The Three Additions to Daniel, a Study Part 9

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

The true LXX version was long supposed to be lost; but a cursive MS. of it (9th or 10th century) was found in Cardinal Chigi's library at Some, and was first printed in 1772. From its owner's name it has received the t.i.tle of Cod. Chisia.n.u.s, and is now numbered 87.

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

T's recension is rather more polished in language, less elaborate in some of its details.[34] Fritzsche, quoted in Kautzsch (pp. 176-7), says that "he worked over the LXX text, expanded the narrative, rounded it off, and gave it a greater air of probability." Westcott's opinion to a similar effect, however (Smith's _D.B._ ed. 2 I. 714a), is called in question by Professor Salmon (_Speaker's Comm._ XLVI.a), who thinks that there is quite as much to be said for the opposite views, and this opinion is reasonable.

In the LXX text there is surely something wanting at the true beginning at v. 5, which, as it stands, is awkwardly abrupt. Both Bissell (and Brull, quoted by him, p. 457) approve of the idea that the beginning was suppressed because of its containing damaging reflections on the elders.

Then the present opening (vv. 1--5) was borrowed from T, and is marked in both Cod. Chis. and Syro-Hex. as not part of the original work, but a foreign exordium. Rothstein (p. 184, note) thinks that in place of the present borrowed commencement there stood a short introductory remark on the two judging elders. Though lacking proof, this conjecture is well within the bounds of possibility. Yet in the Syro-Hexaplar text the first five verses are obelised, indicating, according to Bugati (p.

163), that they are omitted in T, but present in ??.

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

The Syriac W2 (=Harklensian) contains many further particulars inserted here and there, such as the Elders' names (Amid and Abid)[35], v. 5, Daniel's age of twelve years, and some words in praise of him, v. 64.

But most of these added clauses may not unfairly be regarded as 'paddings,' put in by way of embellishment. Those in v. 41 (ninth hour), v. 45 (twelve years of age), v. 64 (increase in favour) have a Christian look, the last two being suggestive of a knowledge of St. Luke's Gospel (_cf._ 'Style,' p. 140). Also the continuation of v. 43 in Lagarde's second Syriac version has rather a Christian air, "appear for me and send a Redeemer from before thee," etc. (Hastings' _D.B._ art. _Sus._ p.

631b).

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

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

The chief uncial MS. authorities for T's text are A,B,Q, and from v. 51 onward, G. A often agrees with Q, as in vv. 19, 24, and elsewhere, in subst.i.tuting p?es?te??? (??'s word) for p?es?ta?; in vv. 10, 11, etc., in subst.i.tuting ?pa?????? for ??a??????; and in v. 46, ?a?a??? for ?????. In the canonical part of Daniel the subst.i.tution of ?pa?????? for ??a?????? mostly holds good also so far as A is concerned (ii. 9, 16).[36] In v. 36, A has a transposition of a clause, and in v. 39 another of its changes of prepositions in composition, not easily accounted for. Q (alone) has such changes in vv. 4, 32, 38. The above are all changes from B. G often agrees with A and Q, or both, but has nothing of importance independently.

The genitive S??sa???? (instead of ??) occurs occasionally in all the above MSS. (vv. 27, 28, 62; also in LXX, v. 30). _cf._ ????a? in St.

John xi. I.

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

LANGUAGE AND STYLE.

LANGUAGE.

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

The Hebraic style is somewhat less strongly marked than in the other two fragments, nor has an Aramaic text of this one yet been discovered.

Still, the Greek can be rendered into Hebrew rather more easily than most h.e.l.lenistic Greek. The Greek of the "rest of" Esther differs much more in style and tone from that of the canonical book to which it is attached than does the Greek of Susanna from that of the canonical Daniel; and, so far as this fact goes, it points to a closer linguistic connection in this case than in the other (_see_ Streane, _Age of Macc._ p. 160; Bissell, p. 203). Delitzsch (_op. cit._ pp. 31, 101) says that "particulae quaedam citantur a Nachmanide" (ent.i.tled ???? ???) as well as of Wisdom. The citations of the latter book are discredited by Farrar (_Speaker's Comm._ p. 411) however, and probably those of the former are in a similar position.

The early place of verbs in the sentences is here also, as in the other pieces, to some extent noticeable as conforming to the theory of a Semitic original. If the etymology of the name ????? is supposed to be drawn from his 'judgments' in this story, such an original is probably involved in the supposition (_cf._ 't.i.tle,' p. 104). The Hexaplaric marks mentioned by Bugati (_op. cit._ 156), as occurring at the beginning of Cod. Chisia.n.u.s (?, S, T), are strongly suggestive of translation (_cf._ Song, 'Language,' p. 49).

The controversy which was started by Africa.n.u.s with Origen (and resumed by Porphyry[37] with Eusebius of Caesarea, and by Rufinus with Jerome) as to the famous play upon the names of the trees (vv. 54--60) is still unsettled. Some see in the paronomasiae conclusive proof of the originality of the Greek; others still contend with Origen that they are no certain evidence as to determination of language. But few will think the a.n.a.logous case which he (Origen) gives from Gen. ii. 23 a very convincing one (_D.C.B._ art. _Heb. Learning_, p. 858b). Still we must remember that the Hebrew language was fond of paronomasiae, and that Daniel employs the figure in the canonical book (v. 25--28). In other O.T. instances of its use it is, however, difficult to to see that the LXX made any attempt to reproduce the word-play, _e.g._ Isai. v. 7, Mic.

i. 10; nor does either Greek version in Dan. v. 25--28.[38] But ??es??

and ?fes?? in I. Esd. iv. 62 looks like a word-play in what may not be original Greek; though a Semitic original of that section of I. Esd.

