II

'-¦'Z-g/we ;tht/t J&noki
'(ferJtXe founding ef 'a. College. .btctfth^CoUny?'

•YALE^M¥lEI&Sinnr-

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

THE THEEE ADDITIONS TO DANIEL

THE THEEE ADDITIONS TO
DANIEL a gtuss

WILLIAM HEAFORD DAUBNEY, B.D.
JEREMIE PRIZEMAN, 1873
FORMERLY VICAR OP HARRINGTON, BEDFORDSHIRE, AND RECTOR OF
LEASINGHAM, LINCOLNSHIRE; AUTHOR OF THE "USE OF THE
APOCRYPHA IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH," ETC.

EvK6y7i<rav T$ ie$ r$ <t&£ovti robs tKtrifavras in' avriv.
—Sist. Sus. v. 60.

(Ramfrftge
DEIGHTON BELL AND CO:
London G. BELL & SONS
1906
[All rights reserved"]

ED?>S

PREFACE
The three apocryphal portions of Daniel con
sidered in this book have often been hardly judged.
One of them had almost become a byword of
contempt for fabulous inventiveness. Yet the writer
hopes that he has succeeded in shewing that they
are worthy of more serious attention than they have
frequently received. The prejudice long existing
in this country against the Apocrypha as a whole
has told heavily against two at any rate of these
booklets; and he who attempts to investigate the
nature and origin of the Additions to Daniel finds
himself following a track which is anything but well
beaten. The number of commentaries or treatises
in English dealing directly with these works is very
small. Indeed, considering the position accorded to
them by the Church, it is surprisingly so. And of
those which dxist, some are not very valuable for
accurate study. Hence, in preparing a treatise of
this kind, materials have to be quarried and brought

x Preface
together from varied and distant sources; and the
work, small as its result may be in size, has proved
a laborious one. The conclusions arrived at on
many points are but provisional; for the writer
thinks that the day has not yet come when the
source and place of these Additions to Daniel can
be surely and incontrovertibly fixed. It is to be
hoped that further evidence and longer study will
eventually make these matters clearer than they are
at present. Meanwhile, careful and unprejudiced
work upon the subject, by whomsoever undertaken,
cannot but tend towards that goal ; and the author
trusts that he may have contributed something
which will help, at least a little, towards the solu
tion of the difficult problem presented.
The Song of the Three and the Histories of
Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are most interest
ing memorials of the spirit of their time, though
that time may be difficult to fix precisely. And
when looked at from the religious point of view
they are replete with valuable moral lessons for
"example of life and instruction of manners," to
borrow the terms which the Sixth Article of Religion

Preface xi
employs with regard to the Apocryphal books. An
attempt has been made, in a concluding chapter on
each book, to draw some of these lessons out, so
that they may be easily available for such homiletic
and other purposes as are contemplated in that
Article. The study of these three pieces supplementary
to Daniel has convinced the writer that they are of
more value than has been generally supposed, and
are worthy of the attention of biblical scholars in a
much higher degree than that which has usually
been accorded to them. If he has in any way
helped in providing materials, or in suggesting
ideas, which may fructify in abler hands, he will be
rewarded for the researches he has made.
It appears to him that there is much connected
with these books which we are unable now fully to
discover; much about which it is unwise to dog
matize; many questions which must be treated as
open ones ; many problems which can at most only
receive provisional solutions, till further facts are
elicited and further insight given. The time is
apparently still distant when the origin and true

xii Preface
standing of these Additions can be certainly assigned
to them: for, at the present, agreement amongst
Christians on these points shews but little sign of
being arrived at. Yet we trust that the time will
come when deeper knowledge will make it possible
for disputed points to be settled. " The patience of
the godly shall not be frustrate " (Ecclus. xvi. 13).
In conclusion I must record my hearty thanks
to Dr. Sinker, Librarian of Trinity College, Cam
bridge, for the great assistance he has given me in
correcting the proof-sheets, as well as for his
constant kindness in many other ways, of which
these words are but an insufficient acknowledgment.
W. H. D.
St. Margaret' a Gate,
Bury St. Edmunds.
St. Matthias1 Bay, 1906.

CONTENTS PAGE
Preface  vii
PAET I.
Introduction  3
PART II.
The Song of the Three Holy Children.
Analysis  17
1. Title and Position  18
2. Authorship  23
3. Date and Place of Writing .... 27
4. Por Whom and with what Object Written . 36
5. Integrity and State of the Text ... 41
6. Language and Style  45
7. Eeligious and Social State ... 57
8. Theology  61
9. Chronology ... ... 66
10. Canonicity  70
11. Early Christian Literature and Art , . 76
12. Liturgical Use .... .83
13. " Example of Life and Instruction of Manners " 97

xiv Contents
PAET ill. PAGE
The History of Susanna.
Analysis  104
1. Title and Position . . ... 104
2. Date and Place of Writing .... 109
3. Authorship  115
4. Por Whom and with what Object Written . 120
5. Integrity and State of the Text . . . 125
6. Language and Style  130
7. Eeligious and Social State .... 141
8. Theology  148
9. Chronology  152
10. Canonicity  , . 157
11. Early Christian Literature and Art . , . 163
12. "Example of Life and Instruction of Manners" 173
PAET IV.
The History of Bel and the Dragon.
Analysis  181
1. Title and Position  182
2. Authorship  185
3. Date and Place of Writing .... 189
4. Por Whom and with what Object Written . 194
5. Integrity and State of the Text . . . 198
6. Language and Style  203
7. Eeligious and Social State .... 211

Contents xv
PAGE
8. Theology  219
9. Chronology  223
10. Canonicity  231
11. Early Christian Literature and Art . . . 235
12. " Example of Life and Instruction of Manners " 242
Index of Proper Names . . . .249
Index of Scripture Texts .... 253

[The text of the 'Additions' used throughout is that of
Dr. Swete's Old Testament in Greek, Vol. III. ed. 2, Cam
bridge, 1899.]

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION.
These Additions differ from the other Apoc
ryphal books, except the "rest of" Esther, in not
claiming to be separate works, but appearing as
supplements to a canonical book. The Song of
the Three Children takes its assumed place between
w. 23 and 24. of Dan. iii. ; the History of Susanna
in the language of the A. V. is " set apart from the
beginning of Daniel " ; and Bel and the Dragon is
" cut off from the end of" the same book. The first
of these additions alone has an organic connection
with the main narrative ; the other two are inde
pendent scenes from the life, or what purports to be
the life, of Daniel — episodes, one in his earlier, one
in his later, career. In the Song, Daniel personally
does not appear at all ; in Susanna and in Bel he playa
a conspicuous part ; in Susanna appearing as a sort
of ' deus ex machina ' to set things right at the end ;
and in Bel he is an essential actor in the whole
etory.

4 The Three Additions to Daniel
It is hoped to shew, amongst other things, that
the dissimilarity supposed to exist between these
additions and the rest of Daniel is by no means so
great as has sometimes been imagined. The opinion
of one of the latest commentators on Daniel (Marti,
Tubingen, 1901, p. xx) may be taken as a fair sample
of this view. He thinks these pieces by no means
congruous with the canonical Daniel : " Den Abstand
dieser apokryphischen Erzahlungen von dem in hebr.-
aram. Dan. aufgenommen Volkstradition kann nie-
mand verkennen." So far as these additions to the
contents of Daniel are concerned, he would agree
with the exaggerated statement of Trommius as to
all the Apocrypha : " ad libros canonicos S. Scripturae
proprie non pertinent nee cum Graca eorum ver-
sione quicquam commune habent," etc. (Concord.
Prcef. § xi.). The sharp distinction drawn by J. M.
Fuller also between the style and thought of these
additions, and of the canonical Daniel, is far too
strong : " as clearly marked as between the canonical
and apocryphal gospels." Few will think the sepa
ration between them so wide as this (Speaker's Coram.
Introd. to Dan. p. 221a). Moreover, they are much
less obviously incongruous, less plainly meant for
edifying " improvements " by a later hand, than the
Additions to Esther.

Introduction 5
But beyond the connection, more or less strong,
which these pieces have with the canonical book,
they have also a connection, by means of certain
similar features, with one another. All have this in
common, viz. the celebration or record of some de
liverance. God's persecuted people are rescued from
mortal danger. In the first and third cases they
suffer at the hands of idolaters; in the second, of
Jewish co-religionists. In each case they provide
us with a scene from Israelitish life "in a strange
land." They are tales of the Babylonian Captivity.
In each story the ministry of angels, giving aid
against visible foes, takes a prominent place ; though
in Susanna these appearances are suppressed in
Theodotion's version, an angel, however, being just
mentioned in Daniel's sentences of condemnation.
In each case too there is distinct progress under
God's guiding hand ; things are left much better at
the end than at, the beginning. There is a tone of
confidence, bred of sure conviction, in one abund
antly expressed, in the others latent, as to the
ultimate triumph of right. They agree in the cer
tainty of God's defence, and shew complete reliance
on Him. The Captivity had done a purifying
work. These stories of rescue from oppressors would

6 The Three Additions to Daniel
be specially acceptable to the Jews of the Babylonian
Captivity ; more so probably than to the Jews of the
Dispersion elsewhere. Howbeit they are records of
zeal and trust which have moved many hearts in all
ages and places.
In the last two Daniel appears as a person of
great knowledge and power, successfully acting under
tbe Divine guidance. In all three there is little
which can properly be called strained or far-fetched.
Almost everything is drawn naturally from what we
may presume would be the condition of Daniel's
time. Both behind and tbrough the details of the
stories we can see the heart of one who praised God,
loved justice, and hated idolatry ; who took delight
in what was noble, pure, and truthful, and waged a
successful warfare with whatever he encountered of
an opposite character.
Each piece, moreover, has what may be thought
to be its own allusion or reminiscence in the New
Testament. And each of these parallels, curiously
enough, seems eminently characteristic of the addi
tion whence it may have been taken.
Thus we find in the parallel of St. Matt, xxvii. 24
with Susanna 46 the assertion of innocency in respect
of miscarriage of justice ; in that of Heb. xii. 23 with
the Song 64 (86), the utterance of the spirits and

Introduction 7
souls of the righteous ; and in that of Acts xvii. 23
with Bel and Dragon 27, the mocker of idols.
One is from the 'beginning, one from the midst,
one from the end of the Greek Daniel ; the first by
St. Matthew reporting Pilate; the second by a
writer not certainly identified; the third by St.
Luke reporting St. Paul. These may be merely
accidental resemblances, but their occurrence in this
way is curious, and worthy of consideration.
As to the position of these pieces, whether in
or out of the canon, it is probable, speaking gene
rally, that those who used the Hebrew Bible, or
versions uninfluenced by the LXX, disregarded
them as not being part of Holy Scripture ; and that
those who used the LXX, or its versions, accepted
them, either with or without hesitation. Under the
chapters entitled "Early Christian Literature" it
will be seen that those were by no means wanting
who appear to attribute in practical use canonical
authority to each fragment ; and at least what Otto
Stahelin says of Clement of Alexandria, that he
"nicht geringer schatzte," may be held true of
nearly all the Fathers who name them (Clem. Alex.
und LXX, Nurnberg, 1901, p. 74). It is, how
ever, surprising that this divergence of use, in so
important a matter as the extent of the canon, did

8 The Three Additions to Daniel
not give rise to a more general controversy. What
discussion there was on this question lay chiefly
between a few scholarly individuals, who treated
the matter as of private and personal, almost as
much as of public, interest.
Even if it were admitted that these works
were not in the Hebrew canon, the question is still
not absolutely settled. For it might be contended,
without at all asserting that the Hebrew canon was
erroneous or deficient in its time, that these and
other apocryphal works were reserved in the provi
dence of God for the Christian Church to deal with
as she thought fit. Nor is it clear that her powers
as to them, when deciding for canonicity or no, were
of necessity more restricted than her powers as to
the N. T. books on the same question. What Ter
tullian says with regard to 'Enoch' might be ex
tended to other books, "Scio scripturam Enoch . . . non
recipi a quibusdam quia nee in armarium Judaicum
admittitur ... a vobis quidem nihil omnino rejicien-
dum est quod pertinent ad nos" (De cult.fcem. 1. 13).
The title ' Daniel,' it should be observed, in lists
of Scripture books, often covers these additions ; as
for example in Origen's list, as preserved by Euse
bius, H. E. vi. 25. For we know that Origen (Ep.
ad, Afric.) defended these additions, and so almost

Introduction 9
certainly intended this title to include them. So
also with Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem (see Sus.
' Canonicity,' p. 160). Probably it is on this account
that Loisy (O.T. Canon, Paris, 1890, p. 97) says that
Athanasius received " certainement les fragments de
Daniel, sur la foi des Septante, comme le font Ori-
gene et tous les Peres grecs."
Ecclesiastical practice, as well as their distri
bution amongst the canonical books of both Greek
and Latin Bibles, told, as time went on, more and
more in favour of their inclusion.
But they were not officially recognized as on a
level in all respects with Holy Scripture, even by
the Koman Church, till the fourth session of the
Council of Trent (1546), when they were all placed
on an equality with, in fact treated as portions of,
the book of Daniel. Probably the phrase "libros
integros cum omnibus suis partibus" was intro
duced into the decree with special reference to these
additions and those to Esther. This decree, making
them " sacred and canonical," was carried, according
to Loisy (p. 201), by 44 placets to 3 non-placets and
5 doubtful* Dr. Streane, however, says (Age ofthe
Maccabees, 1898, p. 102) it was passed by " a small
majority." Even writers so late as Nicholas de
• He refers to Theiner, Acta . . . concil. Trident. 1. 77.

10 The Three Additions to Daniel
Lyra (fl340) and Denys the Carthusian (f!4i71)
speak of these additions as true, but not parts of
Holy Scripture (Loisy, p. 223, quoting Corn, a Lap. on
Dan. xiii. 3). And they were of the Roman obedience.
Bleek (Introd. to 0. T. II. 336, Eng. tr.) says that
the seventh decree of the Council of Florence (1439),
making mention of apocryphal books as canonical,
which no one was acquainted with before the Triden-
tine Council, is very probably not genuine. Denys
the Carthusian, it will be observed, was subsequent
to the supposed Florentine decree, and seemingly
ignorant of its existence.
The same writer states (pp. 336, 339) that
while Karlstadt classed some of the Apocrypha as
"hagiographa extra canonem," he called these sup
plements to Daniel, with the Prayer of Manasses, and
others as "plane apocryphos." He also represents
Luther as prettily styling these pieces corn-flowers
plucked up, because not in the Hebrew, yet placed in
a separate garden or bed, because much that is good
is found in them. They are thus detached in his
version, as in ours, from Daniel, and placed among
the apocryphal books. Calvin, however, in his Lec
tures on Daniel entirely ignores these additions. His
English translator barely mentions them in his pre
face (Edinb. 1852, p. xlix.).

Introduction 1 1
Far more contemptuous than Luther's estimate
of these productions is that of Professor (now Bishop)
Ryle in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible
(1894), where he writes: "The character of these
stories is trifling and childish."
But in reply to this and similar depreciatory
opinions, it may be pointed out that one does not
look in these extra-Danielic stories for such a know
ledge of the human heart as is displayed in the
Psalms, nor for such knowledge of the Godhead as is
revealed in St. John's Gospel. If we look for fully
developed doctrine of this kind, we shall no doubt
be disappointed. But we do find religious teaching
after the tenor of the old covenant, such as might be
expected in compositions which are mainly narrative ;
we meet with teaching which looks quite as clear as
that, say, of the books of Ruth, Chronicles, or Esther.
Indeed, those who have a mind to draw moral and
spiritual instruction from these brief works will not
find it difficult to do so, or discover that the religious
teaching is out of harmony with that which is
acknowledged to exist in Daniel (see chaps, on " Ex
ample of Life and Instruction of Manners"). In point
of fact, an overgrowth of unreasonable objections has
been too much encouraged ; and if these pieces may
not in all respects secure a favourable vote, it is

12 The Three Additions to Daniel
desirable that they may receive at least an un
prejudiced and equitable judgment.
The examples of patristic use given under the
head of "Early Christian Literature" will, it is
hoped, sufficiently refute such statements as that of
Albert Barnes (Daniel, Lond. 1853, pp. 79, 80) : " It
is seldom that these additions to Daniel are quoted
or alluded to at all by the early Christian writers,
but when they are, it is only that they may be con
demned." This may be taken as a specimen of a
certain class of adverse opinion, evidently formed
without sufficient investigation of the subject. In
reality, these pieces are referred to, considering
their brevity, with surprising frequency; that the
references are not exclusively, or even generally, for
purposes of condemnation, hardly needs to be stated.
What effect these writings took on Jewish
readers there is little or nothing to shew. With the
rest of the LXX, they seem to have lost ground with
Jews as they gained it with Christians. The closing
scene of Bel and the Dragon, however, is made use
of in Breshith Rabba to illustrate Joseph's abandon
ment in the pit (Gen. xxxvii.).* To Christians indeed
they have, from a very early date, constantly presented
* So Raymund Martini, at the end of his Pugio filei; but his
quotation has been doubted. See B. and D. ' Chronology,' p. 229.

Introduction 1 3
themselves as highly valuable for purposes of edifica
tion. Nor, with the possible exception of Susanna,
is it easy to see in what way they could have
furthered, in that aspect, any undesirable end.
What will be the future of these pieces by
which, in the Greek Bible, the contents of Daniel were
increased ? It is not easy to say. Much will surely
depend on the eventual consensus of opinion as to
the date of that book itself. Neither the Roman
nor Greek Churches shew any sign of modifying
their entire,* or very slightly qualified, acceptance of
these additions as integral parts of Holy Scripture.
On the other hand, English-speaking Protestant
Dissenters shew almost as little sign of rising to any
religious appreciation of them.
Between these extremes the Church of England,
and perhaps the German and Scandinavian Lutherans,
hold, as to these books, an intermediate position,
which in this, as in some other questions, may not
improbably prove to be the right one. In any case
the English Church has always treated them with
great respect, a large part of one of them entering
into her Morning Prayer, and the other two having
been appointed as first lessons in her calendar from
• The Vatican Council confirmed the Tridentine decree on Scrip
ture (Const. "Dei Filius" n., Loisy, p. 239).

14 The Three Additions to Daniel
1549 to 1872, except that Bel and the Dragon was
removed from 1604 to 1662. Previous to this last
date they were read, not as independent books, but
as Dan. xiii. and xiv.
A patient waiting for the production of further
evidence as to the origin and position of these
additions can hardly be unrewarded. Meanwhile
we may fitly agree with St. Gregory of Nazianzus'
lines, which apply as well to these as to the other
books of the Apocrypha :
Ovk airaaa BlB\o<; ao-<f>a\r]<s,
fj aefivbv ovoyua rrp Tpacpr)? KeKTrjp,evrj.
elalv <yap, elalv eaO1 ore ^jrevBwvvfioi
8i/3\or rive? fiev efifieaot, Kal yetroves,
a>? dv Tt? eiiroi, r&v a\rjdela<! Xoyav.
(Poems, lib. n., ad Seleucum, 252 — 256 ;
Migne, Pair. Gr. xxxvii. 1593.)

Part II
THE SONG OF THE THEEE HOLY CHILDEEN

THE SONG OF THE THREE HOLY
CHILDEEN. ANALYSIS.
vv. 1, 2. Narrative in continuation of the canonical text, de
scribing the procedure of the three children in
the furnace.
3—22. Azarias' confession (3 — 10), and prayer (11—22), on
behalf of them all.
23 — 28. Narrative describing the fire, the descent of the Angel,
and the happy result.
29 — 68. The Song of praise itself, which may be subdivided
thus: God directly addressed in blessing (29 — 34) ;
after all God's works, celestial objects are addressed,
including Angels* (35 — 41) ; objects of the lower
heaven or atmosphere are called upon, including
those immediately concerned, wind and dew being
placed next to fire and heat (42 — 51) ; then the
earthf and its natural features, and the animals
inhabiting it, are called upon (52 — 59); then the
human race, as a whole and in various classes,
down to the three children themselves (60 — 66).
In conclusion God is extolled for His ever-enduring
mercy in phrases culled from the Psalter (67, 68).
The tendency of the arrangement of the Song proper is to
descend from generals to particulars. It has a refrain at the end
of each verse, slightly differing in those preliminary verses which
* "The first and most gifted of creatures" (M'Swiney, Psalms
and Canticles, 1901, p. 644).
t Perhaps in default of better explanation the " earth " verse may
have been put into the third person in order to mark tbe transition
from things celestial to those terrestrial.
17

1 8 The Three Additions to Daniel
are addressed to the Lord Himself, and wanting in the last three.
The rendering of the refrain in the preliminary verses does not
seem very happy in its English (A.V. and R.V.).

TITLE AND POSITION.
TITLE.
Forming, as it does, an integral portion of the
third chapter of the Greek Daniel, the principal
MSS. give the Song, in that place, no independent
title. It falls of course under tbe general title of
the whole Book, Daniel.
Van Ess in his LXX (Lips. 1835) entitles it
Dlpoaevyr\ A^aplov Kal vp,vo<; t&v rpi&v, but as he
puts this heading in curved brackets it is possibly
merely his own insertion. 'B' is the codex which he
is professing to follow in his text ; but that MS. is
credited with no such title in Dr. Swete's Greek
Old Testament; nor do Holmes and Parsons shew
any knowledge of it as existing in any of their MSS.
In the Veronese Graeco-Latin Psalter it is headed
"Tfivos t&v Trarkpaiv rjiiav, and in the Turin Psalter
"Tfivo? t&v Tpi&v maihwv, which title it inserts again
at v. 57, strangely regarding that verse as the com
mencement of a fresh canticle with a new number, iB'.
Churton (Uncan. and Apocr. Script., p. 391) sug
gests that the former title " may have been wrongly

Song of the Three Holy Children 1 9
transferred from Ecclus. xliv." at the head of which
it stands. He also calls it the title in the Alexan
drian Psalter — the Odes, presumably that is, at the
end. But the title to Ecclus. xliv. is simply irarkpmv
£7*1*09, so that the likelihood of the transfer, deemed
possible by Churton, having taken place is very small.
In the Odes, at the end of Cod. A, two canticles
are extracted from this piece; the first (Ode IX.)
entitled Ilpoa-evxfi 'A^apiov, the second (Ode X.)
' Tiivos t&v iraripav r/fiwv, each corresponding with
the name given to it. In the office of Eastern Lauds
the two parts have separate titles, being assigned to
different days of the week (D.C.A. art. Canticle).
In the Syriac and Arabic versions of Daniel a
separate title is given after v. 23 of chap, iii., and in
the latter after v. 52, according to Churton in his
marginal notes. He also says that "the prayer of
the companions of Ananias " is the Syriac title.
The titles on the whole are fairly suited to their
purpose ; but the use ofthe word "children" (iraiS&v)
in the common heading of the Song contemplates the
three as of the age indicated in Daniel i. rather than
that in Daniel iii. POSITION.
Obviously this is not meant for an independent
work, since it has no proper commencement of its

20 The Three Additions to Daniel
own. " And they walked " is clearly intended as a
continuation of some foregoing history. Accordingly,
its position in the LXX, Theodotion, Vulgate, and
other versions, is immediately after the 23rd verse of
Daniel iii., thus forming a portion of that chapter.
This is clearly its natural and appropriate place. It
unites well both at the beginning and the end with
the canonical text, " Qui se trouve entrelasse'e (sic)
dans le texte," as D. Martin says in the heading of
the book in his French version. T. H. Home, however
(Introd. 1856, II. 936), mentions its " abrupt nature "
as a reason for thinking that the translator did not
invent it, but made use of already existing materials.
But the abruptness is not so apparent to other eyes
and ears. Indeed G. Jahn, in his note on Dan. iii. 24
(Leipzig, 1904), considers the gap between vv. 23 and
24 in the Massoretic text is filled up satisfactorily in
the LXX and Theodotion only.
By means of this insertion, and the inclusion of
what in A.V. are the first four verses of chap, iv., this
chapter is lengthened out in the Greek and Latin
versions to exactly 100 verses.
Bishop Gray's note (Key to 0. T. 1797, p. 608),
in which he says "the Song of the three holy children
is not in the Vat. copy of the LXX," is certainly a
mistake. It is just possible, however, that he may

Song of the Three Holy Children 2 1
have meant that the true LXX version was absent
from it. So Ball somewhat obscurely (p. 310 " the
Alex. MS. omits "*), and Bissell (p. 442), though not
very distinctly, suggest a like idea as to its omission
from Dan. iii. in A, and Zdckler in his commentary
falls into the same mistake (Munich, 1891, p. 231).
It is not unlikely that these writers successively
influenced each other.
E. Philippe's idea (Vigouroux, Diet. II. 1267«),
that this piece was separated from the original book
because " elle retarde le r^cit et est en dehors du but
final " seems unconvincing — as much so as Dereser's
(quoted in Bissell, p. 444), from whom perhaps it
was borrowed — that "the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem
shortened it for convenient use." An equally un
satisfying " reason " is that of H. Deane in Daniel,
his Life and Times, p. 70 (pref. 1888). "There
is no doubt as to the antiquity of this addition, but
probably on account of the feelings of hatred the
three children express with regard to their enemies,
it was not universally received by the Church." In
the face of many stronger expressions in the O.T.
received without hesitation, this explanation seems
untenable, or at least insufficient. And the same
* This may refer to the titles he gives from " the Vatican LXX " ;
but see above, p. 18, as to the absence of these.

22 The Three Additions to Daniel
may be said of G. Jahn's theory that some mention
of the singing of the three, contained in the original,
was expunged by the Massoretes as too wonderful
and apocryphal.
Much has been made of the omission of this
and the other additions from the original Syriac (e.g.
Westcott, quoting Polychronius, Smith's D. B., ed. 2.
713o, Bissell, 448), but they are contained in the
Syriac text of Origen's Hexapla, in the MS. in the
Ambrosian Library at Milan (Kautzscb, i. 172), pub
lished in facsimile by Ceriani. Bugati in his edition
of Daniel gives this Syriac and the LXX text in
parallel columns. In Jephet Ibn Ali's (the Ka
raite's) Arabic commentary on Daniel, translated by
D. S. Margoliouth (Oxf. 1889), no notice is taken of
the additions. The commentary was probably written
about A.D. 1000.
Professor Rothstein (Kautzsch, I. 173) compares
the situation of the prayer in ix. 4 sqq., which he
deems, like this one, to have been perhaps a later
insertion into the book.
It is beyond question that if this psalm of
prayer and praise is to find a place anywhere in the
Book of Daniel, no more suitable position can be
found for it than that which it occupies so well in the
Greek. If it is a digression from the course of the

Song of the Three Holy Children 23
original narrative it is very happily placed, since it
accounts satisfactorily for the statement "the king
was astonied " in v. 24 (91). He was surprised at
the voice of praise, instead of the shrieks of pain
which he had expected to produce by the execution
of his decree. AUTHORSHIP.
In the Greek of neither O' nor 0 is there varia
tion sufficient to prove that the writer differed from
the one who translated the rest of the book. Rather
do the indications point to the same hand having
been at work throughout. Comely says of this and
its companion pieces, " Neque in trium pericoparum
argumentis quidquam invenitur quo illas Danielis
auctori attribuere prohibeamur " (Compendium,
Paris, 1889, p. 421). This, like other R. C. writings,
holds of course a brief for their canonicity.
The Prayer, on the surface, claims to be by
Azarias ; the Song by all the three. The introduc
tory and intermediate narrative verses are given as
if from the same pen as the rest of Daniel's history ;
v. 4 (27) reminds us in its terms of Daniel iv. 37 (34)
very strongly, and, in part, of ix. 14. In v. 24 (47)
the mention of 49 (7 x 7) is paralleled by the symbolic
use of the number 7 in iv. 25, etc. But even if, as
is likely, they did not originate with the ostensible

24 The Three Additions to Daniel
utterers, still it is quite possible that the hand for
the prayer, the narrative, and the Song may not, in
the first instance, have been identical.
Probably, however, we are intended, by the
producer of the piece in its present shape, to under
stand that the prayer and the Song are recorded,
even if not originated, by the author of the whole
book. If not genuine parts of Daniel, their parent
age has not been assigned to any named author ; and
the work must be treated as anonymous, for no clue
has been traced which points to a definite writer.
The putting forward in v. 2 (25) of the second
person of the trio, not otherwise distinguished from
his fellows, is remarkable, and not suggestive of a
forgery. There is nothing to shew why he led the
prayer, as no special characteristics are attached to
Abed-nego in our knowledge. Most likely a forger
would have put the prayer into the mouth of Shadrach
(Ananias), who always stands first, though the order
of the last two is reversed in the one place in which
the three are named in the uncanonical portion of
the chapter. Ewald (Hist, of Israel, E. Tr. Lond. 1874,
V. 486) thinks that Azarias is introduced as the
eldest, or perhaps the teacher, of the other two ; but
this conjecture does not account for the varying
orders of the names of the three in v. 65.

