 1882, Vol.\nIII. p. 21), _Benedicite_ occurs in Matins, beginning \"Alle werkis of\nthe Lord, bless ye to the Lord: herie ye and overhize ye him in all\ntime.\" On the same page, note 49, he gives a quotation from _Gemma\nanimae_, II. 53, \"canticum trium puerorum est festivius et ideo in\nomnibus festis dicitur.\" Also in his _Append, to Prymer_, p. 243,\nanother version is given, from Bodl. Douce MS. 275, fol. 9b: \"Alle\nwerkes of the Lord, bless ye the Lord: praise and overheie ye him in to\nthe worldes.\" There was an authorized translation into Welsh early in\nthe 14th century, according to H. Zimmer (_Urtext und Uebersetz_,\nLeipzig, 1897, p. 172), together with _Magnificat, Benedictus_, and\nseveral Psalms, evidently for liturgical purposes.\n\nIn the P.B. of 1549 the use of the _Benedicite_ as a substitute for the\n_Te Deum_ was confined to Lent \"all the which time\" its recital was\nobligatory. It has been suggested by W.G. Wyon (_Letter to \"Guardian,\"_\nMay 14, 1902) that medi\u00e6val devotion read into it an allegoric meaning\nof deliverance from temptations and dangers of this naughty world, and\nthis made the Song suitable for Lent. He also suggests that the 'Oratio'\nof the Roman Missal in the 'Gratiarum actio' after Mass, which contains\nit, shews us its suitability for penitential seasons indirectly, \"Deus\nqui tribus,\" etc. No doubt hope of deliverance from fierce spiritual\nperils may be in Lent a proper frame of mind; but this attempt to prove\nthe _Benedicites_ special appropriateness to that season is more\ningenious than satisfying. It is strained and far-fetched. Compare what\nis said above (p. 88), where M'Swiney is cited as shewing in similar\nstyle its special appropriateness to Sunday. The tone of the canticle is\nunmistakeably joyful, and the 1549 rubric disappeared in 1552, leaving\n_Benedicite_ as a simple alternative to the _Te Deum_, at any time\naccording to the taste of the officiant. And so it still remains, though\noften preferred to the _Te Dewm_ during Lent. Septuagesima and Trinity\nXXI. are, on account of their first lessons, fitting Sundays for its\nuse; nor is it by any means unsuitable for a harvest festival. An\nentirely different kind of reason for its Lenten suitability is provided\nby H.P. Cornish (_Notes on P.B._, Evans, Redditch, n.d., p. 17). Lent,\nhe says, is the time \"when all nature begins to wake from its Lenten\nsleep\": hence its appropriateness in spring. It is questionable,\nhowever, whether medi\u00e6val liturgical authorities paid much attention to\nthe natural seasons of the year; and the variety of 'reasons' proves the\ndifficulty of discovering a really conclusive one. The idea that the\n_Benedicite_ is consonant with Lenten feelings is singularly out of\naccord with the opinion expressed as to its character as being\n'festivius' in the _Gemma animae_, given above, p. 90. Indeed it can\nhardly be disputed that its tone is joyful. But though its special\naptness for a fasting-time is not easy to make out clearly, few\nunprejudiced people will dissent from the opinion of Freeman as to its\nscope when he writes, that \"though wanting in the grand structure of\nthe _Te Deum_, in point of range it is in no way inferior\" (_Divine\nService_, Lond. 1855, I. 356).\n\nIn the scheme for the revision of the Prayer-Book in William III.'s\nreign it was actually arranged to expunge _Benedicite_, and to\nsubstitute Ps. cxlviii. It would have been extruded in good company\nhowever, as _Magnificat_ and _Nunc Dimittis_ were to be replaced by\npsalms in a similar way. Happily the deplorable proposals of 1689 came\nto nothing. But strange to say, previously to this, in the Laudian\nScottish Prayer-Book, Psalm xxiii. had been substituted for\n_Benedicite_. In England, however, in 1662, the Church, taught by the\npersecution of the Commonwealth, declined \"to appoint some psalm or\nscripture hymn instead of the apocryphal _Benedicite\"_, as demanded by\nthe Puritans at the Savoy Conference (Procter, _P.B._, 1872, p. 119).\n\nAt a rather earlier period, Dean Boys of Canterbury, in his quaint\n_Prayer-Book Notes_ (1615?) says: \"I finde this hymne less martyred than\nthe rest, and therefore dismisse it, as Christ did the woman (John\nviii.), 'Where be thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? No more\ndoe I; goe thy way.'\"\n\nAt least three English metrical renderings of _Benedicite_ exist, one\nof the 18th and two of the 19th century, by J. Merrick, J.S. Blackie,\nand Richard Wilton respectively. The first of these writers, who expands\nfreely, concludes with a stanza designed to put the Song unmistakeably\ninto the mouths of the Three:\n\nLet us, who now impassive stand,\nPlac'd by the Tyrant's stern Command\n     Amid the fiery Blaze,\n(While thus we triumph in the Flame)\nRise, and our Maker's Love proclaim\n     In hymns of endless praise.\n\nThe objection that in using this hymn we pray to angels and heavens, to\nice and snow, etc., shews how hard it is to find reasonable cause of\ncomplaint against its use. (_See_ p. 62).\n\nThe whole canticle was however actually omitted in the P.B. printed at\nOxford in 1796, an edition notorious for the liberties taken with the\nbook in many ways (A.J. Stephens' _P.B._, Lond. 1849).[28] The last\nverse, \"O Ananias,\" etc., which was omitted in the United States' P.B.\nis, as well as the above, dealt with under 'Theology,' p. 64.\n\nIn an _Altar Service Manual_, ed. 1837, which was very popular in the\nmiddle of the 19th century, by S. Isaacson, certain extracts from the\n_Benedicite_, with presumably original additions, are formed into what\nis called \"the canticle\" in an \"Evening Liturgy for use after Holy\nCommunion.\" The five added verses, in rather unrhythmical English, are\nmodelled in imitation of the Song, _e.g._ \"O ye who have partaken of the\nHoly Communion, bless ye the Lord: praise Him and magnify Him for ever.\"\n\nThe Song of the Three Children is, with other canticles, frequently\nfound in appendices to both Greek and Latin Psalters. And on this\naccount it is included sometimes in commentaries on the Psalter, as in\nthat of de Muis (\u2020644), Louvain, 1770, beginning with v. 51, \"tunc hi\ntres quasi ex uno ore laudabant,\" etc. It stands in this book between\nHezekiah's and Jonah's prayers. In the medi\u00e6val Psalters, _Benedicite_\nmay constantly be found, though its place in the series of canticles\nvaries considerably.\n\nMany of the LXX MSS. too contain these canticles, or some of them,\nrepeated from their regular places in the text, such as Alexandrinus and\nthe Veronese and Turin Psalters; of these the first has vv. 26 to 45 and\n52 to 58, as two separate canticles between the Prayer of Manasses and\nMagnificat; the second, vv. 52 to 90 after Magnificat as its last\ncanticle; and the third has vv. 26 to 45, 52 to 56, and 57 to 90 as\nthree separate canticles between the P. of M. and Benedictus. In each\ncase, it will be observed, the narrative portion is naturally excluded.\n\nIn the first and third of these MSS., A. and T., it may here be noted\nthat there is a non-biblical Morning Hymn, \u1f5d\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c9\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, a kind of\nEastern \"Gloria in excelsis,\" which contains an apparent extract from\nvv. 29, 30 (52), or v. 3 (26) of our Apocryphon, in line 34 of the hymn.\nVery nearly the same words occur in Tobias' song (Tob. viii. 5), which\ncuriously enough (in common with the song of Deborah), is not included\nin these canticles. Doubtless it was not in ecclesiastical use; but the\nreason why the Christian Church abstained from availing herself of it\nfor choral purposes is not evident; any more than why the Jewish Church\nabstained from the use of _Benedicite_.\n\nAlthough the employment of _Benedicite_ in the services of the Church\nis interesting, as shewing the value set upon, and the use made of, this\ncanticle, it reflects little or no light on its origin, or indeed on any\nof the heads under which it has been previously discussed.\n\n\n\"EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION OF MANNERS.\"\n\nThe conduct of Azarias and its results shew us the _value of Prayer_\nmade by those under persecution. He led the way, and his comrades joined\nhim.\n\nAzarias is not so taken up with the wrongs of himself and his fellows as\nto forget the wrongs which his own nation had done; therefore his prayer\ncommences with a _humble Confession_. Then he relies on the great\npromises of the past (vv. 12, 13). It may be thought that _Humility_ is\nalso shewn in the Song by the Three putting their own names in the last\nplace of the series. But another cause may have contributed to the\nchoice of this order; for, so far as animal life is concerned, the Song\nfollows the order of Gen. i., bringing in human beings last, not as\nbeing least important, but as forming the crown of creation.\n\nAlthough Nebuchadnezzar is severely spoken of in v. 9, A.V. (and in iv.\n27 of the canonical book 'sins and iniquities' are attributed to\nNebuchadnezzar), there is great _Self-restraint_ shewn in wishing for\nretribution (vv. 20, 21); and indeed it is asked that he and his\nservitors may be brought to the knowledge of God (v. 22).\n\nThe pleasure of _Thanksgiving and Praise_ on delivery are exemplified by\nthe Three in the production of the Song itself. As soon as ever their\nprayer was answered, before they emerged from the furnace, they united\ntheir voices in thanking God with a glow of fervid faith, recognizing in\nHim the universal Lord and Benefactor.\n\nThey sang in harmonious accord their song of praise at once (v. 28).\nThough staunchly refusing to worship in a wrong way, they were very\nready to do so in a right, and lost no time in proving it, publicly and\nbefore all creation. As de Muis (\u20201644) says in his _Comm. in Psalmos_\n(Louvain, 1770, II. 705), \"Ut calamitatibus tanquam igne probatur;\nfidelis animus non modo non deficiat sed etiam animata inanimaque omnia\nad Dei laudes provocet.\" Eager to honour God, they join in unreserved\ndevotion.\n\nTheir _Reliance upon God_ is obviously great. To Him they turn in their\nmartyrdom with prayer and praise; to Him they address themselves with\nthe heart and voice of sure conviction. He is their unfailing resource.\n\nA _Love of Nature_, as created by the same hand as ourselves, is very\napparent in this canticle; there is a thorough fellow-feeling with\nnatural objects, as derived from, and responding to, the same Almighty\nsource. This love of nature appears in Holy Scripture most strongly, as\nhere, in the poetical books, and hardly anywhere does it take a deeper\ntone than in this canticle.\n\n\n\n\nPART III\n\nTHE HISTORY OF SUSANNA\n\n\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05c4\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05d5\u05c4\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\n(\u05e9\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05f3 \u05d1\u05f3)\n\n\n\n\nTHE HISTORY OF SUSANNA.\n\n\nANALYSIS. (\u0398)\n\nvv.\n\n1--4. Susanna--her husband, family, and house.\n\n5,6. Two newly-appointed Elders resort thither for official purposes.\n\n7--14. How they yielded to the 'lust of the eye,' and laid their plot.\n\n15--21. How they attempted to carry it out.\n\n22--26. Susanna's soliloquy and cry.\n\n27--41. The Elders' false accusation in private and in public, resulting\nin her condemnation to death.\n\n42--44. Her prayer.\n\n45--49. The inspiration of Daniel to clear her.\n\n50--59. He re-opens the case, and proves the Elders to be false.\n\n60--62. The death-penalty is transferred to them, and Susanna is\ndelivered,\n\n63, 64. Whose family thank God; while Daniel's reputation is\nestablished.\n\nN.B.--It is not clear why the 'heading' or 'contents' in the A.V.\n_begins_ with v. 16. _Cf._ the heading of Bel and the Dragon for a\nsimilar ignoring of the early verses, as also that of I. Macc. i.\n\n\nTITLE AND POSITION.\n\n\nTITLE.\n\nThis is in general simply \u03a3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1, as in the true LXX.\n\nIn Cod. A (\u0398) it is designated at the end \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1', our chap. i. being\n\u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2', and so on. It is therefore included in the number of the\nvisions.[29] \u1f4d\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 also occurs in the title of Holmes and Parsons'\ncursive 235.\n\nIn the Syriac of Heraclius (=W\u2082 of Ball, pp. 323a, 330a) it is entitled\n\"The Book of the child Daniel,\" or \"The Book of little Daniel\" (Churton,\n3896). This last title also seems applied to Bel and the Dragon in a\nNestorian list mentioned by Churton (on the same page), and in Ebed\nJesu's list of Hippolytus' works (_D.G.B._ art. _Hippolytus_, p. 104a),\nWhen applied to Bel and the Dragon, however, 'little' must refer to the\nsize of the book, and not, as is usually understood when it heads\nSusanna, to Daniel's youthful age. To this Bar Hebr\u00e6us (\u20201286), in his\nScholia on Susanna, expressly attributes it (ed. A. Heppner, Berlin,\n1888, p. 18). He also remarks that neither Syriac version is equal to\nthe Greek.\n\n\"The Judgments of Daniel,\" \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ae\u03bb, is a good title given by\nArnald, by Churton (p. 390), and by Westcott (Smith's _D.B._ art.\n_Additions to Daniel_, ed. 1, 3966, ed. 2, 713b), none of whom specify\nany source or authority for it, Arnald alone giving the Greek. It may be\ntraced back, however, through Sabatier to Flaminius Nobilius, who\nwrites, \"In multis [vetustis libris] inscribitur Daniel, in quibusdam\nSusanna, in aliquo \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ae\u03bb, Judicium Daniel\" (Append, to Bp.\nWalton's _Polyglott_, Lond. 1657, p. 191). He gives no information as to\nwhat this 'certain' copy at the end of his descending climax might be in\nwhich he had found this title; nor does it quite agree with the plural\nform in which Arnald gives it, presumably with regard to the double\nsentence passed by Daniel. Holmes and Parsons give no such reading, and\nno one now seems able to identify the 'liber' intended by Flaminius.\nDelitzsch (_di Hab. Vita_, etc., Lips. 1842, p. _25n_) says that \"Unus\nCod. qui ex coenobiis montis Athos advectus est\" gives the title \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nAs this piece describes one episode only in Susanna's life, \"the History\nof Susanna\" in both A.V. and R.V. is not a good title. 'History' and\n'story,' however, were not so clearly differentiated in English formerly\nas they are now. Possibly this title was taken from Jerome, who speaks\nof \"Susann\u00e6 historiam\" twice in his Preface to Daniel. It is given also\nin Syr. W\u2081. In Article VI., and in the \"Names and Order of the Books\" in\nA.V., it takes the form, \"Story of Susanna.\"\n\nThe name \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05c4\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 is so eminently fitted to the subject of the story\nas to suggest its intentional choice; and, so far, would tell in favour\nof the allegoric, and against the historic, nature of the piece[30]. Or\neven supposing the piece to be historic, the name may have been assumed\nin order to avoid identification of the heroine. The word occurs in its\nmasculine form, \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05df, in I. Chron. ii. 31, 34, 35; and in its\nfeminine form in II. Chron. iv. 5, Cant. ii. 1, 2 (here in a phrase most\nreadily lending itself as a motto for the tale), and Hos. xiv. 5. The\nplace Shushan, too, is thought to have been named from the abundance of\nlilies which grew there. This name, derived from the plant world, is\nparalleled by that of Habakkuk in the companion story of Bel and the\nDragon, according to Marti on Hab. i. 1 (_Hand-Commentar,_ T\u00fcbingen,\n1904).\n\n\nPOSITION.\n\nIn Cod. Chisianus, and in the Vulgate, Susanna forms chap. xiii. of\nDaniel. So also in the Syro-Hexaplar version (Ball, p. 330b). Cajetanus\nBugati (_Syriac Daniel_, Milan, 1788, p. 163), endeavours to explain\nthis (against Michaelis) by supposing Susanna to have been removed from\nits original place at the beginning of the book.\n\nIn Codd. A, B, Q, Susanna stands at the beginning, before our chap. i.\nof Daniel. This is its position also in the Old Latin, and in the Arabic\nversions (Ball, p. 330b). Rothstein in Kautzsch (p. 172) thinks that\nthis was not its original place, but the one in which Theodotion fixed\nit, or perhaps that which found favour when Theodotion's translation was\nsubstituted for LXX. And this position appears to be contemplated by the\nA.V. and R.V. titles, \"set apart from the beginning of,\" etc. Driver,\nhowever, thinks (_Comm. on Dan._, p. xviii.) that the chap. xiii.\nposition (before Bel and the Dragon) was perhaps its original place.\n\"The fact that it contains an anecdote of Daniel's youth might readily\nhave led to its subsequent transference to the beginning of the book.\"\n\nSt. Hippolytus, a writer subsequent to Theodotion, evidently regards it\nas the commencement of the book (Sch\u00fcrer, _H.J.P._ ii. iii., 185).\nFlaminius Nobilius in his \"Notae,\" as given in the Appendix to Bryan\nWalton's _Polyglott_, writes, \"H\u00e6c Susannas historia in omnibus\nvetustis libris est principium Danielis, quemadmodum etiam apud S.\nAthan. in Synopsi.\" This Synopsis is now considered to be of\npost-Athanasian date; and the position which its writer gives to\nSusanna in \u00a7 41 does not look quite consistent with that he gives\nafterwards in \u00a7 74 (_see_ 'Canonicity,' p. 157).\n\nAlthough in the Vulgate this moveable fragment forms Daniel xiii.,\nJerome, notwithstanding, in his Preface names these additions in the\norder, Susanna, The Three, Bel and the Dragon; yet in the immediately\nfollowing \"capitula Danihelis,\" it stands as in the text after chap.\nxii. This clearly points to some uncertainty as to its proper place.\n\nThe statements made by E.L. Curtis at the end of art. _Daniel_ in\nHastings' _B.D._, that this and Bel and the Dragon are separate books in\nthe LXX, have question marks justly affixed to them. In the Jacobite\nSyriac, Susanna is joined with Judith, Ruth, and Esther, as a \"Female\nBook\" (_Urtext und Uebersetz._ p. 230). Gwynn says (D.C.B. art.\n_Thecla_, IV. 895b), that in \"Syriac O.T.'s these are usually placed\ntogether and classed as the four books of the 'Book of Women.'\"\n\nYet another position is suggested by J. F\u00fcrst (quoted in Bissell, p.\n444), who thinks its proper place is after Dan. i. 20. This is a very\nplausible conjecture, but evidence to support it is at present wanting.\nA slight confirmation of it however is afforded by the _Byzantine Guide\nto Painting_ (_see_ 'Art,' p. 171); and by the position given by Sulpicius\nSeverus to his epitome of the story (_see_ 'Christian Literature,' p.\n167). E. Philippe (Vigouroux, _Dict._ II. 1267a) attempts to account for\nits removal from, or want of position in, the Massoretic Daniel, \"parce\nqu'elle est infamante pour les juges d'Israel,\" obviously adopting\nOrigen's reason (_see_ 'Canonicity,' p. 157) which is not a very\nsatisfactory one.\n\nAll things considered, the position of Susanna in the A.V. as a detached\npiece, along with Bel and the Dragon, is as suitable as any which have\nbeen suggested. For its original place cannot now, from the information\nin our hands, be determined with absolute certainty.\n\n\nDATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.\n\n\nDATE.\n\nSusanna is deemed by J.M. Fuller (_Speaker's Comm., Introd. to Dan._,\n221a) to be probably the oldest of the three additions. This opinion is\nhowever by no means universally accepted.\n\nIf a Semitic original really existed, it no doubt preceded the Greek\ntexts. R.C. opinion (_e.g._ Dereser, quoted by Bissell, p. 444), as that\nof all who regard the booklet as canonical, treats it as part of Daniel,\nand therefore whatever date is assigned to that book is made to apply to\nthis also. Professor A.A. Bevan (_Comm. on Dan._, Camb. 1892, p. 45)\nthinks that this piece and Bel and the Dragon \"appear to have been\ncirculated independently before they were incorporated with the book of\nDaniel.\" C.J. Ball ascribes the origin of the piece to the struggles\nbetween the Pharisees and the Sadducees, B.C. 94-89 (p. 330a). But to\nattribute it thus to the outcome of these quarrels, brings the original\ndown to a later date than is at all probable, in view of its\nincorporation with the LXX.[31] Nor does the bitterness of those\ndisputes seem stamped with sufficient strength upon the document itself\nto compel us to see in them its period of origin.\n\nJ.T. Marshall (Hastings' _D.B._ IV., 631-2) conjectures that the latter\npart of the story arose out of Simon ben Shetach's efforts, about 100\nB.C., to get the law as to witnesses in criminal cases altered. This\nview is perhaps a trifle more probable than Ball's.\n\nAs to the true LXX text, Bissell (p. 444) rather inclines to deem it to\nhave been from the first a part of the LXX. So Pusey, quoted by Churton\n(p. 389), says that it is \"admitted to have been contemporary with the\nLXX version;\" and W. Selwyn (_D.B._ III., p. 1210a) thinks that this,\nwith the other additions, was \"early incorporated with the LXX.\"\nRothstein in Kautzsch, very hesitatingly and with much caution, suggests\n(I., p. 178) the second century before Christ.\n\nOn the other hand, A. Kamphausen (_Encyclop. Bibl._ I. 1013) writes,\"\nWhen [Daniel] first began to be translated by the Egyptian Jews into\nGreek, the legends of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, which may very\nwell have had an independent circulation, had certainly not as yet been\ntaken up into it.... We cannot tell at what date it was that these\napocryphal additions (which are contained in all MSS. that have reached\nus), were taken up into the Greek and Syriac Daniel.\" How he knows so\n\"certainly\" that they were not in it at the period named, he does not\nexplain; and before this positive statement can be unreservedly accepted\nstrong proof is wanted.\n\nAs to Theodotion's version, there is no reason to suppose that the\nportion consisting of Susanna differs in date from the rest of the book.\nIt may probably be assigned to the latter half of the second century\nA.D. Behrmann, in Nowack's _Hand Kommentar_, p. xxx. says, \"um 150.\"\n\nMost writers on this subject, such as Westcott, Streane, and Marshall,\nas well as some of those previously mentioned, markedly avoid any\napproach to definite dates as to the original, or as to the LXX Greek.\nAnd justly so; for the evidence in our hands does not, unfortunately,\nadmit of anything closer than a \"period\" being safely fixed. The\nmaterials we have are not sufficiently precise for closer approximation\nwith any decree of security. Rothstein (Kautzsch, I., p. 178) very\nwisely says, \"Nat\u00fcrlich lasst sich mit irgend welcher Sicherheit \u00fcber\ndiese Frage nichts ausmachen.\" With this, until further evidence be\nforthcoming, it is well to agree.\n\n\nPLACE.\n\n_Of Original._ As to the place of origin nearly every writer on Susanna\nis silent except Scholz, who (p. 147) favours a non-Alexandrian\nbirthplace, giving a preference to the land of the Captivity. And if we\nassume, as he does, a Semitic original, Babylonia is no doubt its\nprobable birthplace, or, failing that, Palestine.\n\nIt might appear, if the trees named could be botanically identified with\na reasonable degree of certainty, that a valuable sign would thus be\ngiven of the place of origin. But inasmuch as Joacim's park or garden\nwould be a likely place for the cultivation of exotics, perhaps no safe\ntheory could be built upon the identification of the trees, unless they\nwere shewn to be such as would not live in the climate of the country\nsuggested.\n\nThere is no trace of Alexandrian philosophy or speculation, nor of\ncommercial interests, some of which generally betray themselves in\nwritings of Alexandrian origin. And the same may be said of the Song of\nthe Three, and Bel and the Dragon. But in such short pieces it is not\nwise to build much on the absence of these traces.\n\n_Of LXX Greek._ That this was made at Alexandria admits of little doubt.\nFrom the similarity of style, too, it would appear that the translator\n(or editor) was identical with the translator of the canonical Daniel.\nThis is the opinion of Rothstein (in Kautzsch, I. 178). Sch\u00fcrer\n(_H.J.P._ II. III.), who denies the existence of a Semitic original,\nclasses this (with the other additions) not in his\n'Palestinian-Jewish,' but in his 'Graeco-Jewish' section.\n\nThe mention of Sidon in v. 56 (where \u0398 has Canaan) may perhaps suggest a\nwriter in the original, whatever language he may have used, who was\nconnected with the north of Palestine. But it is quite as probable that\nthe writer (or translator) had some idea of Gen. x. 15 in his mind,\n\"Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn.\" After him, according to Josephus\n(_Ant._ I. VI. 2), the city was named: \u03a3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd\u03bd\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u1fc3, \u03a3\u03b9\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f51\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. It is worth\nnoticing that in St. Matt. xi. 21 our Lord speaks of the city more\nfavourably.\n\n_Of Theodotion's Greek._ Of the 'provenance' of the Greek version\nbearing Theodotion's name very little is known. But Ephesus may be\nsuggested as not altogether improbable with regard to what little we\nknow of Theodotion's life. If we take the Revelation of St. John, too,\nas having been written at Ephesus, this will accord well with the use\nmade of Theodotion's version of Daniel in that book. Or if Theodotion\nmade use, in whole or in part, of some previous version, as seems\ncertain, this fact would not at all militate against St. John at Ephesus\nhaving also made use of the same earlier version. And it is quite\npossible that this version may have been of Alexandrian origin, although\nworked up by Theodotion elsewhere.\n\nWhatever the place of origin may have been, it is very remarkable that a\nversion by one who was either a Jew or a heretic Christian should have\nbeen preferred to the LXX of Daniel and the Additions so as practically\nto supersede it. Prof. J.J. Blunt describes Theodotion as one who\n\"attempts to wrest the Hebrew from the cause of the Gospel\" (_Christian\nChurch_, p. 129). This was indicated by Iren\u00e6us, III. xxiii. 1. If,\nhowever, the previous version used by him was due to a pre-Christian\nJew, this may have smoothed the way for its acceptance among Christians.\nFor Jews B.C. and Jews A.D. were regarded by the Church, as was natural,\nin very different lights, and their writings likewise.\n\n\nAUTHORSHIP.