The Three Additions to Daniel, a Study Part 7

THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA

THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA.

a.n.a.lYSIS. (T)

vv.

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

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

7--14. How they yielded to the 'l.u.s.t of the eye,' and laid their plot.

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

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

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

42--44. Her prayer.

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

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

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

63, 64. Whose family thank G.o.d; while Daniel's reputation is established.

N.B.--It is not clear why the 'heading' or 'contents' in the A.V.

_begins_ with v. 16. _Cf._ the heading of Bel and the Dragon for a similar ignoring of the early verses, as also that of I. Macc. i.

t.i.tLE AND POSITION.

t.i.tLE.

This is in general simply S??s???a, as in the true LXX.

In Cod. A (T) it is designated at the end ??as?? a', our chap. i. being ??as?? ', and so on. It is therefore included in the number of the visions.[29] ??as?? also occurs in the t.i.tle of Holmes and Parsons'

cursive 235.

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

"The Judgments of Daniel," ??a???se?? ?a????, is a good t.i.tle given by Arnald, by Churton (p. 390), and by Westcott (Smith's _D.B._ art.

_Additions to Daniel_, ed. 1, 3966, ed. 2, 713b), none of whom specify any source or authority for it, Arnald alone giving the Greek. It may be traced back, however, through Sabatier to Flaminius n.o.bilius, who writes, "In multis [vetustis libris] inscribitur Daniel, in quibusdam Susanna, in aliquo d?????s?? ?a????, Judicium Daniel" (Append, to Bp.

Walton's _Polyglott_, Lond. 1657, p. 191). He gives no information as to what this 'certain' copy at the end of his descending climax might be in which he had found this t.i.tle; nor does it quite agree with the plural form in which Arnald gives it, presumably with regard to the double sentence pa.s.sed by Daniel. Holmes and Parsons give no such reading, and no one now seems able to identify the 'liber' intended by Flaminius.

Delitzsch (_di Hab. Vita_, etc., Lips. 1842, p. _25n_) says that "Unus Cod. qui ex coen.o.biis montis Athos advectus est" gives the t.i.tle pe??

t?? S?s?????.

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

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

POSITION.

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

In Codd. A, B, Q, Susanna stands at the beginning, before our chap. i.

of Daniel. This is its position also in the Old Latin, and in the Arabic versions (Ball, p. 330b). Rothstein in Kautzsch (p. 172) thinks that this was not its original place, but the one in which Theodotion fixed it, or perhaps that which found favour when Theodotion's translation was subst.i.tuted for LXX. And this position appears to be contemplated by the A.V. and R.V. t.i.tles, "set apart from the beginning of," etc. Driver, however, thinks (_Comm. on Dan._, p. xviii.) that the chap. xiii.

position (before Bel and the Dragon) was perhaps its original place.

"The fact that it contains an anecdote of Daniel's youth might readily have led to its subsequent transference to the beginning of the book."

St. Hippolytus, a writer subsequent to Theodotion, evidently regards it as the commencement of the book (Schurer, _H.J.P._ ii. iii., 185).

Flaminius n.o.bilius in his "Notae," as given in the Appendix to Bryan Walton's _Polyglott_, writes, "Haec Susannas historia in omnibus vetustis libris est principium Danielis, quemadmodum etiam apud S.

Athan. in Synopsi." This Synopsis is now considered to be of post-Athanasian date; and the position which its writer gives to Susanna in -- 41 does not look quite consistent with that he gives afterwards in -- 74 (_see_ 'Canonicity,' p. 157).

Although in the Vulgate this moveable fragment forms Daniel xiii., Jerome, notwithstanding, in his Preface names these additions in the order, Susanna, The Three, Bel and the Dragon; yet in the immediately following "capitula Danihelis," it stands as in the text after chap.

xii. This clearly points to some uncertainty as to its proper place.

The statements made by E.L. Curtis at the end of art. _Daniel_ in Hastings' _B.D._, that this and Bel and the Dragon are separate books in the LXX, have question marks justly affixed to them. In the Jacobite Syriac, Susanna is joined with Judith, Ruth, and Esther, as a "Female Book" (_Urtext und Uebersetz._ p. 230). Gwynn says (D.C.B. art.

_Thecla_, IV. 895b), that in "Syriac O.T.'s these are usually placed together and cla.s.sed as the four books of the 'Book of Women.'"

Yet another position is suggested by J. Furst (quoted in Bissell, p.

444), who thinks its proper place is after Dan. i. 20. This is a very plausible conjecture, but evidence to support it is at present wanting.

A slight confirmation of it however is afforded by the _Byzantine Guide to Painting_ (_see_ 'Art,' p. 171); and by the position given by Sulpicius Severus to his epitome of the story (_see_ 'Christian Literature,' p.

167). E. Philippe (Vigouroux, _Dict._ II. 1267a) attempts to account for its removal from, or want of position in, the Ma.s.soretic Daniel, "parce qu'elle est infamante pour les juges d'Israel," obviously adopting Origen's reason (_see_ 'Canonicity,' p. 157) which is not a very satisfactory one.

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

DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.

DATE.

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

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