Song of the Three Holy Children 25
However thick a veil may rest over the author's
name, it may safely be regarded as certain that he
was a Jew, and a Jew who was well acquainted with
the Psalter. But the opinion as to whether he was
of Babylonian, Palestinian, or Alexandrian extrac
tion will depend in a great measure on the view
taken as to the original language, whether Chaldee,
Hebrew, or Greek. Professor Rothstein (p. 174)
admits the possibility of this addition having been
made to Daniel before its translation into Greek.
But Dean W. R. W. Stephens (Helps to Study of
P. B., Oxf. n. d., prob. 1901, p. 45) may be taken as
representing what has been the commonest view.
He thinks it " probably composed by an Alexandrine
Jew." On the other hand, Dr. Streane's remark
tells against this increase of contents having begun
at Alexandria. " The tendency to diffuseness, cha
racteristic of later Judaism . . . operated much more
slightly among Egyptian Jews than with their breth
ren elsewhere" (quoted in Dr. Swete's Introd. to
Greek 0. T. p. 259).
The assertion has gone the round of the com
mentators that the Song proper is a mere expansion
of Psalm cxlviii., leaving us to infer that it is hardly
a work of independent authorship. Perowne* writes,
* Psalms, Lond. 1871, n. 462.

26 The Three Additions to Daniel
"the earliest imitation of this psalm is the Song
of the Three Children." And J. H. Blunt, in loc,
tells us that "the hymn in its original shape was
obviously an expanded form of the 148th Psalm."
So even Gaster, " modelled evidently on Ps. cxlviii."* ;
while Wheatleyf goes so far as to say that it is " an
exact paraphrase " of that psalm, " and so like it in
words and sense that whoever despiseth this re-
proacheth that part of the canonical writings.":): But
though the general idea for calling upon nature to
glorify God is the same, the. author of Benedicite is
much more than a mere expander or imitator. Natu
rally many of the same objects are mentioned ; but
while comparison with the LXX version of the psalm
shews some resemblance in word and thought, it
shews much more variation in style, phraseology,
and treatment. That the writer, as a Jew, was
acquainted with this psalm can scarcely be doubted ;
that he consciously imitated it there is little to
shew. Moreover, the use of this psalm at Lauds in
the Ambrosian, the Eastern, and Quignon's service-
books, together with the Benedicite, would hardly
have occurred if the Church had regarded the latter
• Proe. Soe. BiU. Archaeol. 1895, p. 81.
t Rational illuttrat. of P. B.
+ But J. T. Marshall (Hastings' D. B. iv. 755), " The hymn is
modelled after Ps. 136, and has equal claim to be considered poetical."

Song of the Three Holy Children 27
as a mere expansion of the former, and not as a
distinct production.
Whoever the author may have been, he was
evidently strictly orthodox, and quite in sympathy
with his three heroes, in whose mouths he placed
this lively, agreeable, and most religious Song. He
has added a much appreciated treasure, at least
among Christians, to the ecclesiastical books ; a most
serviceable form of utterance for the Church's praise-
ful voice. But the nature of the piece does not
afford much scope for display of the character or
personality of the writer. He effaces himself while
extolling devotion to Jehovah, and, if he be Daniel,
while recording the faithfulness of the blessed friends
of his youth. What subject more likely to excite
his enthusiastic sympathy ? Honour to the martyrs
who endured, praise to the Lord who delivered, it
was plainly a pleasure to him to give.
DATE AND PLACE.
DATE.
Almost everything, excepting its absence from
the original, points to the Song having been from
the beginning a part of the LXX text of Daniel.
Its date therefore in this case would be the date of
that text. The way in which it is worked into the

28 The Three Additions to Daniel
canonical Daniel narrative suggests that, if there be
any variation as to date in the three additions, this
is seemingly the earliest.
That the LXX translator invented this en
largement out of his own genius seems highly im
probable ; nor, were it not for its absence from the
original Daniel, few would have doubted that he
obtained the whole of his material from the same
quarter. In such case our ' apocryphon ' would ob
viously ante-date the LXX text.
It is not unlikely that the Alexandrian trans
lator worked up certain traditions (J. M. Fuller,
S.P.C.K. Comm. ; see also Bevan, Dan. Camb. 1892,
p. 45), or, if Gaster's discovery be what he thinks,
written narratives. What sources, however, were
used in preparing its LXX Greek form can only be
conjectured, and that on very slender data.
Rothstein in Kautzsch (i. 176) deems it to
have been imported into the text of Daniel before
the LXX translation, which he dates at latest in the
first quarter of the last century B.C.
How an interpolation of this kind came to be
admitted into the original of Daniel is a difficult
matter to explain. Even on the supposition that the
OOirO were less rigidly fixed than the Law or even
the Prophets, the insertion or omission of such a sec-

Song of the Three Holy Children 29
tion as this seems a very bold step. Ewald (Hist.
Israel, V. 86, 87, Eng. Tr.) thinks these additions
to be fragments of an enlarged Daniel based on the
older book, which was composed one or two centuries
earlier.* Some later writer must have compared
this new book, which was originally written in
Greek, with the translation of the older book of
Daniel, and transferred whatever he thought proper
from the former into the latter. The work, thus
compiled afresh, has been preserved in Greek shape,
while the intervening book, whose former existence
is proved by clearest traces, is now lost. It is only
in this way, Ewald thinks, that we can explain the
origin and preservation of the portions which are not
contained in the Hebrew.
Prof. Kautzsch (1. 121) deems III. Maccabees,
in vi. 6 of which book there is a reference to v. 27 (50)
of the Song, to date from some time between the end
of the second century B.C. and 70 A.D. at the latest.
Within these limits he fixes upon the commence
ment of the Christian era as the most likely time.
Dr. Streane, moreover (Age of Mace. p. 157), thinks
that while century I. B.C. is very possible, it cannot
be of earlier date, on account of the proof given by
this verse of acquaintance with the Song. This
* He appears, on p. 303, to date Daniel between 160 and 170 b.o.

30 The Three Additions to Daniel
reference, therefore, undoubted as it is, does not
greatly help us in solving the problem of date,
except as to its ad quem limit.
Tob. xii. 6 and xiii. 10 (the latter especially in
the Vulgate) are very similar in phraseology to the
refrain of the Benedicite ; vv. 29, 30 (52) too, in both
Greek versions, strongly suggest an acquaintance
with Tob. viii. 5, since Kvpie appears more likely to
have been added to, than omitted from, the later
document of the two. This is on the assumption
that Tobit is, as Streane thinks (p. 148), pre-Macca-
bean, or at any rate earlier than this Song. But
as the words used are not very distinctive, it is quite
possible that they might have been independently
prepared. The mention of Ananias, Azarias, and
Misael in I. Mace. ii. 59 is not conclusive as to its
writer's knowledge of the Song, but the order of the
names, which does not occur elsewhere, makes a
remembrance of v. 88 not improbable. I. Mace, is
dated by Kautzsch (i. 31) from 100 to 90 B.C.;
Streane (p. 149) allows slightly wider limits; and
Westcott (Smith's D. B. n. 173) suggests 120 to 100.
As to another possible indication given by v. 66 (88),
see ' Chronology,' p. 69.
Of that scepticism which followed the refine
ments of rabbinism there is no trace, either here, or

Song of the Three Holy Children 31
in Susanna, or in Bel and the Dragon. The tone
of them all is that of an earlier time, free from any
symptoms of this later decline. But still the signs
of date are not sufficiently decided to justify us in
fixing upon a narrow period with any degree of cer
tainty. Taking the piece as independent of the
original Daniel, the second century B.C. might per
haps be named as far from improbable. But a closer
date than this it is hardly safe to fix.
PLACE.
If we assume an Aramaic original, Babylonia
most probably will be the place for its production ;
Palestine somewhat less probably. But indications
of place in the piece itself are very faint. It is true,
however, that the order "nights and days" is "in
conformity with the Shemitic custom of fixing the
beginning of the day at the preceding evening"
(McSwiney, Psalms and Canticles, 1901, p. 644).
Everyone must have noticed the frequency with
which things watery and things cold are mentioned
in the Song. The number of times they occur seems
quite out of proportion with the scale on which it is
conceived. Water, showers, dew, cold, frost, snow,*
sea, rivers, fountains, all that move in the waters, are
* This particularly is unsuggestive of Egypt.

32 The Three Additions to Daniel
apostrophised in succession. The preponderance of
these objects is very noticeable, even to a cursory
reader. Now both Babylon and Alexandria are alike
situated in hot countries ; but of the two, a resident
in the former would be more likely to have had these
things brought before his eyes than a resident in the
latter. Lower Egypt with its almost rainless climate,
and its one river, does not seem the most likely
locality to suggest a constant reference to such topics.
Chaldsea, on the other hand, is better watered and is
within the region of rain, and at any rate in its
northern parts, of frost and snow. Dura, according
to Keith Johnston's map, is close to the hills. But
the position of "the plain of Dura," where the
martyrdom took place, has not been certainly identi
fied. J. M. Fuller's note on v. 42 (64), " Rain and dew
have that prominence which naturally belongs to
them in the parched East," is far from sufficing to
explain the oft recurring mention of these matters.
Still less does Bishop Forbes' remark* that " the
element of water seems specially to have received the
benediction of the Lord," serve to elucidate the cause
of its preponderance here.
The slight anthropomorphism in v. 54, where
' sitting ' is implied in &, expressed in 0', is more con-
• Commentary on Canticles in Divine Service, Lond. 1853, p. 81.

Song of the Three Holy Children 33
formable to Babylonian than Alexandrian ideas ; but
this may be a mere reminiscence of Psalms lxxx. 1,
xcix. 1. The mention of pitch or bitumen is incon
clusive, inasmuch as it is found in both Babylonia
and Egypt ; but the mention of "heavens" and "stars
of heaven" (vv. 59, 63), agrees very well with Chaldean
origin. So far, therefore, as these considerations go,
they turn the scale, to a small extent, in favour of
Babylonia. The only natural object which may be regarded
as telling in the opposite direction is /07T77 (v. 79),
which might be thought to point to a knowledge of
the Mediterranean Sea (see Child Chaplin, Benedi
cite, 1879, p. 324).
The birthplace of the LXX text is surely Alex
andria. The character of this, as of the other
additions, indicates, according to Westcott (D.B. ed. 2,
1. 1714a) and Wordsworth (on Dan. iii. 23), the hand
of an Alexandrian writer.
It is well, however, to notice that this, with its
companion pieces, has as few indications of Greek
philosophy and habits of thought as any part of the
Apocrypha ; and in common with most Alexandrian
writers it has little or nothing of purely Egyptian
character. Still, Dereser's idea that "Daniel may
have written his book in Greek at Babylon with all

34 The Three Additions to Daniel
the additions " (quoted by Bissell, p. 444) seems most
unlikely, and could hardly have been advanced except
under the necessity of supporting the Roman view of
the book.
Theodotion's version, so far as concerns the
locality where it originated, shares the obscurity
which hangs over much of Theodotion's personal life.
Ephesus may be suggested, for Irenaeus (ill. xxiii.)
styles him o '.E$e<rio?; though Epiphanius calls him
IIovtik6<; (D.C.B. art. Hexapla, p. 22a). The latter
author is, for the most part, the less accurate of the
two. In De Mensuris, etc., xvii. he states that @'s
version was issued in the second Commodus' reign,
180—192, " obviously too late."* The pre-Theodo-
tionic version which @ is thought to have used may
of course have been an Alexandrian production ; but
at present little is known of it.
That Theodotion had some earlier rendering,
besides the LXX as his basis, the quotations in
Rev. ix. 20, etc., and St. Matt. xii. 18, coinciding with
his version,f render highly probable, inasmuch as he
wrote subsequently to any likely date for those books.
Possibly he may have used Aquila's version, or that
of some unknown translator. Professor Gwynn's idea
(D.C.B. art. Theodotion, 977a) of " two rival Septua-
« Swete, Introd. to Greek O.T., p. 43. f Op. eit., pp. 48, 396, 403.

Song of the Three Holy Children 35
gintal Daniels"* seems to have more "inherent
improbability" than he is inclined to admit. But
where this ground text, circulated apparently in
Palestine and Asia Minor, was made, who can say ?
But if we take St. John as the author of Revelation,
his connection with Ephesus, and the probable pub
lication of his work there, give some little support to
the theory of an Ephesian origin of Theodotion's
translation. It is strange that a version supposed to be made
by one who was not an orthodox Christian, if Chris
tian at all, should have been preferred, as far as
concerns Daniel, by the Christian Church for ordinary
use.-f- Jerome (Prasf. in Dan.) says, as if he felt that
some explanation was needed, " et hoc cur acciderit
nescio," though he proceeds to suggest some possible
reasons why the version of one "qui utique post
adventum Christi incredulus fuit " should have been
so much honoured. The religious work of a Jew,
who lived before Christ, and that of one who refused
to acknowledge his advent after it had taken place,
stand obviously, for Christians, on a different footing.
• Cf. Ewald in ' Date,' p. 29.
t Some slight warrant, or at least precedent, for using our R.V.,
in which dissenters had a hand, might perhaps be found in this fact.

36 The Three Additions to Daniel
FOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT
WRITTEN.
FOE WHOM.
Undoubtedly for Jewish readers, who were
already interested in the story of Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abed-nego ; designed for those who had Daniel's
book in their hands, who felt the Three to be heroes
rightly honoured.
Of course, if the words were really spoken by
Azarias, they were for the honour of God and the
benefit of himself and his companions in the fire;
and the Song itself becomes a real thanksgiving, on
the spur of the moment, for the literal fulfilment of
such promises as Isai. xliii. 2 — a form, for their own
personal use, to express their immediate feelings.
Veise 24 (O') might suggest the idea that the
prayer (and perhaps the Song also) were uttered in
the interval between the issue and the execution of
the king's order for burning alive; but the words
iv /j.icr<p t&> irvpi in v. 25 forbid this view. (As to a
possible subsequent insertion ofthe prayer, see 'Integr.
and State of Text,' p. 42.) Theodotion also precludes
this idea by his insertion of iv ixeaco tt)? (pXoybs in
v. 24 itself, as well as iv /Mecrai tov irvpos in v. 25.
The slight change in the case of the last two words

Song of the Three Holy Children 37
lessens the likelihood of their having been transferred
from v. 25 of one version to v. 25 of the other. But
it is quite possible that 0 may have purposely
omitted the clause in v. 24 of O', beginning ore
avToix;, in order to shut out the idea of these devotions
having taken place in the interval suggested above.
Dean Farrar even says that the Song is "not
very apposite" (Expositor's Bible, Daniel, Lond. 1895,
p. 180), though other minds find it remarkably so.
In writing on v. 27 (50) he erroneously substitutes
voriov for hpoaov. This is probably copied from
Ball's note in loc. If the latter part of v. 66 (88)
was in the original Song, the reference to their own
position is of course apposite enough.
Even a writer of such a stamp as Albert Barnes
(Comm. on Dan. iii. 23) is obliged to confess that
" with some things that are improbable and absurd,
the Song contains many things that are beautiful
and that would be highly appropriate if a song had
been uttered at all in the furnace." But to a contrary
effect J. Kennedy goes even further than Dean
Farrar, calling it " an elaborate composition by some
one whose imagination failed to realise what was
fitting and natural to men in the position of the three
Hebrews in the fiery furnace " (Dan. from a Chris
tian Standpoint, 1898, p. 55).

38 The Three Additions to Daniel
The passage vv. 26 to 34 is provided in Little-
dale's Priest's P.B. (1876, p. 95) as a suitable Scripture
reading for those "in fever." Although there is a
kind of appropriateness in the narrative of the fire
being driven off, many would regard this application
of the extract as highly fanciful, and not quite
agreeable to the object with which the piece was
written. OBJECT.
Unless we assume the writer to be purely an
imaginative novelist, the preservation of serviceable
traditions as profitable records of religion, is clearly his
principal aim. This addition cannot reasonably be
said in any way to distort or disagree with, though
it adds to, the sacred narrative. It is very well fitted
into the main story; and the non-appearance of
Daniel is quite in accord with his absence from the
scene in chap. iii.
An edifying purpose is most conspicuous, and,
if we assume that it is really an interpolation of the
original book, we may well suppose with Bishop Gray,
that "some writer desirous of imitating and em
bellishing the sacred text " has left us this specimen
of his work ; that the veneration of some Hellenistic
Jew probably induced him to fabricate this orna
mental addition to the history (op. cit. pp. 610, 611).

Song of the Three Holy Children 39
One aim would be to satisfy the interest awakened
by the wonderful experiences of the three, which
afforded a narrative ground-work for this extension ;
falling in this respect, as Prof. Ryssel points out
(Kautzsch 1. 167), into the same category as the
Prayer of Manasses and the additions to Esther.
It may be said that resistance to idolatry, securing
divine deliverance, is, as in Bel and the Dragon, the
" motif " of the piece. But this is not accomplished
without great peril and anxiety to these martyrs in
will, who kept before them an uncompromising
standard, worthy of their noble lineage (Dan. i. 3), as
well as of their true religion.
In some respects we are reminded of Jonah's
prayer, which had a similar object, viz., to secure a
deliverance from hopeless danger, a deliverance as
marvellous as that of the Three. The words by
which it is introduced are similar (kui irpoatj-v^aro
'Imvas  e« t?j? Koi\la<; tov ktjtovs Kal elirev,
Jon. ii. 2; Kal avaTa? 'A^apta? Trpoo-yvgaTO Kal
 iv peam rov Trvpos ehrev, Dan. iii. 25, 0) ;
and the spirit of turning to God in dire straits is
the same. But Jonah's prayer differs from Azarias'
in containing much mention of his immediate
danger. Yet the absence of this from Azarias'
prayer hardly amounts to a probable indication

40 The Three Additions to Daniel
of forgery; indeed the possibility of so long an
utterance implies some restraint of the consuming
power of the furnace, such as is described in v. 27 of
the Chaldee.
A subsidiary purpose answered in the Song
proper is that of joining nature with ourselves, by
addressing it in a series of invitations to magnify Him
who is its God and ours alike, thus interpreting the
feelings which nature maybe supposed to entertain. It
is recognised that the irrational as well as the rational
have their rightful spheres of action ; and a whole
some sympathy is manifested with those portions of
nature which we think are lower than ourselves.
With this may be compared Adam and Eve's morn
ing hymn (in Milton's Paradise Lost, Book v.,
1. 153 sq.), which is very similar in tone and in
sequence of objects apostrophized,
The Song so readily lends itself to use as a
Canticle that the idea inevitably arises of its having
been composed with that purpose in view ; but proof
that it was ever so used by the Jews seems entirely
wanting. The statements made in some P.B. manuals
that it was so used appear to have arisen from a mis
understanding of an ambiguous sentence of Wheat-
ley's (see 'Liturgical Use,' p. 83). Still, there may have
been an arriere pense'e in the composer's mind of

Song of the Three Holy Children 41
providing models of prayer and of praise for others,
in crisis of trial or deliverance, to offer unto God. It
is pleasing to note in this respect, that the thanks
giving is not stinted, but is even longer than the
prayer. Nowhere is the manifold wealth of God's
revelation in nature more fully and comprehensively
set forth in the most exalted spirit of praise ; so that,
if this were one of the composer's objects, it is most
abundantly answered.
INTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.
It has been suggested by Prof. Rothstein (in
Kautzsch 1. 174, 175) that the prayer of Azarias, the
intermediate narrative, and the Song itself, were not
all written at the same time. But this view is
based purely on internal probability, and derives little
or no support from any of the MSS. or versions, un
less the introduction of titles in the Arabic after
v. 28 (51), and in some Greek copies to the prayer
of Azarias, be thought to give it countenance; yet
these may have crept in from their convenience for
liturgical use, and so be accounted for merely on
practical grounds.
To base this separation, however, on a supposed
disagreement between v. 15 (38) and vv. 31 (53),
62 (84), is certainly insufficient cause, as Ball points

42 The Three Additions to Daniel
out (307o), for assigning Prayer and Song to different
writers (see ' Chronology,' p. 67). But the observa
tion that the narrative passage between the Prayer
and the Song fits in well after the canonical v. 23*
seems a stronger basis for supposing that the prayer
is a later introduction than the Song. Rothstein
points out (p. 181, note d) that v. 1 (24) in 0 has
relation to the Song, but not to the Prayer, and
originally, as he imagines, took the place of the present
v. 28 (91) of similar import. Corn, a Lap. notes of
v. 1 (24) " est hysterologia." This view is also men
tioned with favour in Charles' article on Apocrypha
in the 1902 vols, of Encycl. Brit. (cf. 'For whom
written,' p. 36).
It is observable also that the statement of v. 26
(48) is not a mere repetition of that in v. 22, but
refers to the scorching of the onlookers, while v. 22
speaks of those who executed the king's order, f
The repetition of the same invocation at the com
mencement of the Prayer and the Song is noteworthy;
* G. Jahn in his " restoration " of the Hebrew text of Daniel
from the LXX, admits w. 28 and 49 — 51 into his canonical text
(Leipzig, 1904).
X As to the possibility of the fact, cf. Yorkshire Post, April 12th,
1902, on Coronation bonfires: " Spectators should keep clear of the
lee side. The flame of such bonfires has been known to stream in a
flash 150 ft. out."

Song of the Three Holy Children 43
if the two are not contemporary, it has probably been
borrowed by the composer of the Prayer. But the
difficulty (often magnified) of reconciling the state
ments of v. 15 (38) with the Jews' civil and ecclesi
astical condition at the time of Daniel iii. wears
quite a different aspect if the Prayer is regarded
as an interpolation of later date by another hand.
Altogether this theory of the interpolation of the
Prayer is surrounded with a considerable air of
probability. Five extra verses are interspersed in the Syriac
of the Song, calling upon the hosts of the Lord, ye
that fear the Lord, cold and heat (the winter and
summer of our Benedicite), the herbs of the field,
and the creeping things of the earth (Churton's
translation). Of these " frigus and aestus " is in the
Vulgate, taken from 0. The source of the others
is unapparent, though creeping things would very
naturally follow beasts and cattle, as in Gen. vii. 14.
The present ending of the Song, after the usual
refrain in the middle of v. 66 (88) is of a laboured
nature with a decidedly " dragging " style. It
certainly has the appearance of being an afterthought,
added by some not very skilful composer, who fancied
the original termination to be too abrupt, and thought
he could attach an appropriate supplement. But of

44 The Three Additions to Daniel
this theory no external evidence is at present forth
coming. 0 agrees with the O' text much more closely
in this than in the other additions. Most verses are
the same, word for word ; and many others have but
the slightest variations. He makes a few small
omissions, as in (Greek) vv. 24, 40, 67, 68 ; but in
general he follows O' exactly. Even vv. 67, 68, are
contained in A, in both places, in Daniel and in the
Odes at the end ; also they are in the Turin Psalter,
though omitted in the Veronese (Swete's LXX). As
they are found, with a little difference in the O' text,
they may have fallen out of B and Q accidentally.
The identical refrain at the end of each verse would
naturally facilitate an error of this kind.
The principal MSS. available for 0's text are
the same as those for the canonical part of Daniel, A,
B, and Q. T fails us here, as in other passages,
except from vv. 37 — 52, in which its variations are
unimportant. Taking B as the groundwork, A's changes are not
generally of serious moment, excepting in the case of
the two inserted verses, 67 and 68, and the trans
position of vv. 73 and 74. Otherwise they chiefly
consist of small insertions or omissions which do not
materially affect the sense (vv. 36, 81) ; varying forms

Song of the Three Holy Children 45
from the same root such as vTrepaiveroi; for alvero<;
(v. 54), evKoyrnievo<i for eiXoyrjTos (v. 56). The
correctors of B in v. 38, though unsupported by the
chief codices, certainly seem right in substituting
ovBe for oi. Q's variations not unfrequently agree
with A's ; where they do not, they are scarcely more
important, and often partake of a similar character.
In v. 88 a synonym is substituted, viz., evcocrev for
ipvaaTo (2nd). In the few verses covered by F, B is
generally agreed with ; a change of case, amov? in
stead of avTols, appearing in v. 50.
LANGUAGE AND STYLE.
LANGUAGE.
The probability of a Semitic original lying in
the background of this piece, has always been con
siderable. Those who have maintained Greek as the
original language, have generally spoken a little less
confidently with regard to this than with regard to
its two companion pieces. So Bissell writes (p. 443),
though a supporter of the Greek (p. 43), "undoubtedly
more can be said in favour of such a theory " [of a
Semitic original] " than for a similar one in respect
of the two remaining additions." And since M. Gaster
discovered in 1894 an Aramaic text, the grounds for

46 The Three Additions to Daniel
deeming the Greek to be the original, though not set
aside, have been partially undermined. Schiirer,
however, in Hauck's Encycl. (l. 639), appears to
think that this is translated from 0, and not vice
versa, as Gaster claims. In his third German ed. of
H.JP. (in. 333) he agrees with Gaster in deeming
DITlfi to be 0, but considers the Aramaic to be a
rendering of 0's Greek, taken into the tenth-century
Chronicle of Jerahmeel.
It must be confessed that the existence of two
Greek versions increases the probability, though it
does not prove the existence, of an original in another
language. It does not seem likely that 0 would
have revised the O' of the additions in the same way
as the canonical part, unless he had a similar basis
to go upon in both cases. If not, why, and on what
authority, did he alter the additions at all ? And
this consideration applies to the other two, even more
than to the one we are dealing with, inasmuch as the
version of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon involved
more numerous changes. Irenaeus' statement that
Theodotion " rjp/j.ijvevaev," taken strictly, would of
course always imply an original to translate; but
Irenaeus may only have been thinking of the par
ticular passage from Isaiah which he refers to (in.
xxiii.).