\n\nLike some other of the apocryphal books, this is a traditional story of\ngreat popularity. It is not necessary to suppose that its author's name\nhas been lost from the title, as it may always have been anonymous. The\nnature of its contents would not be unlikely to give offence to the\nSanhedrin, and therefore a motive for anonymity is not far to seek.\n\nBishop Gray (_Introd. to O.T._ p. 613) seems, as he often does, to hit\nthe mark, as nearly as we can tell, when he deems it to be \"by some Jew\nwho invented the history, or collected its particulars from traditionary\nrelations in praise of Daniel.\" This observation is little more than\nparaphrased by J.H. Blunt, when he writes (_in loc._) \"probably inserted\ninto LXX from some ancient Jewish authority.\" The variations of text\ncertainly suggest an oral tradition, perhaps even more strongly than in\nBel and the Dragon.\n\nBissell says that Susanna \"contains nothing which might not have come\nfrom the pen of a Hellenist\" (p. 445); and Westcott sees in this and\nother additions \"the hand of an Alexandrian writer\" (Smith's _D.B._ ed.\n2 I. 714a), but thinks it not unlikely that he worked up earlier\ntraditions. Certainly v. 22 seems to shew that the author of the Greek\nof \u0398 was evidently acquainted with the LXX of II. Sam. xxiv. 14. \"Wer\ndie Susanna (in Walton's _Polygl._ 4) nach Theodot. frei \u00fcbersetzt hat,\"\nsays Nestle, \"wissen wir nicht\" (_Urtext und \u00fcbersetz._ 236).\n\nIt is noteworthy that Josephus shews no acquaintance with this or the\nother additions, though he makes some use of other uncanonical legends\nof Daniel (_Jud. Ant._ X., 10, 1; 11, 6 and 7). Sch\u00fcrer in Hauck's\n_Encylop._ (I. 639), thinks Susanna and Bel and the Dragon may well\noriginally have had independent existences. If so, this might help to\nexplain Josephus' disregard of them.\n\nIt is a reasonable inference from v. 57, that the author was a Jew in\nthe strictest sense, and not from one of the ten tribes. Yet it should\nnot escape notice that in v. 48 \"Israel\" is apparently used for the\nentire people, including all the tribes.[32] The invidious contrast\nbetween the Israelitish and Jewish women is omitted in what Dr. Salmon\ncalls, \"the second Syriac recension\" of Susanna, termed erroneously at\none time \"the Harklensian\" (_Speaker's Comm._, p. xlvi.). The contrast\nin v. 56 between Israel and Canaan is made into a stinging reproach, but\nis hardly to be understood literally as to the Elder's family descent.\n\nJ. Kennedy in _Daniel from a Christian standpoint_ (p. 55), says of this\nand the other Additions that there is \"no means of determining when,\nwhere, or by whom written.\" He adds (p. 56), \"those who conceived and\nwrote the additions were both intellectually and spiritually incapable\nof appreciating the book [of Daniel] and its contents,\" and he concludes\nthat they \"belong to different ages and to entirely different conditions\nof thought.\" This estimate is a much too severe one, and very different\nfrom the opinion formed by some other equally qualified judges. The fear\nlest a favourable opinion of the quality of these pieces should lend any\ncountenance to the Tridentine decree as to the Apocrypha, or seem to\nweaken the Protestant position with regard to them, appears to have\noperated, consciously or unconsciously, in shaping the views on this\nsubject expressed by such writers. Probably acting under similar\nsentiments Ludovicus Cappellus, \u20201658 (quoted by Ball, 325a), calls\nthe author \"a trifler\" (nugator), and styles his production \"fabula\nineptissima.\"\n\nJerome, in the Prologue to his _Commentary on Daniel_, says that\nEusebius and Apollinarius replied to Porphyry's objection to these\nadditions that \"Susann\u00e6 Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in\nHebraico, sed partem esse prophet\u00e6 Abacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi;\"\nand apparently acquiesces in this statement. As there appears to be no\nother authority for attributing Susanna to Habakkuk, it is a question\nwhether the LXX title to Bel and the Dragon was not applied to Susanna\nalso \"per incuriam.\" A. Scholz escapes the difficulty of Habakkuk both\nhere and in Bel and the Dragon by regarding it as a merely symbolic\ntitle, which he renders by \"K\u00e4mpfe\" on very slender grounds (_Esther und\nSusanna_, W\u00fcrzburg, 1892, p. 138; and _Judith und Bel und der Drache_,\n1896, p. 204).\n\nIt must not be forgotten, however, that the authorship of Daniel is of\ncourse suggested by most of those who defend the canonicity of the book.\nOrigen in his Epistle to Africanus maintains the solidarity of the piece\nwith the book of Daniel. And it should be remembered, as a point of some\nstrength, that Julius Africanus' correspondence with Origen at the\nbeginning of century III., is the first record we have of any dispute as\nto its genuineness.\n\nProfessor Rothstein, in Kautzsch (i. 172) gives very decidedly a\ncontrary opinion, stating that Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, \"haben\nmit dem Danielbuche nur insofern zu thun, als in ihnen Daniel eine Rolle\nspielt.\" But it is hard to offer conclusive proof that Susanna and Bel\nand the Dragon differ greatly in character from the independent\nhistorical \"scenes\" of which the first six chapters of Daniel consist;\neach, in nearly all respects, being intelligible when standing alone. It\nis hard also to shew that their incorporation, and constant acceptance,\nwith the LXX was a deplorable mistake. And this difficulty is enhanced\nwhen we see that, so far as is known, all the Greek and Latin speaking\nChristians before Julius Africanus, and most of them after, fell\nunquestionably into what, if Rothstein and those who think with him are\nright, must be deemed a grave error. But even if it could be proved that\nthese pieces were by the author of Daniel, the recent questions as to\nwho that writer may have been, still further complicate the at present\ninsoluble problem of the authorship of Susanna.\n\n\nFOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.\n\n\nFOR WHOM.\n\nThat this story was originally prepared for the use of Jews there can be\nno doubt. Probably it was designed for readers and admirers of Daniel,\nwho would be glad of this example of the prophet's insight. Certainly\nit was for those who loved to dwell on the interventions of God for His\npeople, and especially on a recent manifestation of His particular care\nfor oppressed individuals. Possibly also the case of those may have been\nregarded who were dissatisfied with the current methods of administering\njustice and conducting trials. J.W. Etheridge (_Jerusalem and Tiberias_,\n1856, p. 109) deems it to be an example of Haggadah in common with its\ntwo companion pieces, \"histories coloured with fable,\" as he styles\nthem--a sort of legendary appendix to carry on the interest of readers\nof the canonical text.\n\nBut since the Christian era this writing has been employed by Christians\nfar more than by Jews. Perhaps its ready acceptance by the former may\nhave diminished the chance of popularity amongst the Israelites of later\ntimes. They would look upon it with more suspicion, though it was\nclearly connected with the literature of their race. And obviously this\nenlarged acceptance among Christians was beyond the aim of the tale's\nauthor.\n\n\nWITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.\n\nThe holding up an example of purity, maintained under circumstances of\ngreat distress, is the leading object which Christians have seen in\nthis piece. It is probable, however, that other aims as well as this\nentered into the mind of the writer.\n\nA dissatisfaction with the method of conducting trials such as Susanna's\nis clearly manifested. A Pharisaic, or at least an anti-Sadducean,\ntendency has been observed, particularly in the latter part of the\nstory. Then the utility of investigating small particulars is\ndemonstrated, and the necessity of a rigorous punishment of false\nwitnesses, points on which the Pharisees insisted, according to Ball\n(329b, 330a), who quotes Simon ben Shetach as saying from the\nMishnah (_Pirke Avoth_, I. 9) \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05de\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d7\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8. Bissell (p. 447)\nalso thinks that \"to reform the method of conducting legal processes\"\nwas an object of the author. And certainly the story does teach the need\nfor a close investigation of testimony.\n\nThe author shews up the unscrupulousness and injustice practised even in\nthe leading circles of the Jewish community; and in so doing he\nmanifests throughout a good knowledge of the workings of the human\nheart. Marshall (in Hastings' _D.B._) assumes \"that we have here an\nethical mythus\" (631b).[33] But to imagine that the story had no\nother origin than this is, to say the least, unproved, and, as many\nthink, unproveable.\n\nAnother object may have been to extol Daniel and his judicial acumen.\nThere is a resemblance in this respect to the tone of several chapters\nof the Book of Daniel, _e.g._, ii. and iv. His penetration and his\nprophetic gifts as a young man are set forth. Indeed the last two verses\nof the \u039f\u00b4 version almost make the praise of youthful piety the moral of\nthe book. But this, edifying as it may be, is scarcely to be taken as\nthe chief object of the composition; and \u0398 substitutes another\nconclusion as to the gratitude of Susanna's family and the growth of\nDaniel's reputation.\n\nStill, apart from the question of historic value, many worthy objects\nmay have lain within the purview of the composer; and to shew that\nrighteous youths are better than unrighteous elders may very well have\nbeen one of these. To prove that even men of riper years are not\nunerring in judgment may well also, as G. Jahn (quoted by Ball in\n_Speaker's Comm._ 325a) points out, have been a subsidiary aim.\n\nThe kind of judicial acumen displayed strikes one, too, as being very\nsimilar to that of the young Solomon in his judgment on the two women\n(I. Kings iii.); but the story here is not an imitation of that. It is a\nwholly distinct instance of the same class, a most popular one for\nnarration in Eastern countries.\n\nAnother object in writing this history (and certainly the most useful\nobject from a Christian point of view) is to give an example of the\nmaintenance of purity and right, even at the risk of losing both life\nand reputation.\n\nIt may be questioned, however, whether the idea of depressing the\nestimation of elders, or of raising that of Susanna and of Daniel, was\nuppermost in the writer's mind. Almost equal prominence is given to each\nof these ideas. The latter, perhaps, would throw over the piece a\nsomewhat less attractive character than the former. But there is that in\nthe cast of the composition which suggests that its object may have been\nquite as much to raise disgust at the elders' crime as to raise\nadmiration at Susanna's purity; in fact that the whiteness of her\ncharacter was designed as a foil to make more prominent the blackness of\nher oppressors. On this account Jer. xxix. 23 might perhaps be taken as\na verse which gave his cue to the writer. But these are points on which\nopinions will inevitably vary according to the impression made on\ndifferent minds by a matter so nearly balanced.\n\nThis, the only one of our three booklets in which women appear, presents\nthem in a very favourable light. Beyond the imputation suggested against\nthose of Israel at the beginning of v. 57, it contains nothing but what\nis creditable to the female sex. The present Archbishop of Armagh's\npoem, \"The Voyage to Babylon,\" thus prettily depicts Susanna's purity:\n\n      \".... garden bed of balm,\nIn one whereof old Chelcias' daughter\nWent to walk down beside the water,\nThe lily both in heart and name,\nWhose white leaf hath no blot of shame.\"\n\nAbp. ALEXANDER'S _Poems_ (Lond. 1900).\n\n\nINTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.\n\nIn \u0398 we appear to have the story presented to us without material\ninterpolation; but there are omissions of some not very important\nmatters contained in the LXX text. A. Scholz accounts for variations by\nsupposing changes in the Hebrew original between the times of the two\ntranslations. Of \u0398 he says, \"\u0398 ist nichts als Uebersetzer; er setzt de\nsuo kein wort bei\" (p. 142)--an exaggerated statement.\n\nThe true LXX version was long supposed to be lost; but a cursive MS. of\nit (9th or 10th century) was found in Cardinal Chigi's library at Some,\nand was first printed in 1772. From its owner's name it has received the\ntitle of Cod. Chisianus, and is now numbered 87.\n\nIt is almost certain that \u0398 must have had the \u039f\u00b4 text before him, since\nthe coincidences of diction, though not so continuous as in the Song of\nthe Three, are still far too numerous to be accidental. Bissell (p. 443)\nsays of all the three pieces, \"\u0398 simply recast the version of LXX.\" This\ndictum, however true of the Three, must not be quite literally taken of\nSusanna, as he does introduce some fresh matter, particularly at the\nopening and the close. Prof. Rothstein in Kautzsch (pp. 176-7) thinks\nthat the two Greek versions are two independent forms of the same story,\nbased on some common narrative material; but when the obvious idea\npresents itself that this last was an Hebraic original, he speaks with\nmuch guardedness (p. 178), lest he should commit himself to this view.\n\n\u0398's recension is rather more polished in language, less elaborate in\nsome of its details.[34] Fritzsche, quoted in Kautzsch (pp. 176-7), says\nthat \"he worked over the LXX text, expanded the narrative, rounded it\noff, and gave it a greater air of probability.\" Westcott's opinion to a\nsimilar effect, however (Smith's _D.B._ ed. 2 I. 714a), is called in\nquestion by Professor Salmon (_Speaker's Comm._ XLVI.a), who thinks\nthat there is quite as much to be said for the opposite views, and this\nopinion is reasonable.\n\nIn the LXX text there is surely something wanting at the true beginning\nat v. 5, which, as it stands, is awkwardly abrupt. Both Bissell (and\nBr\u00fcll, quoted by him, p. 457) approve of the idea that the beginning was\nsuppressed because of its containing damaging reflections on the elders.\nThen the present opening (vv. 1--5) was borrowed from \u0398, and is marked\nin both Cod. Chis. and Syro-Hex. as not part of the original work, but a\nforeign exordium. Rothstein (p. 184, note) thinks that in place of the\npresent borrowed commencement there stood a short introductory remark on\nthe two judging elders. Though lacking proof, this conjecture is well\nwithin the bounds of possibility. Yet in the Syro-Hexaplar text the\nfirst five verses are obelised, indicating, according to Bugati (p.\n163), that they are omitted in \u0398, but present in \u039f\u00b4.\n\nThere are in the LXX extra clauses, which are not in \u0398, scattered\nthroughout the book; three verses between 14 and 15, one at the end, and\nconsiderable enlargements of vv. 45, 52; also curious substitutions,\nsuch as that in v. 39, where in the LXX the imaginary young man escaped\nbecause he was disguised; in Theodotion, because he was stronger than\nthe Elders. These alternative reasons are of course not of necessity\nincompatible.\n\nThe Syriac W\u2082 (=Harklensian) contains many further particulars inserted\nhere and there, such as the Elders' names (Amid and Abid)[35], v. 5,\nDaniel's age of twelve years, and some words in praise of him, v. 64.\nBut most of these added clauses may not unfairly be regarded as\n'paddings,' put in by way of embellishment. Those in v. 41 (ninth hour),\nv. 45 (twelve years of age), v. 64 (increase in favour) have a Christian\nlook, the last two being suggestive of a knowledge of St. Luke's Gospel\n(_cf._ 'Style,' p. 140). Also the continuation of v. 43 in Lagarde's\nsecond Syriac version has rather a Christian air, \"appear for me and\nsend a Redeemer from before thee,\" etc. (Hastings' _D.B._ art. _Sus._ p.\n631b).\n\nAn attempt has been made to account for the numerous, but not generally\nvery important, variations in different texts and versions by supposing\nthe story to have been a favourite oral narrative, long continuing in a\nfluid state. This is far from improbable.\n\nThe Vulgate, which follows \u0398 closely, appends the first verse of Bel and\nthe Dragon as the conclusion of this story. If this was done in order to\navoid chronological difficulty there, it was at the expense of\nintroducing it here, and that, to all appearance, very meaninglessly.\n\nThe chief uncial MS. authorities for \u0398's text are A,B,Q, and from v. 51\nonward, \u0393. A often agrees with Q, as in vv. 19, 24, and elsewhere, in\nsubstituting \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 (\u039f\u00b4's word) for \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; in vv. 10, 11, etc.,\nin substituting \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 for \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9; and in v. 46, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 for\n\u1f00\u03b8\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c2. In the canonical part of Daniel the substitution of \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 for\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 mostly holds good also so far as A is concerned (ii. 9,\n16).[36] In v. 36, A has a transposition of a clause, and in v. 39\nanother of its changes of prepositions in composition, not easily\naccounted for. Q (alone) has such changes in vv. 4, 32, 38. The above\nare all changes from B. \u0393 often agrees with A and Q, or both, but has\nnothing of importance independently.\n\nThe genitive \u03a3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2 (instead of \u03b7\u03c2) occurs occasionally in all the\nabove MSS. (vv. 27, 28, 62; also in LXX, v. 30). _cf._ \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2 in St.\nJohn xi. I.\n\nTwo cursive MSS. (234 Moscow, S. Synod; 235 Rome, Vat.) consist of\nSusanna only; but whether they are perfect, or only fragments, is not\nclear. Holmes and Parsons give no particulars. On the whole, the text of\neither version is fairly trustworthy, the average of variations being\nnot at all above that in the canonical Daniel.\n\n\nLANGUAGE AND STYLE.\n\n\nLANGUAGE.\n\nAs with the Three, so here, the question at once arises, Is the Greek of\nthe LXX more probably the original language or a translation? The\nacceptance of a Semitic original seems on the whole to be more in the\nascendant than formerly; but still, the greater part of those who have\nexpressed an opinion on the subject incline to Greek as the language\nchosen by the author.\n\nThe Hebraic style is somewhat less strongly marked than in the other two\nfragments, nor has an Aramaic text of this one yet been discovered.\nStill, the Greek can be rendered into Hebrew rather more easily than\nmost Hellenistic Greek. The Greek of the \"rest of\" Esther differs much\nmore in style and tone from that of the canonical book to which it is\nattached than does the Greek of Susanna from that of the canonical\nDaniel; and, so far as this fact goes, it points to a closer linguistic\nconnection in this case than in the other (_see_ Streane, _Age of Macc._\np. 160; Bissell, p. 203). Delitzsch (_op. cit._ pp. 31, 101) says that\n\"particul\u00e6 qu\u00e6dam citantur a Nachmanide\" (entitled \u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05ea \u05e9\u05e9\u05df) as well as\nof Wisdom. The citations of the latter book are discredited by Farrar\n(_Speaker's Comm._ p. 411) however, and probably those of the former are\nin a similar position.\n\nThe early place of verbs in the sentences is here also, as in the other\npieces, to some extent noticeable as conforming to the theory of a\nSemitic original. If the etymology of the name \u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc is supposed to be\ndrawn from his 'judgments' in this story, such an original is probably\ninvolved in the supposition (_cf._ 'Title,' p. 104). The Hexaplaric\nmarks mentioned by Bugati (_op. cit._ 156), as occurring at the\nbeginning of Cod. Chisianus (\u0391, \u03a3, \u0398), are strongly suggestive of\ntranslation (_cf._ Song, 'Language,' p. 49).\n\nThe controversy which was started by Africanus with Origen (and resumed\nby Porphyry[37] with Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea, and by Rufinus with Jerome) as\nto the famous play upon the names of the trees (vv. 54--60) is still\nunsettled. Some see in the paronomasi\u00e6 conclusive proof of the\noriginality of the Greek; others still contend with Origen that they are\nno certain evidence as to determination of language. But few will think\nthe analogous case which he (Origen) gives from Gen. ii. 23 a very\nconvincing one (_D.C.B._ art. _Heb. Learning_, p. 858b). Still we must\nremember that the Hebrew language was fond of paronomasi\u00e6, and that\nDaniel employs the figure in the canonical book (v. 25--28). In other\nO.T. instances of its use it is, however, difficult to to see that the\nLXX made any attempt to reproduce the word-play, _e.g._ Isai. v. 7, Mic.\ni. 10; nor does either Greek version in Dan. v. 25--28.[38] But \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\nand \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in I. Esd. iv. 62 looks like a word-play in what may not be\noriginal Greek; though a Semitic original of that section of I. Esd.\n(iii. 1 to v. 6) is by no means proved.\n\nIt has been shewn, however, in the case before us, how an adequate play\nmight be produced in Aramaic, as also in English (Hastings' _D.B._ art.\n_Sus._). A. Scholz, too, in his Commentary attempts this, with only\nmoderate success, in Hebrew[39]; and Delitzsch (_op. cit._ 102) gives\nsome Aramaic possibilities of it from Plessner. As the precise\npunishments named were not carried out, this passage in the original,\nwhatever it may have been, was clearly constructed with a view to\nintroduce their names.\n\nIt is interesting to compare and contrast the account of the Woman taken\nin Adultery (St. John viii.) with that of Susanna, the one truly, the\nother falsely, accused. There are, as might be expected, some verbal\nparallels, but not sufficient to prove that the N.T. writer was\ninfluenced by the History of Susanna, nor to give us material assistance\nin deciding its original language (_cf._ III. 'Language,' p. 49).\nNotwithstanding the general inclination towards Greek, this must at\npresent be left in doubt, and a verdict of 'non liquet' given.\n\nIn the following observations on specific points in the language,\ninstances telling in both directions have been included:\n\nv. 3 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. The use of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac after \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, instead of a double\naccusative, suggests a translation of \u05dc\u05de\u05d3 followed by a \u05d1 or \u05de\u05df, with\neither of which it is sometimes constructed.\n\nv. 5 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. If Aramaic be the original language, \u1f10\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd may well\nrepresent \u05e6\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0, as in IV. 14, V. 23 and elsewhere.\n\nv. 6 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. Scholz deems \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 to be based on a\nconfusion between \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd and \u05e0\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd.\n\nvv. 7, 15, 19, 28 \u0398. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf is suggestive of \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9.\n\nvv. 8, 14, 56 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. The use of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 in a bad sense, and of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03c9\nin a perfectly innocent one in v. 15 \u0398, seems careless, and may point to\ntranslation from an original, where different roots were used, _e.g._\n\u05d0\u05d4\u05d1,\u05d7\u05de\u05d3,\u05d0\u05d5\u05d4. _Cf._ LXX of Deut. v. 21 (18) for a rendering of two\ndifferent Hebrew roots by the same word, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03c9, though in that case\nthey are both employed in a bad sense.\n\nv. 15 \u0398. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u1f72\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03c2 looks like \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05c4\u05dc \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05b0\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05dd, as\nin Gen. xxxi. 5 and II. Kings xiii. 5. \"W\u00f6rtlich hebr\u00e4isch,\" as Reuss\nnotes _in loc._ If Aramaic were the original, it might be\n\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d3\u05b3\u05e7\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05c4\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9 \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9.\n\nv. 17 \u0398. \u03c3\u03bc\u03ae\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1, \"exprimere voluit Heb. \u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea,\" but \u05ea\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05e7 (Esth. ii.\n3, 9, 12) seems quite as likely as this suggestion of Grotius. Both\nroots are Aramaic as well as Hebrew.\n\nvv. 11, 30, 39, 63 \u0398. An instance similar to that given above (vv. 8,\n14, 56) is the use of \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b4\u03b9 in a bad sense in vv. 11, 39, and\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 innocently in vv. 30, 63.\n\nv. 19 \u039f\u00b4. \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 = \u05d6\u05de\u05df either in Aramaic or Hebrew, as in ii. 9,\nwhile \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b2\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf = \u05db\u05d1\u05e9, as in Esth. vii. 8.\n\nv. 22 \u0398. \u03a3\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd occurs also in David's choice, II. Sam.\nxxiv. 14 (closer than I. Chron. xxi. 13). The certainty of its being a\ntranslation in the one place increases the probability of its being so\nin the other, suggesting a common original, unless we suppose a Greek\nauthor borrowing a Septuagintal phrase.\n\nv. 23 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. On the other hand, the participial clause in this verse in\nboth versions seems un-Hebraic in form; as also the phrase \u1f41 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in v. 42 \u0398, which is not very like a translation from the\nHebrew. There is a certain resemblance to Dan. ii. 28, 29 (\u039f\u00b4, \u0398), \u1f41\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, however; but the latter contemplates God as\nrevealing mysteries to others, the former as knowing secrets Himself.