The Three Additions to Daniel, a Study Part 8

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

As to the true LXX text, Bissell (p. 444) rather inclines to deem it to have been from the first a part of the LXX. So Pusey, quoted by Churton (p. 389), says that it is "admitted to have been contemporary with the LXX version;" and W. Selwyn (_D.B._ III., p. 1210a) thinks that this, with the other additions, was "early incorporated with the LXX."

Rothstein in Kautzsch, very hesitatingly and with much caution, suggests (I., p. 178) the second century before Christ.

On the other hand, A. Kamphausen (_Encyclop. Bibl._ I. 1013) writes,"

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

As to Theodotion's version, there is no reason to suppose that the portion consisting of Susanna differs in date from the rest of the book.

It may probably be a.s.signed to the latter half of the second century A.D. Behrmann, in Nowack's _Hand Kommentar_, p. x.x.x. says, "um 150."

Most writers on this subject, such as Westcott, Streane, and Marshall, as well as some of those previously mentioned, markedly avoid any approach to definite dates as to the original, or as to the LXX Greek.

And justly so; for the evidence in our hands does not, unfortunately, admit of anything closer than a "period" being safely fixed. The materials we have are not sufficiently precise for closer approximation with any decree of security. Rothstein (Kautzsch, I., p. 178) very wisely says, "Naturlich la.s.st sich mit irgend welcher Sicherheit uber diese Frage nichts ausmachen." With this, until further evidence be forthcoming, it is well to agree.

PLACE.

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

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

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

_Of LXX Greek._ That this was made at Alexandria admits of little doubt.

From the similarity of style, too, it would appear that the translator (or editor) was identical with the translator of the canonical Daniel.

This is the opinion of Rothstein (in Kautzsch, I. 178). Schurer (_H.J.P._ II. III.), who denies the existence of a Semitic original, cla.s.ses this (with the other additions) not in his 'Palestinian-Jewish,' but in his 'Graeco-Jewish' section.

The mention of Sidon in v. 56 (where T has Canaan) may perhaps suggest a writer in the original, whatever language he may have used, who was connected with the north of Palestine. But it is quite as probable that the writer (or translator) had some idea of Gen. x. 15 in his mind, "Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn." After him, according to Josephus (_Ant._ I. VI. 2), the city was named: S?d????? ?? ?a? p???? ?p?????

??t?se? ?? t? F??????, S?d?? d? ?f? ??????? ?a?e?ta?. It is worth noticing that in St. Matt. xi. 21 our Lord speaks of the city more favourably.

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

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

For Jews B.C. and Jews A.D. were regarded by the Church, as was natural, in very different lights, and their writings likewise.

AUTHORSHIP.

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

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

Bissell says that Susanna "contains nothing which might not have come from the pen of a h.e.l.lenist" (p. 445); and Westcott sees in this and other additions "the hand of an Alexandrian writer" (Smith's _D.B._ ed.

2 I. 714a), but thinks it not unlikely that he worked up earlier traditions. Certainly v. 22 seems to shew that the author of the Greek of T was evidently acquainted with the LXX of II. Sam. xxiv. 14. "Wer die Susanna (in Walton's _Polygl._ 4) nach Theodot. frei ubersetzt hat,"

says Nestle, "wissen wir nicht" (_Urtext und ubersetz._ 236).

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

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

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

Jerome, in the Prologue to his _Commentary on Daniel_, says that Eusebius and Apollinarius replied to Porphyry's objection to these additions that "Susannae Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico, sed partem esse prophetae Abacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi;"

and apparently acquiesces in this statement. As there appears to be no other authority for attributing Susanna to Habakkuk, it is a question whether the LXX t.i.tle to Bel and the Dragon was not applied to Susanna also "per incuriam." A. Scholz escapes the difficulty of Habakkuk both here and in Bel and the Dragon by regarding it as a merely symbolic t.i.tle, which he renders by "Kampfe" on very slender grounds (_Esther und Susanna_, Wurzburg, 1892, p. 138; and _Judith und Bel und der Drache_, 1896, p. 204).

It must not be forgotten, however, that the authorship of Daniel is of course suggested by most of those who defend the canonicity of the book.

Origen in his Epistle to Africa.n.u.s maintains the solidarity of the piece with the book of Daniel. And it should be remembered, as a point of some strength, that Julius Africa.n.u.s' correspondence with Origen at the beginning of century III., is the first record we have of any dispute as to its genuineness.

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

FOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.

FOR WHOM.

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

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

WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.

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

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

was an object of the author. And certainly the story does teach the need for a close investigation of testimony.

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

Another object may have been to extol Daniel and his judicial ac.u.men.

There is a resemblance in this respect to the tone of several chapters of the Book of Daniel, _e.g._, ii. and iv. His penetration and his prophetic gifts as a young man are set forth. Indeed the last two verses of the ?? version almost make the praise of youthful piety the moral of the book. But this, edifying as it may be, is scarcely to be taken as the chief object of the composition; and T subst.i.tutes another conclusion as to the grat.i.tude of Susanna's family and the growth of Daniel's reputation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.