Song of the Three Holy Children 47
Many phrases may be instanced which point to
a Semitic original, or at least fit in well with the
theory of its existence. Towards counterbalancing
this there is a much smaller number which may be
thought to tell in the opposite direction. But in the
main, as Comely truly writes (op. cit. p. 420), " acce-
dit hebraismorum frequentia quum in Alexandrini
turn in Theodotionis versione."*
It is to be observed, however, that the names
of the Three are Grecized from their original Hebrew
nomenclature,-^ although their Babylonian names are
employed in Dan. iii., and adopted by O' and 0 in
the canonical portions, both before and after the
apocryphal episode. An apparent exception occurs
in v. 23 of 0', where clauses of that verse and of
v. 22 have been transposed and slightly altered.
Here Azarias occurs in the same form as in the
apocryphal portion. But this isolated use of the
Hebrew form of his name has probably been brought
• Dr. Julian (Diet. Symnol. p. 184) has the following strange
sentence as to Benedicite, " It is not in the Hebrew version (sie) of
the Scriptures, and on this ground, among others, it is omitted from
A. V." t Gr. Jahn in loc. thinks this fact an indication of a later hand,
as shewing that they severed themselves in the furnace from contact
with heathenism, and were giving themselves to intercourse with
Jahwe alone. But surely an interpolator must have been aware that
this was their attitude from the outset.

48 The Three Additions to Daniel
about by the insertion of our piece into the chapter,
the same form and phrase, Tot? irepl tov 'Afytplav,
being found in v. 49 of both Greek texts. A like
phrase occurs in Ezek. xxxviii. 6, and in Acts xiii. 13.
The order of names, too, differs in this Addition
from their order elsewhere, the two last changing
places, thus bringing Azarias (Abed-nego) into the
middle. It is remarkable that he is twice, vv. 2 (25)
and 8 (49), placed as if he were the leading member
of the trio, in the former verse as uttering the prayer,
in the latter as heading the party in the furnace;
and so also, as pointed out above, in v. 23 of O'.
This last fact, however, is counterbalanced in the
same version by all three being named in v. 24 as
praying, Azarias not there figuring as the sole
speaker. These small indications certainly point to
some ancient distinction between the uncanonical
insertion, as we have it, and the body of the book.
E. Philippe (in Vigouroux' D. B. n. p. 1266)
argues for Hebrew and not Greek originals, because
of the existence of two Greek versions, neither of
which, he says, appears to be a revision of the other,
containing hebraisms suggestive of a Hebrew original.
But as regards the Song of the Three, this statement,
that neither version is a revision of the other, must
be regarded as more than doubtful. He also says

Song of the Three Holy Children 49
that the Chisian and Syro-Hexaplar MSS. contain
critical signs of Origen, revealing a Hebrew text,
and in 87 (Chisianus) at xiii. 1 — 5, A', 2', ©' indi
cate Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, all trans
lators from the Hebrew. This last point, however,
may not stand as to the Song of the Three (see note
in Kautzsch, p. 176) so far as Aquila is concerned.
For Origen, in his letter to Africanus, seems to imply
that Aquila's rendering did not contain the Song:
Ovrto yap 'AKv\a<s 8ov\eva>v tj? 'EBpaiicfj \e£et
ixBeSedKev — § 2.
Jerome's words in the Vulgate, after v. 23,
"quae sequuntur in Hebraais voluminibus non
reperi," are very guarded, not absolutely denying
the existence of a Hebrew text, but merely assert
ing that he has not met with it. Cod. Amiatinus,
however, has ' non repperiuntur,' an expression
which asserts more comprehensively the absence of
this passage in his time.
The following are some specific indications of
language which appear to be of sufficient interest to
be noted separately :
V. 27 O', 0. JiKaio<; el eVi iraaiv =hv p^lX
rendered by eVi in Dan. ix. 14 (in both versions) and
in Neh. ix. 33. AUaios iirl also occurs in Bar. ii. 9,
in that part of Baruch which is almost certainly a

50 The Three Additions to Daniel
translation from the Hebrew. Ball (Speaker's Comm.)
gives a similar phrase from the Iliad, and Bissell a
still more apposite one from II. IV. 28, to shew that
it is not unknown in pure Greek. Gaster's Aramaic
has simply l? not *yy.
v. 30 0', 0. 'TiraKova governs the genitive cor
rectly, but <TvvT7]pea>} coupled with it, is made to
govern the same noun. Exigencies of translation
might easily cause this awkwardness, but hardly
original Greek composition.
v. 31 O'. Kal vvv = nfrVI. So translated in
II. Chron. vi. 16, 17 at the beginning of the verse,
as here; it occurs again in vv. 33 and 41 in both
versions, as also in ix. 15, 17. It is not a very natural
beginning of a Greek sentence.
v. 32 0', 0. Why diroaTaT&v, a title which does
not seem very applicable to the Babylonians? It
may be merely a rendering of TTO as in Ezra iv. 12,
15. The Vulgate here has' prevaricator.' In Gaster's
Aramaic the verse is different. But cf. use of airrjX-
XoTpiw/xevot, in Eph. ii. 12 of those who had never
belonged to Israel,
v. 33 O', 0. Ovk eariv fj/uv avol^ai looks very
like a translation of 137 ]"W> an idiom used in II.
Chron. xxxv. 3, 15 in the sense of ' cannot,' followed
by a verb in the infinitive. Cf. Heb. ix. 5.

Song of the Three Holy Children 51
v. 34 O', 0. Els reXoi = rblh or TO21? as in
X x : — V T
II. Chron. xii. 12, Ps. xv. 11. AiaaKeSdays aov rr\v
hiadrjicrjv. This curious expression may be the ren
dering of such a phrase as that in I. Kings xv. 19,
^jnnS T\Vi mS!"T, there translated by the same
words; also in Jer. xi. 10.
v. 36 O', 0. ''AaTpa tov ovpavov, as in viii. 10,
xii. 3, both O'.
v. 37 O', 0. Taireivol iv. Did the translators
read hlZ. for ^OE ?
v. 38 O', 0. Kaprr&aai,. Cf. Lev. ii. 9, 11,
rrt£?N "113p being similarly translated. Kapirow is
also used in the same sense in I. Esd. iv. 52.
Deissmann has an interesting ' study ' of this
word in his Bible Studies (Eng. transl., Edinb.
1901, p. 135).
v. 40 0', 0. 'Evmiriov ... oTrio-0ev = ^rh ... ^TM.
'EKTeXio-ai is thought by Ball to have arisen from
some confusion between hw2 and 770> but this is
dubious. Marshall (Hastings' D. B. iv. 7556) sug
gests D7ttj in Kal or Piel.
v. 44 0', 0. 'EvSeiKvvuevoiy Grotius (in Critici
Sdcri) says "Expressit Hebraeum i~Win quod est
in Ps. Ix. 3 (5) et alibi." The verb is so translated
in Exod. ix. 16.
v. 49 O', 0. The apparent Grecism of ol irepl rbv

52 The Three Additions to Daniel
:A£apiav occurs in the LXX of Ezek. xxxviii. 6 and
elsewhere. HvyKaTeBr) d/ia, Ball suggests "HnN TV
from Ps. xlix. 18. Gaster gives QJ? n^ni. 'ISfeTiwife,
Gaster characterises as a "senseless" rendering of
WtOS'Wl " and it cooled down," which word certainly
gives an excellent sense.
v. 50 0', 0. The well known " crux " of Trvev/ia
Spocrov hiaivplfyv appears in the Aramaic as NnTlD
N7t0 NltW1^ "H which Gaster translates " as a wind
that blows (and causes) the dew (to descend)."
v. 51 O'. Kal iyivero = ^Tf^)
V. 54 O'. A6%r,<i tt}? Bao-CXelas, cf. Dan. iv. 36 (33)
0', Tififjv rr)(i /SacrtXe/a?. ni37Q "}pi is the Aramaic
in both places. Opovov So^Tjf, as in Jer. xiv. 21.
0p6vo$ is used of God's throne in Dan. vii. 9, end.
v. 59 O', 0. Ovpavol=Oifiti (not in Gaster's
Aramaic). vv. 64, 68 O'. Repetition of Spoo-os, and vv. 67,
69 O', of i/ru^o?, suggests possible difficulty of a
translator, causing him to fall back on same word.
vv. 65, 86 O', 0. The different senses of TTvevpLara
point to ninn as the underlying original of both.
v. 87 O', 0. Taireivol rf) Kapiiq • Luther renders
"elend und betriibt sind," since these words, if of
literal and immediate application, would indicate the
depression of the Babylonian exiles; and so would

Song of the Three Holy Children 53
tell in favour of a Semitic original, Greek being
unfamiliar to them.
v. 88 O', 0. ,Ek fieaov Kaiop.evr}<s <f>Xoyo<;, cf. Dan.
iii. 21, 29 ; vii. 11 (Ipi, Chald. in first and third of
these cases, and also in Gaster's Aramaic of this piece).
v. 89 0', 0. 'EgeiXero does not seem a very suit
able word, as they had not yet been into $8975. It
may be a translation of JW as in Jer. xiii. 11, if
from a Hebrew original. fcWlt"''^ is given by Gaster
as the original of both i%eiXaro (0) and ippvaaro.
v. 90 O', 0. Ol o-eBofievoi, used of proselytes of
the gate in Acts xvii. 17, may have this meaning here
also, as coming last, and in connection with tov Oebv
t&v de&v, a possible reference to the "gods of the
nations." Gaster's Aramaic has nothing answering
to aeBofievoi. Grotius suggests "QV17N 'WV ut
Job i. 1, 8, ii. 3," where Oeoo-eBv'i is the word.
The writer deems the evidence of language to
point on the whole to a Semitic rather than to a
Greek base. The difficulty of balancing the indica
tions however of the original language is shewn by
the names of important authorities which may be
ranged on either side, Ball, Rothstein, and Swete
regarding the Semitic as probable; Westcott, Schiirer,
and Fritzsche holding a similar opinion as totheGreek.
When a Semitic original is pronounced for, the

54 The Three Additions to Daniel
further question arises, was it Hebrew or Aramaic ?
The grounds unfortunately appear too indecisive to
warrant a distinct choice between these alternatives.
STYLE.
This is the only one of the three Additions
which takes a devotional and poetical form. The
Song has perhaps exceeded the others in the great
estimation accorded to it. The frequent liturgical
use made of it is both a sign and a cause of this.
The style of the Greek is Hellenistic, and is not
out of character with the versions of which it is a
part ; nor in particular with the Book of Daniel with
which it is incorporated. It is spirited, interesting,
and agreeable, mainly Hebraic in the character of its
thought and cast of its language.
The Prayer may possibly be accused of the need
less repetition of similar sentiments; especially in
vv. 4, 5, and 8 as to God's truth and justice ; and in
vv. 6 and 7 as to Israel's disobedience, which are
somewhat over-insisted upon. But perhaps this may
be attributed to earnest pleading. It is instructive
to compare and contrast Daniel's Prayer, chap, ix.,
remembering that a different person would naturally
have a different style; a consideration which may
also help to account for the change we are conscious

Song of the Three Holy Children 55
of when we pass from the prayer of Azarias to the
Song which purports to be the composition of the
Three. The principle on which 7ra? is inserted in some
verses and omitted in others does not seem clear.
Rhythmical considerations do not sufficiently account
for it. Something other than style seems to have
influenced its use; but what that something may
have been it is difficult to discern. Nor does the
principle seem clearer in the Aramaic than in the
Greek. The poem has a simple yet majestic structure,
with a refrain apt to linger in the ear, either in
Greek or English, EiiXoyelre, v/xvelre, Kal virep-
vtyovre avrov et? toxis al&vas, "Bless ye the Lord,
praise Him, and magnify Him for ever." In Gaster's
Aramaic the refrain is slightly varied, ND7J77 being
used where God is addressed, N07371 where His
creatures are exhorted. Dr. Gaster understands the
former to mean "for ever," but the latter "in the
world."* This distinction, if a just one, is entirely
obliterated in the versions. In the Vulgate however
the refrain sounds less agreeably, for " superexaltate "
is a cumbrous word for frequent repetition. It is one
of those exaggerated compounds of which the trans-
* Proe. Soe. BiU. Arehceol. 1895, p. 80.

56 The Three Additions to Daniel
lator of Daniel seems to have been too fond, such as
" superlaudabilis," " supergloriosus " (v. 52), "de-
ambulo" and " discobperio " (Sus. vv. 8, 32). This
inconvenience was evidently felt in liturgical use, as
in the Roman Breviary and Missal the repetition of
" superexaltate " is avoided. Psalm cxxxvi. affords a
biblical instance of a refrain similarly repeated at the
end of each verse; and Deut. xxvii. 15 — 26 may be
regarded as containing a liturgical repetition of
another species.
The use of a symbolic multiple of 7 in v. 24 (47)
accords well with a similar practice in Daniel iii. 19,
ix. 24, and x. 2, 13. The number 3 itself (v. 28) may
also be symbolic ; but this is merely continued from
the canonical part of the story, being quite of a piece
with it. No other numbers occur.
There is a remarkable resemblance between
the natural objects mentioned in Ecclus. xliii. and in
the Song. Especially v. 22* of the former is like
v. 27 (50) of the latter in its leading idea. The
furnace, Kd/uvos, is also named in v. 4 of the Ecclus.
passage; and the aim of glorifying God is most
prominent in both. But the resemblance in style to
Psalm cxlviii. is not so great as has sometimes been
imagined. (See what is said on this point under
* In the Hebrew of this verae the parallel is less striking.

Song of the Three Holy Children 57
' Authorship,' p. 26.) On the whole, the style of the
work, whether supplicatory, narrative, or poetic, is
well suited to the purpose for which it is designed ;
and although the influence of previous writers is
evident, the manner of the author is not that of a
mere imitator of their compositions. He has a form
of his own in which to present his subject.
RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.
EELIGIOUS.
• So far as the Jewish actors in the scene are
concerned, they exhibit a true religious spirit from
the O.T. standpoint, with an unshakeable firmness of
conviction that Jehovah alone should be worshipped.
The episode shews (in common with the
canonical part) that the Captivity had already pro
duced a stubborn opposition to idolatrous tempta
tions among the Jews. The tendency to follow after
other gods, and to depart from Jehovah in this way,
had been outrooted from the habits of these exiles ;
and their example now would be for all time an
incentive to others to resist, at any cost, the pressing
inducements to become idolaters.
It is difficult to find anything really inconsis
tent with the religious position, so far as we know it,

58 The Three Additions to Daniel
of Israel in Babylon. Bissell, however, writes strongly
to the contrary, in company as he avers, with almost
all non-Romish scholars. This opinion is based on
little more than the supposed inappropriateness of the
Prayer and Song to the occasion, and on the dis
crepancy of v. 15 (38) with the circumstances of the
time, and with other parts of the composition (p. 445
and on v. 15). This "discrepancy" is dealt with
under ' Chronology.' Bissell also quotes with approval
the exaggerated comparison of Eichhorn, who deems
the three "like dervishes gifted in penitential
exclamations, which they interrupt by abuse of
Nebuchadnezzar." A consistent religious ground
is maintained throughout by the three ; there is for
them no "doing at Rome as Rome does" in vital
matters of religion. And their condition is evidently
compassionated by God, their faithfulness approved,
amid the persecutions of a foreign land.
Considerable talent and art in devotional com
position are manifested in confession, petition, and
praise — talent and art of which the Christian Church
has widely availed herself from a very early period.
The tone of Azarias' prayer is not discordant with
Daniel's description of his own prayer in ix. 20,
nor with the prayer itself immediately preceding
that verse, either in sentiment or phraseology. They

Song of the Three Holy Children 59
may well have come from the same editor, whether
the prime author of the whole book or not. Verse 16
(39) apparently contains phrases culled from Pss.
xxxiv. 18, li. 17. M. Parker on Deut. xxviii. 56
(Bibliotheca Biblica, Oxf. 1735) thinks that the
declaration of the three in v. 9 (32) corresponds
with Deut. xxviii. 49, 50, being in fact a public
acknowledgment that national impiety had brought
upon them the distress in which they were at present
involved. If so, it shews knowledge of the law on
their part. But the connection is one solely of idea,
and not of phraseology. There is a strong connec
tion in phraseology, however, between v. 27 and
Deut. xxxii, 4 in LXX. In any case the religious
tone of the whole production is not inconsistent with
what we might have expected. SOCIAL.
The nature of this piece does not afford much
scope for the display of the social condition of Baby
lon and its inhabitants. It is to be expected there
fore that it will shew us far less of these matters
than either Susanna or Bel and the Dragon. But so
far as it gives any indications, it is in accord with
the canonical Daniel, and with what we know from
other sources of the customs of the country. Evi-

60 The Three Additions to Daniel
dently Israel was in a state of subjection to the
Babylonian king, who ordered idolatry to be prac
tised by captives and natives alike. It is shewn by
v. 9 (32) sqq. that the former smarted under his
tyranny, and appealed to God for redress, like their
forefathers in Egyptian bondage.
The punishment of burning, on which the
whole story turns, is quite Babylonian. Jer. xxix. 22
is another instance, so that there is no lack of vrai-
semblance in its introduction here. (See Hastings'
D. B. art. Crimes and Punishments, i. 523, for other
instances). It has been thought (Smith's D. B. ed. 2
art. Furnace, 1. 10926) that this furnace in Daniel is
alluded to by our Lord in St. Matt. xiii. 42, 50; but
how opposite on this occasion are the consequences
of being cast into it ! Here prayer and praise from
the righteous, there weeping and gnashing from the
wicked. The allusion must be considered a very
doubtful one.
The subservience of the king's servants* in per
forming their cruel work, and the absence of a pro
testing voice or of a helping hand from any quarter,
is very characteristic of the results of Eastern des
potism. All, except the three martyrs, were afraid of
* virripirai, v. 23 (46), attendants probably holding some official
position superior to that of slaves. Cf. St. John xviii. 18.

Song of the Three Holy Children 61
Nebuchadnezzar, whose murderous rage under con
tradiction is of a piece in both the Chaldee and the
Greek portions of the chapter. No one else on this
occasion dared to disobey his decree, and there is
no sign of anyone venturing so much as to intercede
for the Jewish victims.
In such small glimpses as are given, in this
extension of chap, iii., of the social state of Babylonia
there is nothing clearly indicating that the interpo
lation (if such it be) is of an unhistoric or untrust
worthy character, nothing wholly irreconcilable with
the rest of the book. Indeed the author (W. T.
Bullock) of the note on Daniel iii. 23 in the S.P.C.K.
Commentary goes so far as to write of " that noble
canticle Benedicite" as an "historical document."
This expression may require qualification, but it is
not beyond the bounds of possible fact.
THEOLOGY.
The theology appears to be of a perfectly ortho
dox character, quite what might have been expected
from the three children ; nor is it inconsistent with
that contained in the rest of the book of Daniel.
The exile had not now contaminated the Jewish
religion, but had rather purged it of its corruptions,
and eradicated in particular the fatal tendency to

62 The Three Additions to Daniel
" serve other gods." Such sins are thoroughly con
fessed by Azarias in a style not without resemblance
to Daniel's confession. (Cf. v. 6 (29) with ix. 5 in
both versions ; also Esther xiv. 6, 7.)
The God of their fathers is He alone to whom
prayers and praises are to be addressed. He is
regarded as the Lord of all creation, both as a whole
and in its specific parts. He is looked up to to make
good the old promises (13), being full of mercy (19),
as well as of power and glory (20, 22, 68). He is a
king (33), just (4), and gracious (67), with an ear
open to the addresses of his people. The righteous
ness of even His heavy judgements is acknowledged
in the prayer ; and the hymn throughout shews that
the gratitude of man is plainly deemed acceptable
to Him. As to the question of praise being called for from
inanimate things or irrational beings, we must
remember that though unfitted, so far as we under
stand them, for conscious praise, their creation, main
tenance, and usefulness give evidence of God's
greatness and goodness. As Cornelius a, Lapide
notes on v. 35 (57) "Inanimes creaturae benedicunt
Deum creatorem suum, non ore sed opere, ait S.
Hieronymus," giving, however, no reference to the
passage in Jerome. Ps. civ. 4 and Heb. i. 7 afford

Song of the Three Holy Children 63
some helpful clues to the operations of Nature in this
connection. Man is treated by our author as the
interpreter of Nature, with a right, as made in the
image of God, to call upon it to glorify its Maker.
He offers vocal praise on its behalf as well as on his
own ; though things without life praise God silently,
by fulfilling the parts for which He made them. A
somewhat similar idea of tbe elevating influence
exerted by natural beings may be discerned in the
second of the New sayings of Jesus as restored by
Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt (Lond. 1904, p. 15). And
Addison fitly writes (Sped. No. 393), " The cheerful
ness of heart which springs up in us from the survey
of Nature's works, is an admirable preparation for
gratitude " (cf. ' Early Christian Literature and Art,'
s.v. ' Hippolytus ').
Azarias desires that the rescue of the party may
redound to the knowledge among all men of the sole
deity of Jehovah (22) — a petition for the conversion
of the Gentiles. The phrase in the last verse of the
Song, 6eb<; t&v 0e&v, might be taken as an admission
of the existence of other gods over whom Jehovah
was supreme. But clearly this is not so intended,
as may be proved from the use of the phrase in
Deut. x. 17, Pss. xlix. 1 (LXX), cxxxvi. 2. Yet it is not
unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar used the phrase in this

64 The Three Additions to Daniel
acceptation in ii. 47. The other occasion, however,
on which it is used in Daniel (xi. 36), allows it to be
taken only in an orthodox sense; nor is any other
likely in the mouth of Azarias, who resisted to the
utmost the command to sin by idolatry. It is
observable that Azarias omits the clause "in thy
seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed " (Gen.
xxii. 18, xxvi. 4) from his quotation of the patriarchal
promise. This might arise from dislike to the nations
who had conquered Israel ; but on the other hand,
the gist of it is contained in his concluding petition
in v. 22.
The objection that Ananias, Azarias, and Misael are
invoked as saints (which probably caused the omission
in 1789 of v. 66 (88) from the American P.B.) is suffi
ciently answered by pointing out that the Song is
praise, not prayer ; and that these three do not stand
on a different footing in this respect from the other
objects apostrophized. Moreover, a highly poetical
composition of this kind is not to be too literally
interpreted. As Liddon remarks in his Elements of
Religion (Lond. 1892, p. 182), " The apostrophes of
the Psalms and Benedicite are really acts of praise to
God, of which his creatures furnish the occasion;"
and Addison again (Sped. No. 327), " Invocations of
this nature fill the mind with glorious ideas of God's

Song of the Three Holy Children 65
works." v. 43 (65) is oddly applied by Archdeacon
Frank, Serm. xlii. to Pentecost (Oxf. 1849, 11. 254).
Belief is plainly shewn in an angelic ministry,
sent down to help God's suffering servants, and en
dued with miraculous powers. The angel comes, too,
after their humble confession and prayer for rescue
(vv. 43 — 45), and before their song of praise. The
very propriety however of this arrangement, from a
theological point of view, induces Rothstein to deem
the prayer a subsequent introduction, in order to
supply the want of request for deliverance before
praise for its accomplishment ; and he thinks that
the opening in the narrative for the insertion of the
prayer (between vv. 23 and 46) was not, in the 0\
very deftly effected (Kautzsch, 1. 175, 181).
The natural and the supernatural, without any
incongruity, are blended as being all under one con
trol, all subserving the same great ends, as in the
Hebrew Bible. But there is no increase of the
miraculous element beyond that in chapter iii., in
which this piece is inserted; and at a later age
increase would have been highly probable. What
essential difference is there to be found between the
miracles of the Chaldee and of the Greek Daniel ?
Surely none.
A typical resemblance was discerned by St.

66 The Three Additions to Daniel
Antony of Padua (Moral Concordances, ed. Neale,
p. 123), between v. 26 (44) and the Annunciation,
but this will be regarded by many minds as a very
fanciful theological discovery, and one surely not in
the purview of the composer of the passage.
CHRONOLOGY
There is but little in the way of chronological
indication in this addition; considerably less than
in the other two, and what there is, is indirectly
brought in.
A time after the Captivity is evidently pointed
to in vv. 26, 32, 37, 38. Jerusalem was lying under
a heavy visitation, the people delivered over to the
enemy, almost denationalized, and deprived of the
sacrificial worship to which they had been accus
tomed. Yet this position of affairs is spoken of as
if it were not one of very long standing. (Cf. the use
of vvv in vv. 31, 33, 42, though in the last of these
instances its use may not perhaps be temporal.)
It has been objected, quite unnecessarily, that
v. 38 is inconsistent with v. 53, the one implying the
destruction of the temple, the other recognizing its
existence; v. 84, too, may be taken as supposing
priests to be still capable of performing their offices.
It is even possible that the corrections of Cod. A in

Song of the Three Holy Children 67
v. 38 may have had behind them some idea of soft
ening a discrepancy. This supposed lack of con
sistency has been taken as an indication of double
authorship of the Prayer and the Song; and of
course, if the Prayer were a later interpolation than
the Song, even the appearance of contemporary in
consistency is avoided. But if we were to decline
this hypothesis, and take Prayer and Song as from
the same pen, there is still no real difficulty; for
v. 38 is thinking of the earthly temple, v. 53 of the
heavenly. Grotius (Critici Sdcri), apparently ac
cepting the statements of v. 38 as correct, writes :
"Harum rerum penuria animos venturo Evangelio
praeparabit." Another chronological difficulty, that of "no
prophet,"* in the same verse (38) has even been
offered as a 'proof of non-canonicity (Cloquet,
Articles, p. 113). So T. H. Home in Vol. IV. of his
Introduction, quoted by A. Barnes on Daniel (1. 81),
says that " v. 15 (38) contains a direct falsehood " ;
and in Vol. II. 937 of his Introduction (ed. 1852), he
asserts that the author " slipped in the part he as
sumed." More just is his observation that "Theo
dotion does not appear to have marked the discrep
ancy." Ball, too, joins in the condemnation, by
* Cf. Ps. lxxiv. 9.

68 The Three Additions to Daniel
expressing an opinion that the writer had " lost his
cue " (Introd. to Song, p. 308) ; and Reuss, " Hier
verrat sich der Verfasser" (0. T., Brunswick, 1894,
vn. 166). It has been suggested (J. H. Blunt in loc.)
that Ezekiel, who was both priest and prophet, had
just finished his utterances, while Daniel, if he had
commenced his, would, out of modesty, not reckon
himself. The same commentator also attempts, still
less successfully, to overcome the difficulty of "no
prince." Probably, however, this merely means that
no monarch was actually reigning, and that Jewish
rulers were themselves ruled and their authority
superseded, not that no member of the royal house
or of the ruling classes was in existence. And this
seems to fit in better with an early period of the
Captivity than with a later age, when Simon Macca
beus is said to have had the title fc^tM on his coins ;
and Mattathias is called ap^pov in 1 Mace. ii. 17.
Gesenius says in his Thesaurus under fcWM on the
authority of F. P. Bayer (de numis hebraeo-
samaritanis, p. 171, append, p. xv.), that Simon's
coins had the inscription 'wW WlM fW^* 5
but it is now doubted whether the coins formerly
attributed to Simon are really of his time. (Cf. Bp.
* See also H. J. Rose's Paper On the Heb. coins called shekels,
Beds. Architect. Soc. Rep. I., p. 367, 1851.