\n\nv. 26 \u0398. Scholz' idea that \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 = \u05e7\u05e8\u05d9 (as in Lev. xxvi. 21, etc.)\nwould suit either Aramaic or Hebrew.\n\nv. 27 \u0398. Adduced as Hebraism in Winer's _G.T. Grammar_ (_E.T._ 1870, p.\n214); apparently, but not very clearly, on the strength of the phrase\n\u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7.\n\nv. 36 \u0398. The genitive absolute is Greek in character, but does not occur\nin \u039f\u00b4.\n\nv. 44 \u0398. \u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd... \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2. A Hebraism, as in Gen. xxi. 17, and\noften.\n\nv. 53 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. The quotation is exact in both versions from the LXX of\nLev. xxiii. 7. This fact may be thought to tell slightly in favour of a\nGreek original. In the canonical Dan. ix. 13 there is a reference,\nwithout precise quotation, to Moses' law, so that this mention is not\nout of character. The phraseology of the verse in \u0398 has a distinctly\nHebraistic look, much more so than in \u039f\u00b4.\n\nv. 55 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd = \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 Isai. xliii. 4.\n\nv. 56 \u039f\u00b4. The epithet \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac, as applied to the \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae\u03b1 of the Elder, is\ninappropriate, and suggests an error of translation. Now \u05d8\u05dd\u05d0\u05d4 is\nrendered by \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac in Josh. xxii. 19[40], and this word would yield a\nvery good sense in a Semitic original here, supposed to lie in the\nbackground.\n\nv. 57 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. If an animus against Israel, as Judah's inferior, is really\nshewn here it would point to a Babylonian, and therefore Semitic,\noriginal, inasmuch as the enmity between Israel and Judah does not\nappear to have been so strong at Alexandria. The use of 'Israel,'\nhowever, in v. 48 seems to include all in the first instance, and to be\nemployed of Susanna specially in the second, who was presumably of\nJudah. The Syro-Hexaplar omits what was most likely deemed an invidious\nreflection. The reference to Hos. iv. 15 in the _Speaker's Comm._ (note)\ndoes not seem apposite as to its mention of Israel and Judah in the LXX;\nonly in the Hebrew.\n\nThe phrase \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd comes in strangely, as \u0398, by omitting it,\napparently thought. It is suggestive of a translation, perhaps of \u05d7\u05b3\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9,\nwhich seems to be used of moral disease in Hos. v. 13, and is there\nrendered by \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nv. 59 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. Why \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2? In LXX it comes in very awkwardly, where \u03c3\u03b5 would\nnaturally be expected.\n\nScholz, not improbably, suggests that \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 (\u0398) and \u1f15\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (\u039f\u00b4) have\nbeen caused by reading \u05e7\u05d5\u05d4 and \u05e7\u05d5\u05dd respectively, renderings which are\nactually found of those words elsewhere in the LXX, _e.g._ Isai. v. 2\nand Dan. ii. 31. That confusion sometimes occurred between \u05d4 and the\nfinal \u05dd is known.\n\nv. 61 \u0398. \u03a4\u1ff7\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, though referring to Susanna, may be a translation of\n\u05e8\u05b5\u05e6\u05b7, a word apparently regarded by Gesenius as epicene; so in Gen.\nxxiii. 3, 4, 8 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd is the rendering of \u05de\u05b5\u05ea, meaning Sarah's\ncorpse, \"sine sexus discrimine\" (Ges.). But \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd may be used here of\n'neighbour' collectively without exclusive reference to Susanna.\n\nv. 62 \u039f\u00b4. \u03a6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03be, a frequent translation of \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b0\u05d0 or \u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc. As it does\nnot appear that there are any natural ravines in Babylon, this might\nrefer to a deep moat outside the wall.\n\nv. 64 (62) \u039f\u00b4. Scholz says, \"\u0395\u1f30\u03c2 ist sclavische Uebersetzung von \u05dc das\nder Hervorhebung des Objektes dienen soll.\" This is probable, though\n'sclavische' seems an unnecessary epithet.\n\n\nSTYLE.\n\nThe style is that of a clearly-told narrative, with little of a strained\nor rhetorical character about it; indeed there is less of this than in\nmuch of the canonical Daniel. Ideas are well expressed and the story\nwell proportioned. There is nothing superfluous; everything bears on the\nmain theme. Nor is it unnatural that Daniel is made to use a play on\nwords out of the Elders' own mouths in order to render his sentence of\ncondemnation more strikingly emphatic.\n\nThere is high literary skill in the simple yet effective way of\nnarration. The story is a practical example of the saying, \"Ars est\ncelare artem,\" a fact which will be best appreciated by any who will try\nto tell the tale as well in their own words.[41] Holtzmann calls it,\n\"besonders von der Kunst vielfach gefeierte Novelle\" (Schenkel's _Bibel\nLex._ 1875).\n\nThe lack of spontaneity and original freshness sometimes charged[A]\nagainst the apocryphal books is by no means conspicuous here, nor,\nthough perhaps less decisively, in the next addition, Bel and the\nDragon. The exciting interview between Daniel and the Elders is so drawn\nas to arouse much interest. By the first incident the whole current of\nSusanna's life is abruptly changed, and her destiny is made to hang in\nthe balance for some time in a natural, but very effective, manner. The\nwriter has a deep knowledge of the principles and actions of human\nfeeling, and a thorough grasp of the art, by no means so easy as it\nlooks, of telling a short story in a very engaging style. Plot,\nsurprise, struggle, unfolding of character, and much else which is\nregarded as contributing to excellence in such a composition, we find\nhere.\n\nIn the so-called Harklensian (W\u2082 of Salmon = Churton's Syr.[42]) various\ndetails are added, such as the judgment chair brought out, which Daniel\nrefuses, standing up to judge; Susanna's chains (27, 50); her tears (33,\n42); and her condemnation to death at the ninth hour (41). These are\nobviously designed to heighten, by the introduction of more detailed\nparticulars, the effect of the narrative. The tale is so interesting and\nso true to nature that its popularity is easily explained. That it\nbecame a favourite story, in an age not given to prudery, for reading\nand for oral repetition, is not surprising. Like all such, it was\nsubject to changes of form and gradual accretions. Oral repetition, as\nwell as non-canonicity amongst the Jews will, to a considerable extent,\naccount for the divergences between the LXX and Theodotion's recensions.\nThe latter, in Reuss' opinion (VI. 412), \"ist reicher an Einzelnheiten\nund auch besser stilisiert.\" With this view, in the main, most will feel\nthemselves in accord.\n\n\nRELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.\n\n\nRELIGIOUS.\n\nAn unexceptionable O.T. moral standard on the part of the writer is\nmaintained throughout, so that no 'difficulties' arise on this score.\nThere is not a suggestion of any worship beside that of the Lord; no\nidolatry is even hinted at. The Captivity had done its work in that\nrespect. Nor is there any symptom of the later developments of\nrabbinism; not even in their inception.[43] It requires a very sharp\neye to find here so much as the germs of error in faith.\n\nThe Law of Moses is acted upon; taught by parents to children (v. 3);\nregarded as the great authority (v. 62). The institution of Elders is in\nfull force, as contemplated in Jer. xix. 1 and xxvi. 17. I. Kings xx. 7\nand xxi. 8, 11 shew that this body had been continued among the\nseparated tribes, and so naturally carried with them to their new home.\nThe appearance of corruption among officials in high places, who ought\nto have been most free from it, is quite in accord with the religious\nhistory of mankind in general, and of Israel in particular. Such\nreferences as the above to Jeremiah, and that in v. 5 to Jer. xxix. 23,\nare paralleled by a reference in the canonical Dan. ix. 2 to Jer. xxxv.\n12.\n\nWhen Daniel's plan was efficacious for revealing the Elders' guilt, the\njust decision was approved; the right is thoroughly commended and the\nwrong condemned. The heart of the people rings sound; their instincts at\nthe trials are in favour of justice. Morality is supported by popular\nsympathy, which has been purified and elevated by the discipline of\nexile.\n\nIn v. 57 some prejudice is suggested as existing in the writer's mind\nagainst the women of Israel as being less chaste than those of Judah.\nPossibly he was of the latter tribe himself (_see_ 'Language' on v. 57,\np. 137). The reproach to the second Elder of Canaanitish descent is in\nkeeping with Ezek. xvi. 3, where it is hurled against Jerusalem and her\nabominations.\n\nIt is objected in Hastings' _D.B._ (IV. 631b) that \"Daniel loudly\ncondemns both culprits before he adduces any proof of their guilt.\" But\nsurely this was justified by the prophetic office and the spirit within\nhim, which endowed him with an abnormal insight into the true state of\naffairs. Personally he was assured, from the outset, of their guilt, but\nsecured public proof to satisfy the people. This objection is rather\npoor ground on which to assail the historic character of the piece. In\nfine, a religious tone, befitting the time intended, is consistently\nmaintained throughout.\n\n\nSOCIAL.\n\nIncidentally a pleasing picture of home life is outlined, before the\nElders tried to corrupt it.\n\nSome of the Jews were apparently living in wealth and comfort during\nthe Captivity; but the end of v. 4 shews that Joacim's estate was\npre-eminent, not a sample of the general condition of the exiles. If not\nroyal (as Jul. Afric. in his letter to Origen hints, and Origen doubts\nin his reply, \u00a7 14), it was evidently of an upper class; and a kind of\ntribunal was held at his house. The state of life here depicted agrees\nwith Jeremiah's advice in xxix. 5; and with II. Esd. iii. 2, if that\ntoo could be applied to the captives.\n\nThe King of Babylon was content with the subjugation and deportation of\nthe Jews, allowing them considerable liberty when he got them into\nBabylonia. In this connection Ps. cv. 46 naturally occurs to the mind.\nThe captives evidently had alleviations granted them in Babylon by their\nconquerors, witness Evil-Merodach's kindness to Jehoiachin, II. Kings\nxxv. 28. There is, however, no indication even of the beginnings of that\ntrade and commerce which was so characteristic of much of the dispersion\nin later years.\n\nGreat freedom to regulate their own affairs is shewn, including, to all\nappearance, the power of inflicting the death-penalty, v. 62. This last\npower has been objected to as unhistoric. But J.J. Blunt[44]\nillustrates the possibility of this, by citing Origen's letter to\nAfricanus to shew that the Jews under the Romans enjoyed a similar power\nin his day. Origen defends the correctness of v. 62 by adducing this as\na similar instance in his own knowledge. Blunt treats the matter as a\nkind of \"undesigned coincidence,\" rendering credible the death penalties\nspoken of in Acts ix. 1, xxii. 4, xxiv. 6.[45] So Edersheim (_D.C.B._\nart. _Philo_, p. 365b), \"The rule of the Jewish community in\nAlexandria had been committed by Augustus to a council of Elders.\" This\nis also stated in the Jewish Encyclop\u00e6dia (New York and Lond.,\n_Alexandria_ I., 362a): \"Philo distinctly states that at the time of\nAugustus the 'gerusia' assumed the position of the 'genarch.' This is\nthe word he uses for 'ethnarch,' _Contra Flaccum_, \u00a7 10. Origen to\nAfricanus, \u00a7 14, writes of this privilege as having been granted by\n'C\u00e6sar' without specifying which C\u00e6sar, and though he does not name\nAlexandria, his words \u1f34\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 probably imply that place.\"\nThese references do not of course prove that the Jews in Babylonia had\nthe like privileges, but they shew, as Origen saw, a parallel case.\nPerhaps those who are in favour of the Alexandrian origin of Susanna\nmight use this to shew that the writer had transferred to Babylonia the\ncircumstances of his own day; but his own day would almost certainly be\nbefore the time of Augustus.\n\nThere is no mention of any government except the Jews' internal\nadministration; but then the native population of Babylon (unless\nperchance it be in the shape of the servants) does not enter into the\nstory. The legal working at Babylon of this little \"imperium in imperio\"\nhad plainly an unsatisfactory side, although Susanna's rights were\nvindicated by another power against injustice and oppression. Still, it\nmay not be fair to condemn the whole system on the strength of this\nsingle instance.\n\nThe main drift of the tale indicates the existence of much\ncorruption[46] in the presbytery; yet the heart of the exiled people in\ngeneral had a healthy tone; witness the sorrowful sympathy with Susanna\n(v. 33), and the delight at justice being ultimately done (vv. 60, 63).\n\nThe Elders grossly abused Joacim's hospitality. Seemingly they had\nplenty of time to waste, and worse. It is noteworthy that two 'judges'\nwere chosen, annually, it would seem, from the 'elders of the people.'\nThis last phrase occurs in Numb. xi. 16, and is frequent in the N.T.,\nbut not with \u1f10\u03ba as here.\n\nThe modest veiling of Susanna in _v. 32_, more distinctly expressed (\u1f20\u03bd\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7) in \u0398 than in \u039f\u00b4, reminds one of Rebekah's veiling in\nGen. xxiv. 65, and is quite in accordance with the custom of the\ncountry. So are the \"oil and washing balls\" of _v. 17_ (A.V. and R.V.);\nthis last term is peculiar, and is used apparently for soap.[47] It is\nso employed in Gerard's _Herbal_, ed. 1633, p. 1526, where he says, \"of\nthis gum [storax] there are made sundry excellent perfumes... and sweet\nwashing balls.\" The 'sawing' or 'cutting asunder' of _v. 35_ was a\nBabylonian punishment, as is shewn in ii. 5 and iii. 29 of the canonical\nbook.\n\nThe death penalty for adultery (_vv. 43, 45_) is in agreement with Lev.\nxx. 10, Deut. xxii. 22, and Ezek. xvi. 38, though not with the laxity of\nlater times (_see_ art. _Adultery_, Smith's _D.B._; _Marriage_,\nHastings' _D.B._). The Syriac W\u2082 interpolation after _v. 41_ seems to\nregard precipitation as equivalent to stoning. In the \u039f\u00b4 of v. 62 both\nthis punishment and that of fire are meted out to the Elders as\nretributive justice. Reuss' note on the trial is amusing, \"die Richter\nsich als Dummk\u00f6pfe erwissen und Susanna vollst\u00e4ndig den ihrigen verloren\nhatte.\"\n\nBut we are disposed on the whole to agree with J.M. Fuller (S.P.C.K.\n_Comm., Introd. to Sus._) when he writes, \"The facts underlying the\nstory are in themselves probable,\" rather more than with Churton (p.\n392), who deems the narrative to be \"probably apocryphal, without strict\nregard to historical facts.\"\n\n\nTHEOLOGY.\n\nThis 'History' does not appear to have been written with a view of\nsupporting any erroneous or debateable points in theology.\n\nGod is represented as being in heaven, as One on whom the heart relies\n(v. 35); as eternal, a knower of secrets, of entire foreknowledge (v.\n42); One to be appealed to by His servants in danger (v. 43),\nefficaciously answering humble requests. The value of ejaculatory prayer\nto Him in sudden peril is shewn (v. 44).\n\nGod had not so entirely cast off His people as to cease from caring for\nseparate souls. He hears the prayers of individuals (v. 35, end, \u039f\u00b4),\nfor the individual, as well as the nation, is under His eye. He is\nspoken of as raising up \"the holy spirit\" of a man (v. 45); as\nconferring the eldership, regarded as a divine institution (v. 50); as\nforbidding injustice (v. 53); as giving sentence to an angel to\nexecute upon an individual (v. 55); as worthy to be praised for saving\nthose who hope in Him (v. 61). A special Providence is recognised as\nwatching over the destinies of separate souls; inspiring Daniel for a\nspecial effort; rescuing Susanna from a special danger. Heaven is\nregarded as the seat of the Divine Judge, towards which the innocent\nSusanna turned her eyes (v. 35), but from which the guilty Elders\naverted theirs (v. 9).\n\nIn v. 5 God is termed \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (_cf._ St. Luke ii. 29, Acts iv. 24);\nin vv. 24, 44, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in vv. 55, 59 (\u0398) \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, for which \u039f\u00b4 has\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, a word which it seems to prefer, as in i. 17, ii. 45, ix. 18.\nThe fear of the Lord is evidently approved (v. 2), and instruction in\nthe Law of Moses regarded as proper (v. 3), which is also referred to\nin vv. 33 and 62 (\u0398 only), and in act in v. 34. It would appear\nlikely too that II. Sam. xxiv. 14 is quoted in v. 22 (\u0398), Susanna in\nher strait borrowing the exclamation of David in his, and the words of\nboth may well be contrasted with the idea of Hos. iv. 16b. Adultery is\ncondemned as \"sin before the Lord\" (v. 23).\n\nAn angel is spoken of in vv. 44, 45 (\u039f\u00b4 only) as giving a spirit of\nunderstanding to Daniel. The former verse might be taken to mean that he\nwas visible.[48] He enabled Daniel to clear Susanna from her false\naccusation. An angel is also named in v. 55, in both versions, as likely\nto execute God's vengeance on the lying Elders. He is also mentioned in\nv. 62 of \u039f\u00b4 as bringing a judgment of fire. This frequent mention of\nangels is quite in keeping with the canonical Daniel and other late\nbooks. And as E. Bunsen remarks, \"the apocryphal doctrine about angels\nand evil spirits is sanctioned by the recorded doctrine of Christ\"\n(_Hidden Wisd. of Christ_, 1865, I. 186). But it is singular that what\nhas generally been considered the later recension should have less of it\nin this case than the earlier.\n\nThe description (v. 9) of the workings of conscience, while overt sin\nwas under consideration, but before it was actually committed, shews a\ndeep knowledge of the human heart, such as is found in the biblical\nwriters. A process the reverse of 'turning unto God,' 'having the eyes\nunto Him' (II. Chron. xx. 12, Ps. xxv. 14), is very accurately depicted,\nas the dwelling upon some attractive lust is allowed to engage the mind.\nA better way of narrating such a matter it would be hard to devise.\n\nHippolytus, in his _Comm. on Dan._, treats the whole story as having an\nallegoric meaning. Joacim represents Christ, Susanna the Christian\nChurch; the bath represents Holy Baptism; and the two Elders the Jews\nand Gentiles persecuting the faithful (_D.C.B._ art. _Hippolytus_, p.\n104a. For Christian sarcophagi with like symbolism, _see_ 'Art'). M.\nde Castillo (Madrid, 1658) reflects in symbolism the increments of a\nlater age when he sees in Susanna a type of the Virgin Mary--\"Maria\nVirgo in illa figurata.\"\n\nThere does not appear to be anything 'Messianic' in this writing, unless\nDaniel himself be regarded as a type of Christ, executing just judgment,\nseparating the righteous publicly from the wicked. There is also\nOrigen's statement bearing upon this matter (_ad Afric._, see _Speaker's\nComm._ 327b), as to the prospect of becoming Messiah's mother, which\nthe Elders held out to Susanna. St. Jerome, at the end of his\n_Commentary on Jeremiah_, has a slightly different version of their\noutrageous pretences.\n\nStanding on surer ground than such speculations the theology of the\npiece itself is sound and proper.\n\n\nCHRONOLOGY.\n\nThe period in which this trial befel Susanna is plainly that of the\nBabylonian Captivity, after the Jews were well settled in their\nconqueror's land, but not very long after.\n\nThe time covered by the narrative itself is obviously a very short one,\nprobably only a few days at the outside.\n\nIf the suggestion in Julius Africanus' letter to Origen is correct,\nJoacim, Susanna's husband, was none other than Jehoiachin, the captive\nking of Judah. But Africanus is not by any means confident of this; nor\ndoes Hippolytus so identify them,[49] but contents himself with\ncommenting on the statement of the text (v. 4) that Joacim was a very\nrich man. Nor is there anything in the Greek of either version to\nindicate his royalty, though the assertion that \"he was more honourable\nthan all others\" fits in well with the notion. But if the story was\nco\u00ebval in its first form with the events narrated in it, the fact might\nbe taken as universally known; or it might be thought politic to\nsuppress it, as likely to be unpalatable to the reigning Babylonian\nmonarch, in the written record. Thus it is possible to answer to a great\nextent Bissell's objection on v. 7, \"that there seems to be no good\nreason why it should not have been definitely stated.\"\n\nHis name is given as \u1f38\u03c9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc both here, in II. Kings xxiv. 8, 12, and in\nI. Esd. i. 43, exactly the same as that of his father and predecessor\nJehoiakim in I. Esd. i. 37 (39). Elsewhere the name is transliterated\n\u1f38\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 and \u1f38\u03c9\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03bc (Bar. i. 3, Jer. xxii. 24, _var. lect._, II. Chron.\nxxxvi. 8, 9). In Judith iv. 6, xx. 8 we have \u1f38\u03c9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc without variation,\nas the name of the high priest.\n\nIf this identification be correct the date must be subsequent to 597\nB.C., the year of Jehoiachin's captivity; and probably not long after,\nsince Daniel, who was taken to Babylon in or soon after the third year\nof Jehoiakim's reign in 603-4,[50] is represented as being still\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd in v. 45. This phrase is somewhat tautologically\nrendered by A.V. as a 'young youth,' an instance which might be cited in\nsupport of the view that the English of the apocryphal was less\nexcellent than that of the canonical books[51]; but, strange to say, the\nawkward expression is continued in R.V.\n\nWithout necessarily implying it, v. 2 might easily be taken to convey\nthe impression that Jehoiachin married in Babylon. Thus Hippolytus\nasserts, \u1f38\u03c9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1f76\u03bc \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 (Migne, _Patr. gr._ X. 689). And, on 'the same year' of v.\n5, Reuss gives the interrogative note, \"Im Jahre der Verheiratung des\nJoakim?\"\n\nIf Susanna's husband really be Jehoiachin, he is the Jechonias who finds\na place in the genealogy of Christ, St. Matt. i. 11, 12, Jehoiakim\n(Eliakim) being omitted. Bugati (_Dan._ p. 166) argues that Joakim is\nnot Jehoiachin because of the name: \"quo circa erroris arguendus est\nJacobus Edessenus, sive auctor scholii ad calcem historiae Susannas\nadjecti in codice Parisiensi, qui Joacem virum Susann\u00e6 eum Joachin rege\nconfundat.\" Bugati was probably unaware of the above-mentioned\nvariations in the spelling of the name, which neutralize the force of\nhis argument.\n\nTwo other doubtful indications of time are given by Hippolytus, viz.\nthat Chelchias was Jeremiah's brother, making Susanna therefore his\nniece (Westcott's art. _Chelcias_, Smith's _D.B._), and that 'a fit\ntime' in v. 15 intimated the Feast of the Passover. Unsupported\ntradition and conjecture look like the grounds of these two indications\nrespectively. Bardenhewer (_op. cit._ p. 75) not unreasonably deems that\nHippolytus is thinking of Christian Baptism in connection with Easter,\nand so throws back the idea into the 'bath' and 'the fit time' of the\nPassover.\n\nThe Harklensian Syriac (W\u2082, Walton's second Syriac[52]) asserts both in\nvv. 1 and 45 that Daniel was twelve years old at the date of the story;\nalso that Susanna was a widow after a married life of a few days only\n(v. 5), a statement to which neither Greek version lends any\ncountenance. In fact, v. 63 (\u0398) supposes Joakim to be alive at the end\nof the tale. Now we know from II. Kings xxv. 27 and Jer. xxviii. (xxxv.)\n1-4 that Jehoiachin lived some years at least after his deportation.\nThese Syriac insertions therefore as to Daniel's age and Susanna's\nwidowhood are hardly compatible with one another on the supposition\nthat she was the wife of Jehoiachin, king of Judah.\n\nIt has been pointed out in the _Speaker's Commentary_, xlvib, that the\ninsertion of 'twelve years old' into the text of the Syriac of Susanna\nmay be due to \"Christian re-handling,\" as also the extension of the\nfinal verse about Daniel's fame, \"and he increased in favour with the\nfamily of Susanna,\" etc., so as to produce a correspondence with St.\nLuke ii. 42, 52. This is a possible theory, but one lacking, so far, the\nsupport of evidence. The condemnation of Susanna \"at the ninth hour\" (v.\n41) might likewise be attributed to the same Christian influence. This\nwas no doubt operative here, as it was with Hippolytus.\n\nIn this connection it is worthy of note that in the longer recension of\nthe \"Ignatian\" _Epist. ad Magnes.,_ \u00a7 III., Daniel is spoken of as\n\u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 when he \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, a phrase evidently\nreminiscent of the history of Susanna. Bishop Lightfoot notes on this:\n\"His age is not given in the narrative, and it is difficult to see\nwhence it could have been derived.\" He dates the longer Ignatian\nepistles in the second half of the 4th century (I. 246), while Thomas\nof Harkel lived in the 6th and 7th centres. But, though so much later,\nthis Syriac translation may perhaps afford some clue to the ultimate\ndiscovery of Ignatius', or rather his expander's, source of information.\nThe words \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd do not of course necessarily imply such\nextreme youth as twelve years; nor are we in any way tied to the\naccuracy of this or other Harklensian variations.\n\nThough this Addition therefore has its chronological difficulties, they\nneed not be regarded as absolutely insurmountable.\n\n\nCANONICITY.\n\nBefore the correspondence of Origen with Julius Africanus, whose letter\nis \"a model of sober criticism\" (Swete, _Patristic Study_, p. 56)--a\ncorrespondence renewed between Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea and Porphyry[53],\nand between Rufinus and Jerome, with less sobriety--we have no record of\nthe point having been mooted. For, as Bissell writes (p. 448), \"We have\nno evidence that these pieces were not regarded as fully on a level with\nthe remainder of the book.