Chapter 8

THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA

כְּשׁוׄשַׁנָּה בֵּין הַחוׄחִים (שיר ב׳ ב׳)

THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA.

ANALYSIS. (Θ)

vv.

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

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

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

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

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

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

42--44. Her prayer.

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE AND POSITION.

TITLE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

POSITION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.

DATE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLACE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUTHORSHIP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.

FOR WHOM.

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

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

WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LANGUAGE AND STYLE.

LANGUAGE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STYLE.

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

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

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

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

RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.

RELIGIOUS.

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

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THEOLOGY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHRONOLOGY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Harklensian Syriac (W₂, Walton's second Syriac[52]) asserts both in