Song of the Three Holy Children 69
Wordsworth of Lincoln on 1 Mace. xv. 6.) Zbckler's
idea (Comm. in loc.) that rjyovfj,evo<; must be under
stood here as equivalent to " priest " is unsupported
and needless, jnil is never so translated by LXX.
Cornelius a Lap. (Paris, 1874), deals with the
difficulty of " no prophet " in a different way. He
writes, " Quia Dan. potius somniorum regiorum erat
interpres, quam propheta populi ; Ezech. autem pro-
pheta aberat agebatque in Chobar aliisque Chaldaeae
locis, eratque is unus et captivus. Itaque ' non est,'
i.e. vix nullus erat." Of " princeps et dux " he says
nothing; but Peronne adds a note to say that
Daniel was thinking of Judaea only. It is not un
likely that Hos. iii. 4 was in the mind of the writer
of the Song, as being fulfilled in his days.
If, however, we assume a date for the whole
piece considerably later than that of the canonical
book, it is quite conceivable that the author may
have made a backward transference of the circum
stances of his own time to that of the earlier exile.
For this is a species of error all traces of which even
expert forgers find it difficult to remove.
It is generally assumed, and probably rightly,
that v. 88 is intended as a contemporary utterance of
the Three calling upon themselves; nevertheless it
is quite intelligible as the expression of a later writer

yo The Three Additions to Daniel
summoning them, with the rest of creation, to praise
their Maker. And, assuming this verse to be con
temporary with the rest, this latter idea would of
course mark the hymn as not really issuing from the
mouths of the Three.
Everything said and done in this piece takes
place within one day, the day on which Nebuchad
nezzar's subjects were ordered to worship the golden
image. There is therefore much less scope than in
Bel and the Dragon, or even Susanna, for those who
seek to discover chronological difficulties, because
devotional compositions afford fewer openings than
narrative matter for the raising of such questions.
CANONICITY.
Like Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, the Song
of the Three Children formed, so far as we know, part
of the original LXX text of Daniel, having a connec
tion with it closer even than theirs. For while they
take their places at the beginning or the end, this
one is incorporated into the narrative of chapter iii.
as one connected whole. Prof. Robertson Smith
does indeed write (O.T. in Jewish Church, 1895,
p. 154), "these are perhaps later additions to the
Greek version " ; but this is only conjecture, and as
scuh he puts it forward.

Song of the Three Holy Children yi
Until the correspondence of Origen with Afri-
canus, the canonicity of these pieces does not seem
to have been called in question by Christians who
used Greek or Latin Bibles ; nor do Greek-speaking
Jews appear to have disputed the matter seriously.
" Commonly quoted by Greek and Latin Fathers as
parts of Daniel," says Westcott (Smith's D.B., ed. 2,
I. 7136). So Schiirer (n. iii. 185), "Julius Africanus
alone among the older Fathers disputes the canonicity
of these fragments." See also Bissell's admission on
p. 448 of his Apocrypha. But Jerome seriously
called their canonicity in question (Prosf. in Dan.),
although he included them in his translation, with a
notice that they were not found in the Hebrew. Poly-
chronius, Theodore of Mopsuestia's brother, refused
to comment on this piece because it was not part of
the original Daniel, nor in the Syriac, oi Keirai iv rot?
'EfUpa'iKols fj iv toi? SvpiaKots BiBXiovs. In this latter
respect it keeps company with the .Catholic Epistles
in the earliest stage of the Syriac N.T. (Carr, St.
James, p. xlvii). But it gained a place in the Peshitto
(D.C.B. arts. Polychronius & Polycarpus Chorepisc.) .
Buhl (Kanon und Text des A.T., 1891, p. 52) says that
the Nestorians recognise " die apokryphischen Zusatze
zum Daniel als kanonisch ; " and the Malabar Chris
tians regard this, with its two companions, " as part

72 The Three Additions to Daniel
and parcel of the book of Daniel." (Letter to the
writer from F. Givargese, Principal of Mar Dionysius' •
Seminary, Kottayam, 1902.) They formed part of
the Sahidic, and probably other Egyptian versions
of Daniel, which may be as early as century II. ; as
also of the Ethiopic and, seemingly, of the Old
Latin (Swete, Introd. 96, 107, 110).
It seems very difficult to prove that the Alex
andrian Jews who used the LXX did not regard this
piece as canonically valid; though how they reconciled
their canon with the Palestinian one is not clear.
Their frequent communication with Palestinian Jews
must have brought any considerable discrepancy to
the notice of both sides. F. C. Movers (Loci quidam
Hist. can. V.T., Breslau, 1842, pp. 20, 22) solves the
difficulty by imagining that this and the other
Apocrypha were similarly regarded both in Palestine
and Alexandria, " vix credibile est alios libros a
Palestinensibus inter profanos repositos ab Alexan-
drinis codici sacro adscitos esse." Acts ii. 10 proves
the presence of Egyptian Jews at Jerusalem for
Pentecost, and vi. 9 that they had a synagogue
there. This close connection must have brought
their religious practices to one another's knowledge,
and any differences, considered seriously important,
could hardly have failed to raise disputes. Now

Song of the Three Holy Children 73
Bleek (Introd. to 0. T., 11. 303, Engl, transl., Lond.
1869), says " the additions to Esther and Daniel
were certainly looked upon by the Hellenistic Jews
in just the same light as the portions of the books
which are in the Hebrew." And this seems to have
been done almost without question, difficulty, or
protest, although Alexandrian ideas must have been
brought under the notice of the religious authorities
in Jerusalem. (Cf. Meyer's note on Acts vi. 9, and
Jos. cont. Ap. 1. 7, as to regular intercourse between
Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews.)
Professor, now Bishop, Ryle (Can. of Script, p. 157)
thinks that the amplification of Daniel, as of Esther,
may have been tolerated because Daniel was not then
deemed canonical. But we must remember that
additional sections, though smaller in extent, appear
in other books of the LXX, of whose canonicity there
appears to have been no question, e.g. Job xiii. 17,
Prov. xxiv. 22, 1. Kings xvi. 28, this last being taken
from chap, xxii., though still left there. It has also
been suggested by Prof. Swete (Introd. p. 217) that the
D^in3 were probably attached to the canon by a
looser bond at Alexandria than in Palestine. How
ever this may be, certain it is that this addition was
frequently quoted or referred to by early Christian
writers as if part of Dan. iii., without qualification

74 The Three Additions to Daniel
or sign of misgiving, as may be seen in the quota
tions given in the chapter on ' Early Christian Litera
ture,' p. 76 sqq. Loisy's contention is a noticeable one
(A. T. p. 236), " Presque tous les auteurs catholiques,
anciens et modernes, qui ont emis des reserves tou-
chant 1'autorite' des deutero-canoniques, ont regarde's
ces livres comme inspires. lis ne les croyaient pas
bons pour e"tablir le dogme ; mais cela est parfaite-
ment compatible avec l'inspiration, attendu qu'un
livre peut-£tre inspire" sans etre dogmatique, et que
s'il n'est pas dogmatique par son contenu il ne sau-
rait regler le dogme." But this contention savours
somewhat of clever special pleading in order to evade
the force of opposing evidence. Loisy, however, for
a Roman Catholic, is a wonderfully frank and fair
writer on these matters.
The explanation of the early mixture of non-
canonical books with canonical, by reason of their
having been kept as separate papyrus rolls in the same
chest (Swete's Introd. p. 225), seems not an unlikely
one in the case of independent works such as Judith
or Wisdom. But it appears to lose its force in the
case of additions such as these, or those to the book
of Esther. For the Song of the Three, Susanna, and
Bel and the Dragon are hardly likely to have had
separate rolls assigned to them ; least of all this first

Song of the Three Holy Children 75
piece, which fits into the middle of the accepted
narrative, and is scarcely intelligible without it.
Something more therefore is wanting to explain the
inclusion of those portions in the Greek Bible.
Bengel's explanation (Gnomon on Matt. xxiv. 15),
that the apocryphal books in Latin Bibles were
mixed with the canonical " pro argumenti affinitate,"
though distinguished at first by marks (afterwards
omitted) in the index, however likely so far as it
goes, fails to account for their admission on so slender
a plea into Biblical MSS. at all.
If the additions are to be regarded with Streane
(Age of the Mace. p. 161) as " specimens of fiction,"
this one, more strongly than the other two, shews
the pre-existence of the canonical Daniel ; but it is
very hard to understand how 'fiction' of this kind
could be introduced into the Bible with no general
protest, and ultimately come to be treated as of
Divine authority; and this position is defended,
even in these critical days, by the greater number
of Christians in the world.
When the Council of Trent made the canon
of Scripture co-extensive with the Vulgate, this, with
the other additions, was of course included in the
decree. But in the Roman Church up to the present
day attempts have not been wanting to minimize

76 The Three Additions to Daniel
the force of this decision, which, if it removes some
difficulties, certainly introduces others. Outside the
Roman Church the position of these books, in com
mon with the rest of the Apocrypha, remains, as
always, more or less insecure.
A. Scholz, in condemning the principle that
Christians are tied to the 0. T. canon, rather amu
singly supposes : " Wenn Jemand sich bei den Juden
jetzt als Prophet geltend machen und ein Buch
schreiben wiirdem so miisste es nach diesem Grund-
satz von den Protestanten als kanonisch wohl aner-
kannt werden" (Esther und Susanna, Wiirzburg,
1892, p. 140). But such argument is mere polemic,
which cannot be seriously taken into account in
establishing the position of this or the other addi
tions. Something is needed much deeper and more
convincing in character.
EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART
LITERATURE.
In the N. T. possible references may be found in
St. Matt. xi. 29 (raiTst-vo? tt} KapSla) from v. 65 (87) ;
II. Tim. i. 18 (evpelv e"\eo?) from v. 15 (38); [in
Numb. xi. 15 only does the phrase elsewhere occur,
but in another tense]; Heb. xii. 23 (irvevfiaTa SiKalav)
from v. 64 (86).

Song of the Three Holy Children 77
Our ' apocryphon ' is often referred to or quoted
by early Fathers to a remarkable extent, considering
the brevity of the piece and its merely episodic
character in the main narrative. The following are
specimens :
Justin Martyr (fl67 ?), Apol. 1. 46, 'Ev Bap-
Bdpoi<; Se 'ABpaa//, Kal ' 'Avavlas Kal 'A^apias Kal
MiaarjX Kal 'HXlas Kal dXXoi ttoXXoI. The names of
the Three occur in this form and order in v. 88 of
the Song only.
Clem. Alex. Cf220) in his Eclogce prophdicce,
§ 1, quotes several verses with iv t& AavirjX
ykyparcTat,. Hippolytus (|230) recognizes the Song of the
Three in his comment on Daniel, in loc, as well as
in the Fragment preserved in the "Catena Patrum
in Psalmos et Cantica" (Ante-Nic. Christian Lib.
p. 484). In the former place he comments on the
words Kal Ste%etTO 17 <pX6I; , and says that the Three
ihpoaiipvTo in reference to v. 50 ; in the latter, on
the verse " 0 Ananias, Azarias," etc., he notes that
everything is called to praise, 'Lva firj go? iXev0epov
avre^ovcriov vo[uo~0rj.
Tertullian (f240) de Orat. § 15, says that they
prayed, "in fornace Babylonii regis orantes." In
§ 29 he quotes vv. 26, 27.

78 The Three Additions to Daniel
Origen Cl"254) Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. i. c. 10,
n. c. 9, vn. c. 1 ; Comm. in Matt. xiii. c. 2 (naming
the LXX) ; and in de Oratione xiii. xiv.
Cyprian Cf258) De lapsis 31 and De dom. orat. 8,
quotes this piece, in the latter case agreeing with 0
rather than O'. Pseudo-Cypr. (some of whose writings
Professor Swete, Patristic Study, 1902, p. 67, deems
to be contemporary with Cyprian or nearly so) in
Oratio n. 2 says " misisti angelum tuum cum roribus
tuis," agreeing with O'.
Eusebius (f342), in his first Fragm. on Daniel,
comments on iii. 49, ma-el irvevpia hpocrov Siaavpl-
foz> (0), and quotes Psalm xxviii. 7 as illustrative.
(In Constantine's "To the Convention of Saints,"
given in the translation of Eusebius (Camb. 1683),
much mention is made of Daniel in Babylon, but there
is no clear indication of knowledge of the additions.)
Athanasius (t373) quoted the Song in Ep.
Pasch. x. 3 ; and in Agst. Arians n. 71 he employs
the Song to "arraign the Arian irreligion" (New
man's translation).
Ephrem Syrus C1"378). His commentary on
Daniel does not embrace the additions, but in his
Morning Hymn, rendered by H. Burgess (Lond.
1853), we have "Sprinkle me with Thy dew, like
the young men in the furnace."

Song of the Three Holy Children 79
Cyril of Jerusalem (f386) quotes both the
Prayer of Azarias (v. 29) and the Song (v. 54) in
Catech. II. 18 and ix. 3 respectively, without hesita
tion (ed. Reischl, Munich, 1848).
Ambrose (f397) in Luc. vn. " Cantaverunt He-
braei cum vestigia eorum tactu flammee rorantis
humescerent." Hieronymus Gr^cus Theologus (cent, iv ?) de
Trin. treats the hymn, flames and dew in the furnace,
fila Kafiivos ovaa, as an emblem ofthe Three in One.
Sulpicius Severus (|400?) Hid. sacr. 11. § 5
shews knowledge of this Song by writing of tbe Three
as "deambulantes in camino psalmum Deo dicere
cernerentur." Chrysostom (t407) De incomprehensibili Dei
natura V. 7, ol rpeis iralSes iv Kajiiva Strjyov ....
Xeyovaiv, oiK eariv r)fuv k.t.X. In lsaiam VI.
itrel Kal ol tralSes ol rpels tovto airb eXeyov a'-^eBbv
iv tt} Ka/jblvm ovres' oiK eanv r)p!iv dvol^aL to arofia.
Horn. iv. ad pop. Antioch. (de statuis) to? iepa.<}
e«etW? dveireyu-Kov eu^a?. Also De incarnatione VI.
Rufinus (f410) adv. Hieron. lib. 11. upbraids
Jerome for not reckoning the piece canonical.
Jerome (f420). In tbe Comes or Lectionary, the
Song is made use of, but probably the Comes is not
really Jerome's. (See art. Lectionary, D.C.A. 962a.)

80 The Three Additions to Daniel
Theodoret (f457) in Letter cxlvi. quotes v. 63
amongst a string of canonical texts ; and also deals
with the whole in his Commentary on Daniel, as
consolidated with chap. iii.
Sedulius (f460 ?). In his poem De tribus pueris
there is nothing which goes beyond the canonical
record ; but, strangely enough, in his Miraculorum
recapitulatio prosdictorum there are the lines
" . . . . flagrante camino
Servavit sub rore pios."
And equally in the prose version " rore sydereo pue-
rorum membra proluit in camino." This shews a
recognition of v. 50 (de la Bigne, Bibliotheca Patrum,
ed. 4, 1624, pp. 660, 661, 914).
Verecundus (f552) wrote a comment on some of
the ecclesiastical canticles including the prayers of
Azarias and Manasses (printed in Spicilegium
Solesmense, Vol. iv.).
It is manifest, therefore, that Early Christian
writers regarded the Song as of much value and
importance ; were well acquainted with it, and often
quoted it in much the same manner as the canonical
books. Occasionally, however, a knowledge of it is
not shewn where we should have expected it; and
in some cases we know that those who quoted it
denied, or doubted, its canonicity.

Song of the Three Holy Children 8 1
ART.
This Greek insertion in the book of Daniel has,
on the whole, offered less scope for the exercise of
artistic talent than the history of Susanna or even
than that of Bel and the Dragon. The nature of its
contents, which consists in the main of a prayer and
a song, reasonably accounts for this paucity of illus
tration. It does not lend itself so readily as its two
companions to pictorial treatment. Nevertheless a
certain number of examples are not wanting.
Loisy in his Canon of the 0. T. (1890, p. 95)
remarks, "Des avant le ive siecle, on ornait les
catacombes de peintures dont les sujets avaient 6t6
fournis par Tobie et les fragments de Daniel."
In a fresco from the cemetery of St. Hermes,
the Three Children are represented, each over a
separate stoke-hole (or what looks like one), with
hands elevated as if in prayer or praise, most likely
in reference to v.l (24), (see D.C. J., art. .Fresco, p. 700a).
Another picture of figures somewhat different,yet with
outstretched hands, is given from Bottari in the same
Dictionary under art. Furnace. There are sculptured
representations of the Three on the high crosses at
Moone Abbey, and at Kells (M. Stokes, Early Chris
tian Art in Ireland, Lond. 1887, li. 22).
In the Utrecht Psalter, over the Song are de-
6

82 The Three Additions to Daniel
picted, as well as in other places, the sun and the
moon, very appropriately (D.C.A. art. Sun), and in
other illuminated Psalters, pictures of the Three in
the furnace are not uncommon. Thus Brit. Mus.
MS. Additional 11836 has an illumination of the
furnace scene.
The under side of the wooden roof of Trinity
College Chapel, Cambridge, was painted about 1870
w7ith the series of natural objects mentioned in the
Song proper, and with the words appertaining to each.
A few extracts from Benedicite are on scrolls in a
modern window on the south side of the chancel of
St. James' Church, Bury St. Edmunds.
It is a little surprising that the series of objects
named in this Song has not been more frequently
chosen for decorative purposes on roofs, walls, or
windows of ecclesiastical buildings, where a long
series would be appropriate. Perhaps the length of
the series, and the difficulty of making any but an
arbitrary selection, has something to do with the
rarity of its appearance.
A set of not very satisfactory wood-engravings by
MacWhirter and others, one illustration to each verse,
was published in a small book under the title of the
Song of the Three Children illustrated (London,
1887)

Song of the Three Holy Children 83
The verse " O ye wells," etc., is said to be a
frequent motto for the floral well-dressings at Tissing-
ton, in Derbyshire, and elsewhere, on Ascension Day ;
and a more appropriate one could hardly be found.
But in general the Song of the Three Children has
not, for the reason given above, and doubtless others
besides, proved a popular subject in art.
LITURGICAL USE.
GENERAL.
There is, strange to say, no record of the Song's
employment in this way amongst the Jews. State
ments sometimes made to the contrary in works on
the P.B., e.g. by W. G. Humphry, F. Procter, E. Daniel,
and J. M. Fuller (S.P.C.K. Comm. "Introd. to the
Song "), " in the later Jewish Church," all appear to
have originated in a misunderstanding of an am
biguous sentence in Wheatley's Rational Illustra
tion (1875, p. 143). He says that it " was an ancient
hymn in the Jewish Church." But this does not
necessarily imply that it formed any part of Jewish
services. Nor did Wheatley. probably intend to
assert that it did. In point of fact no evidence of
such use is forthcoming, though it certainly would
not have been surprising if the Song had been so

84 The Three Additions to Daniel
used, at least among the Hellenistic Jews. For as
Rothstein says in Kautzsch's Apocrypha, like Ps.
cxxxvi. it is " offenbar antiphonisch aufzufassen " and
" litaneiartig." Notwithstanding the previous neglect, as it
would seem, of this Song in Jewish worship, its use
by Christians dates from an early period. So Bp.
Gray (O.T., p. 611) says, " It was sung in the service
of the primitive Church ; " and Ball, " the instinct of
the Church, which early adopted the Benedicite for
liturgical use, was right " (p. 307). Yet after it had
come into high esteem with Christians its chances
of Jewish acceptance would of course be largely
diminished. EARLY.
The liturgical use however was generally con
fined to the Song proper, commencing with v. 29,
and not always extending to the whole even of that.
In the Greek Church it is divided into two odes, said
at Lauds on two different days, vv. 3 — 34 (A.V.
verses) forming one, and the remainder of the Song
the other (art. Canticle D.C.A.). In the Ambrosian
rite the first part only of the Song is used as an
invitatory before the Matin Psalms, under the title,

Song of the Three Holy Children 85
somewhat confusing to us, of "Benedictus" (D.C.A.
art. Benedidus).*
For some reason not easy to assign, the Song,
whether divided or entire, has always been treated
as a morning canticle, although there is nothing in
its words to suggest any time of day as specially
appropriate. Rufinus, according to Dr. Salmon (Speaker's
Comm. Introduction to Apocr. xxvu 0), speaks of the
Song as " sung on Festivals in the Church of God."
No reference is given to the passage quoted. But in
Rufinus' Apol. in Hieron. 11. 35 we find the words,
" Omnis Ecclesia per orbem terrarum .... quicunque
Hymnum trium puerorum in Ecclesia Domini cecine-
runt," etc. Whether this be the passage Dr. Salmon
intends or not, it is at any rate sufficient to prove that
the canticle was in use in and before Rufinus' time,
who is believed to have died in the year 410.
Bishop Barry (Teacher's P.B.) notes that it was
used at Lauds (to 6p0pov) in the East as well as in
the West : and so Mr. Hotham in his art. Canticle in
* In the Bk. of private Prayer (Lond. 1887, p. 32), approved by
the Lower House of Canterbury Convocation, these six verses are
employed as a separate canticle, under the title Benedictus es, probably
suggested by the Ambrosian rite above mentioned. The same canticle
had also appeared previously in An Additional Order for Evening
Prayer, put forth by the same authority in 1873, for singing after the
first lesson.

86 The Three Additions to Daniel
D.C. A. In his art. Psalmody, however, no mention
is made of its Eastern use; but in the Western
Church in the Gregorian and its derived rites, in
cluding the Roman and cognate Breviaries, he says,
"Benedictiones sive canticum trium puerorum" comes
in Sunday Lauds, and likewise in the Benedictine
Psalter. In the Ambrosian Psalter, while the first part
"Benedictus es" is said daily at Matins as stated
above, the usual Benedicite is said at Lauds on
Sundays. In the Mozarabic Psalter an abridgment
of both parts is said at Lauds, but not " in feriis."
" Benedictus es " also comes on weekdays at Prime.
In the Mozarabic Missal Benedicite occurs in the
service for the first Sunday in Lent. In the use
arranged by Caesarius of Aries (f542) for the Gallican
Church Benedicite was sung at Sunday Lauds.
Duchesne says (Christian Worship, Eng. tr.
S.P.C.K. 1903, p. 195), "In the Gallican Mass between
the Apostolic and the Evangelic lections the Hymn of
the Three Children was sung. It was known also
by the name of the Benediction (Benedicite) because
in it the word ' Benedicite ' is continually repeated."
In a note he adds, "The Luxeuil Lectionary, however,
prescribes for the Nativity, Daniel cum Benedictione,
i.e., the Hymn of the Three Children before the

Song of the Three Holy Children 87
Apostolic Lection. It is true that in the Mass of
Clausum Paschale it places it after this lection."
The fourth council of Toledo in 633, condemns
tike omission of the Song at Mass, threatens with
excommunication those who in Spain or Gaul (or
Gallicia, margin) persist in leaving it out, and styles
it "Hymnum quoque trium puerorum in quo universa
coeli terraeque creatura dominum collaudat et quem
ecclesia cafholica per totum orbem diffusa celebrat "
(Mansi, Condi., Florence, 1764, x. 623).
In the Roman Missal at tbe end of the Canon, the
last Rubric is " Discedens ab Altari, pro gratiarum
actione dicit Antiphonam Trium Puerorum cum
reliquis, ut habetur in principio Missalis ; " where is
given as an antiphon before it these words, " Trium
puerorum cantemus hymnum quem cantabant sancti
in camino ignis, benedicentes Dominum."
Possibly there is a reference to this Eucharistic
use in Bishop Wordsworth's Michaelmas Hymn,
No. en. in his Holy Tear, 1864.
Angelic voices we shall hear
Joined in our jubilee,
In this thy Church and echoing
Our Benedicite.
Angelic faces we shall see
Angelic songs o'erspread
Above thy holy Altar, Lord,
And Thou, the Living Bread.

88 The Three Additions to Daniel
In the Sarum Breviary (and in Cardinal Quig-
non's) Benedicite is a canticle at Lauds on Sundays
only. It is to be said without "Glory"; ''dicatur
sine Gloria Patri per totum annum quandocunque
dicitur " (Procter, p. 188) ; but a doxology is provided
in the Roman Breviary, "Benedicamus Patrem et
Filium cum Sancto Spiritu," etc., and 'Amen' is
directed not to be said at the end. This doxology
is said to have been added by Pope Damasus I., who
also transposed v. 56 to stand as the finale of the
Song (see James M'Swiney, Psalms and Canticles,
Lond. 1901, p. 643). This R.C. writer calls the use
of the canticle on Sundays " a thanksgiving for the
resurrection of the Crucified, the earnest of the glories
wherewith nature is to be invested at His second
coming." But this sounds like an ex -pod facto
reason for its appropriateness.
Benedicite appears, at any rate sometimes, to
have been said subsequently to Te Deum after the
election of an Abbot (see Jocelin of Brakelond's
Chronicle, Sir E. Clarke's ed., 1903, p. 38). It also
appears in the Cantica after the Psalter, between
Te Deum and Benedictus, in the Scottish Breviarvum
Bothanum, which is thought to be of about 15th
century (Lond. 1900).
Thus it is evident that the use of this hymn

Song of the Three Holy Children 89
became general at an early period, and so continued,
having never receded in Christian esteem as a valued
factor in public worship.
Besides the use of the Song, or part of it, as a
canticle, verses or small portions often occur in
liturgies ; e.g., vv. 28 — 30 are borrowed in an '22«<£>w-
vr)cn,<s before the offertory prayers in the Liturgy of
St. James; at the censing of the Gospel in that of
St. Mark; in a Byzantine Liturgy of the ninth cen
tury in the second prayer of the faithful ; in that of
St. Chrysostom immediately before the lections in
the Mass of the Catechumens; and v. 19 in the
'EttikXtjo-ii; in that of the Coptic Jacobites (Bright-
man's Liturgies, I. Oxf. 1896). In the Leonine
Sacramentary, in a Preface, Mense Junio, nil. 1. 13,
ad Fontem, the last words of the Song appear to be
cited "plena sunt omnia saecula misericordia tua"
(Dr. Feltoe's ed., Camb. 1896, p. 31). The verse
" Benedicite omnes angeli " occurs in a " Communio "
for Michaelmas in the Rosslyn Missal ; " Benedictus
es Domine patrum nostrorum " occurs in the Mass of
the Holy Trinity in the Westminster Missal as a
" gradale," also in a Mass " pro sponsis ", and other
places (Hen. Bradshaw Soc, Lond. 1899, p. 70, 1897,
p. 1239). v. 34 (56) occurs in the Sarum Compline
after the Creed, as also in the Roman.