\" Africanus heard Origen use Susanna in\ncontroversy with one Bassus, and subsequently wrote to remonstrate, he\nhimself being resident in Palestine. Some of his objections in this\nfamous letter have considerable force, while others are very weak\n(_D.C.B._ I. p. 54b).\n\nOrigen deems Susanna part of the genuine Daniel, cut out by the Jews, as\nhe suggests in his _Epistle_ to Africanus. Bishop Gray (_O.T._ p. 612)\ndescribes this Epistle as 'suspected'; but it appears now to be\ngenerally accepted. Origen thinks that the motive of Susanna's exclusion\nwas its relation of particulars discreditable to the Jewish nation. But\nthe Bishop truly says, \"there is no foundation for this improbable\nfancy.\" It is, however, maintained by Philippe in Vigouroux' _Dict._\n(_cf._ 'Title and Position,' p. 109).\n\nOrigen also asserts the canonicity of Susanna in _Hom. in Levit._ \u00a7 1\n(middle): \"Sed tempus est nos adversus improbos presbyteros uti sanct\u00e6\nSusann\u00e6 vocibus, quas illi quidem repudiantes, historiam Susann\u00e6 de\ncatalogo divinorum voluminum desecrarunt. Nos autem et suscipimus, et\nopportune contra ipsos proferimus, dicentes 'Angusti\u00e6 mihi undique,'\"\netc. (v. 22).\n\nAgain, Origen refers to the matter in his _In Matth\u00e6um Commentariorum\nSeries_. He quotes Daniel's words in v. 55, \"angelus Domini habens\ngladium scindet te medium,\" and also \"ausi sumus uti in hoc loco, Dan.\nexemplo, non ignorantes quoniam in Hebr\u00e6o positum non est, sed quoniam\nin ecclesiis tenetur. Alterius autem temporis est requirere de\nhuiusmodi\" (Migne, _Patr. gr._ XIII. 1696). Delitzsch (_op. cit._ p.\n103) says, on second thoughts, that he \"adductum esse, ut ipsos libros\napocryphos ab Origine pro \u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 et divinis habitos esse censeam.\"\n\nAbout the same time, or probably a little earlier, St. Hippolytus (\u2020230)\ngives a similar reason for the extrusion of this episode. He notes on v.\n8, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. On which Bardenhewer\n(_op. cit._ p. 76) remarks, \"Susanna soll also fr\u00fcher auch in dem\nj\u00fcdischen Kanon gestanden haben und erst sp\u00e4ter (unliebsamen Vorw\u00fcrfen\ngegen\u00fcber) aus demselben entfernt worden sein.\"\n\nA. Scholz, however, who treats the book allegorically as a 'vision,'\nattributes early opinions adverse to its canonicity to the\n\"Missverstehen der Erz\u00e4hlung und die unl\u00f6sbaren Schwierigkeiten, die\ndieselbe bei der historischen Auffassung macht\" (p. 139). The 'vision'\ntheory, however, is a difficult one to maintain, serviceable though it\nmay be in evading historic difficulties.\n\nLists of books of the canon do not help us much, as it is often\nuncertain whether 'Daniel' covers the Additions or not. We may safely\nconclude, however, that it does in Origen's own list, as preserved for\nus by Eusebius (_H.E._ VI. 25).\n\nIn the pseudo-Athanasius' _Synopsis sacr. script._ \u00a7 74, Susanna is\nnamed, after the books he deems canonical, as \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, along\nwith four books of Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon. In this case we\nmight conclude that \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ae\u03bb does not cover Susanna; but in the beginning\nof the _Synopsis of Daniel_ (\u00a7 41) the story is mentioned as part of\nthat book, and Bel and the Dragon, at the end, in the same way. This\nauthor's view, then, for and against the canonicity looks somewhat\nundecided. So in Cyril of Jerusalem's list in _Catech._ IV. \u00a7 35,\n'Daniel' pretty certainly includes Susanna and probably the other two\nAdditions, because in _Cat._ XVI. \u00a7 31, \"de Spiritu sancto,\" he quotes\nSusanna 45 in company with Dan. iv. 6 as if on an equal footing.\n\nIt is quoted as Scripture before Origen's time by Iren\u00e6us IV. xxxv. 2,\nxli. 1; Tert. _de Cor. IV._; Clem. Alex. _Proph. Ecl._ 1. Methodius,\nBishop of Tyre, introduces Susanna into his Virgins' Songs as an example\nof brave sanctity, calling upon Christ[54] (see exact words under'Early\nChristian Literature,' p. 166).\n\nIn the _Apost. Const._ II. 49, 'concerning accusers and witnesses,' this\ntrial is instanced \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9,\nand again in cap. 51 (Mansi, _Concil._ Florence, 1759, I. 352, 353).\n\nThough Jerome (_Pref. to Dan._) calls this and the other Additions\n'fabul\u00e6' (twice), it is pointed out by Peronne in his note to Corn. \u00e0\nLap. on Dan. xiii. 1 (Paris, 1874) that Jerome uses the same word of the\nstory of Samson (no ref. given), which he certainly regarded as\ncanonical. He claims therefore that here it has \"verum et nativum sensum\nvocis fabul\u00e6, qu\u00e6 quidem significat 'historiam, sermonem.'\" But even if\nany disparaging sense could be eliminated from this particular word,\nJerome's opinion is otherwise expressed.\n\nThe only possible reference to Susanna observable, I think, in the N.T.\nis in Matt, xxvii. 24, unless the name of Susanna in St. Luke viii. 3 be\ntaken from our heroine's. It is of course emblematic of lily-like\npurity, and therefore very suitable for a woman. The story, with some\nomissions, forms the Epistle for Saturday after the third Sunday in Lent\nin the Sarum and Roman Missals.\n\nLuther says that this and Bel are \"beautiful and spiritual compositions,\njust as Judith and Tobias \" (Bleek, _O.T._, Venables' transl., 1869, II.\n339).\n\nIn the Greek Church the Synods of Constantinople and Jerusalem in 1672\nexpressly decided, in opposition to Cyril Lucar and the Calvinists, that\nSusanna and Bel (with some other apocryphal books) were genuine elements\nof Divine Scripture, and denounced Cyril Lucar's conduct in styling them\nApocrypha as ignorance or wickedness (Bleek, II. 343; Loisy, _O.T._ p.\n243). The present Eastern Church reckons them, with the Song of the\nThree, canonical, as Bishop Nectarius expressly states (_Greek Manuals\nof Church Doctrine_, publ. by Eng. Ch. Assoc., Lond., 1901, p. 19). Also\nBar-Hebr\u00e6us (\u20201286), the Monophysite, comments on these fragments as if\nHoly Scripture (Loisy, p. 245). We see then that the testimonies to\ncanonicity are of considerable strength, more so than is perhaps\ngenerally realised, even though the arguments to the contrary may be\nstill stronger. The statement of Fritzsche (_Libri apocryphi_, 1871, p.\nxiii) is moderate and reasonable, fitting in well as it does with the\nviews of our own Church, \"Liber Danielis canonicus iam eo ipso tempore,\nquo primum in linguam gr\u00e6cam transferebatur, additamentis gr\u00e6cis auctus\nest, quorum tria maiora fere inde a seeulo quarto in eccl. christiana\nvulgo a viris doctis apocrypha iudicata sunt.\"\n\n\nEARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART.\n\n\nLITERATURE.\n\nNEW TESTAMENT. In St. Matt. xxvii. 24 Pilate possibly adopts Daniel's\nwords in v. 46, or at least accidentally falls in with them. In Heb. xi.\n23 and Sus. 7 (\u039f\u00b4) there is a strong similarity in the use of the word\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, as well as in Exod. ii. 2.\n\n\"Among names taken from the O.T., that of Susanna is not uncommon\"\n(_D.C.A._ art. _Names_, 1374a). Not improbably therefore Susanna, in\nSt. Luke viii. 3, may have been named after the Susanna of this history,\nas already mentioned under 'Canonicity,' p. 161. St. Susanna of the\nRoman Calendar, who is dated _circ._ 293, is most likely an example of\nthis. She is not given an article in _D.C.B._, but there is a short\nnotice of her in _D.C.A._, as commemorated in various Martyrologies on\nAugust 11th.\n\nIREN\u00c6US (\u2020200). In _Adv. H\u00e6r._III. xlii. 1 there is an apparent\nreference to v. 55; in IV, xxxv. 2 to v. 42; and in IV. xli. 1, 'de\npresbyteris injustis,' vv. 20, 26 are quoted as \"a Daniele propheta\nvoces\" in reproof of Christian presbyters. It is probable, too, that\n\"Deum qui absconsa manifestat\" (IV. xxxi. 2) may be a reminiscence of\nthe phrase \u1f41 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in v. 42; and still more probably\nperhaps \"qui est absconsorum cognitor\" in IV. xxxv. 2 has its origin in\nthis same verse.\n\nCLEMENT or ALEXANDRIA (\u2020220). In _Strom._ IV. (Heinsius' ed., Paris,\n1629, p. 522) he speaks of Susanna and Miriam together, as if their\nbiblical positions were on a par. In Hort and Mayor's edit. (1902) of\n_Strom._ VII. the words \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 in \u00a7 37 are referred to Susanna\n43 (\u0398); but it is hardly safe to assume that we have here more than an\naccidental approximation of wording.\n\nHIPPOLYTUS (\u2020230) distinctly recognizes Susanna at the end of his\n_Preface to Daniel_, as well as in his _Commentary_ itself. This last,\nBardenhewer (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1877, p. 69) deems, on account of its\nhomiletic phrases, to be \"Bruchst\u00fccke einer Homilie\" (_cf._ art.\n_Hippolytus, D.C.B._ iii. 102a).\n\nAPOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (third century?). Susanna's trial is instanced\nin II. 49, \"Concerning accusers and witnesses\" (_see_ quotation under\n'Canonicity,' p. 161), and again in cap. 51.\n\nTERTULLIAN (\u2020240). In _de Corona militis_, 4, after instancing Rebecca,\nhe goes on to say of Susanna: \"si et Susanna in iudicio revelata\nargumentum velandi pr\u00e6stat, possum dicere: et his velamen arbitrii\nfuit,\" etc. Also _de Pudic._ 17, etc.\n\nORIGEN (\u2020254) frequently refers to Susanna in his commentaries, many\nreferences to which are collected by Sch\u00fcrer, _H.J.P._, II. III. 186. In\nthe middle of \u00a7 1 of his _Hom._ I. _in Levitic._ he quotes Susanna's\nwords in v. 22 as if appropriate to the mouth of the book itself,\nsurrounded, by those who doubted its canonicity (words quoted under\n'Canonicity,' p. 158). In Eusebius' Pr\u00e6p. Ev. VI. 11, Origen is given as\nquoting v. 42 as a proof of God's foreknowledge, \u1f70\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. In his _Commentary_ on St. John (bk. XX. \u00a7 5) he quotes v.\n56 with \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ae\u03bb \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9.\n\nCYPRIAN (\u2020258), in _Ep._ XLIII. 4, illustrates his remarks by a\nreference to \"Susannam pudicam.\"\n\nBleek (_O.T._ II. 316) says that Bel and the Dragon and Susanna were\nused by both Iren\u00e6us and Cyprian in a similar way to the Scriptures of\nthe Hebrew canon.\n\nMETHODIUS (\u2020330), in his \"Song of the Virgins\" (II. 2). \u1f0c\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b2\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c2, includes Judith and Susanna:\n\n\u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u1f72\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f27\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2,\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f68 \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n(Migne, _Patr. gr._ XVIII. 212).\n\nHILARY OF POITIERS (\u2020367), _de Trin._ IV. 8 (Migne, _Patr. lat._ 10,\n101), quotes Susanna 42, \"Sicut beata Sus. dicit, Deus \u00e6ternus\nabsconditorum cognitor, sciens omnia,\" etc.\n\nATHANASIUS (\u2020373) also, in his _Disc, against Arians_, I. 13, quotes\nthis popular verse (42) as \"in Daniel.\" In the _Life of Anthony_, \u00a7 43,\nhe refers to Susanna, as well as in the 'doubtful' _Synopsis S.S._\n\nEPHREM SYRUS (\u2020378) refers both in his _Ep. ad Johann. monachum_, and in\nhis 15th _Par\u00e6nesis_, to the blessed Susanna.\n\nGRATIAN (\u2020383) notes on Can. XI. of Neoc\u00e6sarea (315 A.D.) in _Decreta_\nI. 78, c. iv., \"Daniel, we read, received the spirit of prophecy before\nhe had arrived even at youth.\" The Canon itself, as given by Hefele,\nmakes no mention of Daniel.\n\nCYRIL OF JERUSALEM (\u2020386) refers (_Catech._ I. 31) to Daniel's\ninspiration to rescue Susanna, and quotes v. 45 with \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1.\n\nGREGORY OF NYSSA (\u2020396) quotes, in his _Hexa\u00ebmeron_ (Migne, _Patr. gr._\nXLIV. p. 71) and in his _Making of Man_, v. 42, twice as a prophetic\nwriting (XXIX. 1).\n\nAMBROSE (\u2020397) has, Sermons XLIX. and L., \"de accusato Domino apud\nPilatum et de Susanna,\" in which he draws a parallel between them, as to\nsilence under false charges, at considerable length (Basel, ed. 1527,\nIII. 549).\n\nSULPICIUS SEVERUS (\u2020400?), in his _Hist. Sacr._ lib. II. \u00a7 1, gives an\noutline of the story of Susanna, after the events of Dan. i. and before\nthose of chap, ii., evidently regarding it as historical.\n\nCHRYSOSTOM (\u2020407) has a sermon \"de Susanna,\" in which he compares her to\nthe \"garden enclosed\" of Solomon's Song iv. 12 (quoted in Arnald's\n_Commentary_).\n\nJEROME (\u2020420), in his _de Nominibus Hebraicis_, includes, under the Book\nof Daniel, Susanna and Joacim without any distinction from the names in\nthe rest of the book (ed. Vallarsi, vol. III.).\n\nAUGUSTINE (\u2020430) draws, in _de Civ. Dei_, I. 19, a parallel between\nSusanna and Lucretia, greatly to the advantage of the former. Arnald,\non v. 23, gives some extracts from this.\n\nCYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (\u2020444) quotes v. 56 at least twice, viz. on Hos.\nxii. 8 and on Zeph. i. 11. In the latter case he speaks of it as \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac \u03b3\u03b5\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, giving it thus explicitly a high position.\n\nTHEODORET (\u2020457) quotes in Letter CX., Susanna 22; but in his comment on\nDaniel, Susanna is not contained.\n\nMAMERTUS CLAUDIANUS (\u2020474). The following occurs in a hymn attributed to\nthis writer, \"_In Jacobum magistrum equitum_,\" but which Migne says is\n'dubi\u00e6 auctoritatis': \"Sic tibi det vires sancta Susanna suas.\"\n\nNICEPHORUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE (\u2020828) classes Susanna among his\n\"antilegomena.\" As he makes no separate mention in his lists of the\nSong, or of Bel and the Dragon, he presumably reckons them under\n'Daniel'[55] (Migne, _Patr. gr._ c. 1056). At the end of\npseudo-Athanasius' _Synopsis S.S._ comes a list of \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, so\nsimilar to Nicephorus' list in order and contents as to suggest that\nthey had some close connection; and it is possible that this appendage\nmay be of even later date than the Synopsis itself, which may be\nattributed to the 6th century (Loisy, _A.T._, p. 147).\n\nThe above are specimens of the numerous references made to Susanna by\nearly Christian writers, both Greek and Latin, who evidently found in\nher a favourite instance to adduce in support of their teaching. Nor\nought we, in such a matter, to treat lightly the tenor of Christian\nantiquity so remarkably manifested.\n\n\nART.\n\nFrom early times scenes from Susanna were often chosen for artistic\ntreatment. In \"a list of the symbols most frequently represented in\npainting or sculpture by the Church of the first seven centuries\"\nSusanna is included (_D.C.A._ art. _Symbolism_).\n\nFrescoes of Susanna and the Elders occur, though not with great\nfrequency, in the Catacombs (_D.C.A._ I. art. _Fresco_, 700a). W.\nLowrie, in his _Christian Art_ (N.Y. and Lond. 1901, p. 210), mentions a\nsecond-century fresco of Susanna and the Elders judged by Daniel, in the\ncemetery of Callistus; also he says, \"in the Capella gr\u00e6ca in St.\nPriscilla the story is depicted with unusual dramatic interest in\nseveral scenes.\" Three old Italian sarcophagi have bas-reliefs of\nSusanna and the Elders as emblematic of the Church enduring\npersecution; others are known in southern Gaul (_D.C.A._ art. _Church,\nSymbols of_). A woodcut is given in this article of a sheep (ewe?)\nbetween two wild beasts (wolves?), 'Susanna' and 'Senioris' being\nwritten over them respectively, the artist evidently fearing that the\nsymbolism might otherwise not be perceived.\n\nScenes from the history of Susanna carved on sarcophagi are more\nfrequent in France than in Italy. It has been thought that the two\nElders may be taken to represent the two older forms of religion, the\nPagan and the Jewish (_D.C.A., O.T. in Art_, II. 1459b). In the same\nDict. (_Sculpture_, II. 1867a) it is noted that the cycle of subjects\nhas a remarkable correspondence with those named in the Roman Breviary\n\"Ordo commendationis anim\u00e6,\" where \"Libera, Dom. animam servi tui sicut\nliberasti Sus. de falso crimine,\" is one of the petitions.\n\nIt is fair to presume that Delitzsch refers to some of the above when he\nwrites, \"Susann\u00e6 historia in sarcophagis veterum Christianorum cum\nsacris historiis insculpta conspicitur\" (_op. cit._ 26).\n\nIn the Brit. Mus., 2nd North Gallery, Room V., there is a glass fragment\nof the 4th century, found at Cologne, representing (probably) Susanna\namongst other subjects. She also appears on a carved ivory reliquary of\nBrescia, which is most likely not later in date than 800 (_D.C.A._ art.\n_Reliquary_, II. 1780b).\n\nIn the Byzantine Guide to Painting (\u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2), given in\nDidron's _Christian Iconography_ (Bohn's ed., Lond. 1886, I. 45_n_, II.\n284), 'Daniel defends Susanna' is put immediately after the scene in\nDan. i. 15, and before the other scenes given out of Daniel (_cf._\n'Position,' p. 109). Didron's MS. of this work is probably of the 15th\ncentury, though the monks of Athos, whence it appears to have come,\nregarded it as some five centuries older.\n\nThere is a window of stained glass, said to be _cinque-cento_, in the\nwesternmost bay of the south aisle of St. James' Church, Bury St.\nEdmunds, of which the three lower lights represent the trial of Susanna.\nIn the centre Susanna's bath takes the form of a deep font, in which she\nis standing. The Elders are clothed in purple.[56]\n\nIn Sumner's _Antiquities of Canterbury_, 1703, the second figure in the\nthird window of the cathedral is described as \"Daniel in medio\nseniorum,\" and this inscription is given:\n\n\"Mirantur pueri seniores voce doceri\nSic responsa dei sensum stupent Pharasaei.\"\n\n(Reprinted in _Ancient Glass Painting_, by an Amateur, Oxf. 1848, p.\n355.)\n\nIn the scheme of stained glass for Truro cathedral there are several\napocryphal subjects, including a window in the south-east transept\nhaving \"Susanna and the Mother of the Seven Martyrs\" for its subjects\n(Donaldson, _Bishopric of Truro_, 1902, App. V.).\n\nA carved chimney-piece exists in Chillingham Castle, Northumberland,\nrepresenting Susanna and the Elders (Murray, _Handbook to\nNorthumberland_, 1873, p. 326).\n\nThis scene has been a wonderfully popular one with painters. Altdorfer,\nCarracci, Correggio, A. Coypel, van Dyck, Guercino, Rembrandt, Rubens,\nSanterre, Tintoretto, Valentin, and P. Veronese may be named amongst\nthose who have treated it. A picture entitled 'Susanna' was exhibited in\nthe Royal Academy, London, in 1886, by Fred. Goodall, R.A.\n\nThus we see that the many picturesque incidents in this Addition have\nnot been overlooked by Christian artists in search of subjects for the\nbrush or the chisel. Of these three supplementary sections of Daniel the\nHistory of Susanna has, in this respect, been found much the most\nsuggestive; probably as the one which is thought to contain the highest\npassion and feeling.\n\n\n\"EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION OF MANNERS.\"\n\nIn the character of _Susanna_ we see unconquerable _Purity_ in thought\nand deed; prayerful _Trust_ in God under a false and cruel\naccusation,[57] and, in the face of death, securing deliverance from an\nunexpected quarter (_cf. v. 60 with II. Cor. i. 10). With v. 55\nHippolytus compares Tob. iii. 2 (Vulgate). The parallels drawn by St.\nChrysostom and St. Augustine will be found under 'Early Christian\nLiterature,' p. 167. Susanna's trouble may be taken as a conspicuous\nillustration of Ps. xxxiv. 19.\n\nSusanna was conscientious as well as pure; would not lie, being tenderly\nnurtured morally as well as physically.[58] She had the virtue of\nbodily cleanliness as well as social purity, and affords an early\ninstance of the use of the prepared bath.\n\nIt is noticeable, too, that no unfavourable traits develop themselves on\nthe re-establishment of her happiness and the condemnation of her\nslanderers; there is no excessive reaction to unbecoming laxity, no\n\u1f04\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1.\n\nIn the character of the _Elders_ we see judicial position and feigned\npiety used as a cloak for lust and slander; great hardness of heart in\ncondemning Susanna to death, with the full knowledge that she was\ninnocent; unblushing effrontery (v. 50); sins of the tongue in 'lying\nand slandering.'\n\nHooker (_Ecc. Pol._ V. 2) refers, according to the marginal note (though\nthey are not named in the text), to these Elders as examples of\n\"affected atheism,\" \"where the windows of the soul are of very set\npurpose closed\"; \"they turned away their mind and cast down their eyes,\nthat they might not see heaven nor remember just judgments.\" St.\nHippolytus on v. 61 quotes Prov. xxvi. 27 very appositely. The fall of\nthe Elders shews the need for our Lord's order in St. Matt. v. 28, and\nthe terrible results of acting otherwise.\n\nThe individual character of each Elder has a little light thrown upon it\nby the form of condemnation framed by Daniel. That of the first is\nchiefly based on his unjust judgment, that of the second on his lewd\nconduct, each judgment being varied in this way according to the form of\nhis previous iniquities. The knowledge which Daniel possessed of these\nappropriately determined the cast of his sentence. That he had some\nacquaintance with their former habits is shewn by vv.. 52, 53, 56.\n\nThe change to the plural in v. 57 is difficult to explain, and does not\nreceive attention at the hands of the commentators; in fact Ball applies\nthis verse, without mentioning the change of number, to the one Elder\nonly. Although these godless judges failed in accomplishing their\npurpose, they were not on this account less scandalous betrayers of\nvirtue.\n\nIn Susanna's _Servants_ we see fidelity, sympathy, and no eagerness to\nbelieve an ill report. As regards Susanna, this fact speaks volumes for\nthe excellence of her conduct.\n\nIn _Daniel_ we see the courage and penetrating acumen which are so\ncharacteristic of his whole career, impressing all with whom he was\nbrought into contact. He weighs a matter carefully before coming to a\ndecision. By unmasking hypocrisy and securing justice he is delighted to\nset right a grievous wrong.[59] He appears as the best judge (_cf._ the\nestimation shewn of the justice of God by Azarias, Song of the Three,\n4--8). Daniel further exhibits a decision and an absence of\nself-distrust, in undertaking tasks of great risk, quite in accordance\nwith his character as portrayed in the canonical book, and in Bel and\nthe Dragon. In each case he is alert, acute, and fearless; his conduct\nin different circumstances is quite in keeping with itself. Using his\ntalents thoroughly, he makes \"full proof of his ministry.\"\n\nThere is a strong resemblance in ideas, though not much in words,\nbetween Daniel's sentence in v. 55 and St. Matt. xxiv. 51. The judgment\nof Daniel in this case may be taken as a type of the Last Judgment,\ncorrecting the unjust judgments of this world.\n\nA high value is set on Scripture, as v. 53 shews, where it is quoted as\nan authoritative rule of conduct; v. 5, too, if it is to be regarded as\na reference to Jer. xxix. 23, points to a similar high esteem for it as\nthe word of the Lord. Susanna herself in v. 22 evidently remembers\nDavid's words in II. Sam. xxiv. 14, when he too had to make his choice\nbetween falling into the hand of the Lord or the hand of man, thus\nshewing her ready knowledge of the O.T.\n\nMuch admirable moral teaching therefore may be drawn from the characters\nof this little work of world-wide interest, teaching which is needed in\nall nations and in all periods.\n\n\n\n\nPART IV\n\nTHE HISTORY OF BEL AND THE DRAGON\n\n\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05c4\u05e1 \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05df\n(\u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05f3 \u05e6\u05d0\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d2\u05f3)\n\n\n\n\nTHE HISTORY OF BEL AND THE DRAGON.\n\n\nANALYSIS.\n\nv.\n\n1, 2. Introduces Cyrus and Daniel.\n\n3. How Bel was worshipped by the Babylonians.\n\n4--7. Discussion as to Bel's worship[60] between the King and Daniel.\n\n8, 9. The King enquires of Bel's priests, and says that they or Daniel\nmust die.\n\n10--14. The test agreed upon to prove whether Bel partook of the\nofferings or no.\n\n15--22. Decided in the negative by discovery of the Priests' trick, who\nare slain and their idol destroyed.\n\n23. Introduces the other object of worship[60], the Dragon.\n\n24--27. Conversation as to its divinity between the King and Daniel,\nwho, with the former's permission, ingeniously slays it.\n\n28, 29. Anger of the Babylonians with them both.\n\n30--32. They cause Daniel to be cast into the lions' den.\n\n33--40. He is miraculously saved by Habakkuk.\n\n40, 42. The King acknowledges the Lord, sets Daniel free, and delivers\nhis persecutors to the fate intended for the prophet.\n\n[Endnote: N.B.--It is unaccountable why the 'heading' in A.V. _begins_\nwith v. 19. _Cf._ Sus. for a similar peculiarity.]\n\n\nTITLE AND POSITION.\n\n\nTITLE.\n\n\u0392\u03ae\u03bb \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd is the usual title of this booklet. It is obviously\nderived from the names of the two idols destroyed in the two portions of\nthe story. But Cod. Chis. has the curious heading, \u1f18\u03ba \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f08\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03bc \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039b\u03b5\u03c5\u03af (_cf._ v. 33). The Syriac also has\nthe equivalent of this. In some Syriac MSS. 'Dragon' is given as a\nseparate title before v. 23; and Luther's version, at the same point,\nexpands this into 'von Drachen zu Babel.'\n\nIn Codd. A, Q, the entire piece is headed \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b9\u03b2\u00b4, and is thus\ntreated as an integral part of Daniel, finishing the book, the 12th\nchapter of which ends in Cod. A with \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b9\u03b1\u00b4.[61] In B it follows, if\npossible, still more closely, there being no intermediate heading[62],\nIn Cod. A, at the end, there is \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd. \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, which, except in\nthe case of Ruth, is not A's usual way of terminating works. The Arabic\nVersion in Walton also superscribes it as a 'vision' (Scholz, p. 139).