(iii. 1 to v. 6) is by no means proved.

It has been shewn, however, in the case before us, how an adequate play might be produced in Aramaic, as also in English (Hastings' _D.B._ art.

_Sus._). A. Scholz, too, in his Commentary attempts this, with only moderate success, in Hebrew[39]; and Delitzsch (_op. cit._ 102) gives some Aramaic possibilities of it from Plessner. As the precise punishments named were not carried out, this pa.s.sage in the original, whatever it may have been, was clearly constructed with a view to introduce their names.

It is interesting to compare and contrast the account of the Woman taken in Adultery (St. John viii.) with that of Susanna, the one truly, the other falsely, accused. There are, as might be expected, some verbal parallels, but not sufficient to prove that the N.T. writer was influenced by the History of Susanna, nor to give us material a.s.sistance in deciding its original language (_cf._ III. 'Language,' p. 49).

Notwithstanding the general inclination towards Greek, this must at present be left in doubt, and a verdict of 'non liquet' given.

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

v. 3 ??, T. The use of ?at? after d?d?s??, instead of a double accusative, suggests a translation of ??? followed by a ? or ??, with either of which it is sometimes constructed.

v. 5 ??, T. If Aramaic be the original language, ?d????? may well represent ?????, as in IV. 14, V. 23 and elsewhere.

v. 6 ??, T. Scholz deems ???se?? and ?????e??? to be based on a confusion between ?????? and ??????.

vv. 7, 15, 19, 28 T. ?a? ????et? is suggestive of ????.

vv. 8, 14, 56 ??, T. The use of ?p????a in a bad sense, and of ?p?????

in a perfectly innocent one in v. 15 T, seems careless, and may point to translation from an original, where different roots were used, _e.g._ ???,???,???. _Cf._ LXX of Deut. v. 21 (18) for a rendering of two different Hebrew roots by the same word, ?p?????, though in that case they are both employed in a bad sense.

v. 15 T. ?a??? ????? ?a? t??t?? ???? looks like ????????? ?????????, as in Gen. x.x.xi. 5 and II. Kings xiii. 5. "Wortlich hebraisch," as Reuss notes _in loc._ If Aramaic were the original, it might be ??????????????? ??????????????.

v. 17 T. s??asa, "exprimere voluit Heb. ?????," but ????? (Esth. ii.

3, 9, 12) seems quite as likely as this suggestion of Grotius. Both roots are Aramaic as well as Hebrew.

vv. 11, 30, 39, 63 T. An instance similar to that given above (vv. 8, 14, 56) is the use of s???e??s?d? in a bad sense in vv. 11, 39, and s??e?e?? innocently in vv. 30, 63.

v. 19 ??. s????e??? = ??? either in Aramaic or Hebrew, as in ii. 9, while ??e?????t? = ???, as in Esth. vii. 8.

v. 22 T. S?e?? ?? p??t??e? occurs also in David's choice, II. Sam.

xxiv. 14 (closer than I. Chron. xxi. 13). The certainty of its being a translation in the one place increases the probability of its being so in the other, suggesting a common original, unless we suppose a Greek author borrowing a Septuagintal phrase.

v. 23 ??, T. On the other hand, the participial clause in this verse in both versions seems un-Hebraic in form; as also the phrase ? t?? ???pt??

???st?? in v. 42 T, which is not very like a translation from the Hebrew. There is a certain resemblance to Dan. ii. 28, 29 (??, T), ?

?p??a??pt?? ?st???a, however; but the latter contemplates G.o.d as revealing mysteries to others, the former as knowing secrets Himself.

v. 26 T. Scholz' idea that p?a??a? = ??? (as in Lev. xxvi. 21, etc.) would suit either Aramaic or Hebrew.

v. 27 T. Adduced as Hebraism in Winer's _G.T. Grammar_ (_E.T._ 1870, p.

214); apparently, but not very clearly, on the strength of the phrase p?p?te ??? ??????.

v. 36 T. The genitive absolute is Greek in character, but does not occur in ??.

v. 44 T. ??s????se?... t?? f????. A Hebraism, as in Gen. xxi. 17, and often.

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

v. 55 ??, T. ?????, ?efa??? = ?????? Isai. xliii. 4.

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

v. 57 ??, T. If an animus against Israel, as Judah's inferior, is really shewn here it would point to a Babylonian, and therefore Semitic, original, inasmuch as the enmity between Israel and Judah does not appear to have been so strong at Alexandria. The use of 'Israel,'

however, in v. 48 seems to include all in the first instance, and to be employed of Susanna specially in the second, who was presumably of Judah. The Syro-Hexaplar omits what was most likely deemed an invidious reflection. The reference to Hos. iv. 15 in the _Speaker's Comm._ (note) does not seem apposite as to its mention of Israel and Judah in the LXX; only in the Hebrew.