90 The Three Additions to Daniel
In the Greek Euchologion a great part of the
Song is embodied, with other Scripture odes, in what
is styled "the Canon at Great Matins in the All
Night Vigil " (Euchology, translated by G. V. Shann,
Kidderminster, 1891, p. 34).
LATEE ENGLISH USE.
Burbidge (Liturgies and Offices of the Church,
1885, p. 268), gives a number of instances of the use
of Benedicite in foreign service books, and says, " In
other churches Benedicite has been held in higher
esteem than amongst ourselves." Esteem for it has
never been entirely lacking, however, as its promin
ence in the P. B. shews.
In a Prymer of circ. 1400, as given by Maskell
(Mon. rit. 1882, Vol. III. p. 21), Benedicite occurs in
Matins, beginning ¦' Alle werkis of the Lord, bless
ye to the Lord : herie ye and overhize ye him in all
time." On the same page, note 49, he gives a quo
tation from Oemma animae, II. 53, "canticum
trium puerorum est festivius et ideo in omnibus
festis dicitur." Also in his Append, to Prymer,
p. 243, another version is given, from Bodl. Douce
MS. 275, foi. 96 : " Alle werkes of the Lord, bless
ye the Lord : praise and overheie ye him in to the
worldes." There was an authorized translation into

Song of the Three Holy Children 91
Welsh early in the 14th century, according to H.
Zimmer ( Urtext und Uebersetz, Leipzig, 1897, p. 172),
together with Magnificat, Benedidus, and several
Psalms, evidently for liturgical purposes.
In the P. B. of 1549 the use of the Benedicite
as a substitute for the Te Deum was confined to
Lent " all the which time " its recital was obligatory.
It has been suggested by W. G. Wyon (Letter to
" Guardian," May 14, 1902) that mediaeval devotion
read into it an allegoric meaning of deliverance from
temptations and dangers of this naughty world, and
this made the Song suitable for Lent. He also sug
gests that the ' Oratio ' of the Roman Missal in the
'Gratiarum actio' after Mass, which contains it,
shews us its suitability for penitential seasons in
directly, " Deus qui tribus," etc. No doubt hope of
deliverance from fierce spiritual perils may be in
Lent a proper frame of mind ; but this attempt to
prove the Benedicite's special appropriateness to
that season is more ingenious than satisfying. It
is strained and far-fetched. Compare what is said
above (p. 88), where M'Swiney is cited as shewing in
similar style its special appropriateness to Sunday.
The tone of the canticle is unmistakeably joyful,
and the 1549 rubric disappeared in 1552, leaving

92 The 7 hree Additions to Daniel
Benedicite as a simple alternative to the Te Deum
at any time according to the taste of the officiant.
And so it still remains, though often preferred to the
Te Deum during Lent. Septuagesima and Trinity
XXI. are, on account of their first lessons, fitting
Sundays for its use ; nor is it by any means unsuit
able for a harvest festival. An entirely different
kind of reason for its Lenten suitability is provided
by H. P. Cornish (Notes on P. B., Evans, Redditch,
n. d., p. 17). Lent, he says, is the time " when all
nature begins to wake from its Lenten sleep " :
hence its appropriateness in -spring. It is question
able, however, whether mediaeval liturgical authori
ties paid much attention to the natural seasons of
the year; and the variety of 'reasons' proves the
difficulty of discovering a really conclusive one. The
idea that the Benedicite is consonant with Lenten
feelings is singularly out of accord with the opinion
expressed as to its character as being ' festivius ' in
the Gemma ani/mae, given above, p. 90. Indeed it
can hardly be disputed that its tone is joyful. But
though its special aptness for a fasting-time is not
easy to make out clearly, few unprejudiced people
will dissent from the opinion of Freeman as to its
scope when he writes, that " though wanting in the

Song of the Three Holy Children 93
grand structure of the Te Deum, in point of range it
is in no way inferior" (Divine Service, Lond. 1855,
I. 356). In the scheme for the revision of the Prayer-
Book in William III.'s reign it was actually arranged
to expunge Benedicite, and to substitute Ps. ex] viii.
It would have been extruded in good company how
ever, as Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis were to be
replaced by psalms in a similar way. Happily the
deplorable proposals of 1689 came to nothing. But
strange to say, previously to this, in the Laudian
Scottish Prayer-Book, Psalm xxiii. had been substi
tuted for Benedicite. In England, however, in 1662,
the Church, taught by the persecution of the Com
monwealth, declined "to appoint some psalm or
scripture hymn instead of the apocryphal Bene
dicite," as demanded by the Puritans at the Savoy
Conference (Procter, P. B., 1872, p. 119).
At a rather earlier period, Dean Boys of Canter
bury, in his quaint Prayer-Book Notes (1615 ?) says :
" I finde this hymne less martyred than the rest,
and therefore dismisse it, as Christ did the woman
(John viii.), ' Where be thine accusers ? Hath no
man condemned thee? No more doe I; goe thy
way.'"

94 The Three Additions to Daniel
At Jleast three English metrical renderings of
Benedicite exist, one of the 18th and two of the
19th century, by J. Merrick, J. S. Blackie, and
Richard Wilton respectively. The first of these
writers, who expands freely, concludes with a stanza
designed to put the Song unmistakeably into the
mouths of the Three:
Let us, who now impassive stand,
Plac'd by the Tyrant's stern Command
Amid the fiery Blaze,
(While thus we triumph in the Plame)
Rise, and our Maker's Love proclaim
In hymns of endless praise.
The objection that in using this hymn we
pray to angels and heavens, to ice and snow, etc.,
shews how hard it is to find reasonable cause of
complaint against its use. (See p. 62).
The whole canticle was however actually omitted
in the P. B. printed at Oxford in 1796, an edition
notorious for the liberties taken with the book in
many ways (A. J. Stephens' P.B., Lond. 1849).*
• Its use declined in the 18th century as iB shewn by P. Barclay
(Letter to People of Scotland on Comm. Pr., Lond. 1713, p. 36), who
says, " Benedicite is very good ; but because it is seldom or never
used, I don't insist upon it." P. Waldo (Commentary on Liturgy,
1775, p. 98), also deplores its disuse. And even in the 19th century
C. Chaplin (Benedicite, 1879, p. 11) says, " In a few churches it seems
to be banished from the service altogether."

Song of the Three Holy Children 95
The last verse, " O Ananias," etc., which was omitted
in the United States' P.B. is, as well as the above,
dealt with under ' Theology,' p. 64.
In an Altar Service Manual, ed. 1837, which was
very popular in the middle of the 19th century, by
S. Isaacson, certain extracts from the Benedicite, with
presumably original additions, are formed into what
is called " the canticle " in an " Evening Liturgy for
use after Holy Communion." The five added verses,
in rather unrhythmical English, are modelled in
imitation of the Song, e.g. " 0 ye who have partaken
of the Holy Communion, bless ye the Lord : praise
Him and magnify Him for ever."
The Song of the Three Children is, with other
canticles, frequently found in appendices to both
Greek and Latin Psalters. And on this account it
is included sometimes in commentaries on the
Psalter, as in that of de Muis (fl644), Louvain,
1770, beginning with v. 51, " tunc hi tres quasi ex
uno ore laudabant," etc. It stands in this book
between Hezekiah's and Jonah's prayers. In the
mediaeval Psalters, Benedicite may constantly be
found, though its place in the series of canticles
varies considerably.
Many of the LXX MSS. too contain these

96 The Three Additions to Daniel
canticles, or some of them, repeated from their regu
lar places in the text, such as Alexandrinus and
the Veronese and Turin Psalters; of these the first
has vv. 26 to 45 and 52 to 58, as two separate canticles
between the Prayer of Manasses and Magnificat ; the
second, vv. 52 to 90 after Magnificat as its last can
ticle ; and the third has vv. 26 to 45, 52 to 56, and
57 to 90 as three separate canticles between the P.
of M. and Benedictus. In each case, it will be
observed, the narrative portion is naturally excluded.
In the first and third of these MSS., A. and T.,
it may here be noted that there is a non-biblical
Morning Hymn, "tp,vo% ecodivo's, a kind of Eastern
"Gloria in excelsis," which contains an apparent
extract from vv. 29, 30 (52), or v. 3 (26) of our
Apocryphon, in line 34 of the hymn. Very nearly
the same words occur in Tobias' song (Tob. viii. 5),
which curiously enough (in common with the song
of Deborah), is not included in these canticles.
Doubtless it was not in ecclesiastical use; but the
reason why the Christian Church abstained from
availing herself of it for choral purposes is not
evident; any more than why the Jewish Church
abstained from the use of Benedicite.
Although the employment of Benedicite in the

Song of the Three Holy Children 97
services of the Church is interesting, as shewing the
value set upon, and the use made of, this canticle, it
reflects little or no light on its origin, or indeed on
any of the heads under which it has been previously
discussed.
"EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION
OF MANNERS."
The conduct of Azarias and its results shew
us the value of Prayer made by those under perse
cution. He led the way, and his comrades joined
him. Azarias is not so taken up with the wrongs of
himself and his fellows as to forget the wrongs which
his own nation had done ; therefore his prayer com
mences with a humble Confession. Then he relies
on the great promises of the past (vv. 12, 13). It
may be thought that Humility is also shewn in the
Song by the Three putting their own names in the
last place of the series. But another cause may
have contributed to the choice of this order ; for, so
far as animal life is concerned, the Song follows the
order of Gen. i., bringing in human beings last, not
as being least important, but as forming the crown
of creation. 1

98 The Three Additions to Daniel
Although Nebuchadnezzar is severely spoken of
in v. 9, A.V. (and in iv. 27 of the canonical book ' sins
and iniquities' are attributed to Nebuchadnezzar),
there is great Self-restraint shewn in wishing for
retribution (vv. 20, 21) ; and indeed it is asked that
he and his servitors may be brought to the know
ledge of God (v. 22).
The pleasure ot Thanksgiving and Praise on
delivery are exemplified by the Three in the produc
tion of the Song itself. As soon as ever their prayer
was answered, before they emerged from the furnace,
they united their voices in thanking God with a
glow of fervid faith, recognizing in Him the universal
Lord and Benefactor.
They sang in harmonious accord their song of
praise at once (v. 28). Though staunchly refusing
to worship in a wrong way, they were very ready to
do so in a right, and lost no time in proving it, pub
licly and before all creation. As de Muis (fl644) says
in his Comm. in Psal/mos (Louvain, 1770, n. 705),
"Ut calamitatibus tanquam igne probatur, fidelis
animus non modo non deficiat sed etiam animata
inanimaque omnia ad Dei laudes provocet." Eager
to honour God, they join in unreserved devotion.
Their Reliance upon God is obviously great.

Song of the Three Holy Children 99
To Him they turn in their martyrdom with prayer
and praise; to Him they address themselves with
the heart and voice of sure conviction. He is their
unfailing resource.
A Love of Nature, as created by the same
hand as ourselves, is very apparent in this canticle ;
there is a thorough fellow-feeling with natural ob
jects, as derived from, and responding to, the same
Almighty source. This love of nature appears in
Holy Scripture most strongly, as here, in the poetical
books, and hardly anywhere does it take a deeper
tone than in this canticle.

THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA
arnrai pa nscjito
Ca 'a to)

THE HISTOKY OF SUSANNA.
ANALYSIS. (G)
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 — 50. 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. Mace. i.
TITLE AND POSITION.
TITLE.
This is in general simply 'Sovcrdvva, as in the
true LXX.
In Cod. A (©) it is designated at the end
opao-i,<s d, our chap. i. being opaaK B", and so on.
It is therefore included in the number of the visions.*
* It is stated in Dr. Swete's Introd. (1902, p. 260) that Susanna
is excluded from the visions, Dan. i. 1 commencing the first of
them. But this is not borne out by the 'apparatus criticus' to his
Greet text, where i. 1 in A and Q, begins Spaa-is ff, and Spatris a' is
the subscription of Susanna in A.
103

104 The Three Additions to Daniel
"OpaaK 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 Hip
polytus' works (D. C. 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 (fl286),
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 mk pia eis AavirjX,
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, 7136), 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 qui-

Ihe History of Susanna 105
busdam Susanna, in aliquo SiaKpio-ii AavirjX, Judi
cium 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 (de Hab. Vita, etc., Lips. 1842, p. 25w) says
that " Unus Cod. qui ex ccenobiis montis Athos ad-
vectus est " gives the title irepl Trjs 2a>advvr]<;.
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 " Susan-
nae historiam " twice in his Preface to Daniel. It is
given also in Syr. Wr In Article VI., and in the
" Names and Order of the Books " in A. V., it takes
the form, " Story of Susanna."
The name n^ttjittj is so eminently fitted to the
subject of the story as to suggest its intentional

106 The Three Additions to Daniel
choice ; and, so far, would tell in favour of the alle
goric, and against the historic, nature of the piece*.
Or even supposing the piece to be historic, the name
may have been assumed in order to avoid identifica
tion of the heroine. The word occurs in its mascu
line form, JttJCJ. 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. Chisianus, and in the Vulgate, Susanna
forms chap. xiii. of Daniel. So also in the Syro-
Hexaplar version (Ball, p. 3306). 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.
* The name is used of an actual woman in St. Luke viii. 3.

The History of Susanna 107
In Codd. A, B, Q, Susanna stands at the be
ginning, before our chap. i. of Daniel. This is its
position also in tbe Old Latin, and in the Arabic
versions (Ball, p. 3306). 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 transla
tion 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
perhags^its original -place. " The fact that it contains
an anecSote of Daniel's youth might readily have led
to its subsequent transference to the beginning of
the book."
St. Hippolytus, a writer subsequent to Theodo
tion, evidently regards it as the commencement of the
book (Schiirer, H.J.P. 11. III., 185). Flaminius Nobi-
lius in his " Notae," as given in the Appendix to Bryan
Walton's Polyglott, writes, " Haec Susannae 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

108 The Three Additions to Daniel
gives to Susanna in § 41 does not look quite con
sistent with that he gives afterwards in § 74 (see
' Canonicity,' p. 157).
Although in the Vulgate this moveable frag
ment 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" (Urtextund
Uebersetz. p. 230). Gwynn says (D.C.B. art. Thecla,
IV. 8956), that in " Syriac 0. 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. 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

The History of Susanna 109
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,
Did. 11. 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 satis
factory 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
tbe 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 how
ever by no means universally accepted.
If a Semitic original really existed, it no doubt
preceded the Greek texts. R. C. opinion (e.g. Dereser,

no The Three Additions to Daniel
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 incor
porated 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.* Nor does the bitterness of those dis
putes 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) con
jectures 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.
* Eothstein (Kautzsch i., 176) gives the first quarter of the last
century B.C. as the latest possible date for the LXX version of Daniel.
Exceedingly little time therefore would be allowed, on Ball's theory,
for the original publication, the translation, and the incorporation into
the Alexandrian canon, of this Susanna-book.

The History of Susanna 1 1 1
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. 1. 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 apocry
phal 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

112 The Three Additions to Daniel
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 Kom-
mentar, p. xxx. says, " um 150."
Most writers on this subject, such as Westcott,
Streane, and Marshall, as well as some of those pre
viously 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 approxi
mation with any decree of security. Rothstein
(Kautzsch, i., p. 178) very wisely says, "Natiirlich
lasst sich mit irgend welcher Sicherheit fiber 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

The History of Susanna 113
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 culti
vation 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 Alex
andria 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, 1. 178). Schiirer (H. J. P. 11. ill.), who
denies the existence of a Semitic original, classes

114 The Three Additions to Daniel
this (with the other additions) not in his ' Palestinian-
Jewish,' but in his ' Graeco-Jewish ' section.
The mention of Sidon in v. 56 (where © has
Canaan) may perhaps suggest a writer in the original,
whatever language he may have used, who was con
nected 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 : 2t8cbvio<; o? Kal
ttoXiv iirwwiiov eKTtcrev iv rfj $olvIkt), 2i8a>v 8' v<j>'
'EXXrjvwv KaXelrai. It is worth noticing that in
St. Matt. xi. 21 our Lord speaks of the cifcv more
favourably. Of Theodotion's Greek. Of the ' provenance ' >'of
the Greek version bearing Theodotion's nan>Tvery
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 Reve
lation 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

The History of Susanna 115
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 Theo
dotion 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,ll869, p. 129). This was indicated by Iren
aeus, in. 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 neces
sary to suppose that its author's name has been lost
from the title, as it may always have been anony
mous. The nature of its contents would not be

116 The Three Additions to Daniel
unlikely to give offence to the Sanhedrin, and there
fore a motive for anonymity is not far to seek.
Bishop Gray (Introd. to 0. 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 in
vented 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 tra
dition, 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 0 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 iibersetz.
236).

The History of Susanna 117
It is noteworthy that Josephus shews no ac
quaintance 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). Schiirer in
Hauck's Encylop. (1. 639), thinks Susanna and Bel
and the Dragon may well originally have had inde
pendent 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* The
invidious contrast between the Israelitish and Jewish
women is omitted in what Dr. Salmon calls, "the
second Syriac recension" of Susanna, termed erro
neously 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 dand-
point (p. 55), says of this and the other Additions
* If not, as Bissell in his note elegantly puts it, " it would be a
bungling lapsus pennte."

118 The Three Additions to Daniel
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 in
tellectually and spiritually incapable of appreciating
the book [of Daniel] and its contents," and he con
cludes that they "belong to different ages and to
entirely different conditions of thought." This esti
mate 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 posi
tion 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,
fl658 (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 " Susan
nas Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in
Hebraico, sed partem esse prophetae Abacuc filii Jesu

The History of Susanna 1 1 9
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 "Kampfe" on
very slender grounds (Esther und Susanna, Wiirz
burg, 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 in., is the first record
we have of any dispute as to its genuineness.
Professor Rothstein, in Kautzsch (1. 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

120 The Three Additions to Daniel
conclusive proof that Susanna and Bel and the
Dragon differ greatly in character from the inde
pendent 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.
FOB. 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 in-

The History of Susanna 121
sight. 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 dis
satisfied 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, main
tained under circumstances of great distress, is the

122 The Three Additions to Daniel
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 (3296,
330a), who quotes Simon ben Shetach as saying from
the Mishnah (Pirke Avoth, I. 9) ypnh HaiE *n
Unifil HN- 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 mani
fests throughout a good knowledge of the workings
of the human heart. Marshall (in Hastings' D. B.)
assumes " that we have here an ethical mythus "

The History of Susanna 123
(6316).* But to imagine that the story had no
other origin than this is, to say the least, unproved,
and, as many think, uriproveable.
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 O' 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
0 substitutes another conclusion as to the gratitude
of Susanna's family and the growth of Daniel's repu
tation. Still, apart from the question of historic value,
many worthy objects may have lain within the pur
view 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.
* This may be merely an echo of Eeuss, who reckons Susanna
"in die Reihe der moralischen Marchen" (0. T. 1894, vn. 159).

124 The Three Additions to Daniel
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 imita
tion 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 main
tenance 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 upper
most 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 attrac
tive 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.

The History of Susanna 125
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 0 we appear to have the story presented
to us without material interpolation ; but there are
omissions of some not very important matters con
tained in the LXX text. A. Scholz accounts for
variations by supposing changes in the Hebrew

126 The Three Additions to Daniel
original between the times of the two translations.
Of 0 he says, " 0 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 Rome, 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 0 must have had the
O' text before him, since the coincidences of dictiom
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, "0 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, particularlyat 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.

The History of Susanna 127
0's recension is rather more polished in lan
guage, less elaborate in some of its details.* 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." West-
cott'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,. XLVl.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
Briill, 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
0, and is marked in both Cod. Chis. and Syro-Hex.
as not part of the original work, but a foreign exor
dium. 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
• See J. M. Fuller in S.P.C.K. Comm. Introd. to Sus.

128 The Three Additions to Daniel
Syro-Hexaplar text the first five verses are obelised,
indicating, according to Bugati (p. 163), that they
are omitted in 0, but present in O'.
There are in the LXX extra clauses, which
are not in 0, scattered throughout the book ; three
verses between 14 and 15, one at the end, and con
siderable 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)*, 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 un
fairly 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).
* These names, however, do not agree with the Jewish identifi
cation of them, as the Ahab and Zedekiah of Jer. xxix. 21, which
Origen reports in his Bp. ad Afric. (Speaker's Comm. 32uA).

The History of Susanna 1 29
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. 6316).
An attempt has been made to account for the
numerous, but not generally very important, varia
tions in different texts and versions by supposing the
story to have been a favourite oral narrative, long con
tinuing in a fluid state. This is far from improbable.
The Vulgate, which follows 0 closely, appends
the first verse of Bel and the Dragon as the conclu
sion 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 0's text
are A, B, Q, and from v. 51 onward, T. A often
agrees with Q, as in vv. 19, 24, and elsewhere, in
substituting rrpeo-Birepoi (0"s word) for rrpeaBmai ;
in vv. 10, 11, etc., in substituting dirayyeXXto for
dvayyeXXco ; and in v. 46, Ka0ap6<s for d0mo<s. In the
canonical part of Daniel the substitution of diray-
ykXXm for dvayyeXXco mostly holds good also so far
as A is concerned (ii. 9, 16).* In v. 36, A has a
* So in N. T., St. Mark v. 19. 9

130 The Three Additions to Daniel
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. T often
agrees with A and Q, or both, but has nothing of
importance independently.
The genitive Sovaavvd*; (instead of 77s) occurs
occasionally in all the above MSS. (vv. 27, 28, 62;
also in LXX, v. 30). cf. Mdp0a<; in St. John xi. 1.
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 accept
ance 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

The History of Susanna 131
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 Mace. p. 160 ;
Bissell, p. 203). Delitzsch (op. cit. pp. 31, 101) says
that "particulae quaedam citantur a Nachmanide"
(entitled pINP rhxc>) 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 notice
able as conforming to the theory of a Semitic
original. If the etymology of the name b^iT is
supposed to be drawn from his 'judgments' in this
story, such an original is probably involved in the

132 The Three Additions to Daniel
supposition (cf. ' Title,' p. 104). The Hexaplaric marks
mentioned by Bugati (op. cit. 156), as occurring at
the beginning of Cod. Chisianus (A, H, 0), are
strongly suggestive of translation (cf. Song, 'Lan
guage,' p. 49).
The controversy which was started by Africanus
with Origen (and resumed by Porphyry* with Euse
bius 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 paro-
nomasiae conclusive proof of the originality of the
Greek ; others still contend with Origen that they
are no certain evidence as to determination of lan
guage. 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. 8586). Still
we must remember that the Hebrew language was
fond of paronomasias, and that Daniel employs the
figure in the canonical book (v. 25 — 28). In other
0. T. instances of its use it is, however, difficult to
to see that the LXX made any attempt to repro
duce the word-play, e.g. Isai. v. 7, Mic. i. 10; nor
does either Greek version in Dan. v. 25 — 28.+ But
• Adv. Christ., Bk. xn.
f For similar instances of word-play see accounts of Melito's
pseudo-Claris, D. C. B. iii. 897J, and Muratorian Fragment, line 67.

The History of Susanna 133
avecra and a<peai<; 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 m'eans proved.
It has been shewn, however, in the case before
us, how an adequate play might be produced in Ara
maic, as also in English (Hastings' D. B. art. Sus.).
A. Scholz, too, in his Commentary attempts this,
with only moderate success, in Hebrew*; and
Delitzsch (dp. cit. 102) gives some Aramaic possi
bilities of it from Plessner. As the precise punish
ments 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
* Jerome in his Prol. gal. shews how it might be done in Latin ;
and in the Vulgate some attempt is made to reproduce it in vv. 64, 55
('schinus, ecindit'). Luther tried after rhymes in German, 'Linden,'
' finden,' ' Eiehe,' ' zeichnen.' In the French version of Martin no
play is Attempted ; but in the Arabic, according to Delitzsch (op. eit.
102), an easy one is produced.

134 The Three Additions to Daniel
original language (cf. III. ' Language,' p. 49). Not
withstanding 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 O', 0. The use of Kara after SiBda-Kco,
instead of a double accusative, suggests a translation
of *TO7 followed by a a or ft> with either of which
it is sometimes constructed.
v. 5 0', 0. If Aramaic be the original language,
iSoKovv may well represent NaS» as in IV. 14, V. 23
and elsewhere.
v. 6 O', 0. Scholz deems «pwret? and Kpivofievoi
to be based on a confusion between 0'1t2Qty'D and
vv. 7, 15, 19, 28 0. Kal iyivero is suggestive of
vv. 8, 14, 56 O', 0. The use of iiriOvijbia in a bad
sense, and of iiriOvfieo) in a perfectly innocent one in
v. 15 0, seems careless, and may point to translation
from an original, where different roots were used,
e.g. m«> -TCin. an«. Cf. LXX of Deut. v. 21 (18)
for a rendering of two different Hebrew roots by the

The History of Susanna 135
same word, irri0vp,e<o, though in that case they are
both employed in a bad sense.
V. 15 0. Ka0a><i e^#e? Kal t/htti? f]p,epais looks
like QtlHtp Tlftrd' as in Gen. xxxi. 5 and II. Kings
xiii. 5. " Wortlich hebraisch," as Reuss notes in loc.
If Aramaic were the original, it might be "OQriNSDa
v. 17 0. o-fitfyfiaTa, "exprimere voluit Heb.
rvnia" but JTHDn (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 0. An instance similar to that
given above (vv. 8, 14, 56) is the use of o~uyyeveo-0at
in a bad sense in vv. 11, 39, and o-vyyevefc innocently
in vv. 30, 63.
v. 19 O'. avv0kp,evot = ft3t either in Aramaic or
Hebrew, as in ii. 9, while i^eBtd^ovro — t£?aa> as in
Esth. vii. 8.
v. 22 0. "Zrevd fioi irdvro0ev occurs also in
David's choice, II. Sam. xxiv. 14 (closer than I.
Chron. xxi. 13). The certainty of its being a trans
lation in the one place increases the probability of
its being so in the other, suggesting a common
original, unless we suppose a Greek author borrow
ing a Septuagintal phrase.

136 The Three Additions to Daniel
v. 23 O', 0. On the other hand, the participial
clause in this verse in both versions seems un-He-
braic in form ; as also the phrase 6 t&v Kpvjrr&v
yv(oarr]<; in v. 42 0, which is not very like a trans
lation from the Hebrew. There is a certain resem
blance to Dan. ii. 28, 29 (O', 0), 6 diroKaXvirrtiiv
p.vaT'qpia, however; but the latter contemplates
God as revealing mysteries to others, the former as
knowing secrets Himself.
v. 26 0. Scholz' idea that rfXayia% = ^p (as in
Lev. xxvi. 21, etc.) would suit either Aramaic or
Hebrew. v. 27 0. 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 •n&irore oix
ippe0rj. v. 36 0. The genitive absolute is Greek in cha
racter, but does not occur in 0'.
u 44 0. Elo-rfKovo-ev .... t?}? (pavf}*;. A Heb
raism, as in Gen. xxi. 17, and often.
v. 53 0', 0. The quotation is exact in both ver
sions 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,

The History of Susanna 137
so that this mention is not out of character. The
phraseology of the verse in 0 has a distinctly
Hebraistic look, much more so than in O'.
v. 55 O',0. tyvxfiv, KefyaXriv = $23 ^sa^- x^ui- ^-
v. 56 0'. The epithet fUKpd, as applied to the
iiri0vfila of the Elder, is inappropriate, and suggests
an error of translation. Now HNtttt is rendered
by fiiKpd in Josh. xxii. 19*, and this word would yield
a very good sense in a Semitic original here, sup
posed to lie in the background.
v. 57 O', 0. 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 Alexan
dria. The use of ' Israel,' however, in v. 48 seems
to include all in the first instance, and to be em
ployed of Susanna specially in the second, who was
presumably of Judah. The Syro-Hexaplar omits
what was most likely deemed an invidious reflec
tion. The reference to Hos. iv. 15 in the Speaker's
Comm. (note) does not seem apposite as to its men
tion of Israel and Judah in the LXX ; only in the
Hebrew. * Mtapd for umpd would yield good sense, but evidence for such
a reading is absent.