\n\nThe title 'the book of the little Daniel' seems applied to Bel and the\nDragon in a Nestorian list mentioned by Churton (p. 389), and seemingly\nin Ebed Jesu's list of Hippolytus' works (_D.C..B_ art. _Hippolytus_,\nIII. p. 104a). This title, which usually belongs to Susanna, when\napplied to Bel and the Dragon, must refer, not to Daniel's age, but to\nthe size of the book. Delitzsch (_op. cit._ 25_n_) mentions, without\nfurther description, one MS. from Mount Athos which entitles it \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f08\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc.\n\nThe source of the marginal reading of A.V. \"Bel's Dragon\" (also given in\nthe title to Susanna) does not appear to be identified.\n\n\nPOSITION.\n\nAs to the place of this piece in some of the Greek MSS. _see_ above.\n\nProfessor A. Scholz (_Judith und Bel und der Drache,_ W\u00fcrzburg, 1896, p.\n200) finds fault with Holmes and Parsons for having disturbed the\nposition of this book without offering sufficient indication of having\ndone so: \"die St\u00fccke willk\u00fcrlich versetzt sind.\"\n\nIn the Vulgate it is reckoned as chap. xiv. of Daniel, coming after\nSusanna, which forms chap. xiii., as also in the Hexaplar Syriac. Caj.\nBugati, in his edition of this text, regards its ascription to Habakkuk\nas a reason for its detached position at the end (_see_ 'Authorship,' p.\n186).\n\nJ. F\u00fcrst's idea (quoted by Bissell, p. 444), that the work was\noriginally incorporated in chap. vi., seems far less likely than his\nconjecture with regard to the position of Susanna (_q.v._). Indeed,\nexcept for a certain similarity in the lions' den miracle, it is not\neasy to see why it should be joined to any part of chap. vi. Nor do the\nsimilar points of the den incidents seem any real ground for making one\nstory follow directly upon the other.\n\nE. Philippe (Vigouroux _Dict._ II. 1266) attempts, rather feebly, to\naccount for its omission from the Hebrew Bibles. He says, \"elle parut \u00e0\ntort aux Juifs faire double emploi avec un r\u00e9cit pareil, VI.\" This seems\nto be a gratuitous supposition of no great probability.\n\nAs the story deals with the latter part of Daniel's life, its place at\nthe conclusion of the book is very fitting. In Cod. A the subscription\nmentioned above, marking it as the \"end of Daniel the prophet,\"\ndistinctly attaches it to the Book of Daniel, and precludes further\nadditions. On the whole, if its connection with the Book of Daniel is\nto be recognized, this position at the close may be regarded as the most\nsuitable.\n\n\nAUTHORSHIP.\n\nIn \u0398, Bel and the Dragon is apparently assumed to be by the same writer\nas the rest of the Book of Daniel. So in _Breshith Rabbah_[63] on Gen.\nxxxvii. 24 we have nearly the words of v. 28 _sq._, introduced by \"This\nis as it is written in Daniel\" (Ball, 344a). In Raymund Martini's\n_Pugio fidei_ (Paris, 1651, p. 740) the Aramaic is given as \u05d1\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc\n(_see_ under 'Chronology,' p. 229).\n\nIf, however, it be presumed that Daniel is not the author, we are left\nwithout any clue to the writer's name, except what is afforded us by the\nLXX title, which treats the piece as an extract from a prophecy of\nHabakkuk, son of Jesus. Most probably the minor prophet of that name is\nintended, though this has been doubted on chronological and on\ngenealogical grounds; and the position of Bel and the Dragon in the MSS.\nlends no countenance to a connection with Habakkuk's prophecy.\nRothstein nevertheless, in Kautzsch, _Apocr._ (p. 178), regards it as\ncertain that the minor prophet is meant; and so likewise do Sch\u00fcrer and\nDriver in their articles in Hauck's _Encyclop\u00e6dia_ (I. 639), and in\nHastings' _D.B._ respectively; and Keil, who is referred to below (p.\n188).\n\nStill, it is curious that a Levite of the name of Jesus, who had sons,\nis mentioned in I. Esd. v. 58, and elsewhere in the same book. Further\nevidence, however, which might connect him with the LXX title, is not\nforthcoming. But it is noticeable that in Hab. ii. 18 _sq._ idolatry,\nprobably Chaldean, is scoffed at in a tone not dissimilar to that of\nthis work.\n\nEusebius and Apollinarius, in controversy with Porphyry, accept this\ntitle as correct (Churton, 390b). So Bugati (Milan, 1788, p. 163)\ntreats the authorship of Habakkuk as the reason of the detached position\nof the fragment at the end of the book. Hesychius of Jerusalem, quoted\nunder 'Early Christian Literature,' declines to express an opinion as to\nthe identity of Habakkuk. The _Synopsis sacr. Script._--referred to by\nBall (350b) and Bissell (447) as if a genuine work of\nAthanasius--perhaps affords ground for a third theory. For it makes\nmention (after N.T. books, \u00a7 75) of a certain pseudo-epigraphic writing\nof \u1f08\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc which might perhaps be the \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 named in the LXX title.\nAll things considered, the theory that the well-known prophet Habakkuk\nwas meant by LXX seems the most probable.\n\nBut if Bel and the Dragon be merely the crystallization of what is\ncalled a 'fluid myth,' or traditional floating story, its original\nauthorship is not merely unknown, but is undiscoverable, and was\nprobably a doubtful matter even to those who first rendered it into\nGreek. This view accounts too, as nothing else seems satisfactorily to\ndo, for the many changes, insertions, and omissions in different\nversions. Such stories, at any rate in their earlier days, are subject\nto variation in many points as the result of oral repetition. Still, the\n'fluidity' of this piece is by no means so great as that of Tobit, where\nthe variations are on a much wider scale.\n\nIf the 'fluid myth' theory be accepted, the original becomes an\nanonymous story, built up on the renown of Daniel, a piece of Haggadah\nin fact, as some, not unreasonably, have ventured to think; such as J.W.\nEtheridge, who classes these pieces under that head, or, as he styles\nthem, \"histories coloured with fable\" (_Jerusalem and Tiberias_, Lond.\n1856, p. 109). Reuss regards it as still more imaginative, deeming all\nexcept the temple to be \"reine Erfindung, und zwar eine ziemlich\ngeistlose\" (_O.T._ VII. 269). But Prof. Sayce thinks that \"the author\nwas better acquainted with Babylon and Babylonian history than the other\napocryphal writers\" (_Temple Bible_, 'Tobit,' etc., Lond. 1903, pp. xiv,\n95).\n\nFurthermore it must be remembered that even if Bel and the Dragon was\nadded to Daniel as an appendix by a later hand, there may still be truth\nin the story; its erroneousness is not necessarily proved, nor is it\nneedful to assume, as is sometimes done, that all its events are\nfictitious. This seems to be done by G.H. Curteis (S.P.C.K. _Comm._,\n'Introd. to Hab.'), who writes: \"The absurd legends with which the\nRabbis and the author of Bel and the Dragon amused themselves are not\nworthy of serious attention.\" And Keil also, in his _Commentary on the\nMinor Prophets_, while accepting the superscription of Cod. Chis. as\nsupporting Habakkuk's Levitic origin, regards the rest of the legend as\n\"quite worthless\" (Clark's translation, pp. 49, 50). So, too, W.J. Deane\n(_Pulpit Bible_, 1898, 'Hab.' p. 111) says, \"The whole account is\nplainly unhistorical, and its connection with the canonical writer\ncannot be maintained for a moment.\"\n\nSupposing the story to be true, however, it may form an instance, both\nat its outset and its close, of what is recorded in Dan. vi. 28, of\nDaniel prospering in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. But, in the present\nstate of our knowledge, speculations lead to no positive result, for the\nreal author cannot be determined.\n\n\nDATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.\n\n\nDATE.\n\nThe idea, which may be a true one, that this is the latest of these\nthree appendices, seems chiefly founded on its position at the end of\nDaniel, and on its subject-matter, which contains indications of\nbelonging to the prophet's latter years. Having passed safely through\nmany trials, he now boldly laughs at the idols of Babylon (vv. 7, 19).\nHis contempt is unconcealed, and he again confidently risks his life for\nthe true God. In v. 19 we also find him venturing to hold the king\nback--\u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 (\u0398). Long experience in surmounting great\ndifficulties by divine help had strengthened his nerve and confirmed his\nfaith.\n\n_Original._ If the LXX be taken as a translation, the original is of\ncourse older than the Greek text, but not necessarily much older. If the\nstatement at the head, however, be accepted as referring to Habakkuk the\nprophet, the original is of course thrown back to a much earlier date,\nsay _circ._ 600 B.C., and Hebrew, not Aramaic, would be the language.\nBut this theory will scarcely commend itself to many (_cf._\n'Chronology,' p. 223).\n\n_LXX._ There seems no reason to doubt that Bel and the Dragon always\nformed a part of this Greek version of Daniel. Pusey (quoted in Churton,\n_Uncan. and Apocr. Script_, p. 389) speaks of it as 'contemporary with\nthe LXX,' while Rothstein (Kautzsch, 178, 9) attributes it to the second\ncentury B.C., being probably of the same date as Susanna.\n\n_Theodotion._ This version may reasonably be assigned to the second\ncentury A.D. But it has been pretty clearly shewn that Theodotion worked\nup some Greek version other than the LXX. Many of the quotations from\nDaniel in the N.T., and especially those tn Revelation (specified in\n_D.C.B._ art. _Theodotion_, IV. 975b), shew that a version largely\ncorresponding with his existed at the time when these quotations were\nmade. The Book of Baruch also (same art. 976a) bears evidence of the\nemployment of this Theodotionic ground-version, the origin of which is\nat present unknown. In this connection compare Prof. Swete's _Introd. to\nGreek O.T._ ed. 2, p. 48, and Sch\u00fcrer's pointed saying, quoted there in\nnote (3), \"Entweder Th. selbst ist \u00e4lter als die Apostel, oder es hat\neinen 'Th.' vor Th. gegeben.\" There seems little reason to doubt that\nthe unnamed previous version extended to this and the other Additions to\nDaniel.\n\n\nPLACE.\n\n_Original_ (Semitic?). Babylonia, or possibly Palestine. \" The writer,\"\nsays Bissell on v. 2, \"shews a familiar acquaintance with what was the\nprobable state of things in Babylon when the event narrated is supposed\nto have occurred.\"\n\nOf the things mentioned, clay is common in Babylonia, and brass or\nbronze was used as a material for images; and the lion was an inhabitant\nof the country.\n\nThere is no sign (in this piece) of Hellenic thought influencing Jewish\nbelief, such as would have been likely to shew itself in a purely\nAlexandrian production. The strong hatred of idolatry is quite in\naccordance with a Babylonish origin; more so perhaps than with an\nAlexandrian. _Cf._ Jer. xliv. 8, which seems to shew that, at any rate\nin the early days of the dispersion in Egypt, the severance from\nidolatry was not so sharp as in Babylonia.\n\nThe mention of pitch (v. 27) as a readily obtainable commodity is\ninconclusive, as stated under the corresponding section of Part II. The\npossible confusion between \u05d6\u05e6\u05e4\u05d0 (storm-wind) and \u05d6\u05d9\u05e4\u05d0 (pitch), pointed\nout by Marshall in his article on Bel and the Dragon in Hastings'\n_Dict._, does not look probable as occurring in a list of substances of\nthis kind.\n\n_LXX._ Alexandria may be pretty certainly named. What Bishop Westcott\ncalls \"an Alexandrine hand\" (_D.B._ I. p. 448 ed. 1, 714 ed. 2) has been\ngenerally deemed apparent. So Bissell says: \"The contents furnish\ntolerably safe evidence of its Egyptian origin.\" But this does not seem\nto agree very well with his note on v. 2, quoted at the beginning of\nthis chapter.\n\nIt might have been thought that the weights and measures which enter\ninto this story in v. 3 of both versions, and in v. 27 of LXX, would\nhave afforded some valuable local indications. But unfortunately for\nthis requirement, the weights and measures of the ancient world were so\nmuch assimilated as to yield, in the question before us, no certain\nclue. Alexandria too, being a great commercial centre, had become\nsomewhat syncretistic. As P. Smith remarks, in his article _Mensura_, in\n_D. Gk. & Rom. A._ (1872, p. 754b), \"The Roman system, which was\nprobably derived from the Greek, agreed with the Babylonian both in\nweights and measures.\" It is stated, however, in Hastings' _D.B._ (IV.\n911b, 913b) that \u1f00\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af were identified at Alexandria,\nin which case they may have been used here as rough equivalents for the\ntranslation of some Semitic words, such as \u05d7\u05c4\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 and \u05e1\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4 in Isai. v.\n10 and I. Kings xviii. 32 respectively. The \u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6 of v. 27 is also both\nBabylonian and Alexandrian (_see_ Hastings' _D.B._ iv. 904a). The\nsigns, from this source, of local origin must not therefore be pressed.\n\n_Theodotion._ From what little we know of this translator's life, it is\nnot improbable that he made his version at Ephesus.\n\nThe genitive form \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 in v. 26, thought to be Ionic, may lend a\nlittle support to this. _Cf._ Heb. xi. 34, Rev. xiii. 14, in A; B here\nfailing; yet it is found in B, by the first corrector, in St. Luke xxi.\n24. But _cf._ Swete's _Introd._ p. 304. On the other hand, the use of\n\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in v. 32 (\u0398 only) for 'slaves' is given by Deissmann (p. 160) as\nan example of Egyptian usage. It is found in Gen. xxxiv. 29, Tob. x. 10,\nand elsewhere. Its use by Polybius (mentioned without reference by\nDeissmann) does not give us much 'local' assistance, for his travels\nwere so extensive that he may have picked it up in various places. But\nits occurrence in Rev. xviii. 13 may suggest that it was in use at\nEphesus also. Deissmann (p. 117) also thinks \u1f10\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 (v. 3) to be\nan Alexandrian idiom; but in the same verse we find the spelling\n\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1, which is considered by Liddell and Scott to be an Ionic form.\nThe indications therefore of this linguistic kind nearly counterbalance\none another.\n\n\nFOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.\n\nThis story was evidently composed for Jewish use, not improbably for\nJews who had returned from the Captivity, as a popular memorial of\nBabylonish days. And perhaps the general tenor of the piece implies that\nit was written to serve, not so much to convert idolaters, as for the\nencouragement of those who were striving, or had striven, to maintain\nthe faith among the heathen. Its tone and subject make its composition\nin the first instance for Babylonian Jews, or Palestinian Jews returned\nfrom captivity, more likely than for their Alexandrian brethren. To\nthese latter, however, it soon found its way. But it is amongst\nChristian people that this narrative has had its longest and deepest\ninfluence. The more it was valued by Christians the less it seemed\nregarded by Jews. In this respect its fate was similar to that of the\nentire LXX.\n\nA distinct moral purpose is not obscurely indicated by the trend of the\nwhole story. It is not merely a record of two interesting episodes in\nthe prophet's later days, but it also aims at a definite religious\nobject. That object is to throw contempt on idolatry, whether directed\nto inanimate or animate things; to honour Daniel as vindicator of the\ntrue worship; and to shew that the adoration of heathen deities is lying\nand deceptive, and ought to be supplanted by that of the Lord.\n\nIt is evidently desired to put both idols and idolaters into ridiculous\npositions, not for mere amusement, but in order to destroy the\nconfidence which was groundlessly placed in them. The weapons of sarcasm\nand contemptuous treatment are used with success, even as Elijah\nemployed them on Baal and his worshippers at an earlier time (I. Kings\nxviii. 27). A desire to convert the heathen, by proving the absurdity of\ntheir idol-worship, may be inferred from the last clause of v. 27,\ncompared with vv. 5, 25. As the history of Susanna deals with errors of\nJewish practice, so does this writing with the errors of heathenism.\n\nThe providence of God in protecting those who suffer for His sake is\nclearly inculcated in the latter portion of the work. A sense of this\nwould, with other results, give confidence in the fight against\nidolatry; the more needed because Bel was evidently a very popular deity\nwith high and low, and difficult to dislodge. The frequent compounding\nof 'Bel' with proper names (Belshazzar and Belteshazzar)[64] shews the\nregard in which he was held. Compare the similar compounding of\n'Jehovah' amongst the Jews. But, although Bel was deemed a beneficent\ndeity, being, as Gesenius calls him (s.v. \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc, sub \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e6\u05b7\u05dc),\n'agathodemon, omnis felicitatis auctor,' Daniel does not spare him on\nthat account. Thomas \"Wintle[65] suggests that the image in chap. iii.\n\"was Bel, or some of the Assyrian deities, as we may collect from iii.\n14\"; and Bar-Hebr\u00e6us' notion that the gift of Bel to Daniel, in v. 22 of\nour story, was in order that he might be rewarded by the gold with which\nthe image was plated, agrees well enough with iii. I (Berlin, 1888, p.\n28).\n\nThe aim is to depict Daniel, distinguished for his wisdom and piety, as\nthe successful, though sorely tried, opponent of heathenism, and as the\nrepresentative of the Living God. His character to a great extent\nresembles that pourtrayed in the rest of the work bearing his name. It\nis shewn how he continued to face and to solve the difficult problems of\ncourt life in Babylon. And albeit he secured no small measure of fame,\nand perhaps of popularity, at the time, these earthly results, in their\nabiding form, it has lain with posterity to give him.\n\nOn the supposition that Alexandria was the birthplace of the piece, it\nhas been suggested that the aim of the writer was \"to warn against the\nsin of idolatry some of his brethren who had embraced Egyptian\nsuperstition.\"[66] But no special reference to Egyptian forms of\nidolatry is apparent in support of this view, which seems based on\nlittle more than a wish to fit in the idolatry with the theory of the\nstory having an Alexandrian origin.\n\nA. Scholz's notion that the whole piece is a 'vision' with allegoric or\napocalyptic meanings only, and never intended to be taken as history,\nlooks like a wonderfully forced hypothesis, laying a great strain on the\nimaginations both of the writer and the reader. The book having been\nreceived as canonical in the Roman communion, its contents must at all\nhazards be reconciled with the maintenance of that position. Yet it is\nfair to note that Luther, on other grounds, regarded Susanna and Bel and\nthe Dragon as pretty spiritual fictions, in which history must take its\nchance (Z\u00f6ckler, p. 216).\n\n\nINTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.\n\nThis double story seems to have been treated as one in the Greek. In the\nSyriac and Arabic versions the Dragon has a separate title (noticed in\nA.V. margin, \"Some add this title _of the Dragon_'). The former,\nstrangely enough, has 'end of Daniel' before this title. And in the\nSyro-Chaldee version, given in Midrash _Rabbah de Rabbah_, Bel has a\nsubscription, and the Dragon a fresh title (_see_ Ball, 345a).\n\nIn v. 23 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 (\u039f\u00b4) are wanting as connecting words in B, but\nthe reference to Bel in v. 28 serves to consolidate the two portions of\nthe story. A and Q also, as well as correctors of B, have an additional\nclause in v. 24, which pre-supposes the former portion of the piece, a\nclause given in A.V. and R.V. The \u03ba\u03b1\u03af of \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd in \u039f\u00b4 answers the\nsame purpose. Daniel's mocking tone at the end of v. 27 agrees well with\nhis sense of humour in v. 7. Cyrus' ready compliance, too, in v. 26 is\nonly accounted for fully by the shock given to his idolatrous beliefs in\nthe Bel part of the story. And so far the internal evidence argues for\nthe unity of the piece. But it is noticeable that the Epistle for\nTuesday after the Fifth Sunday in Lent in the Sarum and Roman Missals\nconsists of the Dragon story only, beginning at v. 29, with some slight\nintroductory changes.\n\nAnd Gaster's recovered Aramaic text (which he believes to have been the\nbasis of Theodotion's Greek) consists of the Dragon story only. The\nnotion that it had a separate currency is therefore, to a certain\nextent, supported; and this would still be the case, even if Gaster's\ntext is not an original, but a translation.\n\nIf Gaster's Aramaic were really the basis of \u0398's version, it would\nfollow that he did not confine himself to making a mere recension of the\n\u039f\u00b4 text, though he evidently availed himself of it as far as he thought\nproper. It is highly probable that this would apply to the Bel as well\nas to the Dragon story, although the corresponding Aramaic of the former\nis not at present forthcoming.\n\nNeither the \u039f\u00b4 nor \u0398's original text seem to have been materially\ntampered with, either in the way of addition or omission. Each has some\nclauses not contained in the other: \u039f\u00b4 in vv. 9, 15, 31, 39; \u0398 in vv. 1,\n12, 13, 36, 40. Yet Westcott (Smith's _D.B._ I. 397a, ed. 2, 714a)\nthinks that some of \u0398's changes arose from a desire to give consistency\nto the facts. The change at the end of v. 27, however, is hardly a happy\none, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd being put immediately after \u1f41 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd, thus suggesting the\nidea that the latter drew attention to the fact that he was destroyed.\nThe LXX. avoided this.\n\nIt is remarkable that Theodoret, in his _Commentary on Daniel_, comments\non vv. 1 and 2 of Bel and the Dragon (\u0398) only, treating them as the\nclosing verse (14) of chap. xii., and introducing them with the words,\n\u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. This curious fact, combined with that of their omission\nfrom the \u039f\u00b4, points to some arrangement of the text with which we are\nnot acquainted. Theodoret also refers to these same verses previously,\nin commenting on chaps. v. 3 and x. 1. Though he says nothing of the\nrest of Bel and the Dragon, he shews, by his referring in Ep. cxlv.\n(latter part) to Habakkuk's miraculous flight through the air, that he\nwas well acquainted with the story, and approved of it.\n\nThe principal MSS. available are A, B, Q, \u0393 (vv. 2--4 only), and \u0394 from\nv. 21 to 41, which has recently reinforced our somewhat scanty uncial\nauthorities.\n\nThe text of A appears to have slightly better Greek (vv. 9, 10, 19, 21,\n27); but the form \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 (occurs in Heb. xi. 34 in A), if not a\nslip,[67] seems Ionic (Wordsworth's _Greek Gram._ \u00a7 16, Obs.), as has\nbeen already mentioned ('Authorship,' p. 193), and might perhaps be\naccounted for by \u0398's connection with Ephesus. The substitution of \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2\nfor \u03c4\u1ff7, however, in v. 34 seems no improvement, A in this, as in several\nother instances (vv. 10, 28, 35), agreeing with the \u039f\u00b4 reading. Taking,\nfor convenience, B as the norm, we find that A's departures from it are\nsomewhat larger than in the Song of the Three. In v. 7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 is added, as also in Q, to the description of Bel's inability to\nconsume food. In v. 11 \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u1ff3 is curiously substituted by A for\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3; in v. 13 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd for \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd. Both these are\nsuggestive of carelessness or of error _ex ore dictantis_ (Scrivener,\n_N.T. Criticism_, ed. 2, p. 10). In v. 36 the substitution of \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 for\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 is peculiar. The alteration of gender in v. 17, \u03c3\u1ff6\u03b1\u03b9 for \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bf\u03b9 in\nits first occurrence, but not in its second, may come under the head of\nthose \"somewhat officious corrections\" with which the editors of I.\nMacc. in the _Camb. Bible for Schools_ (p. 48) charge this MS., as\nlikewise perhaps the reading \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd for \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd in v. 10.\n\nQ not unfrequently agrees with it in differing from B. It stands alone,\nhowever, in reading \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd for \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd in v. 22, and in omitting the last\nsix words of v. 41, perhaps as improbable when coming from Cyrus.\nTogether with A, it contains an additional clause in v. 24, putting\nwords into Cyrus' mouth which connect the two stories together. \u0393,\nhaving vv. 2--4 only, contains no important variation. \u0394 (only from v.\n21 to v. 41) contains in v. 22 the curious word \u1f14\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 instead of\n\u1f14\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nAll things considered, the text of both versions may be said to be in as\nfair condition as in the canonical part of Daniel.\n\n\nLANGUAGE AND STYLE.\n\n\nLANGUAGE.\n\n[_See_ corresponding title in Susanna.]\n\nThe indications of a Semitic original give this fragment, in that\nrespect, a middle place between the other two. Less numerous than in the\nSong of the Three, they are more so than in the History of Susanna,\nthough this is a shorter piece than that.\n\nThe non-discovery by Origen and others of Hebrew originals in their own\nday by no means goes so far as to prove that such never existed, as\nRothstein in Kautzsch (I. 179) truly says.\n\nSince Gaster's discovery of an Aramaic text of the Dragon (not of Bel),\nthe probability of a Semitic rather than a Greek original seems\nstrengthened. But see what Sch\u00fcrer thinks, under the corresponding\ntitle in the Song of the Three, as also of the Syriac version at the end\nof Neubauer's _Tobit._ C.H. Toy, too, in his article in the _Jewish\nEncyclop\u00e6dia_, Vol. II, says: \"In the present state of knowledge it\nseems better to reserve opinion as to its antiquity.\"\n\nDelitzsch, at the end of his _Commentatio de Hab. proph. vita atque\noetate_ (Lips. 1842), prints in Rabbinic characters a Persian rendering,\n\"ex codice Paris-Reg. judaico-persico,\" which he says \"ex textu hebraico\nvel aramaico factam esse, ex crebris hebraismis patet\" (p. 105). And on\npp. 26, 27 he prints the LXX from v. 28 to the end, and adds: \"H\u00e6c omnia\nad verbum Hebraico vel Aramaico translata esse dictionis simplicitas,\nstructura ac tota indoles clamat atque testatur.\" But on p. 41 he quotes\nthe opinion of Prof. Solomon Munk, of Paris (_Notice sur Rab. Saadia\nGaon_, p. 84), that this Hebrew text, translated into Persian, was\nitself made by some European Rabbi from the Greek or Latin Bible. And a\nsimilar origin for Gaster's text is now thought far from unlikely.\n\nIt may be well here to give a few brief notes on the separate phrases as\nthey occur:\n\nv. 3 \u0398. With \u1f10\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, _cf._ \u05d0\u05b2\u05db\u05b7\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05f3 of Deut. xxxii. 23 (\"I will\nspend my arrows upon,\" etc.). \u0394\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9 occurs with \u1f10\u03bd and \u1f10\u03c0\u03af in N.T.\nGreek, but apparently not with \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2, nor yet in the canonical O.T.\nDeissmann, however, attempts to shew that this use of \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2, instead of\n'dativus commodi,' is an Alexandrian idiom (_Bible Studies_, Eng. tr.,\nEdinb. 1900, p. 127). \u05db\u05dc\u05d0 is also used in Aramaic in the same sense in\nPahel.\n\nv. 6 \u039f\u00b4. The same phrase as the last recurs, inverted: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nv. 7 \u039f\u00b4. Here the accusative after \u1f40\u03bc\u03bd\u03cd\u03c9 might be taken as favouring a\nGreek original, since \u1f10\u03bd for \u05d1 would seem natural in a translation of\nHebrew or Aramaic.\n\nv. 7 \u0398; v. 11 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398; v. 27 \u039f\u00b4. The occurrence of \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b5\u1fe6 in these verses\nsuggests a rendering of \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0 which is used several times in the\nAramaic portion of Daniel, while it never occurs in the vocative in the\nHebrew portion. This indication, small though it be, inclines of course\ntowards an Aramaic rather than a Hebrew original.\n\nv. 10 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. Scholz's suggestion that \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 are translations\nof \u05dc\u05d1\u05e8 is more probable than some of his ideas, for it is rendered by\nboth these words more than once in the Greek O.T.\n\nv. 12 \u0398. \u1f41 \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd might be a translation of \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e7\u05b7\u05e8 \u05e6\u05b7\u05dc or\n\u05e6\u05b7\u05dc.\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05d1 \u05e6\u05b7\u05dc is occasionally rendered by \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac, as in Job xxxiii. 10,\nin a hostile sense. Liddell and Scott, however, give one example of\n\u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03c9 with \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac, and Arnold an anonymous one in his _Greek Grammar_\n(1848, p. 265).\n\nv. 13 \u0398. \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 looks like a translation of \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3 (or \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0), as\nin I. Kings x. 8, where it is so rendered.\n\nv. 14 \u039f\u00b4. \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 presents a difficulty here, which may be solved\nby supposing that \u05d7\u05b2\u05ea\u05b7\u05dd had been read by mistake for \u05e1\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05dd, a kind of\nerror characteristic of the LXX translators. To 'shut' seems more in\nplace here than to 'seal,' which naturally follows later in the verse;\nshutting first, sealing second, seems the only intelligible order.\n\nvv. 14, 28 \u0398; vv. 15, 33 \u039f\u00b4. The \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf of these verses is\nsuggestive of \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9 in the original.\n\nv. 18 \u0398. (\u0394\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 has an 'ungreek' look, and may have been a\nrendering of \u05e6\u05b7\u05d3 \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05d3, as in Exod. xiv. 28. \u05d7\u05d3\u05d0 (\u05d7\u05d3\u05d4) for \u05d7\u05d6\u05d0 (\u05d7\u05d6\u05d4)\nmight account for the king's 'rejoicing' in \u039f\u00b4 becoming his 'seeing' in\n\u0398.\n\nv. 19 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. The reading of \u1f14\u03b4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 by \u0398 instead of \u03b4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 by \u039f\u00b4 may be\naccounted for by supposing \u05e9\u05e7\u05e4\u05d0 to have been substituted for \u05e9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0, as\nsuggested in Hastings' _Dict._\n\nv. 26 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. The use of \u03ba\u03b1\u03af instead of \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1, to begin a clause signifying\npurpose, is very Hebraic.\n\nv. 27 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. The ingenious idea of A. Scholz that \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd and\n\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03b7\u03b5 are renderings of \u05d4\u05e4\u05d7\u05d3\u05d9\u05db\u05dd and \u05d4\u05e4\u05d7\u05d3\u05ea\u05dd respectively, \u05d4 in\nthe first case being the article, and in the second merely the\ninterrogative particle, like other conjectures on p. 202 of his\n_Commentary_, can hardly stand. He appears to have forgotten that the\narticle must not be placed before a noun with a pronominal suffix.[68]\n\nv. 28 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. \u1f10\u03c0\u03af looks like a translation of \u05e6\u05dc (_cf._ Sus. 29). In \u039f\u00b4\nit is used against Daniel, and in \u0398 against the king.\n\nv. 33 \u039f\u00b4. Delitzsch suggests (p. 27) \u05d4\u05e9\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd for the\nbeginning of this verse, with much likelihood.\n\nv. 36 \u0398. The reading \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 in A for \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 may have arisen from \u05e7\u05d3\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\nbeing corrupted by homoeoteleuton into \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5, for which A has read \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5. A.\nScholz's notion of explaining this by Isai. xlv. 1 (where \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03ac is used,\nnot \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1) is unsatisfactory.\n\nv. 40 \u039f\u00b4, \u0398. The attempt to explain (Marshall in Hastings' _D.B._ art.\n_Bel and the Dragon_) the 'in medio' of Vulg. v. 39 by a reading \u05d1\u05d2\u05d5 for\n\u05d1\u05d2\u05d1 is not very likely, since they do not occur in corresponding\nclauses.\n\nv. 42 \u039f\u00b4. \u1f18\u03be\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd is used of the king here in a good sense, in v. 22 in\na bad one. This is possibly a rendering of \u05d4\u05e8\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0 in the latter case, of\n\u05d4\u05e6\u05dc\u05d4 in the former.\n\nThe Greek of the writer is hardly such as we should expect, unless he\nwas narrating a story which had reached him from a Hebrew source. The\nfrequency with which verbs occur very early in the construction of\nsentences is a point in favour of a Semitic original, which does appear\nto have been dwelt upon, _e.g._ vv. 11, 20 (\u039f\u00b4), and 14, 16, 22 (\u0398).\n\nIt is a matter of considerable nicety to estimate the value of these and\nsimilar indications. They are not decisive. They tell with varying force\nupon varying minds; but they distinctly tend, in the writer's opinion,\nto increase the probability of the Greek having been grounded upon a\nHebrew or an Aramaic form of the story, the likelihood of the latter\nbeing slightly the stronger.\n\nIn view of the introduction of Habakkuk into the story of the Dragon,\nDelitzsch's opinion as to the similarity of Daniel's Hebrew to the\nHebrew of that prophet (_see_ Streane, _Age of Macc._ p. 262) becomes of\nimportance. A. Scholz, too, is of opinion (p. 146) that the Habakkuk\ntitle makes for a Hebrew original, because the real prophecy of Habakkuk\nwas undoubtedly Hebrew, and this piece, whether genuine or fictitious,\nwould hardly have been appended in another language.\n\nThe LXX version was certainly known to Theodotion, since he copies much\nof it, yet not quite so largely as in the Song of the Three. But it is\nevident that he had other documents or traditions to use, of which he\nfreely availed himself; possibly some previous translation other than\nLXX, as has been suggested under Susanna ('Date and Place,' p. 114).\nThere seems nothing in either Greek recension to imply that the two\nparts of Bel and the Dragon (separated in Luther's version) are not by\nthe same hand.\n\nIt is noteworthy that the word \u1f14\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, applied to Bel when handed over\nto Daniel (v. 22, \u0398), is used of our Lord in Acts ii. 23, these two\nbeing its only Biblical occurrences.\n\n\nSTYLE.\n\nThe style is that of simple, clear, and well-told narrative, with very\nlittle rhetorical embellishment about it, yet bearing somewhat of a\ndramatic cast, like much of the canonical book to which it is appended.\nIt is not tedious (though there is much to tell which might have been\neasily spun out), but is brief and spirited. There is nothing\nsuperfluous to the aim of the story.[69]\n\nMoreover, the narrative is told in such a way as ever to be a story of\ncaptivating interest to the young, being full of movement and\ninteresting incident. The style of the composition is much more in\naccordance with Syrian than with Alexandrian models. There is nothing of\nHellenistic speculation or philosophy, though the subject of idolatry\nwould have lent itself to such treatment (as that of injustice would in\nSusanna). No figurative or hyperbolic phraseology is employed.\n\nAn idea has been revived and maintained that the lions' den episode at\nthe end is a mere adaptation and embellishment of that in Dan. vi.[70]\n(Churton, 392; Streane, 109, \"distortions of O.T. narratives\"; J.M.\nFuller, S.P.C.K. _Comm. in loc._). This idea is successfully opposed by\nArnald, who (on v. 31) gives three reasons against it, and by Bishop\nGray (_Introd. to O.T. in loc._). Delitzsch (p. 30) calls this section\nof \u0398's version \"partem dignissimam.\" Attempts to prove the falsity of\nthis martyrdom, if such it may be called, by first assuming the identity\nof these two events, treating the latter as an ornamental exaggeration\nof the former, and then pointing out what are taken for irreconcileable\ndiscrepancies, are beside the mark. Nor does the supposition that the\none night in the den (of Dan. vi.) was increased to six, nor that the\ndetail of withholding the lions' usual food to sharpen their appetites\n(in \u0398 only), were added for the purpose of heightening the effect, carry\nmuch weight. The omission of Daniel's speech, with the detail[71] of the\nangel closing the lions' mouths (vv. 21, 22), tells in the opposite\ndirection. It is no more necessary to reckon these two den episodes as\none event than our Lord's feeding of the four and five thousand, or his\nhealing of the centurion's servant and the nobleman's son.\n\n\nRELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.\n\n\nRELIGIOUS.\n\nA religious feeling, strong though misdirected, evidently existed both\nin king and people, involving considerable expenditure on objects and\nplaces of worship. It was not as to the propriety of worship in itself,\nbut of the object towards which it ought to be directed, that the\ncontroversy arose.\n\nTwo sorts of worship were in vogue:--\n\n(a) _Bel-worship._ As to the practice of this in Babylon no question\nappears to be raised; he was the supreme god and guardian of Babylon.\nThe representation of Cyrus as a worshipper of Bel agrees with the\naccount of himself in the Annals of Nabu-nahid, cited by Ball on v. 4;\nand Sayce (_Temple Bible_, Tobit, p. 95) notes that the cuneiform\nmonuments have shewn that Cyrus was politic enough to conform to the\nreligion of his Babylonian subjects.\n\nThe unabashed effrontery of the idol-priests (vv. 11, 12) is very\ncharacteristic. See, however, Blakesley's note on Herodot. VIII. 41.\n\n(b) _Dragon-worship._ This is not otherwise known to have existed in\nBabylonia, but snake-worship, which may be the same, is asserted by J.T.\nMarshall (end of art. _Bel and the Dragon_, Hastings' _D.B._.). In\nsupport of this it is noteworthy that \u1f41 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd is identified with \u1f41 \u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2\nin Rev. xii. 9, and that \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1 and \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05df seem identified in Ex. iv.\n3 and vii. 9. A. Kamphausen, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, thinks that\n\"G\u00fcnkel has conclusively shewn that the primeval Babylonian myth of the\nconquest of the chaos-monster or the great dragon Tiamat by the god\nMarduk lies at the root.\" So J.M. Fuller, in the S.P.C.K. _Comm._, says\nthat \"in Babylonian inscriptions dealing with the fall, a dragon,\ngenerally female, appears.\" Daniel plans his scheme in accordance with\nthe dragon's known voracity (Jer. li. 34). The \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\nof Rev. xiii. 4 may have been suggested by the dragon-worship here;\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf is used in v. 23, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd (with dat.) in v. 24 (both\nversions).\n\nDaniel set himself, in reply to the king, who suggested to him the\npropriety of Bel-worship, to detach the Babylonians from these\nsuperstitious follies, to interpret God's will in the matter, and to\nfree them from the service of idols. Yet his own name, 'Belteshazzar,'\nmay have implied[72] Bel's existence; still, even if it was so, we must\nremember that it was not self-assumed, but given by the chief eunuch.\nThe king's question shews that he misunderstood Daniel's character. It\nis noticeable, as a link of connection between the two parts of the\nstory, that Daniel attacks the former superstition, Bel, by disproving\nthe belief in the god's powers of eating; and the latter, the Dragon,\nby destroying the supposed divinity by means of what he ate.\n\nAs described in the Greek, Daniel's method of destroying the Dragon\nappears quite inadequate to effect his purpose. The ingredients named as\ncomposing the ball do not seem capable of achieving the result which\nfollowed. But in Gaster's Aramaic a different light is thrown upon the\nmatter; for the ball is merely used as a vehicle to conceal sharp teeth\nembedded in it, so that the Dragon might swallow them unawares, and\nsustain internally a fatal laceration. If this be accepted as correct,\nSir Thomas Browne's discussion, as to how such unlikely ingredients\nmight bring about a death of the kind described, is naturally set aside.\nS. Wilkin, however, in his edition of Browne's _Works_, 1835 (Vol. II.\np. 337), does not treat Sir T. Browne's discussion as a serious one; but\nin this view all will not concur. Sch\u00fcrer, in Hauck's _Dict._ (I. 639),\nwrites of the Dragon as having been slain \"mit unverdaulichen Kitchen\";\nand Toy, in the _Jewish Encyclop\u00e6dia_, regards \"the iron comb insertion\nas a natural embellishment.\" It is, however, not at all out of keeping\nwith Daniel's clever devices for the detection of error, and looks like\na practicable plan. And Josippon, quoted by Heppner, _op. cit._ p. 33,\ngives a similar account of the Dragon's destruction,\n\u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d1\u05e8\u05d6\u05dc.\n\nThe consequence of the prophet's triumph in each case appears to have\nbeen that the king was convinced of the vanity of idols much more than\nhis people. And as Daniel's demonstrations were not, so far as we see,\nmade before the general public, this is what might have been expected. A\nsimilar conviction on Nebuchadnezzar's part, without any spontaneous\nassent of his people, may be noticed in Dan. iii. 28--30, vi. 25--28. A\nlack of popular adhesion to the king's change of mind would sufficiently\naccount for the early restoration of Bel's temple (_see_ 'Chronology,'\np. 225).\n\nIn v. 21 the LXX states that it was Daniel who shewed the king the privy\ndoors. This, on the whole, has more _vraisemblance_ than the idea of\nTheodotion, who states that it was the priests who undertook the task.\nBall suggests that they did so because they were \"in fear of their\nlives\"; but if so, this plan of saving them, by making a clean breast of\nthe matter, was unsuccessful.\n\nAnother religious feature shews itself in v. 28, viz. the scorn in which\nthe Babylonian zealots held the Jewish religion. It would evidently have\nbeen regarded as a degradation for the king to become a Jew, and social\nwould probably here combine with religious grounds in giving force to\nthis feeling. Compare Pilate's contempt of such an idea with regard to\nhimself, as expressed in St. John xviii. 35. Grotius proposed a\ntranslation which inverted the phrase in such a way as to make it apply\nto Daniel: \"A Jew has become king.\" This, however, is not natural in the\nGreek, has no countenance lent to it by the Aramaic text, and is clearly\nopposed by the Syriac marginal title as given in Swete's manual LXX,\n\"tit. adpinx. ut vid. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\nSyr'mg*.\" Cajetanus Bugati also (_Daniel_, Milan, 1788, p. 162) thinks\nGrotius wrong.[73] For a similarly imagined instance of a king embracing\nJudaism, _cf._ II. Macc. ix. 17, headed by A.V., \"Antiochus promiseth to\nbecome a Jew,\" on which Rawlinson notes, \"it is extremely improbable\nthat Epiphanes ever expressed any such intention,\" an opinion in which\nmost will agree.\n\nThe withholding of food, in order to sharpen the lions' appetites (v.\n32), shews a spirit similar to that which directed the sevenfold heating\nof the furnace in chap. iii. The numbers in vv. 2, 10, etc., are quite\nin keeping with Daniel's use of symbolic numeration for purposes of\nreligious teaching; and the zeal displayed against idolatry is\ncharacteristic of the Jewish captivity, as depicted in the canonical\nbook which bears his name. These three points, therefore, so far as they\ngo, tell in favour of the religious unity of the whole.\n\n\nSOCIAL\n\nDaniel appears on the same terms of intimacy with royalty as in the\ncanonical book, and speaks his mind a little more freely and intimately\nperhaps, as becomes his added years and experience. He still acts as a\ndivine messenger to a heathen king, and he successfully unmasks his\nfallacy of judging by appearances in the matter of Bel's food. His\nlaughter in vv. 7,19, may have been amusement at the king's simplicity\nor at the priests' cunning, the king's wrath in vv. 8, 21, being\ncompatible with either. But this laughter of v. 7 only appears in \u0398's\nversion. As in Susanna, he stands as the willing exposer of fraud,\nintellectually acute as well as morally upright.\n\nv. 29 \u0398 has been objected to by Ball and by Z\u00f6ckler as an unlikely mode\nof address by the conquered Babylonians to Cyrus their conqueror.\nProbably some tumultous rising took place, which the king, a true\noriental monarch, pacified at the expense of Daniel. On such outbreaks\ncourtly politeness often vanishes, and the tyrant is subject to tyranny.\nSuch an occurrence agrees with Habakkuk's description of the Chaldees as\n\"bitter and hasty\" (i. 6), and 'senseless' and 'absurd' are scarcely the\nterms to apply to it.\n\nThe slaughter of the priests (vv. 22, 28) is quite in accordance with\nthe practice as shewn in the canonical chapters ii. and vi.[74]; also\nthe destruction of false accusers (v. 42) with vi. 25; so also the\nkeeping of lions by the king; and so, too, the method of double sealing\n(v. 11 \u039f\u00b4, 14 \u0398; vi. 17). That \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 should be under the command of\nDaniel (v. 14 \u0398 and Syr.) is what would be likely for one in his\nposition. The term is used of himself in Sus. 45 \u0398 as a page of superior\nrank. The idea of an image being made of more materials than one (v. 7)\nis paralleled in ii. 32, 33.\n\nCyrus' cowardice in giving up Daniel to the threatening mob is very like\nPilate's in delivering up Christ (St. Matt, xxvii. 26, St. John xix.\n16). \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9 is used in each case (v. 29 \u0398, 30 \u0398 and \u039f\u00b4). Similar,\ntoo, is Nebuchadnezzar's conduct with Daniel, and that of Herod Antipas\nwith St. John Baptist. Despotic rulers are often frightened by popular\nclamour. But Cyrus, however weak in yielding, appears at the close of\nthe story in a less odious light than Pilate.\n\nAs in Susanna, there is no indication of rabbinism in the legal,\nreligious, or social standpoints of the story.\n\n\nTHEOLOGY.\n\nThe whole piece makes a mock at idolatry[75] with a view of turning men\nfrom false worships to that of the living God. Indeed the end of v. 5\nseems an echo of Gen. i. 1. Jehovah's power to vindicate Himself and His\nservants is of course also exhibited, and this in contrast to the idols,\nwho make no resistance to their overthrow.\n\nHe is represented as Sole Sovereign, the only God worthy of worship,\nwith full power to deliver by wonderful providence His faithful people,\nwho make their acknowledgments to Him. However far they may be\nscattered, His eye is still upon them; He forsakes not those who seek\nand love Him (v. 38).\n\nvv. 3, 4, 14 are quoted by Iren\u00e6us (IV. ix. 1) to prove that the one\nliving God was the God worshipped by the prophets, as \"the God of the\nliving.\" Even the heathen king is forced to confess that He is great and\nunique, and (in Vulg. only, v. 42) calls Him Saviour, and desires the\nwhole world to worship Him.\n\nIt is noteworthy that the king is represented as the party complaining\nin the first instance; it is his question (v. 4) which draws forth from\nDaniel his practical proof of the vanity of idols, inanimate or animate,\nculminating in the triumphant exclamation at the end of v. 27. And thus\nthe imposture of idol-worship is revealed, as well as the value of\ndevotion to the true Lord of all, by a process commenced in the opposite\ninterest.\n\nDaniel resists the king's invitation to worship Bel, which might have\nled him under the ban of Deut. xviii. 20 (end) as \"speaking in the name\nof other gods.\" False theological opinions are corrected by Daniel, who\nnot only dissuades from idol-worship, but persuades to that of the true\ndeity. Hence the beautiful appropriateness of \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5 (v. 38)\ninstead of \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd in the corresponding point of\ndelivery in Sus. 60 \u0398. For Daniel was fighting for God, while Susanna\nwas defending herself. The one was an active plaintiff for God, the\nother a passive defendant of herself. Thus Love in Daniel's case, Hope\nin Susanna's, has its own special appropriateness.\n\nIn v. 5 Daniel claims God to be \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, but Cyrus claims for Bel\nto be only \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2; in v. 24 Cyrus makes the same claim for the Dragon,\nand then in v. 25 Daniel makes only a like claim for God (anarthrous),\nfor Daniel takes here the words out of Cyrus' mouth; in the former\ninstance it was _vice vers\u00e2_. The same phrases are used by Darius in vi.\n20, 26 \u0398. Thus the prophet makes a more exclusive claim for the divinity\nof his God. In v. 6 a contrast is afforded with what is said of God in\nPs. xvi. 2 (P.B. aft. Vulg. and LXX), as the Creator who still retains\npower over living beings.\n\nAs in the canonical Dan. vi. 22 (and in the other additions thereto), so\nhere an angel intervenes on behalf of the right, rescuing God's\npersecuted prophet. A man is employed in each case also to carry out the\nmiraculous purposes of God. Further, compare the angel helping Daniel,\nafter conflict with the Dragon, with Rev. xii. 7, 8.\n\nThe sudden transportation of Habakkuk (v. 36) is parallelled by that of\nSt. Philip in Acts viii. 39 by the \"Spirit of the Lord.\" Ezek. viii. 3,\nwhich is printed as a parallel in the margin of A.V. at iii. 12, 14 of\nthat book, may also be compared,[76] as well as I. Kings xviii. 12 and\nSt. Matt. iv. I. For the latter part of this verse (36), barely\nintelligible in the Greek, Gaster's Aramaic gives an excellent sense.\n\nThere does not seem to be any undue love of the marvellous or straining\nto bring it into prominence. Both the statue and the Dragon are\ndestroyed by ordinary means; and their false position in the imagination\nof the people is unmasked without any resort to the miraculous.[77] This\nelement does not enter into the story till the rescue of the persecuted\nDaniel, who has been so zealous for the honour of his God.\n\nThough, with its two companion pieces, it has been cavilled at (not to\nreckon Africanus' enquiries) from the time of the Jewish teacher whom\nJerome tells us of in his preface to Daniel, yet even the most\ncontemptuous deprecators of the 'Additions' can find little seriously to\ncondemn in the theology of this story.[78] Considering the strong\ndesire which has existed in some quarters to charge these apocryphal\nbooks with grievous doctrinal error, this fact says much. The knowledge\nof God and of divine things is what would be probable at the time it\nrepresents, and is not incongruous with the book to which it is\nappended, nor with its fellow-appendices. This speaks well for its\nexcellence and its consistency.\n\n\nCHRONOLOGY.\n\nThe principal chronological points, concerning which difficulties have\nbeen felt, arise: (A) in vv. 1, 2, concerning Astyages, Cyrus, and\nDaniel; (B) in v. 22, as to the destruction of Bel's temple; and (C) in\nv. 33, as to Habakkuk being a contemporary of Daniel.