138 The Three Additions to Daniel
The phrase ttjv voaov vp,&v comes in strangely,
as 0, by omitting it, apparently thought. It is sug
gestive of a translation, perhaps of *hT}' which seems
to be used of moral disease in Hos. v. 13, and is
there rendered by voaos.
v. 59 0', 0. Why vpS? ? In LXX it comes in
very awkwardly, where are would naturally be
expected. Scholz, not improbably, suggests that /aivet, (0)
and eo-rr\Kev (O') have been caused by reading TX\p
and Dip 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 !"T and the final ? is known.
v. 61 0. Tw -ttXtjo-Iov, though referring to Susanna,
may be a translation of JTV a word apparently re
garded by Gesenius as epicene ; so in Gen. xxiii. 3,
4, 8 tov veKpov is the rendering of rX)> meaning
Sarah's corpse, "sine sexus discrimine" (Ges.). But
ttXtjo-Iov may be used here of ' neighbour ' collectively
without exclusive reference to Susanna.
v. 62 O'. $dpay%, a frequent translation of M^Jl
or ~>H3- As it does not appear that there are any
natural ravines in Babylon, this might refer to a
deep moat outside the wall.

The History of Susanna 139
v. 64 (62) O'. Scholz says, " Ek ist sclavische
Uebersetzung von 7 das der Hervorhebung des
Objektes dienen soil." 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 super
fluous; 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.* Holtz
mann calls it, "besonders von der Kunst vielfach
gefeierte Novelle" (Schenkel's Bibel Lex. 1875).
* " And that which all faire workes doth most aggrace,
The art which all that wrought appeared in no place."
Spenser, Faery Queens, II. xii. 58.

140 The Three Additions to Daniel
The lack of spontaneity and original freshness
sometimes charged* 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 inte
rest. 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 re
garded as contributing to excellence in such a com
position, we find here.
In the so-called Harklensian (W2 of Salmon =
Churton's Syr.*) 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
*/. Mace., Fairweather and Black, Camb. 1897, p. 14 ; Streane,
Age of Mace, Lond. 1898, pp. 247, 248.

The History of Susanna 141
designed to heighten, by theintroduction of more de
tailed particulars, the effect of the narrative. The tale
is so interesting and so true to nature that its popu
larity 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.
EELIGIOUS.
An unexceptionable 0. 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;

142 The Three Additions to Daniel
not even in their inception.* 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 offi
cials 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. xxv. 12.
When Daniel's plan was efficacious for reveal
ing 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
* Curiously enough the canonical Daniel has not escaped this
accusation, for 6. Jahn (Leips. 1904, p. 64) says of vi. 28, "Der
Konig wie ein jiidischen Eabbiner predigt."

The History of Susanna 143
has been purified and elevated by the discipline of
exile. In v. 57 some prejudice is suggested as exist
ing 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 Cana-
anitish 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. 6316)
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 con
sistently 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

144 The Three Additions to Daniel
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 sub
jugation and deportation of the Jews, allowing them
considerable liberty when he got them into Baby
lonia. 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 in
flicting the death-penalty, v. 62. This last power
has been objected to as unhistoric. But J. J. Blunt*
• Eight use of Early Fathers, Lond., 1857, p. 649.

The History of Susanna 145
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 coinci
dence," rendering credible the death penalties spoken
of in Acts ix. 1, xxii. 4, xxiv. 6.* So Edersheim
(D. C. B. art. Philo, p. 3656), " The rule ofthe Jewish
community in Alexandria had been committed by
Augustus to a council of Elders." This is also stated
in the Jewish Encyclopaedia (New York and Lond.,
Alexandria 1., 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 ' Caesar ' without specifying which
Caesar, and though he does not name Alexandria, his
words iafiev ol rre'ireipap.evoi 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
» See Wordsworth, Gk. Test., note in loc. 10

146 The Three Additions to Daniel
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 un
satisfactory 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 exist
ence of much corruption* 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
* Quintus Curtius (v. 1) gives a terrible account, in connection
with Alexander's capture of this city, of Babylonian debauchery,
which must have been of long standing when it had attained the
pitch he indicates.

The History of Susanna 147
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 e'« as here.
The modest veiling of Susanna in v. 32, more
distinctly expressed (ffv yap KaraKaXvpfievr)) in 0
than in O', 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.* 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
* "Soap making is the chief industry of modern Palestine"
(Hastings' D.B. art. Soap).

148 The Three Additions to Daniel
stoning. In the O' of v. 62 both this punishment
and that of fire are meted out to the Elders as retri
butive justice. Reuss' note on the trial is amusing,
"die Richter sich als Dummkopfe erwissen und
Susanna vollstandig 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 his
torical 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), effica
ciously 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 History of Susanna 149
the prayers of individuals (v. 35, end, 0'), 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 injus
tice (v. 53) ; as giving sentence to an angel to exe
cute 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 6 SeoTronjs (cf. St. Luke
ii. 29, Acts iv. 24) ; in vv. 24, 44, Kvpw ; in vv. 55,
59 (0) #eos, for which O' has Kvpio<:, 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 instruc
tion in the Law of Moses regarded as proper (v. 3),
which is also referred to in vv. 33 and 62 (0 only),
and in act in v. 34. It would appear likely too that
II. Sam. xxiv. 14 is quoted in v. 22 (0), Susanna in
her strait borrowing the exclamation of David in his,

150 The Three Additions to Daniel
and the words of both may well be contrasted with
the idea of Hos. iv. 166. Adultery is condemned as
" sin before the Lord " (v. 23).
An angel is spoken of in vv. 44, 45 (O' only)
as giving a spirit of understanding to Daniel. The
former verse might be taken to mean that he was
visible* 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 men
tioned in v. 62 of O' 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 doc
trine about angels and evil spirits is sanctioned by
the recorded doctrine of Christ " (Hidden Wisd. of
Chrid, 1865, 1. 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 con
science, 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 ' turn-
* Kal iliob &yy tKoi.

The History of Susanna 1 5 1
ing 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 faith
ful (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 ilia
figurata." There does not appear to be anything 'Mes
sianic' in this writing, unless Daniel himself be
regarded as a type of Christ, executing just judg
ment, separating the righteous publicly from the
wicked. There is also Origen's statement bearing
upon this matter (ad Afric, see Speaker's Comm.
3276), 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,

152 The Three Additions to Daniel
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 con
fident of this ; nor does Hippolytus so identify them *
but contents himself with commenting on the state
ment 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
* In Hastings' D. B. art. Jehoiachin, it is stated that he does ;
but Hippolytus' Comm. in Migne, Pair. gr. x. 689, does not shew
this. It is apparently based on a quotation from Hippolytus by
Georgius Syncellus, given among the critical notes of Bonwetsoh's
ed. of Hipp. p. 10 (Lips. 1897).

The History of Susanna 153
that " he was more honourablo than all others " fits
in well with the notion. But if the story was coeval
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 'IwaKeip, 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 'Ie^ovlaf and Twa^t/i (Bar.
i. 3, Jer. xxii. 24, var. lect., II. Chron. xxxvi. 8, 9).
In Judith iv. 6, xx. 8 we have 'Icoaxelfi, 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,* is represented
as being still iraiSapiov veaorepov in v. 45. This
* But see G. Jahn, in he., and art. Jehoiakim in Hastings' D. B.
as to making the date in Dan. i. 1 a little later.

154 The Three Additions to Daniel
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 ofthe apocry
phal was less excellent than that of the canonical
books* ; 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,
'Jtua«6t/C4 irdpoiKo<; yevop,evo<; iv Ba.BvX&vi Xa/j,Bdvei
tt]v %u>advvav eh yvvaiKa (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 husbaDd 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 Susannae ad-
jecti in codice Parisiensi, qui Joacem virum Susannae
eum Joachin rege confundat." Bugati was probably
unaware of the above-mentioned variations in the
* Scrivener, Introd. to A. V. § vn., and Sayce, Tobit, 1903, p. xvi.

The History of Susanna 155
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 (West-
cott's art. Chelcias, Smith's D.B.), and that 'a fit
time ' in v. 15 intimated the Feast of the Passover.
Uusupported tradition and conjecture look like the
grounds of these two indications respectively. Bar-
denhewer (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 Haxklensian Syriac (W2, Walton's second
Syriac*) asserts both in vv. 1 and 45 that Daniel
was twelve years old at the date of the story; also
that Susanna was a widow after a married life of a
few days only (v. 5), a statement to which neither
Greek version lends any countenance. In fact, v. 63 (0)
supposes Joakim to be alive at the end of the tale.
Now we know from II. Kings xxv. 27 and Jer.
xxviii. (xxxv.) 1 — 4 that Jehoiachin lived some years
at least after his deportation. These Syriac inser
tions therefore as to Daniel's age and Susanna's
* Speaker's Comm., end of Introd. to Sus.

156 The Three Additions to Daniel
widowhood are hardly compatible with one another
on the supposition that she was the wife of Jehoia
chin, king of Judah.
It has been pointed out in the Speaker's Com
mentary, xlvi6, that the insertion of 'twelve years
old ' into the text of the Syriac of Susanna may be
due to " Christian re-handling," as also the extension
of the final verse about Daniel's fame, " and he in
creased in favour with the family of Susanna," etc.,
so as to produce a correspondence with St. Luke ii.
42, 52. This is a possible theory, but one lacking,
so far, the support of evidence. The condemnation
of Susanna " at the ninth hour " (v. 41) might like
wise be attributed to the same Christian influence.
This was no doubt operative here, as it was with
Hippolytus, In tlris connection it is worthy of note that in
the longer recension of the "Ignatian" Epist. ad
Magnes., § III., Daniel is spoken of as SojSe/eaer???
when he yeyove kutoj^o^ t& 0elq> irvevfiaTi, a phrase
evidently reminiscent of the history of Susanna.
Bishop Lightfoot notes on this: "His age is not
given in the narrative, and it is difficult to see
whence it could have been derived." He dates the
longer Ignatian epistles in the second half of the

The History of Susanna 157
4th century (1. 246), while Thomas of Harkel lived
in the 6th and 7th centuries. But, though so much
later, this Syriac translation may perhaps afford
some clue to the ultimate discovery of Ignatius', or
rather his expander's, source of information. The
words Ttaihaptov vecorepov do not of course neces
sarily imply such extreme youth as twelve years;
nor are we in any way tied to the accuracy of this or
other Harklensian variations.
Though this Addition therefore has its chrono
logical difficulties, they need not be regarded as
absolutely insurmountable. CANONICITY.
Before the correspondence of Origen with
Julius Africanus, whose letter is " a model of sober
criticism" (Swete, Patristic Study, p. 56) — a corre
spondence renewed between Eusebius of Caesarea and
Porphyry*, and between Rufinus and Jerome, with
less sobriety — we have no record of the point having
been mooted. For, as Bissell writes (p. 448), " We
have no evidence that these pieces were not regarded
as fully on a level with the remainder of the book."
Africanus heard Origen use Susanna in controversy
• See Jerome's Pref. to Daniel, end.

158 The Three Additions to Daniel
with one Bassus, and subsequently wrote to remon
strate, he himself being resident in Palestine. Some
of his objections in this famous letter have consider
able force, while others are very weak (D.C.B. I. p. 546).
Origen deems Susanna part of the genuine
Daniel, cut out by the Jews, as he suggests in his
Epistle to Africanus. Bishop Gray (0. T. p. 612)
describes this Epistle as ' suspected ' ; but it appears
now to be generally accepted. Origen thinks that
the motive of Susanna's exclusion was its relation of
particulars discreditable to the Jewish nation. But
the Bishop truly says, "there is no foundation for
this improbable fancy." It is, however, maintained
by Philippe in Vigouroux' Diet. (cf. ' Title and Posi
tion,' p. 109).
Origen also asserts the canonicity of Susanna in
Horn, in Levit. § 1 (middle) : " Sed tempus est nos
adversus improbos presbyteros uti sanctae Susannae
vocibus, quas illi quidem repudiantes, historiam
Susannae de catalogo divinorum voluminum dese-
crarunt. Nos autem et suscipimus, et opportune
contra ipsos proferimus, dicentes ' Angustiae mihi
undique,'" etc. (v. 22).
Again, Origen refers to the matter in his In
Matthasum Commentariorum Series. He quotes

The History of Susanna 159
Daniel's words in v. 55, "angelus Domini habens
gladium scindet te medium," and also " ausi sumus
uti in hoc loco, Dan. exemplo, non ignorantes quo
niam in Hebraeo positum non est, sed quoniam in
ecclesiis tenetur, Alterius autem temporis est re-
quirere de huiusmodi" (Migne, Patr. gr. XIII. 1696).
Delitzsch (op. cit. p. 103) says, on second thoughts,
that he " adductum esse, ut ipsos libros apocryphos
ab Origine pro yvrjaioK et divinis Jiabitos esse
censeam." About the same time, or probably a little earlier,
St. Hippolytus (+230) gives a similar reason for the
extrusion of this episode. He notes on v. 8, Tavra
fiev ovv ol t&v 'IovSaltov apxpvre? /3oi5\oz>Tat vvv
irepiKOirreiv tt/? BLBXov, tpdaKovre<; p,r) yevia0ai Tavra
iv BaBvX&vr alcF'xvvojxevot, to vito t&v irpea-fivrepcov
Kar iKelvov rbv Kaipbv yeyevrjfievov. On which Bar-
denhewer (op. cit. p. 76) remarks, " Susanna soil also
friiher auch in dem jiidischen Kanon gestanden
haben und erst spater (unliebsamen Vorwiirfen
gegeniiber) aus demselben entfernt worden sein."
A. Scholz, however, who treats the book alle-
gorically as a 'vision,' attributes early opinions
adverse to its canonicity to the " Missverstehen der
Erzahlung und die unlosbaren Schwierigkeiten, die

160 The Three Additions to Daniel
dieselbe bei der historischen Auffassung macht"
(p. 139). The * vision ' theory, however, is a difficult
one to maintain, serviceable though it may be in
evading historic difficulties.
Lists of books of the canon do not help us
much, as it is often uncertain whether 'Daniel'
covers the Additions or not. We may safely con
clude, however, that it does in Origen's own list, as
preserved for us by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 25).
In the pseudo-Athanasius' Synopsis sacr. script.
§ 74, Susanna is named, after the books he deems
canonical, as e«ros Se tovtcdv, along with four books
of Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon. In this
case we might conclude that AavirjX does not cover
Susanna; but in the beginning of the Synopsis of
Daniel (§ 41) the story is mentioned as part of that
book, and Bel and the Dragon, at the end, in the
same way. This author's view, then, for and against
the canonicity looks somewhat undecided. So in
Cyril of Jerusalem's list in Catech. iv. § 35, ' Daniel '
pretty certainly includes Susanna and probably the
other two Additions, because in Cat. xvi. § 31, "de
Spiritu sancto," he quotes Susanna 45 in company
with Dan. iv. 6 as if on an equal footing.
It is quoted as Scripture before Origen's time by

The History of Susanna 161
Irenaeus iv. xxxv. 2, xii. 1 ; Tert. de Cor. IV. ; Clem.
Alex. Proph. Eel. 1. Methodius, Bishop of Tyre,
introduces Susanna into his Virgins' Songs as an
example of brave sanctity, calling upon Christ* (see
exact words under 'Early Christian Literature,' p. 166).
In the Apod. Const. II. 49, ' concerning accusers
and witnesses,' this trial is instanced a>? tov? Svo
irpeaBvripov? Kara ^coadvvr}^ iv BaBvX&vi, and
again in cap. 51 (Mansi, Concil. Florence, 1759,
i. 352, 353).
Though Jerome (Pref. to Dan.) calls this and the
other Additions ' fabulae ' (twice), it is pointed out
by Peronne in his note to Corn, a Lap. on Dan. xiii. 1
(Paris, 1874) that Jerome uses the same word of the
story of Samson (no ref. given), which he certainly
regarded as canonical. He claims therefore that here
it has " verum et nativum sensum vocis fabulae, quae
quidem significat ' historiam, sermonem.' " But even
if any disparaging sense could be eliminated from
this particular word, Jerome's opinion is otherwise
expressed. The only possible reference to Susanna obser
vable, I think, in the N. T. is in Matt, xxvii. 24,
unless the name of Susanna in St. Luke viii. 3 be
* Warren, Ante-Nieene Liturgy, 1897, p. 188. 11

162 The Three Additions to Daniel
taken from our heroine's. It is of course emble
matic of lily-like purity, and therefore very suitable
for a woman. The story, with some omissions, forms
the Epistle for Saturday after the third Sunday in
Lent in the Sarum and Roman Missals.
Luther says that this and Bel are "beautiful
and spiritual compositions, just as Judith and Tobias "
(Bleek, 0. T., Venables' transl., 1869, n. 339).
In the Greek Church the Synods of Constan
tinople and Jerusalem in 1672 expressly decided, in
opposition to Cyril Lucar and the Calvinists, that
Susanna and Bel (with some other apocryphal books)
were genuine elements of Divine Scripture, and de
nounced Cyril Lucar's conduct in styling them
Apocrypha as ignorance or wickedness (Bleek, n.
343; Loisy, O.T. p. 243). The present Eastern
Church reckons them, with the Song of the Three,
canonical, as Bishop Nectarius expressly states
(Greek Manuals of Church Doctrine, publ. by Eng.
Ch. Assoc, Lond., 1901, p. 19). Also Bar-Hebraeus
(tl286), the Monophysite, comments on these frag
ments as if Holy Scripture (Loisy, p. 245). We see
then that the testimonies to canonicity are of con
siderable strength, more so than is perhaps generally
realised, even though the arguments to the contrary

The History of Susanna 163
may be still stronger. The statement of Fritzsche
(Libri apocryphi, 1871, p. xiii) is moderate and
reasonable, fitting in well as it does with the views
of our own Church, "Liber Danielis canonicus iam
eo ipso tempore, quo primum in linguam graecam
transferebatur, additamentis graecis auctus est, quo
rum tria maiora fere inde a seculo quarto in eccl.
Christiana vulgo a viris doctis apocrypha iudicata
sunt."
EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
AND ART.
LITERATURE.
New Testament. In St. Matt, xxvii. 24 Pilate
possibly adopts Daniel's words in v. 46, or at least
accidentally falls in with them. In Heb. xi. 23 and
Sus. 7 (O') there is a strong similarity in the use of
the word do-retoi, as well as in Exod. ii. 2.
"Among names taken from the O.T., that of Su
sanna is not uncommon " (D.C. A. art. Names, 1374a).
Not improbably therefore Susanna, in St. Luke viii. 3,
may have been named after the Susanna of this his
tory, as already mentioned under 'Canonicity,' p. 161.
St. Susanna of the Roman Calendar, who is dated
circ. 293, is most likely an example of this. She- is
not given an article in D. C. B., but there is a short

164 The Three Additions to Daniel
notice of her in D. C. A., as commemorated in various
Martyrologies on August 11th.
Iren^us (f200). In Adv. Heer. ill. xiii. 1 there
is an apparent reference to v. 55 ; in IV. xxxv. 2 to
v. 42 ; and in IV. xii. 1, ' de presbyteris injustis,' vv.
20, 26 are quoted as " a Daniele propheta voces " in
reproof of Christian presbyters. It is probable, too,
that " Deum qui absconsa manifestat " (IV. xxxi. 2)
may be a reminiscence of the phrase o t&v Kpwrrr&v
yv&o-TTje; in <y. 42 ; and still more probably perhaps
" qui est absconsorum cognitor " in IV. xxxv. 2 has
its origin in this same verse.
Clement of Alexandria (f220). In Strom, iv.
(Heinsius' ed., Paris, 1629, p. 522) he speaks of
Susanna and Miriam together, as if their biblical
positions were on a par. In Hort and Mayor's edit.
(1902) of Strom. VII. the words irpb tt}? yevicrem in
§ 37 are referred to Susanna 43 (0) ; but it is hardly
safe to assume that we have here more than an
accidental approximation of wording.
Hippolytus (f230) distinctly recognizes Susanna
at the end of his Preface to Daniel, as well as in his
Commentary itself. This last, Bardenhewer (Frei
burg im Breisgau, 1877, p. 69) deems, on account of
its homiletic phrases, to be "Bruchstucke einer
Homilie " (cf. art. Hippolytus, D. C. B. iii. 102a).

The History of Susanna 165
Apostolic Constitutions (third century ?).
Susanna's trial is instanced in 11. 49, " Concerning
accusers and witnesses " (see quotation under ' Can
onicity,' p. 161), and again in cap. 51.
Tertullian (f240). In de Corona militis, 4,
after instancing Rebecca, he goes on to say of Susanna :
" si et Susanna in iudicio revelata argumentum
velandi praestat, possum dicere : et hie velamen ar-
bitrii fuit," etc. Also de Pudic. 17, etc.
Origen (f254) frequently refers to Susanna in
his commentaries, many references to which are col
lected by Schiirer, H.J. P., 11. 111. 186. In the
middle of § 1 of his Horn. 1. in Levitic. he quotes
Susanna's words in v. 22 as if appropriate to the
mouth of the book itself, surrounded by those who
doubted its canonicity (words quoted under ' Can
onicity,' p. 158). In Eusebius' Prosp.Ev. vi. 11, Origen
is given as quoting v. 42 as a proof of God's fore
knowledge, a7ro r&v ypa<p&v rovro rxapao-rr\aai. In
his Commentary on St. John (bk. xx. § 5) he quotes
V. 56 with a>? 6 AavirjX (prjcri.
Cyprian (f258), in Ep. xliii. 4, illustrates his
remarks by a reference to "Susannam pudicam."
Bleek (0. T. 11. 316) says that Bel and the Dragon
and Susanna were used by both Irenaeus and Cyprian

1 66 The Three Additions to Daniel
in a similar way tc the Scriptures of the Hebrew
canon. Methodius (t330), in his " Song of the Virgins "
(il. 2). "AvwOev, irap0evoi /3ot)?, includes Judith and
Susanna : op&VTei elSos evTrpeire^, v<f> tJ?
Svo Kpnal %ovo-dvva<s ifip.avel's,
epwrt, Xei;av, *il yvvai, k.t.X.
(Migne, Patr. gr. xviii. 212).
Hilary of Poitiers (+367), oe Trin. iv. 8 (Migne,
Patr. lat. 10, 101), quotes Susanna 42, "Sicut beata
Sus. dicit, Deus aeternus absconditorum cognitor,
sciens omnia," etc.
Athanasius (f373) also, in his Disc, against
Arians, I. 13, quotes this popular verse (42) as "in
Daniel.'' In the Life of Anthony, § 43, he refers to
Susanna, as well as in the ' doubtful ' Synopsis S. 8.
Ephrem Syrus (+378) refers both in his Ep. ad
Johann. monachum, and in his 15th Parosnesis, to
the blessed Susanna.
Gratian (+383) notes on Can. XI. of Neocaesarea
(315 A.D.) in Deer eta 1. 78, c. iv., "Daniel, we read,
received the spirit of prophecy before he had arrived
even at youth." The Canon itself, as given by
Hefele, makes no mention of Daniel.

The History of Susanna 167
Cyril of Jerusalem (+386) refers (Cateoh. 1. 31)
to Daniel's inspiration to rescue Susanna, and quotes
v. 45 with yiypawTat, yap.
Gregory of Nyssa (+396) quotes, in his Hexae-
meron(Migne,Patr.gr. XLIV. p. 71) and in his Making
of Man, v. 42, twice as a prophetic writing (xxix. 1).
Ambrose (+397) has, Sermons XLIX. and L.,
" de accusato Domino apud Pilatum et de Susanna,"
in which he draws a parallel between them, as to
silence under false charges, at considerable length
(Basel, ed. 1527, III. 549).
Sulpicius Severus (+400 ?), in his Hist. Sacr.
lib. II. § 1, gives an outline of the story of Susanna,
after the events of Dan. i. and before those of chap, ii.,
evidently regarding it as historical.
Chrysostom (+407) has a sermon " de Susanna,"
in which he compares her to the " garden enclosed "
of Solomon's Song iv. 12 (quoted in Arnald's Com
mentary). Jerome (+420), in his de Nominibus Hebraicis,
includes, under the Book of Daniel, Susanna and
Joacim without any distinction from the names in
the rest of the book (ed. Vallarsi, vol. III.).
Augustine (+430) draws, in de Civ. Dei, 1. 19,
a parallel between Susanna and Lucretia, greatly to

1 68 The Three Additions to Daniel
the advantage of the former. Arnald, on v. 23, gives
some extracts from this.
Cyril of Alexandria (+444) quotes v. 56 at
least twice, viz. on Hos. xii. 8 and on Zeph. i. 11.
In the latter case he speaks of it as rrapd ye toIs lepois
ypd/jLfj,ao-Lv, giving it thus explicitly a high position.
Theodoret (+457) quotes in Letter CX., Su
sanna 22; but in his comment on Daniel, Susanna
is not contained.
Mamertus Claudianus (+474). The following
occurs in a hymn attributed to this writer, "In
Jacobum magistrum equitum," but which Migne
says is ' dubiae auctoritatis ' : " Sic tibi det vires
sancta Susanna suas."
Nicephorus of Constantinople (+828) classes
Susanna among his " antilegomena." As he makes no
separate mention in his lists of the Song, or of Bel
and the Dragon, he presumably reckons them under
' Daniel '* (Migne, Patr. gr. c. 1056). At the end of
pseudo-Athanasius' Synopsis S. S. comes a list of ov
Kavovi^ofieva, so similar to Nicephorus' list in order and
contents as to suggest that they had some close con
nection ; and it is possible that this appendage may
be of even later date than the Synopsis itself, which
* But Aara/A ^/evSiTriypacpa may refer to them.