\n\nIn connection with A, it is remarkable that v. 1 forms in the Vulgate\nthe last verse of the preceding chapter, _i.e._ the last verse of\nSusanna. This arrangement may have been made from chronological reasons,\npossibly to escape an apparent difficulty; and in the LXX the verse is\nwanting altogether. Either plan, the attachment of the verse to\nSusanna, or its entire omission, has the effect of leaving the king in\nthis piece nameless, and so solves the imagined difficulty of Cyrus and\nDaniel acting together as represented.\n\nThe text commented on by Theodoret offers the same solution in another\nform, viz. by transferring v. 1 to the end of chap, xii., and so\nconcluding the book. He thus introduces it: \u039f\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Theodoret comments\nno further on Bel and the Dragon, though his remarks in other parts of\nthe commentary shew that he favourably regarded it. See his observations\non v. 31, x. 1.\n\nThe disappearance in one case, and the displacements in the others of\nthis verse, evidently point to some uncertainty in early times as to its\nright connection. But the difficulties raised as to this verse even\nwhere it stands are not so serious as was once thought. As Ball says _in\nloc._, \"The cuneiform records have thrown unexpected light on\ndifficulties which were the despair of bygone generations of scholars,\"\nand quotes one which makes Astyages the captive of Cyrus. J.H. Blunt\nattempts to shew, not very satisfactorily, that the king of v. 2 was\nDarius. A note in Husenbeth's Douay version, still less so, quietly says\n\"Astyages, or Darius\"!\n\nIt has also been suggested, with regard to this and difficulty C, that\nanother Daniel is here intended, to be identified with the Daniel of\nEzra viii. 2 (Bissell).\n\nThe second difficulty, B, is raised by the asserted destruction of Bel's\ntemple in v. 22. Now this is said not to have been destroyed till\nXerxes' return from Greece in 479. Even then Herodotus (I. 183) merely\nsays that he 'took' (\u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5) a golden statue, and slew the protesting\npriest; Strabo, on hearsay, (XVI. 1) and Arrian (_Exp. Alex._ VII. 17),\nhowever, assert its destruction. But this forms a small obstacle, unduly\nmagnified. Supposing Bel's temple to have been destroyed, as v. 22\nnarrates, it is far from improbable that another temple may have been\nraised before Xerxes' arrival. The people were evidently attached to\nBel's worship, as v. 28 shews, notwithstanding the conviction of their\nking as to the truth of Daniel's God. It is noticeable that the LXX has\nno mention of the temple's, but only of the idol's, destruction; and\nthat \u0398, according to the manuscript Q, has not \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd but \u03bd\u03b1\u03cc\u03bd in v. 22.\n\nA. Scholz entertains the strange opinion that this and other historic\ndifficulties were purposely introduced by the writer: \"Der Verfasser\nunserer Erz\u00e4hlung kennt sichtlich die Verh\u00e4ltnisse in Babylon, und hat\nseine Darstellung so eingerichtet, dass es einfach unm\u00f6glich ist, sie\ngeschichtlich zu verstehen\" (p. 219). But this is a desperate expedient\nto support his view of the whole story being intended for a 'vision,'\nand it would be hard to find any parallel to such a proceeding on the\npart of the sacred writers.[79]\n\nSo far as Babylon is concerned, there is no indication of anything but a\ntime of peace, which is quite in accordance with the supposed period of\nthe narrative.\n\nThere is perhaps more difficulty, C, in making Habakkuk than in making\nCyrus, a contemporary of the grown-up Daniel. Indeed, with the earlier\ndate formerly assigned to Habakkuk, the difficulty seemed all but\ninsuperable, except by postulating two Habakkuks or two Daniels. And,\nmuch as it may lack _vraisemblance_, either of those suppositions is of\ncourse within the bounds of possibility. So Trapp notes, rather\nsneeringly, on Hab. i. 1: \"Those apocryphal Additions to Daniel, which\neither are false, or there were two Habakkuks\"; and J.H. Blunt, more\nseriously, to a similar effect on Hab. i. 1 and Bel 33. Josippon ben\nGorion (I. 7) joins the whole story with the canonical history, but, as\ngiven by Delitzsch (_op. cit._ p. 40), transposes, presumably from\nchronological motives, the den incident to the beginning of the story,\n\"in ordine chronologico iudaic\u00e6 traditioni de Habacuci \u00e6tate se\naccommodantem.\" Josippon, around whom considerable obscurity hangs, is\ndated as of the eighth or ninth century in the _Biog. Univ._ art.\n_Gorionides_, Paris, 1857; but in Hastings' _D.B._ art _Bel and the\nDragon_, p. 267b, c. A.D. 940 is given as his time.\n\nHabakkuk's prophecy is now dated as late as 600 (Driver in Hastings'\n_D.B._ art. _Habakkuk_; Kirkpatrick in Smith's _D.B\u00b2._ art. _Habakkuk_,\n1256b, says \"not later than the sixth year of Jehoiakim\"); and if\nHabakkuk prophesied in his youth, our story is not an impossible one. So\nCornelius Jansen (_Analecta_, p. 154), \"Quapropter nihil obstabit quo\nminus idem Habacuc iam senex prandium in Babylonem detulerit,\" and he\nquotes a tradition of Isidore Hispalensis (_de vit. Proph._) that\nHabakkuk lived to see the return from the Captivity, and two years\nafter. Rosenm\u00fcller, quoted in a note on Hab. i. 1 by Maurer (neither of\nwhom were too partial to traditional views), thinks that the time of\nHabakkuk is consistent with the \"vetus fama in apocryphis Danielis\nadditamentis.\" He even places chap. iii. of Habakkuk under Zedekiah,\nthough with this Maurer does not agree (_cf._ Henderson, _Min. Proph.,\nIntrod. to Hab._).\n\nJamieson, Brown, and Faussett in their Commentary, _Introd. to Hab._\n(1869), by no means inclined to favour the Apocrypha, say that Bel and\nthe Dragon agrees with the notion of Habakkuk prophesying in Jehoiakim's\nreign.\n\nG.A. Smith, however, in his _Book of the Twelve Prophets_, 1900, II.\n130, contents himself with calling it \"an extraordinary story of\nHabakkuk's miraculous carriage of food to Daniel in the lions' den, soon\nafter Cyrus had taken Babylon.\" But A.C. Jennings, in Bishop Ellicott's\n_Comm. for English Readers, Introd. to Hab._, pp. 523--5, says: \"The\nstory, worthless in itself, nevertheless, indirectly confirms the theory\nof date which we have accepted below\" in these words, \"Habakkuk's\nprophecy dates from the reign of Jehoiakim, not more than five years at\nmost before the battle of Carchemish--how much nearer that great event\nit is impossible to say.\" Dean Farrar also curiously observes,\n\"Habakkuk's appearance in apocryphal legend (vv. 33--39) shews the\nimpression he had made on the mind of his people, and perhaps indicates\nhis date as a contemporary of Daniel.\" (_Minor Prophets_ in 'Men of the\nBible' series, n.d., p. 160).\n\nAnother instance of belief in the contemporaneity of Daniel and Habakkuk\nis afforded by Raymund Martini (_c._ 1250) in his _Pugio fidei_ (Paris,\n1651, p. 740): \"Habacuc vero Prophetam fuisse contemporaneum Danieli\ninde colligitur ubi in Bereschit Rabba hoc modo scribitur de Joseph,\" he\nsays before quoting a long passage from the B.R. on Gen. xxxvii. 24.\nThis passage is none other than a portion of Bel and the Dragon in\nChaldee, and is headed without reserve as \u05d1\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc. It proceeds with v. 28\nto the end:\n\u05dc\u05db\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc \u05ea\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d5\u05dc\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d8\u05dc \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4\u05e4\u05db\u05d5 \u05e6\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d7\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05db\u05e0\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d1\u05dc\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e6\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d0. Then follows a Latin translation,\nafter which Martini adds \"Hucusque traditio,\" and, after quoting Hab. i.\n6, finishes his work.\n\nMartini's good faith in quotation is defended by Neubauer in his Chaldee\nTobit (Oxf, 1888, xviii. to xxiv.). He also identifies the Breshith\nRabbah quoted with the Midrash Rabbah de Rabbah. The real Breshith is\nprobably as early as the 4th century; but neither in the Venice edition\nof 1566, nor the Leipzig one of 1864, is the passage to be found under\nGen. xxxvii. _Cf._ Payne-Smith's note, as to Martini's quotations, in\n_Pearson on the Creed_, Oxf. 1870, p. 306, where it is shewn that by\nBreshith Rabbah the book by Moses Haddarshan (of the 11th century) is\nsometimes meant. Etheridge states that only fragments of this book are\nextant (p. 406). Delitzsch (_de Habacuci Proph. vita atque \u00e6tate_, Lips.\n1842, p. 34) also defends Martini's sincerity, and says \"Non dubito\nfore, ut fragmentum a Raymundo nobiscum communicatum aliquando in\nantiquis Genesis Rabba Codd., qui sane rarissimi sunt, inveniatur.\"\n\nThe fact incidentally brought out in the story that Habakkuk was not\nengaged in reaping, but was occupied in taking out food for the reapers,\nfits in well with the idea of his advanced age. Such a task might well\nbe undertaken by one who was no longer strong enough for field\nlabour.[80]\n\nAll these difficulties would, on other grounds, be deprived of much of\ntheir importance by the theory of A. Scholz, if that could be accepted\nas true. He regards the entire book of Daniel, including of course the\nAdditions, as a series of apocalyptic visions (p. 201). This he\nconsiders as the earliest explanation, supported by the heading \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\nto each chapter of Daniel in A and some other MSS. But while removing\none set of difficulties, this theory introduces others of a character at\nleast as serious; and it is by no means easy to convince oneself that\nthere is an \"apocalyptic\" tone about this or the other Additions. This\nremarkable theory cuts, rather than unties, such knots as are above\nnoted, and carries with it to most minds a strange and improbable air.\n\n\nCANONICITY.\n\nWhat is said as to Susanna on this point holds almost entirely good\nhere. Both pieces have been called in question on nearly the same\nground, and have stood or fallen together. Possibly this one presents\nrather more difficulty in some of its details.\n\nIt is often included in Scripture lists under the title Daniel;[81] and\nis often quoted in the same manner, _e.g._ by St. Cyprian, _ad\nFortunatum_, \u00a7 11, \"Daniel, Deo devotus & sancto spiritu plenus exclamat\net dicit,\" v. 4. The quotations given under 'Early Christian Literature\nand Art' will shew how strong a hold this story had in many quarters,\nand what use was made of it.\n\nPseudo-Athanasius, in his _Synops. S.S._, mentions the story at the end\nof Section 41 as included in Daniel, but he does _not_ name it at the\nclose of the _Synopsis_ as being outside the canonical books, as he does\nin the case of Susanna. The writer of _De Mirabilibus Script. Sacr._,\noften attached to St. Augustine's works (Migne, _Patr. lat._ XXXV.;\nBenedict, ed. appx. to Vol. III.), expressly declares against its\ncanonicity. This treatise is thought to have been composed in England or\nIreland in the 7th or 8th century (Loisy, _O.T._ p. 154).\n\nThe hesitation of the earlier Church, however, found no counterpart in\nthe canonizing decree of the Council of Trent; while, on the other hand,\nProtestant opinion has run almost entirely against canonicity.\nDiametrically opposite views are steadily maintained by authorities on\nboth sides; although among English-speaking Protestants there is perhaps\na decrease in the contempt with which this story was once treated.\n\nAmong the Syriac-using Christians of the Malabar coast, Bel and the\nDragon, with the other additions, is reckoned as \"part and parcel of the\nbook of Daniel\" (Letter to present writer of Aug. 8, 1902, from Rev.\nF.V.J. Givargese, Principal of Mar Dionysius Seminary, Kottayam).\nBar-Hebr\u00e6us, too, comments on it, but says at the head of his remarks\nthat \"some do not receive this story\" (_op. cit._ p. 27).\n\nThe many, resemblances and coincidences between this and the canonical\nbook pointed out under other heads ('Language and Style,' 'Religious and\nSocial State,' etc.) of course tell, so far as they go, in its favour.\n\nSchrader (Schenkel's _Bibel Lex._ 1869, art. _Habak._ p. 556) classes\nBel and the Dragon with pseudo-Epiphanius' and Rabbinic legends of the\nsame tale, as \"reine Fabeln und Legenden zu erkennen.\" This seems too\npositive an opinion of their untrustworthiness. It is agreed with,\nhowever, by Orelli (_Introd.to Hab._, Clarke's Transl.), who styles Bel\nand the Dragon, or at least the Habakkuk incident in it, \"an idle\nstory.\" A.B. Davidson also (_Encyclop. Brit._ ed. 9, II. 181) writes of\nit as being \"completely fabulous;\" and Ewald speaks of the episode of\nHabakkuk as an example of an unhistoric spirit, growing rapidly and\ndangerously (v. 487).\n\nCloquet's plea that non-canonicity is 'proved' (_XXXIX Arts._ 1885, pp.\n112, 113) by six days being named here, and one day in the canonical\nbook, as the length of Daniel's incarceration in the den, is beside the\nmark. It assumes for controversial purposes that the two passages must\nrefer to the same event. This writer also speaks generally (p. 115) of\nBel and the Dragon's \"direct contradictions of Scripture.\" Such\nstrictures are only worth noticing as specimens of many instances in\nwhich _possible_ discrepancies between canonical and uncanonical books\nare treated by a particular class of writers as _certain_, in the hope\nof depreciating the latter. These are sometimes attacked with extreme\nviolence as full of fables, superstitions, and impieties--apocryphal in\nthe worst sense. But they deserve to be saved from this unmerited\ncontempt, indulged in usually for polemical purposes, and only rendered\npossible by an insufficient study of the works themselves and the many\nadmirable points which they contain.\n\nOur own Church indulges in no rash or sweeping assertions, but follows\nthe golden mean. She states in Art. VI. her present practical view of\nthis and the other Additions in common with the rest of the Apocrypha.\nWhile not making any special doctrine to turn upon an apocryphal text,\nshe directs the perusal of this, with the other books of its class, for\npurposes of practical edification. In singularly guarded and cautious\nterms she is careful not to commit herself to anything more than a\nstatement of her authorized practice. Thus she has not closed the door,\nas the Council of Trent is supposed to have done,[82] against the entry\nof fresh knowledge, with its corresponding changes of view or\nmodifications of usage.\n\n\nEARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART\n\n\nLITERATURE.\n\nThe following examples from primitive Christian writings bear more or\nless directly upon this book.\n\nNEW TESTAMENT. Compare B.V.M.'s words in St. Luke i. 38 with Daniel's at\nthe end of v. 9, \u0398. With John xviii. 35 compare Bel 38, \u039f\u00b4 and \u0398, as to\na Gentile being taken for a Jew. Moreover the phrase \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\nin Acts xvii. 23 is very like a reminiscence of Bel 27, \u0398, end. But A.\nScholz's idea that our Lord's words in John x. 9 are based on vv. 3, 6,\n13 has little likelihood: \"gegens\u00e4tzlich so nahe verwandt, dass in den\nEvangelium darauf Bezug genommen sein k\u00f6nnte\" (note on v. 13).\n\nIREN\u00c6US (\u2020200) in IV. ix. 1 quotes vv. 4, 5, 24, as coming from Daniel,\napparently without the smallest misgiving. His quotations accord with \u0398\nas against \u039f\u00b4, v. 4 being the same in both. As Sch\u00fcrer says in Hauck's\n_Encyclop\u00e6dia_ (I. 640): \"Iren\u00e4us benuzt die Uebersetzung des Theodotion\nund so alle Folgenden.\" But see under _Cyprian_.\n\nCLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (\u2020220) refers, _Strom._ I. 21 (middle, ed. Potter,\nOxf. 1715), among a chain of historic events, to the closing scene in\nthis piece: \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u1f74\u03bb \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n\u1f08\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03b2[83] \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03ce\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nTERTULLIAN (\u2020240). In _de Jejun._ VII. (end) reference is made to vv.\n35--39; and in IX. the story is again mentioned. In _de Oratione_, 29,\nhe quotes vv. 33, 34, seemingly with full acceptance. In _de Idol._ XIX.\nhe says that \"Daniel nec Belum nec draconem colere.\"\n\nORIGEN (\u2020254). Besides the question dealt with in his controversy with\nJulius Africanus, Origen in the Fragment of his _Strom_, bk. X. expounds\nBel. He also quotes it in his _Exhort, ad martyrium_, \u00a7 33.\n\nCYPRIAN (\u2020258) in _ad Fortunatum_, 11, quotes v. 5, apparently\nfollowing a translation of the \u039f\u00b4, and not of \u0398's, text. The same verse\nis again quoted by him in _Ep._ lviii. 5 in exactly the same words. It\nis curious that both passages are preceded, in the same sections, by a\nquotation of Dan. iii. 16--18, apparently based on \u0398's version. In the\ncase of v. 5 in _Ep._ lviii. there is a slight variation in the readings\nof some MSS. as given by Hartel. _Cf._ Prof. Swete's _Introd._ 1902, p.\n47.\n\nPSEUDO-CYPRIAN (3rd century?) gives parts of vv. 37, 38, in _Oratio_ II.\n2, following \u039f\u00b4 a little more closely than \u0398.\n\nPASSING OF MARY (3rd or 4th century, _see D.C.B., Mary_, 1142b). In\nthe First Latin form vv. 33--39 are clearly referred to.\n\nATHANASIUS (\u2020373) in his _Discourse against Arians_, II. 8, quotes v. 5\nas words of Daniel, which he also refers to in III. 30.\n\nEPHREM SYRUS (\u2020378). In the hymn _de Jejunio_ there is, according to\nT.J. Lamy (Mechlin, 1886), a reference to Bel and the Dragon, \"cum\nDaniel jejunavit.\"\n\nGREGORY NAZIANZEN (\u2020390) in his poetical _Pr\u00e6cepta ad Virgines_ has the\nline, speaking of Daniel, \u1f00\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nAMBROSE (\u2020397), in his Commentary in _Ep. ad Rom. I. 23_, writes,\n\"Coluerunt et serpentem draconem quem occidit Daniel, homo dei\" (Basel,\n1527, IV. p. 768).\n\nCHRYSOSTOM (\u2020407), _In Danielem_, cap. XIII. (XIV.) comments on Bel and\nthe Dragon as part of the book, seemingly without reserve or alteration\nof tone.\n\nPRUDENTIUS (\u2020410), in his _Cathemerinon_, IV., has several verses on the\nden episode, of which this is one:\n\n\"Cernit forte procul dapes ineuntas\nQuas messoribus Habakkuk propheta\nAgresti bonus exhibebat arte.\"\n\nJEROME (\u2020420), though excluding this and the other Additions from the\ncanon, according to what he writes in his preface to Daniel, \"veru\nanteposito easque jugulante subjecimus,\" retains it in his Bible. In his\n_Onomasticon de Nominibus Hebraicis_ he includes under Daniel, Astyages,\nBel, Ambacum, without distinction from the rest of the names in Daniel.\nBut for this last work he was chiefly indebted to Eusebius, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. (_D.C.B._ II. 336a).\n\nHESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM (\u2020438), in his \u03a3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd on the XII prophets, says\nof Habakkuk that, whether he was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried\nto Babylon, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u1f72\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9.\n\nTHEODORET(\u2020457), towards the close of _Ep._ CXLV., quotes v. 36 with\nclear belief in the miracle. He also comments on vv. 1, 2 as if forming\nv. 14 of Dan. xii.; and then ceases.\n\nWe see, then, that the more than respectful references to this piece in\nthe writers of ancient Christendom, if not quite so frequent as the\ncitations of the Song and of Susanna, are still numerous and clear.\n\n\nART.\n\nThis apocryphal tract has afforded two fairly popular subjects for\nartistic illustration, viz., Daniel destroying the dragon, and Daniel\nand Habakkuk in the lions' den.\n\nDaniel destroying the Dragon is a subject represented on glass from the\ncatacombs (_D.C.A._ art. _Glass_, p. 733a). Garrucci (_Vetri_, XIII.\n13) has a glass vessel in which Christ is represented with Daniel, who\nis giving cakes to the dragon (_D.C.A. Jesus Christ, Representations\nof_, p. 877b). In _Paganism in Christian Art_ in the same Dictionary\n(p. 1535a), it is said, \"Hercules feeding the fabled dragon with cakes\nof poppy-seed appears to have furnished the motive for the\nrepresentation of the apocryphal story of Daniel killing the dragon at\nBabylon.\" Presumably this means the dragon Ladon in the garden of the\nHesperides. But the connection between the two dragon episodes of\nHercules and Daniel seems a little difficult to establish by\nindisputable evidence.\n\nIn Walter Lowrie's _Christian Art and Arch\u00e6ology_ (Lond. and New York,\n1901, p. 363) is a woodcut of a fragment of gold glass, with Daniel\nslaying the Dragon. This is correctly described on p. 209, but is\nwrongly entitled under the figure itself, as 'Daniel slaying Bel.' The\npicture is said to be taken from Garrucci, _Storia dell' Arte_, but no\nfurther reference is given. On p. 365 of Lowrie's book is a smaller\nscene of the same in glass, again with an erroneous description on p.\nxxi. as \"Daniel and Bel.\" No dates are suggested for the above pieces of\nglass, but they appear to be very ancient.\n\nIn the Vatican cemetery a representation of Daniel's destruction of the\ndragon has been found on a sarcophagus; nor is this a solitary instance.\n(_See O.T. in Art, D.C.A._ p. 1459a.) And on the south side of the\nAngel Choir in Lincoln Minster, among a series of sculptures in the\nspandrils of the triforium arches, occurs a figure, described by\nCockerell, the architect, as that of the \"Angel of Daniel,\" with a\nmonster under his feet, deemed to be \"the old Dragon \" (Arch\u00e6ol.\nInstitute's _Memoirs of Lincoln_, Lond. 1850, p. 222).\n\nHabakkuk with the loaves often appears in representations of the lions'\nden (_O.T. in Art_, 1459a). In fact there is reason to think that this\napocryphal scene was at least as frequently represented as the\ncorresponding canonical one; _e.g._ on a sarcophagus at Rome figured in\nthe frontispiece to Burgon's _Letters from Rome_, thought by him to be\nof about the 5th century (p. 244). There is also a woodcut of this in\n_D.C.A._ art. _Sculpture_, p. 1868. A sarcophagus of the 4th century\nalso, like Burgon's, in the Lateran Museum (though not, it would seem,\nidentical) is mentioned in W. Lowrie's _Art and Arch\u00e6ology_, p. 260, as\ncarved with the same subject of Daniel and Habakkuk.\n\nIn Bohn's edition of Didron's _Christian Iconography_ (Lond. 1886, II.\n210) there is a woodcut of a miniature in the _Speculum hum. salv._\n(_circ._ 1350), in the library of Lord Coleridge, portraying Daniel\namong the lions. The appearance of Habakkuk guided by the angel in the\nbackground, carrying food, identifies the scene with Bel and the Dragon,\nand not with the history of Dan. vi. Even in representations of this,\nthe canonical den-scene, it is noteworthy how often Daniel is shown in\na sitting posture, although all mention of this is confined to v. 40 of\nthe apocryphal story.\n\nIt is a little remarkable that Daniel's dramatic disclosure of the\npriests' trick (v. 21) has not, so far as the writer is aware, commended\nitself to artists. The ash-strewn floor of Bel's temple, the tell-tale\nfootmarks, and the emotions of exultation and surprise on the face of\nDaniel and the King respectively, with a possible introduction of the\ndetected impostors at the side, might make, in capable hands, a very\neffective picture.\n\n\n\"EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION OF MANNERS.\"\n\nThe whole story, in addition to proving the vanity of idols, shews how\nGod watches over the fate of those who bravely discharge his work; while\nidolaters and persecutors meet with punishment. Religious fraud, deceit\nunder mask of piety, is dealt with very severely. Retribution is not to\nbe escaped. Even J.M. Fuller (S.P.C.K. _Comm. Introd._), who regards the\nstory as \"essentially apocryphal,\" admits \"an edifying element.\"[84].\nThis element might perhaps be used with advantage more than it is by\nmissionaries to idolatrous peoples.\n\nThe sordidness and trickery of heathen priests[85] is contrasted with\nthe uprightness and single-minded devotion of Daniel. His God moreover\ndelivers him, but their gods do not deliver them. The Bel of this\nhistory is as dumb as the Baal of I. Kings xviii.; their names and\ncharacters quite agree.\n\nThe once flourishing temples of iniquity are conspicuously brought to\nnought, affording a lesson of confidence and patience to those who fear\nthe Lord. Thus the angry opponents, who made certain of slaying Daniel,\nwere disappointed, and judgment quickly overtook them.\n\nWith v. 6 Arnald, _in loc._, finely contrasts the P.B.V. of Ps. xvi.\n2--the God who was estimated by the amount of provisions he consumed,\nand the God to whom earthly goods were nothing. But the Hebrew will\nhardly bear the P.B.V. rendering.\n\nThe character of Daniel, without fear or reproach, is not out of keeping\nwith that displayed in the canonical book, and in the companion story of\nSusanna. He affords an example of:\n\n(a) _Courage_ in his fearless attacks upon idolatry, attacks which,\nas the event proved, could not be indulged in with safety. He faces\nterrible crises at much personal risk, with decision and absence of\nself-distrust, as in the canonical chapters and in Susanna. He boldly\ndefends his religion when it is called in question, and ousts rival\nworships.\n\n(b) _Resistance to temptation_ in refusing to worship as the king\nwished. No half compliance is suggested, such as worshipping Bel and God\ntogether. Observe how he claims for God to be \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, while\nCyrus only claims for Bel to be \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (vv. 5, 6, \u0398), as noticed\nunder 'Theology.'\n\n(c) _Wisdom_, 'of the serpent,' in his plan for detecting fraud, and\nin his skill and versatility in choosing suitable means for unveiling\neach kind of imposture; of which another striking instance occurs in\nSusanna. He was a man of right understanding, clear insight, and\npractical sagacity, as shewn by his methods of dealing with opposing\nforces, moral or physical. As a man of great resource he rapidly adapts\nhimself to fresh conditions.\n\n(d) _Endurance_ of persecution for righteousness' sake. One trial\novercome, a yet greater presents itself; but with unflinching constancy\nhe faces it and passes unharmed, Ps. lvii. 3, 4.\n\n(e) _Perseverance_, in not resting upon his laurels, won over Bel,\nbut proceeding against the Dragon. His promptitude of resource is not\nmere rashness, but is combined with steady determination in pursuing his\ntask. As an active and diligent worker he is far-sighted and firm of\npurpose.\n\n(f) _Gratitude._ On receiving Habakkuk's visit he at once acknowledges\nGod's faithfulness, and addresses himself to the great First Cause\nimmediately (v. 38), as the ever-watchful shaper of events.\n\n(g) _Mindfulness of faith and duty_, by being ever foremost, even in\nassociation with a heathen king whose eyes he opens and to whom he acts\nas a missionary, in shewing hatred of falsehood and love of truth (as in\nSusanna). Absence of selfishness and willingness to undertake\nresponsibility are manifested.\n\n(h) _Disinterested service_ of God in clearing away two great\nobstacles to his worship. His aims are realised without any trace of\nself-aggrandisement; for those aims are directed to his Maker's rather\nthan to his own glory.\n\n(i) _Pleasure in God's service._ The tone of the whole story\nimplicitly conveys the idea that Daniel enjoyed, and was happy in the\nachievement of these works, because they were designed to honour God\nand to benefit man. Thus he finds his tasks thoroughly interesting and\ncongenial.\n\nIt is to be observed that Daniel's character is in contrast with that of\neveryone in the story, except Habakkuk.\n\n_Per contra_, Daniel might perhaps be accused of cruelty in his method\nof slaying the dragon,[86] especially as described in Gaster's Aramaic,\nand by Josippon ben Gorion, given by Arnald, _in loc._, from Selden.\n\nIn Habakkuk we see _obedience to_ a divine command, apparently\nimpossible of execution, for which the way is suddenly made plain. He\nbecomes instrumental in alleviating such a state of affairs as he\ndeplores in i. 4 of his Prophecy: \"for the wicked doth compass about the\nrighteous, etc.\" So in the hymn \"Warum betr\u00fcbst du dich mein Herz?\"\ndoubtfully attributed to Hans Sachs, we find the seventh stanza bearing\nupon this matter:\n\nDes Daniels Gott ihm nicht rergass,\nDa er unter den L\u00f6wen sass:\nSein Engel sandt er hin,\nUnd liess ihm Speise bringen gut,\nDurch seiner Diener Habakkuk.\n\nHabakkuk's obedience served God's purpose.\n\nIn _Cyrus'_ character we see something of the impulsiveness of the\ndespotic monarch, giving hasty directions on the spur of the moment as\nto matters of much importance. But the events of the story exert an\neducative influence upon his mind, culminating in his sentiments as\nexpressed in v. 41, which apparently imply that Daniel's God was to be\nhis God. Certainly the monarch's testimony proves that his religious\nopinions had been corrected, and raised above the stage represented in\nv. 6.\n\nProbably some allegoric, or more strictly 'tropological,' instruction\nmay be drawn from the story. In Bel we are taught to fight against\ncrafty deception however generally believed in; in the Dragon, against\nfierce, repulsive, and terrifying adversaries. This kind of\ninterpretation is sometimes strained however, as when in Neale's edition\nof the _Moral Concordances_ of St. Antony of Padua (p. 125, n.d.), v. 27\nis given as applicable to St. Bartholomew.\n\nAn unexpectedly adverse opinion on the use of Bel and the Dragon as a\nlesson (Nov. 23, matins, old Lectionary) is expressed by J.H. Blunt in\nhis _Directorium Pastorale_ (1864, p. 59): \"I confess I can see no good\nwhich can arise from the public reading to a congregation, composed\nprincipally perhaps of young persons, of such lessons as Bel and the\nDragon, or Lev. xviii., Deut. xxii., xxv.\" Then he adds the following\ncurious note: \"It is a fact that a man was once sent into a fit of loud\nand uncontrollable laughter, although he was honestly preparing for holy\norders, by hearing this lesson (Bel and the Dragon) read for the first\ntime in the chapel of a Theological College.\" One cannot help thinking\nthat this gentleman must have had an abnormally developed sense of\nhumour under exceptionally bad control.\n\nJohn Wesley exhibits in his Journal (July 5th, 1773) an equally low\nopinion of the story, though free from ill-timed mirth: \"St. Patrick\nconverting 30,000 at one sermon I rank with the History of Bel and the\nDragon\" (Quoted in _Church Quarterly Review_, Jan. 1902, p. 323).\n\nThese opinions seem too contemptuous and inimical to a narrative which\nyields many valuable lessons. Indeed it may be said of this, as in the\nBishops' reply at the Savoy Conference to the Puritan objection to\nreading the Apocryphal lessons in general: \"It is heartily to be wished\nthat sermons were as good\" (Procter-Frere, _Hist. of P.B._ 1902, p.\n174).\n\n\n\n\nINDEX I.\n\nPROPER NAMES.\n\nAddison\nAfricanus\nAlexander, Abp.\nAltdorfer\nAmbrose\nAntony of Padua\nApollinarius\nAquila\nArnald\nAdrian\nAthanasius\nAthanasius, pseudo,\nAugustine,\n\nBall, C.J.\nBarclay, P.\nBardenhewer\nBarnes, A.\nBarry, Bp.\nBassus\nBayer, F.P.\nBehrmann\nBengel\nBevan, Prof.\nBlackie, J.S.\nBlakesley, Dean\nBleek\nBlunt, J.H.\nBlunt, J.J.\nBoys, Dean\nBreshith Rabba\nBrightman, Canon\nBrown, Sir Thos.\nBr\u00fcll\nBugati\nBuhl\nBullock, W.T.\nBunsen\nBurbidge\nBurgon, Dean\nBury St. Edmunds\n\nC\u00e6sarius of Aries\nCalvin\nCambridge, Trinity College\nChapel\nCappellus, Ludovione\nCarr\nCarracci\nCastillo, de\nCeriani\nChaplin, Child\nCharles\nChigi, Cardinal\nChrysostom\nChurton\nClement of Alexandria\nCloquet\nCockerell\nCongreve\nCope, L.C.\nCornelius \u00e0 Lapide\nCornely\nCornish, H.P.\nCorreggio\nCoypel\nCurteis, G.H.\nCurtis, E.L.\nCurtius, Quintus\nCyprian\nCyprian, pseudo-\nCyril of Alexandria\nCyril of Jerusalem\n\nDamasus I.\nDaniel, E.\nDavidson\nDeane, H.\nDeane, W.\nDeissmann\nDelitzsch (elder)\nDenys, the Carthusian\nDereser\nDidron\nDonaldson\nDriver, Dr.\nDuehesne\nDyck, van\n\nEbed Jesu\nEdersheim\nEichhorn\nEphrem Syrus\nEpiphanius\nEpiphanius, pseudo-\nEtheridge\nEusebius\nEwald\n\nFarrar, Dean\nFaussett\nFeltoe, Dr.\nFlorence, Council of\nForbes, Bp.\nFrank, Archd.\nFreeman, Archd.\nFritzsche\nFuller, J.M.\nF\u00fcrst, J.\n\nGarrucci\nGaster\nGerard\nGesenius\nGivargese, F.\nGoodall, F.\nGorionides\nGratian\nGray, Bp.\nGregory of Nazianzus\nGregory of Nyssa\nGrenfell\nGrotius\nGuercino\nG\u00fcnkel\nGwillim\nGwynne, Prof.\n\nHauck\nHebr\u00e6us, Bar\nHenderson\nHeppner, A.\nHerodotus\nHesychius\nHieronymus Graecus\nHilary of Poitiers\nHippolytus\nHolmes\nHooker\nHome, T.H.\nHotham\nHumphry, W.\nHunt\n\nIren\u00e6us\nIsaacson, S.\nIsidore Hispalensis\n\nJacobus Edessenus\nJahn,G.\nJahn, J.\nJamieson\nJansen, Cornelius\nJennings\nJephet ibn Ali\nJerahmeel\nJerome\nJocelin of Brakelond\nJohnson, S.\nJosephus\nJosippon\nJulian, Dr.\nJustin Martyr\n\nKamphausen\nKarlstadt\nKautzsch\nKeil\nKeilah\nKells\nKennedy, J.\nKirkpatrick, Prof.\n\nLagarde\nLiddon\nLightfoot, Bp.\nLittledale\nLoisy\nLowrie, W.\nLucar, Cyril\nLucretia\nLuther\nLyra, Nich. de\n\nMaccabaeus, Simon\nMamertus, Claudianus\nMargoliouth, D.S.\nMarshall\nMarti\nMartin, D.\nMartini\nMary, Passing of\nMaskell\nMattathias\nMaurer\nMelito\nMerrick\nMethodius\nMeyer\nMilton\nMoone Abbey\nMoses Haddarshan\nMovers\nMozley\nM'Swiney\nM'Whirter\nMuis, de\nMunk, S.\n\nNachman, Rabba bar\nNachmanides\nNectarius\nNestle\nNeubauer\nNicephorus, of Constantinople.\nNobilius, Flaminius\n\nOrelli\nOrigen\n\nParker, M.\nParsons\nPatrick, St.\nPearson, Bp.\nPeronne\nPerowne, Bp.\nPhilippe, E.\nPhilo\nPilate\nPolychronius\nPorphyry\nProcter, F.\nPrudentius\nPusey\n\nQuignon, Card.\n\nRembrandt\nReuss\nRose, H.P.\nRosenm\u00fcller\nRothstein\nRubens\nRufinus\nRyle, Bp. H.E.\nRyssel, Prof.\n\nSabatier\nSachs, Hans\nSalmon, Prof.\nSanday, Prof.\nSanterre\nSayce\nScholz, A.\nSchrader\nSch\u00fcrer\nScrivener\nSedulius\nSelden\nSelwyn, Prof.\nSeverus, Sulpicius\nShann, G.V.\nShetach, Simon ben\nShushan\nSidon\nSmith, Prof.\nSmith, Prof. Robertson\nSozomen\nSpenser\nSt\u00e4helin, O.\nStephens, A.J.\nStephens, Dean\nStokes, M.\nStrabo\nStreane, Dr.\nSusanna, St.\nSwete, Prof.\nSyncellus\n\nTertullian\nThackeray\nTheodoret\nTheodotion\nThomas of Harkel\nTintoretto\nToledo, 4th Council of\nToy, C.H.\nTrapp\nTrent, Council of\nTrommius\n\nValentin\nVan Ess\nVatican, Council of\nVerecundus\nVeronese, P.\n\nWaldo, P.\nWarren, Canon F.E.\nWalton, Bp. B.\nWesley, J.\nWestcott, Bp.\nWheatley\nWilson, Bp.\nWilton, R.\nWintle, J.\nWordsworth, Bp. Chas.\nWordsworth, Bp. Chris.\nWyon, W.G.\n\nXerxes\n\nYonge, Miss\n\nZimmer\nZ\u00f6ckler\n\n\n\n\nINDEX II.\n\nSCRIPTURE TEXTS.\n\n\nGENESIS.\n\ni. 1\nii. 2, 3\nvii. 14\nx. 15\nxxi. 17\nxxii. 18\nxxiii. 3, 4, 8\nxxiv. 65\nxxvi. 4\nxxxi. 5\nxxxiv. 29\nxxxvii.\nxxxvii. 24\n\n\nEXODUS.\n\nii. 2\niv. 3\nvii. 9\nix. 16\n\n\nLEVITICUS\n\nii. 9, 11\nxviii.\nxx. 10\nxxiii. 7\nxxvi. 21\n\n\nNUMBERS.\n\nxi. 15\nxi. 16\n\n\nDEUTERONOMY.\n\nv. 21\nx. 17\nxviii. 20\nxxii.\nxxii. 22\nxxv.\nxxviii. 49, 50\nxxxii. 4\nxxxii. 23\n\n\nJOSHUA.\n\nxxii. 19\n\n\nI. SAMUEL\n\nxxiii. 1\n\n\nII. SAMUEL.\n\nxxiv. 14\n\n\nI. KINGS.\n\niii.\nx. 8\nxv. 19\nxvi. 28\nxviii. 12\nxviii. 27\nxviii. 32\nxx. 7\nxxi. 8, 11\n\n\nII. KINGS.\n\nxiii. 5\nxxiv. 8, 12\nxxv. 28\nxxv. 27\n\n\nI. CHORNICLES.\n\nii. 31, 34, 35\nxxi. 13\n\n\nII. CHRONICLES.\n\niv. 5\nxii. 12\nxx. 12\nxxxv. 3\nxxxv. 15\nxxxvi. 8, 9\n\n\nEZRA.\n\niv. 12\niv. 15\nviii. 2\n\n\nNEHEMIAH.\n\nix. 33\n\n\nESTHER.\n\nii. 3\nii. 9\nii. 12\nvii. 8\n\n\nJOB.\n\ni. 1\ni. 8\nii. 3\nxxxiii. 10\nxlii. 17\n\n\nPSALMS.\n\nxv. 11\nxvi. 2\nxxiii.\nxxv. 14\nxxviii. 7\nxxxiv. 19\nxlix. 1\nxlix. 18\nlvii. 3, 4\nlx. 3\nlxxiv. 9\nlxxx. 1\nxcix. 1\nciv. 4\ncv. 46\ncxxxvi.\ncxxxvi. 2\ncxlviii.\n\n\nPROVERBS.\n\nxxiv. 22\nxxvi. 27\n\n\nSOLOMON'S SONG.\n\nii. 1, 2\niv. 12\n\n\nISAIAH.\n\nv. 2\nv. 7\nv. 10\nxvii. 1\nxliii. 2\nxliii 4\nxlv. 1\n\n\nJEREMIAH.\n\nx. 15\nxi. 10\nxiv. 21\nxix. 1\nxxii. 24\nxxv. 12\nxxvi. 17\nxxxviii. 1-4\nxxix. 5\nxxix. 21\nxxix. 23\nxxix. 22\nxxix. 23\nxlii. 11\nxliv. 8\nl. 2\nli. 34\nli. 44\n\n\nEZEKIEL.\n\niii. 12, 14\nviii. 3\nxvi. 3\nxvi. 38\nxxxviii. 6\n\n\nDANIEL.\n\ni. 1\ni. 3\ni. 15\ni. 17\ni. 20\nii. 5\nii. 9\nii. 28, 29\nii. 31\nii. 32, 33\nii. 45\nii. 47\niii. 1\niii. 14\niii. 16-18\niii. 21\niii. 22\niii. 23\niii. 24\niii. 28-30\niv. 6\niv. 8\niv. 14\niv. 25\niv. 27\niv. 36\nv. 3\nv. 23\nv. 25-28\nv. 31\nvi. 17\nvi. 20\nvi. 21, 22\nvi. 25-28\nvi. 26\nvi. 28\nvii. 9\nvii. 11\nviii. 10\nix. 2\nix. 4\nix. 5\nix. 13\nix. 14\nix. 15\nix. 17\nix. 18\nx. 1\nx. 1\nxi. 36\nxii. 3\nxii. 14\nxiii. 1\n\n\nHOSEA.\n\niii. 4\niv. 15\niv. 16\nv. 13\nxii. 6\nxiv. 5\n\n\nJONAH.\n\nii. 2\n\n\nMICAH.\n\nii. 2\n\n\nHABAKKUK.\n\ni. 1\ni. 4\ni. 6\nii. 18\n\n\nZEPHANIAH.\n\ni. 11\n\n\nI. ESDRAS.\n\ni. 37\ni. 43\niv. 52\niv. 62\nv. 58\n\n\nII. ESDRAS.\n\niii. 2\n\n\nJUDITH.\n\niv. 6\nxx. 8\n\n\nTOBIT.\n\niii. 2\nviii. 5\nx. 10\nxii. 6\nxiii. 10\n\n\nESTHER.\n\nxiv. 6, 7\n\n\nECCLESIASTICUS.\n\nxvi. 13\nxliii. 4, 22\nxliv.\n\n\nBARUCH.\n\ni. 3\nii. 9\n\n\nSONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN.\n\n(_Greek verse numbers._)\n\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n31\n32\n33\n34\n36\n37\n38\n39\n40\n41\n44\n47\n48\n49\n50\n51\n52\n53\n54\n56\n57\n59\n63\n64\n65\n67\n68\n77\n84\n86\n87\n88\n89\n90\n91\n\n\nSUSANNA.\n\n1-5\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n11\n13\n14\n15\n17\n19\n20\n22\n23\n24\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n32\n33\n34\n35\n36\n39\n41\n42\n43\n44\n45\n46\n48\n50\n52\n53\n54\n55\n56\n57\n59\n60\n61\n62\n63\n64\n\n\nBEL AND THE DRAGON.\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n17\n18\n19\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n31\n32\n33\n34\n35\n36\n37\n38\n39\n40\n41\n42\n\n\nI. MACCABEES.\n\nii. 17\nii. 59\nxv. 6\n\n\nII. MACCABEES.\n\nix. 17\n\n\nIII. MACCABEES.\n\nvi. 6\n\n\nST. MATTHEW.\n\ni. 11, 12\niv. 1\nv. 28\nxi. 21\nxi. 29\nxii. 18\nxiii. 42, 50\nxxiv. 51\nxxvii. 24\nxxvii. 26\n\n\nST. LUKE.\n\ni. 38\nii. 29\nii. 42\nii. 52\nviii. 3\nxxi. 24\n\n\nST. JOHN.\n\nx. 9\nxi. 1\nxviii. 18\nxviii. 35\nxix. 16\n\n\nACTS.\n\nii. 10\nii. 23\niv. 24\nvi. 9\nviii. 39\nix. 1\nxiii. 13\nxvii. 17\nxvii. 23\nxxii. 4\nxxiv. 6\n\n\nROMANS.\n\ni. 23\n\n\nII. CORINTHIANS.\n\ni. 10\n\n\nEPHESIANS.\n\nii. 12\n\n\nII TIMOTHY.\n\ni. 18\n\n\nHEBREWS.\n\ni. 7\nix. 5\nx. 34\nxi. 23\nxi. 34\nxii. 23\n\n\nREVELATION.\n\nix. 20\nxii. 7, 8\nxii. 9\nxiii. 4\nxiii. 14\nxxi. 13\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] He refers to Theiner, _Acta ... concil. Trident_, i. 77.\n\n[2] So Raymund Martini, at the end of his _Pugio fidei_; but his\nquotation has been doubted. _See_ B. and D. 'Chronology,' p. 229.\n\n[3] The Vatican Council confirmed the Tridentine decree on Scripture\n(_Const._ \"Dei Filius\" II., Loisy, p. 239).\n\n[4] \"The first and most gifted of creatures\" (M'Swiney, _Psalms and\nCanticles_, 1901, p. 644).\n\n[5] Perhaps in default of better explanation the \"earth\" verse may have\nbeen put into the third person in order to mark the transition from\nthings celestial to those terrestrial.\n\n[6] This may refer to the titles he gives from \"the Vatican LXX\"; but\nsee above, p. 18, as to the absence of these.\n\n[7] _Psalms_, Lond. 1871, II. 462.\n\n[8] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch\u00e6ol._ 1895, p. 81.\n\n[9] _Rational ittuitrat. of P.B._\n\n[10] But J.T. Marshall (Hastings' _D.B._ IV. 755), \"The hymn is modelled\nafter Ps. 136, and has equal claim to be considered poetical.\"\n\n[11] He appears, on p. 303, to date Daniel between 160 and 170 B.C.\n\n[12] This particularly is unsuggestive of Egypt.\n\n[13] _Commentary on Canticles in Divine Service_, Lond. 1853, p. 81.\n\n[14] Swete, _Introd. to Greek O.T._, p. 43.\n\n[15] _Op. cit._, pp. 48, 396, 403.\n\n[16] _Cf._ Ewald in 'Date,' p. 29.\n\n[17] Some slight warrant, or at least precedent, for using our R.V., in\nwhich dissenters had a hand, might perhaps be found in this fact.\n\n[18] G. Jahn in his \"restoration\" of the Hebrew text of Daniel from the\nLXX, admits vv. 28 and 49--51 into his canonical text (Leipzig, 1904).\n\n[19] As to the possibility of the fact, _cf. Yorkshire Post_, April\n12th, 1902, on Coronation bonfires: \"Spectators should keep clear of the\nlee side. The flame of such bonfires has been known to stream in a flash\n150ft. out.\"\n\n[20] Dr. Julian (_Diet. Hymnol._ p. 134) has the following strange\nsentence as to _Benedicite_, \" It is not in the Hebrew version (_sic_)\nof the Scriptures, and on this ground, among others, it is omitted from\nA.V.\"\n\n[21] G. Jahn _in loc._ thinks this fact an indication of a later hand,\nas shewing that they severed themselves in the furnace from contact with\nheathenism, and were giving themselves to intercourse with Jahwe alone.\nBut surely an interpolator must have been aware that this was their\nattitude from the outset.\n\n[22] _Proc. Sac. Bibl. Arch\u00e6ol._ 1895, p. 80.\n\n[23] In the Hebrew of this verse the parallel is less striking.\n\n[24] \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, v. 23 (46), attendants probably holding some official\nposition superior to that of slaves. _Cf._ St. John xviii. 18.\n\n[25] _Cf._ Ps. lxxiv. 9.\n\n[26] See also H.J. Rose's Paper _On the Heb. coins called shekels_,\nBeds. Architect. Soc. Rep. I., p. 367, 1851.\n\n[27] In the _Bk. of private Prayer_ (Lond. 1887, p. 32), approved by the\nLower House of Canterbury Convocation, these six verses are employed as\na separate canticle, under the title _Benedictus es_, probably suggested\nby the Ambrosian rite above mentioned. The same canticle had also\nappeared previously in _An Additional Order for Evening Prayer_, put\nforth by the same authority in 1873, for singing after the first lesson.\n\n[28] Its use declined in the 18th century as is shewn by P. Barclay\n(_Letter to People of Scotland on Comm. Pr._, Lond. 1713, p. 36), who\nsays, \"Benedicite is very good; but because it is seldom or never used,\nI don't insist upon it.\" P. Waldo (_Commentary on Liturgy_, 1775, p.\n98), also deplores its disuse. And even in the 19th century C. Chaplin\n(_Benedicite_, 1879, p. 11) says, \"In a few churches it seems to be\nbanished from the service altogether.\"\n\n[29] It is stated in Dr. Swete's _Introd._ (1902, p. 260) that Susanna\nis excluded from the visions, Dan. i. 1 commencing the first of them.\nBut this is not borne out by the 'apparatus criticus' to his Greek text,\nwhere i. 1 in A and Q begins \u1f43\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2', and \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1' is the\nsubscription of Susanna in A.\n\n[30] The name is used of an actual woman in St. Luke viii. 3.\n\n[31] Kothstein (Kautzsch i., 176) gives the first quarter of the last\ncentury B.C. as the latest possible date for the LXX version of Daniel.\nExceedingly little time therefore would be allowed, on Ball's theory,\nfor the original publication, the translation, and the incorporation\ninto the Alexandrian canon, of this Susanna-book.\n\n[32] If not, as Bissell in his note elegantly puts it, \"it would be a\nbungling lapsus penn\u00e6.\"\n\n[33] This may be merely an echo of Reuss, who reckons Susanna \"in die\nReihe der moralischen M\u00e4rchen\" (_O.T._ 1894, VII. 159).\n\n[34] _See_ J.M. Fuller in S.P.C.K. _Comm. Introd. to Sus._\n\n[35] These names, however, do not agree with the Jewish identification\nof them, as the Ahab and Zedekiah of Jer. xxix. 21, which Origen reports\nin his _Ep. ad Afric._ (_Speaker's Comm._ 325b).\n\n[36] So in N.T., St. Mark v. 19.\n\n[37] _Adv. Christ._, Bk. XII.\n\n[38] For similar instances of word-play see accounts of Melito's\npseudo-Clavis, _D.C.B._ iii. 897b, and Muratorian Fragment, line 67.\n\n[39] Jerome in his _Prol. gal._ shews how it might be done in Latin; and\nin the Vulgate some attempt is made to reproduce it in vv. 54, 55\n('schinus, scindit'). Luther tried after rhymes in German, 'Linden,'\n'finden,' 'Eiche,' 'zeichnen.' In the French version of Martin no play\nis attempted; but in the Arabic, according to Delitzsch (_op. cit._\n102), an easy one is produced.\n\n[40] \u039c\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac for \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac would yield good sense, but evidence for such a\nreading is absent.\n\n[41]\n\"And that which all faire workes doth most aggrace,\nThe art which all that wrought appeared in no place.\"\n\nSPENSER, _Faery Queene_, II. XII. 58.\n\n[42] _I. Macc._, Fairweather and Black, Camb. 1897, p. 14; Streane, _Age\nof Macc._, Lond. 1898, pp. 247, 248.\n\n[43] Curiously enough the canonical Daniel has not escaped this\naccusation, for G. Jahn (Leips. 1904, p. 64) says of vi. 28, \"Der K\u00f6nig\nwie ein j\u00fcdischen Rabbiner predigt.\"\n\n[44] _Right use of Early Fathers_, Lond., 1857, p. 649.\n\n[45] See Wordsworth, _Gk. Test._, note _in loc._\n\n[46] Quintus Curtius (v. 1) gives a terrible account, in connection with\nAlexander's capture of this city, of Babylonian debauchery, which must\nhave been of long standing when it had attained the pitch he indicates.\n\n[47] \"Soap making is the chief industry of modern Palestine\" (Hastings'\n_D.B._ art. _Soap_).\n\n[48] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03b4 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\n[49] In Hastings' _D.B._ art. _Jehoiachin_, it is stated that he does;\nbut Hippolytus' _Comm._ in Migne, _Patr. gr._ x. 689, does not shew\nthis. It is apparently based on a quotation from Hippolytus by Georgius\nSyncellus, given among the critical notes of Bonwetsch's ed. of _Hipp._\np. 10 (Lips. 1897).\n\n[50] But see G. Jahn, _in loc._, and art. _Jehoiakim_ in Hastings'\n_D.B._ as to making the date in Dan. i. 1 a little later.\n\n[51] Scrivener, _Introd. to A.V._ \u00a7 vii., and Sayce, _Tobit_, 1903, p.\nxvi.\n\n[52] _Speaker's Comm._, end of _Introd. to Sus._\n\n[53] _See_ Jerome's _Pref. to Daniel_, end.\n\n[54] Warren, _Ante-Nicene Liturgy_, 1897, p. 188.\n\n[55] But \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u1f74\u03bb \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1 may refer to them.\n\n[56] There is a very quaint note in Gwillim's _Heraldry_ (1611, p. 109)\nas to a mulberry figured on a shield, \"This fruit hath a purple blushing\ncolour, in the one resembling the judges' attire who attempted Susanna,\nin the other that hue of their face which should have been in them, if\nthey had been so gracious to blush at their fault,\" etc.\n\n[57] There are similar instances in chaps. iii. and vi. of the canonical\nDaniel. See also the _Notes on Scripture, in loco, of_ Bishop Wilson, of\nSodor and Man, who tells what comfort he derived from hearing Susanna\nread in the daily service when himself falsely accused.\n\n[58] Thackeray's mention of Susanna in _Tht Newcomes_, chap, lvi., seems\npointless, though that in chap. xix. is suitable enough. Steele has an\nabsurd reference in the _Spectator_, No. 14, to the \"opera of Susanna,\nor Innocence Betrayed, which will be exhibited next week, with a pair of\nnew Elders.\"\n\n[59] St. Antony of Padua curiously gives vv.. 52, 56, as an example of\nthe \"Zeal of prelates\" (_Moral Concordance,_ Neale's edit., n.d., p.\n105).\n\n[60] In each case it is not clear from the text that the 'worship'\nconsisted in anything else than supplying food.\n\n[61] The title \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is also used in Q in some of Isaiah's visions,\n_e.g._ xvii. 1.\n\n[62] _See_ under Theodoret in 'Early Christian Literature,' and\n'Chronology,' p. 224.\n\n[63] This has been attributed to Rabba bar Nachman of Pumbaditha, about\nA.D. 300, but is probably later. _See_, however, Etheridge, _Jerus. and\nTiberias_, p. 143.\n\n[64] Schrader, _Cuneiform Inscriptions of O.T._\u00b2 II. 125, considers Bel\nnot to enter explicitly into the second of these names, which he takes\nto mean 'may his life protect'; but even in this case the mention of a\nDeity is evidently understood. But _cf._ Dan. iv. 8. Gesenius and\nLongfield (_Chaldee Grammar_, 1859, p. 115) take the older view. _See_\nalso Sayce's art. in Hastings' _D.B._ on _Merodach-Baladan_, where M.\nseems identified with Bel; also art. _Merodach._\n\n[65] _Daniel_, Oxf. 1792, p. 40.\n\n[66] _Chambers's Encyclop._, 1888, art. _Bel._\n\n[67] There is clearly a slip in v. 35 of \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ae\u03bb for \u1f08\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc, and\nprobably in v. 11 of \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u1ff3 for \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3, indicating some mistakes on\nthe scribe's part, or errors in his copy.\n\n[68] The same writer, on p. 224, spells \u05de\u05d0\u05d7 with a final \u05dd.\n\n[69] It is even given in L.C. Cope's _English Composition_ (Lond.,\n1900), as an example of the four essentials of composition, viz.\ninvention, selection, disposition, diction. He also speaks (p. 29) of\nthe \"superb workmanship in framing the narrative.\"\n\n[70] Bar Hebr\u00e6us (_op. cit._, p. 27), gives this as a reason why some\nwould not receive Bel and the Dragon.\n\n[71] Not in \u039f\u00b4.\n\n[72] See note to 'For Whom and with What Object' p. 196.\n\n[73] Compare the Aramaic of the passage, given under 'Chronology,' p.\n229.\n\n[74] On the propriety of such a sentence, accordant with Babylonian\nideas of justice, _see_ Mozley, _Ruling O.T. Ideas_, 1878, pp. 88, 95,\n99.\n\n[75] \"More withering sarcasm could scarcely be poured on heathenism than\nin the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon\" (Edersheim, _Life and\nTimes of Messiah_, 1886, I. 31). Daniel's laugh in v. 7 accords with\nJeremiah's view of idols (X. 15). Other coincidences with Jeremiah may\nbe noted in 1. 2, li. 44 of that prophet.\n\n[76] Ezekiel is transported in the opposite direction, and bothcprophets\nwent unwillingly (Trapp). Both, too, were concerned in suppression of\nidolatry.\n\n[77] The destruction of the Dragon, by means which in A.V. and the Greek\nappear inadequate, does not come under this head, since the Aramaic\nexplains it by iron teeth concealed in the ball (v. 27), an intelligible\nand practical device.\n\n[78] Of general condemnations, Alb. Barnes' may be taken as a sample:\n\"This foolish story... is wholly unworthy a place in any volume claiming\nDivine origin, or any volume of respectable authorship whatever\"\n(_Comment. on Dan._ Vol. I. pp. 79, 81).\n\n[79] The phrase applied to the Additions in the _Introd. to Daniel_ in\nthe _Speaker's Comm._ (p. 216a), \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e4\u05d9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05df if we take \u05e4\u05d9\u05d5\u05d8 to mean\n'poet,' would fall in with this view. J.M. Fuller does not make quite\nclear his source for this phrase.\n\n[80] Sozomen, _H.E._ vii. 29, says that Habakkuk's tomb was found at\nKeilah, \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u1f70, \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1... \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f08\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03bc (_sic_) \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7. Now\nKeilah is mentioned in I Sam. xxiii. 1 as having threshing-floors worth\nrobbing, and so presumably lay in a corn-growing district.\n\n[81] Delitzech thought it likely, though not certain, that the \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\nmentioned by Josephus (_Ant._ x. 11. 7) as left by Daniel refer to the\nAdditions as portions of the canonical hook (_De Hab. vita_, etc., Lips.\n1842, p. 25).\n\n[82] Cf. _Revue biblique internationale_ (Dominican) Paris, Jan. 1901,\np. 149, \"L'\u00e9glise romaine s'est prononc\u00e9e d\u00e8s ce moment, et _si elle ne\npas d\u00e8s lors impos\u00e9 sa solution comme d\u00e9finitive et irr\u00e9formable_, elle\nne s'en est du moins jamais \u00e9cart\u00e9e et c'est cette solution qui explique\nl'unanimit\u00e9 pratique de l'\u00c9glise latine, o\u00f9 les doutes n'\u00e9taient plus\nque le reflet \u00e9rudit d'anciennes controverses.\" See also Sanday on\n_Inspiration_, Note B. to Lect. V. \"The Use of the term\nDeutero-oanonical in the Roman Church.\"\n\n[83] So spelt in Migne in this instance, though elsewhere with final \u03bc.\nA misprint may he suspected.\n\n[84] It was told as a story to Miss Yonge when a child by her father\n(_Life_, 1903, p. 78), and apparently remembered with pleasure through\nlife. So Saml. Johnson: \"When I was a boy I have read or heard Bel and\nthe Dragon, Susanna, etc.\" (_Prayers and Meditations_, Lond. [1905], p.\n78).\n\n[85] So Butler in his _Hudibras_ of the Presbyterian Assembly of\nDivines:\n\n\"Bell (_sic_) and the Dragon's chaplains were\nMore moderate than those by far.\"--(I. III. 1181).\n\n\n[86] J.H. Blunt (_Comm._ on v. 27) makes an unaccountable mistake in\nsupposing that the balls were put into the _statue_ of Bel, not eaten by\nthe Dragon. \"The composition would not of itself burst the hollow statue\neither by chymical explosion or mechanical expansion.\" Almost as\nridiculous is the abusive phrase \"Offspring of Bel and the Dragon,\"\nwhich Congreve puts into the mouth of Fondlewife in his play of _The Old\nBachelor_, Act IV. sc. 4.","title":"The three additions to Daniel, a study","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":52439}