The History of Susanna 169
may be attributed to the 6th century (Loisy, A. T.,
p. 147). The above are specimens of the numerous refer
ences made to Susanna by early Christian writers,
both Greek and Latin, who evidently found in her a
favourite instance to adduce in support of their
teaching. Nor ought we, in such a matter, to treat
lightly the tenor of Christian antiquity so remark
ably manifested. ART.
From early times scenes from Susanna were
often chosen for artistic treatment. In " a list of the
symbols most frequently represented in painting or
sculpture by the Church of the first seven centuries"
Susanna is included (D. C. A. art. Symbolism).
Frescoes of Susanna and the Elders occur,
though not with great frequency, in the Catacombs
(D.C. A. 1. art. Fresco, 700a). W. Lowrie, in his
Chridian Art (N.Y. and Lond. 1901, p. 210), men
tions a second-century fresco of Susanna and the
Elders judged by Daniel, in the cemetery of Cal
listus; also he says, "in the Capella graeca in St.
Priscilla the story is depicted with unusual dramatic
interest in several scenes." Three old Italian sar
cophagi have bas-reliefs of Susanna and the Elders

170 The Three Additions to Daniel
as emblematic of the Church enduring persecution ;
others are known in southern Gaul (D. C. A. art.
Church, Symbols of). A woodcut is given in this
article of a sheep (ewe ?) between two wild beasts
(wolves?), 'Susanna' and 'Senioris' being written
over them respectively, the artist evidently fearing
that the symbolism might otherwise not be perceived.
Scenes from the history of Susanna carved on
sarcophagi are more frequent in France than in
Italy. It has been thought that the two Elders may
be taken to represent the two older forms of religion,
the Pagan and the Jewish (D. C. A., 0. T. in AH, n.
14596). In the same Diet. (Sculpture, II. 1867a) it is
noted that the cycle of subjects has a remarkable
correspondence with those named in the Roman
Breviary "Ordo commendationis animae," where
" Libera, Dom. animam servi tui sicut liberasti Sus.
de falso crimine," is one of the petitions.
It is fair to presume that Delitzsch refers to some
of the above when he writes, " Susannae historia in
sarcophagis veterum Christianorum cum sacris his-
toriis insculpta conspicitur" (op. cit. 26).
In the Brit. Mus., 2nd North Gallery, Room V,
there is a glass fragment of the 4th century, found
at Cologne, representing (probably) Susanna amongst

The History of Susanna 1 7 1
other subjects. She also appears on a carved ivory
reliquary of Brescia, which is most likely not later in
date than 800 (D. CA. art. Reliquary, 11. 17806).
In the Byzantine Guide to Painting (Ep/Mjvela
tt}? fay pa(pcKr]<;), given in Didron's Christian Icono
graphy (Bohn's ed., Lond. 1886, I. 4s5n, 11. 284),
'Daniel defends Susanna' is put immediately after
the scene in Dan. i. 15, and before the other scenes
given out of Daniel (cf. ' Position,' p. 109). Didron's
MS. of this work is probably of the 15th century,
though the monks of Athos, whence it appears to
have come, regarded it as some five centuries older.
There is a window of stained glass, said to be
cinque-cento, in the westernmost bay of the south
aisle of St. James' Church, Bury St. Edmunds, of
which the three lower lights represent the trial of
Susanna. In the centre Susanna's bath takes the
form of a deep font, in which she is standing. The
Elders are clothed in purple*
In Sumner's Antiquities of Canterbury, 1703,
the second figure in the third window of the cathe-
* There is a very quaint note in Gwillim'B Heraldry (1611,
p. 109) as to a mulberry figured on a shield, " This fruit hath a
purple blushing colour, in the one resembling the judges' attire who
attempted Susanna, in the other that hue of their face which should
have been in them, if they had been so gracious to blush at their
fault," etc.

172 The Three Additions to Daniel
dral is described as " Daniel in medio seniorum," and
this inscription is given :
" Mirantur pueri seniores voce doceri
Sic responsa dei sensum stupent Pharasaei."
(Reprinted in Ancient Glass Painting, by an
Amateur, Oxf. 1848, p. 355.)
In the scheme of stained glass for Truro cathedral
there are several apocryphal subjects, including a
window in the south-east transept having " Susanna
and the Mother of the Seven Martyrs" for its
subjects (Donaldson, Bishopric of Truro, 1902,
App. v.).
A carved chimney-piece exists in Chillingham
Castle, Northumberland, representing Susanna and
the Elders (Murray, Handbook to Northumberland,
1873, p. 326).
This scene has been a wonderfully popular
one with painters. Altdorfer, Carracci, Correggio,
A. Coypel, van Dyck, Guercino, Rembrandt, Rubens,
Santerre, Tintoretto, Valentin, and P. Veronese may
be named amongst those who have treated it. A
picture entitled ' Susanna' was exhibited in the Royal
Academy, London, in 1886, by Fred. Goodall, R.A.
Thus we see that the many picturesque incidents
in this Addition have not been overlooked by Chris-

The History of Susanna 1 73
tian artists in search of subjects for the brush or the
chisel. Of these three supplementary sections of
Daniel the History of Susanna has, in this respect,
been found much the most suggestive ; probably as
the one which is thought to contain the highest
passion and feeling.
"EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION
OF MANNERS."
In the character of Susanna we see uncon
querable Purity in thought and deed; prayerful
Trud in God under a false and cruel accusation,*
and, in the face of death, securing deliverance from
an unexpected quarter (cf. v. 60 with II. Cor. i. 10).
With v. 55 Hippolytus compares Tob. iii. 2 (Vulgate).
The parallels drawn by St. Chrysostom and St.
Augustine will be found under 'Early Christian
Literature,' p. 167. Susanna's trouble may be taken
as a conspicuous illustration of Ps. xxxiv. 19.
Susanna was conscientious as well as pure ; would
not lie, being tenderly nurtured morally as well as
* There are similar instances in chaps, iii. and vi. of the canonical
Daniel. See also the Notes on Scripture, in loeo, of Bishop Wilson,
of Sodor and Man, who tells what comfort he derived from hearing
Susanna read in the daily serviee when himself falsely accused.

174 The Three Additions to Daniel
physically .* She had the virtue of bodily cleanliness
as well as social purity, and affords an early instance
of the use of the prepared bath.
It is noticeable, too, that no unfavourable traits
develop themselves on the re-establishment of her
happiness and the condemnation of her slanderers;
there is no excessive reaction to unbecoming laxity
no drT^rffiov •jrpayp.a.
In the character of the Elders we see judicial
position and feigned piety used as a cloak for lust
and slander ; great hardness of heart in condemning
Susanna to death, with the full knowledge that she
was innocent ; unblushing effrontery (v. 50) ; sins of
the tongue in ' lying and slandering.'
Hooker (Ecc. Pol. V. 2) refers, according to the
marginal note (though they are not named in the
text), to these Elders as examples of "affected
atheism," " where the windows of the soul are of
very set purpose closed"; "they turned away their
mind and cast down their eyes, that they might not
see heaven nor remember just judgments." St. Hip-
* Thackeray's mention of Susanna in The Newcomet, chap, lvi.,
seems pointless, though that in chap. xix. is suitable enough. Steele
has an absurd reference in the Spectator, No. 14, to the "opera of
Susanna, or Innocence Betrayed, which will be exhibited next week,
with a pair of new Elders."

The History of Susanna 175
polytus on v. 61 quotes Prov. xxvi. 27 very appo
sitely. The fall of the Elders shews the need for our
Lord's order in St. Matt. v. 28, and the terrible
results of acting otherwise.
The individual character of each Elder has a little
light thrown upon it by the form of condemnation
framed by Daniel. That of the first is chiefly based
on his unjust judgment, that of the second on his
lewd conduct, each judgment being varied in this
way according to the form of his previous iniquities.
The knowledge which Daniel possessed of these ap
propriately determined the cast of his sentence. That
he had some acquaintance with their former habits
is shewn by vv. 52, 53, 56.
The change to the plural in v. 57 is difficult to
explain, and does not receive attention at the hands
of the commentators ; in fact Ball applies this verse,
without mentioning the change of number, to the
one Elder only. Although these godless judges failed
in accomplishing their purpose, they were not on this
account less scandalous betrayers of virtue.
In Susanna's Servants we see fidelity, sym
pathy, and no eagerness to believe an ill report. As
regards Susanna, this fact speaks volumes for the
excellence of her conduct.

176 The Three Additions to Daniel
In Daniel we see the courage and penetrating
acumen which are so characteristic of his whole
career, impressing all with whom he was brought
into contact. He weighs a matter carefully before
coming to a decision. By unmasking hypocrisy and
securing justice he is delighted to set right a grievous
wrong.* He appears as the best judge (cf. the esti
mation shewn of the justice of God by Azarias, Song
of the Three, 4 — 8). Daniel further exhibits a deci
sion and an absence of self-distrust, in undertaking
tasks of great risk, quite in accordance with his
character as portrayed in the canonical book, and in
Bel and the Dragon. In each case he is alert, acute,
and fearless ; his conduct in different circumstances
is quite in keeping with itself. Using his talents
thoroughly, he makes " full proof of his ministry."
There is a strong resemblance in ideas, though
not much in words, between Daniel's sentence in
v. 55 and St. Matt. xxiv. 51. The judgment of
Daniel in this case may be taken as a type of the
Last Judgment, correcting the unjust judgments of
this world.
A high value is set on Scripture, as v. 53
* St. Antony of Padua curiously gives vv. 52, 56, as an example
of the "Zeal of prelates" (Moral Concordance, Neale's edit., n.d.,
p. 105).

The History of Susanna ijj
shews, where it is quoted as an authoritative rule of
conduct ; v. 5, too, if it is to be regarded as a refer
ence to Jer. xxix. 23, points to a similar high esteem
for it as the word of the Lord. Susanna herself in
v. 22 evidently remembers David's words in II. Sam.
xxiv. 14, when he too had to make his choice
between falling into the hand of the Lord or the
hand of man, thus shewing her ready knowledge of
the O. T.
Much admirable moral teaching therefore may
be drawn from the characters of this little work of
world-wide interest, teaching which is needed in all
nations and in all periods.

12

iPart IV
THE HISTORY OF BEL AND THE DRAGON
*»inj "es? Db-)n

THE HISTOKY OF BEL AND THE
DKAGON. ANALYSIS.
c.
1, 2. Introduces Cyrus and Daniel.
3. How Bel was worshipped by the Babylonians.
4 — 7. Discussion as to Bel's worship* between the King and
Daniel.
8, 9. The King enquires of Bel's priests, and says that they
or Daniel must die.
10 — 14. The test agreed upon to prove whether Bel partook of
the offerings or no.
15 — 22. Decided in the negative by discovery of the Priests'
trick, who are slain and their idol destroyed.
23. Introduces the other object of worship*, the Dragon.
24 — 27. Conversation as to its divinity between the King and
Daniel, who, with the former's permission, in
geniously slays it.
28, 29. Anger of the Babylonians with them both.
30 — 32. They cause Daniel to be cast into the lions' den.
33 — 40. He is miraculously saved by Habakkuk.
40, 42. The King acknowledges the Lord, sets Daniel free, and
delivers his persecutors to the fate intended for
the prophet.
* In each case it is not clear from the text that the ' worship '
consisted in anything else than supplying food.
N.B. — It is unaccountable why the 'heading' in A.V. begins
with v. 19. Cf. Sus. for a similar peculiarity.
181

1 82 The Three Additions to Daniel
TITLE AND POSITION.
TITLE.
Br[K Kal ApaKcov is the usual title of this
booklet. It is obviously derived from the names of
the two idols destroyed in the two portions of the
story. But Cod. Chis. has the curious heading, 'Ek
¦7rpo<$r)TeLa<i 'ApfiaKovp, vlov 'Irjaov e« tt}? (pvXfj?
Aevi (cf. v. 33). The Syriac also has the equiva
lent of this. In some Syriac MSS. 'Dragon' is
given as a separate title before v. 23 ; and Luther's
version, at the same point, expands this into 'von
Drachen zu Babel.'
In Codd. A, Q, the entire piece is headed
Spaais iB", and is thus treated as an integral part
of Daniel, finishing the book, the 12th chapter of
which ends in Cod. A with Spaais id* In B it
follows, if possible, still more closely, there being no
intermediate heading^. In Cod. A, at the end, there
is tc\o? Aav. irpo^rov, which, except in the case of
Ruth, is not A's usual way of terminating works.
The Arabic Version in Walton also superscribes it as
a ' vision ' (Scholz, p. 139).
* The title Spacis is also used in Q in some of Isaiah's visions,
e.g. xvii. 1.
t See under Theodoret in 'Early Christian Literature,' and
' Chronology,' p. 224.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 183
The title 'the book of the little Daniel' seems
applied to Bel and the Dragon in a Nestorian list
mentioned by Churton (p. 389), and seemingly in
Ebed Jesu's list of Hippolytus' works (D. C. B. art.
Hippolytus, in. p. 104a). This title, which usually
belongs to Susanna, when applied to Bel and the
Dragon, must refer, not to Daniel's age, but to the
size of the book. Delitzsch (op. cit. 25%) mentions,
without further description, one MS. from Mount
Athos which entitles it Trepl rov '^l/S/SaKou/t.
The source of the marginal reading of A. V.
" Bel's Dragon " (also given in the title to Susanna)
does not appear to be identified.
POSITION.
As to the place of this piece in some of the
Greek MSS. see above.
Professor A. Scholz (Judith und Bel und der
Drache, Wiirzburg, 1896, p. 200) finds fault with
Holmes and Parsons for having disturbed the
position of this book without offering sufficient in
dication of having done so : " die Stticke willkurlich
versetzt sind."
In the Vulgate it is reckoned as chap. xiv. of
Daniel, coming after Susanna, which forms chap, xiii.,

184 The Three Additions to Daniel
as also in the Hexaplar Syriac. Caj. Bugati, in his
edition of this text, regards its ascription to Habak
kuk as a reason for its detached position at the end
(see 'Authorship,' p. 186).
J. Fiirst's idea (quoted by Bissell, p. 444), that
the work was originally incorporated in chap, vi.,
seems far less likely than his conjecture with regard
to the position of Susanna (q.v.). Indeed, except
for a certain similarity in the lions' den miracle, it is
Dot easy to see why it should be joined to any part
of chap. vi. Nor do the similar points of the den
incidents seem any real ground for making one story
follow directly upon the other.
E. Philippe (Vigouroux Did. 11. 1266) attempts,
rather feebly, to account for its omission from the
Hebrew Bibles. He says, " elle parut a tort aux
Juifs faire double emploi avec un recit pareil, vi."
This seems to be a gratuitous supposition of no great
probability. As the story deals with the latter part of
Daniel's life, its place at the conclusion of the book
is very fitting. In Cod. A the subscription men
tioned above, marking it as the "end of Daniel the
prophet," distinctly attaches it to the Book of Daniel,
and precludes further additions. On the whole, if

The History of Bel and the Dragon 185
its connection with the Book of Daniel is to be
recognized, this position at the close may be regarded
as the most suitable.
AUTHORSHIP.
In 0, Bel and the Dragon is apparently as
sumed to be by the same writer as the rest of the
Book of Daniel. So in Breshith Rabbah* on Gen.
xxxvii. 24 we have nearly the words of v. 28 sq., in
troduced by " This is as it is written in Daniel "
(Ball, 344a). In Raymund Martini's Pugio fidei
(Paris, 1651, p. 740) the Aramaic is given as 7N*0'"Q
(see under ' Chronology,' p. 229).
If, however, it be presumed that Daniel is not
the author, we are left without any clue to the
writer's name, except what is afforded us by the
LXX title, which treats the piece as an extract from
a prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus. Most prob
ably the minor prophet of that name is intended,
though this has been doubted on chronological and
on genealogical grounds; and the position of Bel
and the Dragon in the MSS. lends no countenance
to a connection with Habakkuk's prophecy. Roth-
* This has been attributed to Babba bar Nachman of Pumba-
rtitha, about a.d. 300, but ia probably later. See, however, Ethe
ridge, Jerus. and Tiberias, p. 143.

1 86 The Three Additions to Daniel
stein nevertheless, in Kautzsch, Apocr. (p. 178),
regards it as certain that the minor prophet is
meant; and so likewise do Schiirer and Driver in
their articles in Hauck's Encyclopaedia (i. 639), and
in Hastings' D.B. respectively; and Keil, who is
referred to below (p. 188).
Still, it is curious that a Levite of the name of
Jesus, who had sons, is mentioned in I. Esd. v. 58,
and elsewhere in the same book. Further evidence,
however, which might connect him with the LXX
title, is not forthcoming. But it is noticeable that
in Hab. ii. 18 sq. idolatry, probably Chaldean, is
scoffed at in a tone not dissimilar to that of this
work. Eusebius and Apollinarius, in controversy with
Porphyry, accept this title as correct (Churton, 3906).
So Bugati (Milan, 1788, p. 163) treats the authorship
of Habakkuk as the reason of the detached position
of the fragment at the end of the book. Hesychius
of Jerusalem/quoted under 'Early Christian Litera
ture,' declines to express an opinion as to the identity
of Habakkuk. The Synopsis sacr. Script. — referred
to by Ball (3506) and Bissell (447) as if a genuine
work of Athanasius — perhaps affords ground for a
third theory. For it makes mention (after N. T.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 187
books, § 75) of a certain pseudo-epigraphic writing
of ' AfiBaKovp, which might perhaps be the irpo<f>r)Te'ia
named in the LXX title. All things considered, the
theory that the well-known prophet Habakkuk was
meant by LXX seems the most probable.
But if Bel and the Dragon be merely the
crystallization of what is called a 'fluid myth,' or
traditional floating story, its original authorship i&
not merely unknown, but is undiscoverable, and was
probably a doubtful matter even to those who first
rendered it into Greek. This view accounts too, as
nothing else seems satisfactorily to do, for the many
changes, insertions, and omissions in different ver
sions. Such stories, at any rate in their earlier days,
are subject to variation in many points as the result
of oral repetition. Still, the ' fluidity ' of this piece
is by no means so great as that of Tobit, where the
variations are on a much wider scale.
If the 'fluid myth' theory be accepted, the
original becomes an anonymous story, built up on
the renown of Daniel, a piece of Haggadah in fact,
as some, not unreasonably, have ventured to think ;
such as J. W. Etheridge, who classes these pieces
under that head, or, as he styles them, "histories
coloured with fable" (Jerusalem and Tiberias,

1 88 The Three Additions to Daniel
Lond. 1856, p. 109). Reuss regards it as still more
imaginative, deeming all except the temple to be
" reine Erfindung, und zwar eine ziemlich geistlose "
(O.T. vii. 269). But Prof. Sayce thinks that "the
author was better acquainted with Babylon and
Babylonian history than the other apocryphal
writers" (Temple Bible, 'Tobit,' etc., Lond. 1903,
pp. xiv, 95).
Furthermore it must be remembered that even if
Bel and the Dragon was added to Daniel as an appen
dix by a later hand, there may still be truth in the
story ; its erroneousness is not necessarily proved,
nor is it needful to assume, as is sometimes done,
that all its events are fictitious. This seems to be
done by G. H. Curteis (S.P.C.K. Comm., ' Introd. to
Hab.'), who writes : " The absurd legends with which
the Rabbis and the author of Bel and the Dragon
amused themselves are not worthy of serious atten
tion." And Keil also, in his Commentary on the
Minor Prophets, while accepting the superscription
of Cod. Chis. as supporting Habakkuk's Levitic
origin, regards the rest of the legend as "quite
worthless" (Clark's translation, pp. 49, 50). So, too,
W. J. Deane (Pulpit Bible, 1898, 'Hab.' p. Ill)
says, " The whole account is plainly unhistorical, and

The History of Bel and the Dragon i8g
its connection with the canonical writer cannot be
maintained for a moment."
Supposing the story to be true, however, it may
form an instance, both at its outset and its close, of
what is recorded in Dan. vi. 28, of Daniel prospering
in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. But, in the pre
sent state of our knowledge, speculations lead to no
positive result, for the real author cannot be deter
mined.
DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.
DATE.
The idea, which may be a true one, that this
is the latest of these three appendices, seems chiefly
founded on its position at the end of Daniel, and on
its subject-matter, which contains indications of
belonging to the prophet's latter years. Having
passed safely through many trials, he now boldly
laughs at the idols of Babylon (vv. 7, 19). His con
tempt is unconcealed, and he again confidently risks
his life for the true God. In v. 19 we also find him
venturing to hold the king back — iKpa^qaev rbv
BaatXia (0). Long experience in surmounting
great difficulties by divine help had strengthened
his nerve and confirmed his faith.

190 The Three Additions to Daniel
Original. If the LXX be taken as a transla
tion, the original is of course older than the Greek
text, but not necessarily much older. If the state
ment at the head, however, be accepted as referring
to Habakkuk the prophet, the original is of course
thrown back to a much earlier date, say circ. 600 B.C.,
and Hebrew, not Aramaic, would be the language.
But this theory will scarcely commend itself to many
(cf. ' Chronology,' p. 223).
LXX. There seems no reason to doubt that Bel
and the Dragon always formed a part of this Greek
version of Daniel. Pusey (quoted in Churton, Uncan.
and Apocr. Script, p. 389) speaks of it as ' contem
porary with the LXX,' while Rothstein (Kautzsch,
178, 9) attributes it to the second century B.C., being
probably of the same date as Susanna.
Theodotion. This version may reasonably be
assigned to the second century A.D. But it has been
pretty clearly shewn that Theodotion worked up
some Greek version other than the LXX. Many of
the quotations from Daniel in the N. T., and espe
cially those in Revelation (specified in D. C. B. art.
Theodotion, iv. 9756), shew that a version largely cor
responding with his existed at the time when these
quotations were made. The Book of Baruch also

The History of Bel and the Dragon 191
(same art. 976a) bears evidence of the employment
of this Theodotionic ground-version, the origin of
which is at present unknown. In this connection
compare Prof. Swete's Introd. to Greek 0. T. ed. 2,
p. 48, and Schiirer's pointed saying, quoted there in
note (3), "Entweder Tb. selbst ist alter als die
Apostel, oder es hat einen 'Th.' vor Th. gegeben."
There seems little reason to doubt that the unnamed
previous version extended to this and the other
Additions to Daniel. PLACE.
Original (Semitic ?). Babylonia, or possibly
Palestine. " The writer," says Bissell on v. 2, " shews
a familiar acquaintance with what was the probable
state of things in Babylon when the event narrated
is supposed to have occurred."
Of the things mentioned, clay is common in
Babyloniaj and brass or bronze was used as a mate
rial for images; and the lion was an inhabitant of
the country.
There is no sign (in this piece) of Hellenic
thought influencing Jewish belief, such as would
have been likely to shew itself in a purely Alexan
drian production. The strong hatred of idolatry is
quite in accordance with a Babylonish origin ; more

192 The Three Additions to Daniel
so perhaps than with ah Alexandrian. Cf. Jer.
xliv. 8, which seems to shew that, at any rate in
the early days of the dispersion in Egypt, the
severance from idolatry was not so sharp as in
Babylonia. The mention of pitch (v. 27) as a readily obtain
able commodity is inconclusive, as stated under the
corresponding section of Part II. The possible con
fusion between NDJft (storm-wind) and ND^T (pitch),
pointed out by Marshall in his article on Bel and the
Dragon in Hastings' Diet., does not look probable as
occurring in a list of substances of this kind.
LXX. Alexandria may be pretty certainly
named. What Bishop Westcott calls "an Alexan
drine hand " (D.B. I. p. 448 ed. 1, 714 ed. 2) has been
generally deemed apparent. So Bissell says : " The
contents furnish tolerably safe evidence of its Egyp
tian origin." But this does not seem to agree very
well with his note on v. 2, quoted at the beginning
of this chapter.
It might have been thought that the weights
and measures which enter into this story in v. 3 of
both versions, and in v. 27 of LXX, would have
afforded some valuable local indications. But un
fortunately for this requirement, the weights and

The History of Bel and the Dragon 193
measures of the ancient world were so much assimi
lated as to yield, in the question before us, no certain
clue. Alexandria too, being a great commercial centre,
had become somewhat syncretistic. As P. Smith
remarks, in his article Mensura in D. Gk. & Rom. A.
(1872, p. 7546), "The Roman system, which was
probably derived from the Greek, agreed with the
Babylonian both in weights and measures." It is
stated, however, in Hastings' D. B. (iv. 9116, 9136)
that dprdBai and fierpyral were identified at Alex
andria, in which case they may have been used here
as rough equivalents for the translation of some
Semitic words, such as *iph an(^ !*7Np in Isai. v. 10
and I. Kings xviii. 32 respectively. The fiva of
v. 27 is also both Babylonian and Alexandrian (see
Hastings' D.B. IV. 904a). The signs, from this
source, of local origin must not therefore be pressed.
Theodotion. From what little we know of this
translator's life, it is not improbable that he made
his version at Ephesus.
The genitive form fiaxalpv? in v. 26, thought to
be Ionic, may lend a little support to this. Cf.
Heb. xi. 34, Rev. xiii. 14, in A; B here failing; yet
it is found in B, by the first corrector/in St. Luke
xxi. 24. But cf. Swete's Introd. p. 304. On the
13

194 The Three Additions to Daniel
other hand, the use of aatfiaTa in v. 32 (0 only) for
* slaves ' is given by Deissmann (p. 160) as an ex
ample of Egyptian usage. It is found in Gen.
xxxiv. 29, Tob. x. 10, and elsewhere. Its use by
Polybius (mentioned without reference by Deiss
mann) does not give us much ' local ' assistance, for
his travels were so extensive that he may have
picked it up in various places. But its occurrence
in Rev. xviii. 13 may suggest that it was in use at
Ephesus also. Deissmann (p. 117) also thinks
iSairav&vro et'<? (v. 3) to be an Alexandrian idiom;
but in the same verse we find the spelling Teao-e-
paKovra, which is considered by Liddell and Scott to
be an Ionic form. The indications therefore of this
linguistic kind nearly counterbalance one another.
FOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT
WRITTEN.
This story was evidently composed for Jewish
use, not improbably for Jews who had returned from
the Captivity, as a popular memorial of Babylonish
days. And perhaps the general tenor of the piece
implies that it was written to serve, not so much to
convert idolaters, as for the encouragement of those
who were striving, or had striven, to maintain the

The History of Bel and the Dragon 195
faith among the heathen. Its tone and subject
make its composition in the first instance for Baby
lonian Jews, or Palestinian Jews returned from
captivity, more likely than for their Alexandrian
brethren. To these latter, however, it soon found
its way. But it is amongst Christian people that
this narrative has had its longest and deepest in
fluence. The more it was valued by Christians the
less it seemed regarded by Jews. In this respect its
fate was similar to that of the entire LXX.
A distinct moral purpose is not obscurely in
dicated by the trend of the whole story. It is not
merely a record of two interesting episodes in the
prophet's later days, but it also aims at a definite
religious object. That object is to throw contempt
on idolatry, whether directed to inanimate or animate
things; to honour Daniel as vindicator of the true
worship ; and to shew that the adoration of heathen
deities is lying and deceptive, and ought to be sup
planted by that of the Lord.
It is evidently desired to put both idols and
idolaters into ridiculous positions, not for mere
amusement, but in order to destroy the confidence
which was groundlessly placed in them. The wea
pons of sarcasm and contemptuous treatment are

196 The Three Additions to Daniel
used with success, even as Elijah employed them on
Baal and his worshippers at an earlier time (I. Kings
xviii. 27). A desire to convert the heathen, by
proving the absurdity of their idol- worship, may be
inferred from the last clause of v. 27, compared with
vv. 5, 25. As the history of Susanna deals with
errors of Jewish practice, so does this writing with
the errors of heathenism.
The providence of God in protecting those
who suffer for His sake is clearly inculcated in the
latter portion of the work. A sense of this would,
with other results, give confidence in the fight
against idolatry; the more needed because Bel
was evidently a very popular deity with high and
low, and difficult to dislodge. The frequent com
pounding of 'Bel' with proper names (Belshazzar
and Belteshazzar)* shews the regard in which he
was held. Compare the similar compounding of
'Jehovah' amongst the Jews. But, although Bel
was deemed a beneficent deity, being, as Gesenius
* Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions of O.T.2 11. 125, considers Bel
not to enter explicitly into the second of these names, which he
takes to mean ' may his life protect ' ; but even in this case the
mention of a Deity is evidently understood. But ef. Dan. iv. 8.
Gesenius and Longfield (Chaldee Grammar, 1869, p. 115) take the
older view. See also Sayce's art. in Hastings' D. B. on Merodach-
Baladan, where M. seems identified with Bel ; also art. Merodaeh.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 197
calls him (s.v. 7S sur; 75D)> ' agathodemon, omnis
felicitatis auctor,' Daniel does not spare him on that
account. Thomas Wintle* suggests that the image
in chap. iii. " was Bel, or some of the Assyrian deities,
as we may collect from iii. 14 " ; and Bar-Hebrseus'
notion that the gift of Bel to Daniel, in v. 22 of our
story, was in order that he might be rewarded by
the gold with which the image was plated, agrees
well enough with iii. 1 (Berlin, 1888, p. 28).
The aim is to depict Daniel, distinguished for
his wisdom and piety, as tbe successful, though
sorely tried, opponent of heathenism, and as the
representative of the Living God. His character to
a great extent resembles that pourtrayed in the rest
of the work bearing his name. It is shewn how he
continued to face and to solve the difficult problems
of court life in Babylon. And albeit he secured no
small measure of fame, and perhaps of popularity, at
the time, these earthly results, in their abiding form,
it has lain with posterity to give him.
On the supposition that Alexandria was the
birthplace of the piece, it has been suggested that
the aim of the writer was " to warn against the sin
of idolatry some of his brethren who had embraced
* Daniel, Oxf. 1792, p. 40.

198 The Three Additions to Daniel
Egyptian superstition."* But no special reference
to Egyptian forms of idolatry is apparent in support
of this view, which seems based on little more than
a wish to fit in the idolatry with the theory of the
story having an Alexandrian origin.
A. Scholz's notion that the whole piece is a
' vision ' with allegoric or apocalyptic meanings only,
and never intended to be taken as history, looks like
a wonderfully forced hypothesis, laying a great strain
on the imaginations both of the writer and the
reader. The book having been received as canonical
in the Roman communion, its contents must at all
hazards be reconciled with the maintenance of that
position. Yet it is fair to note that Luther, on other
grounds, regarded Susanna and Bel and the Dragon
as pretty spiritual fictions, in which history must
take its chance (Zockler, p. 216).
INTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.
This double story seems to have been treated as
one in the Greek. In the Syriac and Arabic versions
the Dragon has a separate title (noticed in A. V.
margin, " Some add this title ofthe Dragon"). The
former, strangely enough, has ' end of Daniel ' before
* Chamberfs Encyclop., 1888, art. Bel.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 199
this title. And in the Syro-Chaldee version, given
in Midrash Rabbah de Rabbah, Bel has a subscrip
tion, and the Dragon a fresh title (see Ball, 345a).
In v. 23 iv too airm Tova (0') are wanting as
connecting words in B, but the reference to Bel in
v. 28 serves to consolidate the two portions of the story.
A and Q also, as well as correctors of B, have an
additional clause in v. 24, which pre-supposes the
former portion of the piece, a clause given in A. V.
and R. V. The xai of fif/ Kal rovrov in 0' answers
the same purpose. Daniel's mocking tone at the
end of v. 27 agrees well with his sense of humour in
v. 7. Cyrus' ready compliance, too, in v. 26 is only
accounted for fully by the shock given to his idola
trous beliefs in the Bel part of the story. And so
far the internal evidence argues for the unity of the
piece. But it is noticeable that the Epistle for
Tuesday after the Fifth Sunday in Lent in the
Sarum and Roman Missals consists of the Dragon
story only, beginning at v. 29, with some slight
introductory changes.
And Gaster's recovered Aramaic text (which
he believes to have been the basis of Theodotion's
Greek) consists of the Dragon story only. The
notion that it had a separate currency is therefore,

200 The Three Additions to Daniel
to a certain extent, supported ; and this would still
be the case, even if Gaster's text is not an original,
but a translation.
If Gaster's Aramaic were really the basis of
0's version, it would follow that he did not confine
himself to making a mere recension of the O' text,
though he evidently availed himself of it as far as
he thought proper. It is highly probable that this
would apply to the Bel as well as to the Dragon
story, although the corresponding Aramaic of the
former is not at present forthcoming.
Neither the O' nor 0's original text seem to
have been materially tampered with, either in the
way of addition or omission. Each has some clauses
not contained in the other: O' in vv. 9, 15, 31, 39;
0 in vv. 1, 12, 13, 36, 40. Yet Westcott (Smith's
D. B. I. 397a, ed. 2, 714a) thinks that some of 0's
changes arose from a desire to give consistency to
the facts. The change at the end of v. 27, however,
is hardly a happy one, Kal elirev being put imme
diately after 6 SpaKwv, thus suggesting the idea that
the latter drew attention to the fact that he was
destroyed. The LXX. avoided this.
It is remarkable that Theodoret, in his Com
mentary on Daniel, comments on vv. 1 and 2 of Bel

The History of Bel and the Dragon 201
and the Dragon (0) only, treating them as the closing
verse (14) of chap, xii., and introducing them with
the words, ovtco rrXi}pa)o-a'i rrjv diroKaXvtyiv eTr-qyaryev
6 rrpo(p^Tiji;' Kal 6 Bao-LXevs ' Aarvdyiyi, k.t.X. This
curious fact, combined with that of their omission
from the O', points to some arrangement of the text
with which we are not acquainted. Theodoret also
refers to these same verses previously, in commenting
on chaps, v. 3 and x. 1. Though he says nothing of
the rest of Bel and the Dragon, he shews, by his
referring in Ep. cxlv. (latter part) to Habakkuk's
miraculous flight through the air, that he was well
acquainted with the story, and approved of it.
The principal MSS. available are A, B, Q, T
(vv. 2 — 4 only), and A from v. 21 to 41, which has
recently reinforced our somewhat scanty uncial
authorities. The text of A appears to have slightly better
Greek (vv. 9, 10, 19, 21, 27) ; but the form fiaxalpy'i
(occurs in Heb. xi. 34 in A), if not a slip* seems
Ionic (Wordsworth's Greek Gram. § 16, Obs.), as has
been already mentioned (' Authorship,' p. 193), and
might perhaps be accounted for by 0's connection
* There is clearly a Blip in v. 35 of Aort^\ for 'AufSaKoi/i, and
probably in v. 11 of Saicri\cf for SanrvAly, indicating some mistakes
on the scribe's part, or errors in his copy.

202 The Three Additions to Daniel
with Ephesus. The substitution of -irp6<; for tw,
however, in v. 34 seems no improvement, A in this,
as in several other instances (vv. 10, 28, 35), agree
ing with the O' reading. Taking, for convenience,
B as the norm, we find that A's departures from it
are somewhat larger than in the Song of the Three.
In v. 7 oiSe we-ircoKev Tr&itoTe is added, as also in Q, to
the description of Bel's inability to consume food.
In v. 11 SaKTvXtp is curiously substituted by A for
8aKTvXla>; in v. 13 Kare(j>06vovv for Karefypbvovv.
Both these are suggestive of carelessness or of error
ex ore didantis (Scrivener^.T. Criticism, ed. 2,p. 10).
In v. 36 the substitution of %«/>6? for Kopv<pr)<; is
peculiar. The alteration of gender in v. 17, a&ai
for <r&oi in its first occurrence, but not in its second,
may come under the head of those " somewhat offi
cious corrections" with which the editors of I. Mace.
in the Camb. Bible for Schools (p. 48) charge this
MS., as likewise perhaps the reading iraiSituv for
reKvav in v. 10.
Q not unfrequently agrees with it in differing
from B. It stands alone, however, in reading vabv
for lepov in v. 22, and in omitting the last six words
of v. 41, perhaps as improbable when coming from
Cyrus. Together with A, it contains an additional

The History of Bel and the Dragon 203
clause in v. 24, putting words into Cyrus' mouth
which connect the two stories together. T, having
vv. 2 — 4 only, contains no important variation. A
(only from v. 21 to v. 41) contains in v. 22 the curious
word eySop,a instead of HkSotov.
All things considered, the text of both versions
may be said to be in as fair condition as in the
canonical part of Daniel.
LANGUAGE AND STYLE.
LANGUAGE.
[See corresponding title in Susanna.]
The indications of a Semitic original give this
fragment, in that respect, a middle place between
the other two. Less numerous than in the Song of
the Three, they are more so than in the History of
Susanna, though this is a shorter piece than that.
The non-discovery by Origen and others of
Hebrew originals in their own day by no means
goes so far as to prove that such never existed, as
Rothstein in Kautzsch (1. 179) truly says.
Since Gaster's discovery of an Aramaic text
of the Dragon (not of Bel), the probability of a
Semitic rather than a Greek original seems strength
ened. But see what Schiirer thinks, under the cor-

204 The Three Additions to Daniel
responding title in the Song of the Three, as also of
the Syriac version at the end of Neubauer's Tobit.
C. H. Toy, too, in his article in the Jewish Encyclo-
pced/ia, Vol. II. , says : " In the present state of
knowledge it seems better to reserve opinion as to
its antiquity." Delitzsch, at the end of his Commentatio de Hab.
proph. vita atque odate (Lips. 1842), prints in Rab
binic characters a Persian rendering, "ex codice
Paris-Reg. judaico-persico," which he says " ex textu
hebraico vel aramaico factam esse, ex crebris hebrais-
mis patet" (p. 105). And on pp. 26, 27 he prints
the LXX from v. 28 to the end, and adds: "Haec
omnia ad verbum Hebraico vel Aramaico translata
esse dictionis simplicitas, structura ac tota indoles
clamat atque testatur." But on p. 41 he quotes the
opinion of Prof. Solomon Munk, of Paris (Notice sur
Rab. Saadia Gaon, p. 84), that this Hebrew text,
translated into Persian, was itself made by some
European Rabbi from the Greek or Latin Bible.
And a similar origin for Gaster's text is now thought
far from unlikely,
It may be well here to give a few brief notes on
the separate phrases as they occur :
v. 3 0. With iSairav&vTO ek, cf. 'l nV?M of

The History of Bel and the Dragon 205
Deut. xxxii. 23 (" I will spend my arrows upon," etc.).
Aairavdm occurs with iv and iiri in N. T. Greek, but
apparently not with et?, nor yet in the canonical
O.T. Deissmann, however, attempts to shew that
this use of et?, instead of ' dativus commodi,' is an
Alexandrian idiom (Bible Studies, Eng. tr., Edinb.
1900, p. 127). N7D is also used in Aramaic in the
same sense in Pahel.
v. 6 O'. The same phrase as the last recurs, in
verted : ets airov Sairavarai.
v. 7 O'. Here the accusative after bp,vvw might
be taken as favouring a Greek original, since eV for
3, would seem natural in a translation of Hebrew or
Aramaic. v. 7 0; v. 11 O', 0; v. 27 O'. The occurrence
of Bao'l'^ev m these verses suggests a rendering of
N37E> which is used several times in the Aramaic
portion of Daniel, while it never occurs in the voca
tive in the Hebrew portion. This indication, small
though it be, inclines of course towards an Aramaic
rather than a Hebrew original.
v. 10 O', 0. Scholz's suggestion that xmpk and
e'«To? are translations of "Q7 is more probable than
some of his ideas, for it is rendered by both these
words more than once in the Greek 0. T.

206 The Three Additions to Daniel
v. 12 0. 6 ifrevSo/ievos Kaff rjpjov might be a
translation of hv_ IpttJ or b% 1*1?. 75? is occa
sionally rendered by Kara, as in Job xxxiii. 10, in a
hostile sense. Liddell and Scott, however, give one
example of yfrevSa with Kara, and Arnold an anony
mous one in his Greek Grammar (1848, p. 265).
v. 13 0. AibXov looks like a translation of
TDfi (or N"^Tfi)> as in I. Kings x. 8, where it is so
• t x • : "
rendered. v. 14 0'. ajtpayiadwevo's presents a difficulty
here, which may be solved by supposing that DJlrl
had been read by mistake for Or©> a kind of error
characteristic of the LXX translators. To 'shut'
seems more in place here than to ' seal,' which
naturally follows later in the verse; shutting first,
sealing second, seems the only intelligible order.
vv. 14, 28 0 ; vv. 15, 33 O'. The kol\ iyivero of
these verses is suggestive of ''ITI in the original.
v. 18 0. (AoXos) oiSi eh has an * ungreek ' look,
and may have been a rendering of "fUN 1}k as in
Exod. xiv. 28. NTH (mm) for Ntn^rmr)" might
account for the king's * rejoicing ' in O' becoming his
' seeing ' in 0.
v. 19 0', 0. The reading of eSacpo? by 0 instead
of SoXos by O' may be accounted for by supposing

The History of Bel and the Dragon 207
NDpt^ to have been substituted for N"lp\y> as sug
gested in Hastings' Did.
v. 26 0', 0. The use of Kal instead of ha, to
begin a clause signifying purpose, is very Hebraic.
v. 27 O', 0. The ingenious idea of A. Scholz
that rd o~eBdo-p,ara v/i&v and oi ravra aeBea0e are
renderings of D3*Hn2i7 and DninDtl respectively,
Il in the first case being the article, and in the
second merely the interrogative particle, like other
conjectures on p. 202 of his Commentary, can
hardly stand. He appears to have forgotten that
the article must not be placed before a noun with
a pronominal suffix.*
v. 28 O', 0. eVt looks like a translation of 7J7
(cf. Sus. 29). In 0' it is used against Daniel, and in
0 against the king.
v. 33 O'. Delitzsch suggests (p. 27) QT1! TTn
TPI "^l^n for the beginning of this verse, with
much likelihood.
v. 36 0. The reading xeiP0(? ifl A for Kopv^
may have arisen from Vlplp being corrupted by
homceoteleuton into *Hp> for which A has read IT.
A. Scholz's notion of explaining this by Isai. xiv. 1
(where Se%id is used, not %etjo) is unsatisfactory.
* The same writer, on p. 224, spells nso with a final D.

208 The Three Additions to Daniel
v. 40 O', 0. The attempt to explain (Marshall
in Hastings' D. B. art. Bel and the Dragon) the ' in
medio ' of Vulg. v. 39 by a reading "\}£. for ySl is not
very likely, since they do not occur in correspond
ing clauses.
v. 42 0'. 'ElZtfyayev is used of the king here in a
good sense, in v. 22 in a bad one. This is possibly
a rendering of frOJJin in the latter case, of TT?}}Tl in
the former.
The Greek of the writer is hardly such as we
should expect, unless he was narrating a story which
had reached him from a Hebrew source. The fre
quency with which verbs occur very early in the
construction of sentences is a point in favour of a
Semitic original, which does appear to have been
dwelt upon, e.g. vv. 11, 20 (0'), and 14, 16, 22 (0).
It is a matter of considerable nicety to estimate
the value of these and similar indications. They are
not decisive. They tell with varying force upon
varying minds; but they distinctly tend, in the
writer's opinion, to increase the probability of the
Greek having been grounded upon a Hebrew or an
Aramaic form of the story, the likelihood of the
latter being slightly the stronger.
In view of the introduction of Habakkuk into
the story of the Dragon, Delitzsch's opinion as to the

The History of Bel and tlie Dragon 209
similarity of Daniel's Hebrew to the Hebrew of that
prophet (see Streane, Age of Mace. p. 262) becomes
of importance. A. Scholz, too, is of opinion (p. 146)
that the Habakkuk title makes for a Hebrew origi
nal, because the real prophecy of Habakkuk was
undoubtedly Hebrew, and this piece, whether genuine
or fictitious, would hardly have been appended in
another language.
The LXX version was certainly known to Theo
dotion, since he copies much of it, yet not quite
so largely as in the Song of the Three. But it is
evident that he had other documents or traditions
to use, of which he freely availed himself; possibly
some previous translation other than LXX, as has
been suggested under Susanna ('Date and Place,'
p. 114). There seems nothing in either Greek re
cension to imply that the two parts of Bel and the
Dragon (separated in Luther's version) are not by
the same hand.
It is noteworthy that the word ^kSotov, applied
to Bel when handed over to Daniel (v. 22, 0), is used
of our Lord in Acts ii. 23, these two being its only
Biblical occurrences. STYLE.
The style is that of simple, clear, and well-told
narrative, with very little rhetorical embellishment 14

210 The Three Additions to Daniel
about it, yet bearing somewhat of a dramatic cast,
like much of the canonical book to which it is
appended. It is not tedious (though there is much
to tell which might have been easily spun out), but
is brief and spirited. There is nothing superfluous
to the aim of the story.*
Moreover, the narrative is told in such a way
as ever to be a story of captivating interest to the
young, being full of movement and interesting inci
dent. The style of the composition is much more
in accordance with Syrian than with Alexandrian
models. There is nothing of Hellenistic speculation
or philosophy, though the subject of idolatry would
have lent itself to such treatment (as that of injustice
would in Susanna). No figurative or hyperbolic
phraseology is employed.
An idea has been revived and maintained that
the lions' den episode at the end is a mere adaptation
and embellishment of that in Dan. vi.f (Churton,
392 ; Streane, 109, " distortions of 0. T. narratives ";
J. M. Fuller, S.P.C.K. Comm. in loc). This idea is
* It is even given in L. C. Cope's English Composition (Lond.,
1900), as an example of the four essentials of composition, viz. inven
tion, selection, disposition, diction. He also speaks (p. 29) of the
"superb workmanship in framing the narrative."
t Bar Hebrseus (op. cit., p. 27), gives this as a reason why soma
would not receive Bel and the Dragon.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 2 1 1
successfully opposed by Arnald, who (on v. 31) gives
three reasons against it, and by Bishop Gray (Introd.
to 0. T. in loc). Delitzsch (p. 30) calls this section
of 0's version " partem dignissimam." Attempts to
prove the falsity of this martyrdom, if such it may
be called, by first assuming the identity of these two
events, treating the latter as an ornamental exaggera
tion of the former, and then pointing out what are
taken for irreconcileable discrepancies, are beside the
mark. Nor does the supposition that the one night
in the den (of Dan. vi.) was increased to six, nor that
the detail of withholding the lions' usual food to
sharpen their appetites (in 0 only), were added for
the purpose of heightening the effect, carry much
weight. The omission of Daniel's speech, with the
detail* of the angel closing the lions' mouths (vv. 21,
22), tells in the opposite direction. It is no more
necessary to reckon these two den episodes as one
event than our Lord's feeding of the four and five
thousand, or his healing of the centurion's servant
and the nobleman's son.
RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.
RELIGIOUS.
A religious feeling, strong though misdirected,
evidently existed both in king and people, involving
» Not in 0'.

212 The Three Additions to Daniel
considerable expenditure on objects and places of
worship. It was not as to the propriety of worship
in itself, but of the object towards which it ought to
be directed, that the controversy arose.
Two sorts of worship were in vogue : —
(a) Bel-worship. As to the practice of this in
Babylon no question appears to be raised; he was
the supreme god and guardian of Babylon. The
representation of Cyrus as a worshipper of Bel
agrees with the account of himself in the Annals of
Nabu-nahid, cited by Ball on v. 4; and Sayce
(Temple Bible, Tobit, p. 95) notes that the cunei
form monuments have shewn that Cyrus was politic
enough to conform to the religion of his Babylonian
subjects. The unabashed effrontery of the idol-priests (vv.
11, 12) is very characteristic. See, however, Blakes-
ley's note on Herodot. viii. 41.
(6) Dragon-worship. This is not otherwise known
to have existed in Babylonia, but snake-worship,
which may be the same, is asserted by J. T. Marshall
(end of art. Bel and the Dragon, Hastings' D. B.).
In support of this it is noteworthy that 6 Spdicmv is
identified with 6 o<b(,<s in Rev. xii. 9, and that ttJrD T X
and MPl seem identified in Ex. iv. 3 and vii. 9.
A. Kamphausen, in the Encycl. Bibl., thinks that

The History of Bel and the Dragon 213
" Giinkel has conclusively shewn that the primeval
Babylonian myth of the conquest of the chaos-
monster or the great dragon Tiamat by the god
Marduk lies at the root." So J. M. Fuller, in the
S.P.C.K. Coram., says that "in Babylonian inscrip
tions dealing with the fall, a dragon, generally
female, appears." Daniel plans his scheme in ac
cordance with the dragon's known voracity (Jer.
li. 34). The TrpoaeKvvrjaav tov SpaKovra of Rev.
xiii. 4 may have been suggested by the dragon-
worship here ; io-e@ovTo is used in v. 23, rrpoo-Kvvqaov
(with dat.) in v. 24 (both versions).
Daniel set himself, in reply to the king, who
suggested to him the propriety of Bel-worship, to
detach the Babylonians from these superstitious
follies, to interpret God's will in the matter, and to
free them from the service of idols. Yet his own
name, ' Belteshazzar,' may have implied* Bel's exist
ence ; still, even if it was so, we must remember
that it was not self-assumed, but given by the chief
eunuch. The king's question shews that he mis
understood Daniel's character. It is noticeable, as a
link of connection between the two parts of the story,
that Daniel attacks the former superstition, Bel, by
disproving the belief in the god's powers of eating;
• See note to 'For Whom and with What Object' p. 196.

214 The Three Additions to Daniel
and the latter, the Dragon, by destroying the supposed
divinity by means of what he ate.
As described in the Greek, Daniel's method of
destroying the Dragon appears quite inadequate to
effect his purpose. The ingredients named as com
posing the ball do not seem capable of achieving the
result which followed. But in Gaster's Aramaic a
different light is thrown upon the matter; for the
ball is merely used as a vehicle to conceal sharp teeth
embedded in it, so that the Dragon might swallow
them unawares, and sustain internally a fatal lacera
tion. If this be accepted as correct, Sir Thomas
Browne's discussion, as to how such unlikely ingre
dients might bring about a death of the kind de
scribed, is naturally set aside. S. Wilkin, however,
in his edition of Browne's Works, 1835 (Vol. II.
p. 337), does not treat Sir T. Browne's discussion as
a serious one ; but in this view all will not concur.
Schiirer, in Hauck's Did. (i. 639), writes of the
Dragon as having been slain "mit unverdaulichen
Kiichen"; and Toy, in the Jewish Encyclopaedia,
regards " the iron comb insertion as a natural embel
lishment." It is, however, not at all out of keeping
with Daniel's clever devices for the detection of error,
and looks like a practicable plan. And Josippon,
quoted by Heppner, op. cit. p. 33, gives a similar

The History of Bel and the Dragon 215
account of the Dragon's destruction, 7t"G!l "Olp
csnim. The consequence of the prophet's triumph in
each case appears to have been that the king was
convinced of the vanity of idols much more than his
people. And as Daniel's demonstrations were not,
so far as we see, made before the general public, this
is what might have been expected. A similar con
viction on Nebuchadnezzar's part, without any spon
taneous assent of his people, may be noticed in Dan.
iii. 28 — 30, vi. 25 — 28. A lack of popular adhesion
to the king's change of mind would sufficiently
account for the early restoration of Bel's temple (see
'Chronology,' p. 225).
In v. 21 the LXX states that it was Daniel who
shewed the king the privy doors. This, on the
whole, has more vraisemblance than the idea of
Theodotion, who states that it was the priests who
undertook the task. Ball suggests that they did so
because they were " in fear of their lives " ; but if so,
this plan of saving them, by making a clean breast
of the matter, was unsuccessful.
Another religious feature shews itself in v. 28,
viz. the scorn in which the Babylonian zealots held
the Jewish religion. It would evidently have been
regarded as a degradation for the king to become a

216 The Three Additions to Daniel
Jew, and social would probably here combine with
religious grounds in giving force to this feeling.
Compare Pilate's contempt of such an idea with
regard to himself, as expressed in St. John xviii, 35.
Grotius proposed a translation which inverted the
phrase in such a way as to make it apply to Daniel :
"A Jew has become king." This, however, is not
natural in the Greek, has no countenance lent to it
by the Aramaic text, and is clearly opposed by the
Syriac marginal title as given in Swete's manual
LXX, " tit. adpinx. ut vid. 7rept tov BaaiXeax; Xeyovai
<»? yeyovev IovSaLos, Syrms." Cajetanus Bugati also
(Daniel, Milan, 1788, p. 162) thinks Grotius wrong.*
For a similarly imagined instance of a king embracing
Judaism, cf. II. Mace. ix. 17, headed by A. V., " An
tiochus promiseth to become a Jew," on which
Rawlinson notes, "it is extremely improbable that
Epiphanes ever expressed any such intention," an
opinion in which most will agree.
The withholding of food, in order to sharpen
the lions' appetites (v. 32), shews a spirit similar to
that which directed the sevenfold heating of the
furnace in chap. iii. The numbers in vv. 2, 10, etc.,
are quite in keeping with Daniel's use of symbolic
* Compare the Aramaic of the passage, given under ' Chrono
logy,' p. 229.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 2 1 7
numeration for purposes of religious teaching; and
the zeal displayed against idolatry is characteristic
of the Jewish captivity, as depicted in the canonical
book which bears his name. These three points,
therefore, so far as they go, tell in favour of the
religious unity of the whole.
SOCIAL.
Daniel appears on the same terms of intimacy
with royalty as in the canonical book, and speaks his
mind a little more freely and intimately perhaps, as
becomes his added years and experience. He still
acts as a divine messenger to a heathen king, and
he successfully unmasks his fallacy of judging by ap
pearances in the matter of Bel's food. His laughter
in vv. 7, 19, may have been amusement at the king's
simplicity or at the priests' cunning, the king's wrath
in vv. 8, 21, being compatible with either. But this
laughter of v. 7 only appears in 0's version. As in
Susanna, he stands as the willing exposer of fraud,
intellectually acute as well as morally upright.
v. 29 0 has been objected to by Ball and by
Zbckler as an unlikely mode of address by the con
quered Babylonians to Cyrus their conqueror. Prob
ably some tumultous rising took place, which the
king, a true oriental monarch, pacified at the expense

218 The Three Additions to Daniel
of Daniel. On such outbreaks courtly politeness
often vanishes, and the tyrant is subject to tyranny.
Such an occurrence agrees with Habakkuk's descrip
tion of the Chaldees as " bitter and hasty" (i. 6), and
'senseless' and 'absurd' are scarcely the terms to
apply to it.
The slaughter of the priests (vv. 22, 28) is
quite in accordance with the practice as shewn in
the canonical chapters ii. and vi* ; also the destruc
tion of false accusers (v. 42) with vi. 25 ; so also the
keeping of lions by the king ; and so, too, the method
of double sealing (v. 11 0', 14 0; vi. 17). That
iraiSdpia should be under the command of Daniel
(v. 14 0 and Syr.) is what would be likely for one in
his position. The term is used of himself in Sus.
45 0 as a page of superior rank. The idea of an
image being made of more materials than one (v. 7)
is paralleled in ii. 32, 33.
Cyrus' cowardice in giving up Daniel to the
threatening mob is very like Pilate's in delivering
up Christ (St. Matt, xxvii. 26, St. John xix. 16).
HapaSLSmfii is used in each case (v. 29 0, 30 0 and
O'). Similar, too, is Nebuchadnezzar's conduct with
Daniel, and that of Herod Antipas with St. John
» On the propriety of such a sentence, accordant with Babylonian
ideas of justice, see Mozley, Ruling 0. T. Ideas, 1878, pp. 88, 95, 99.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 219
Baptist. Despotic rulers are often frightened by
popular clamour. But Cyrus, however weak in
yielding, appears at the close of the story in a less
odious light than Pilate.
As in Susanna, there is no indication of rab-
binism in the legal, religious, or social standpoints of
the story.
THEOLOGY.
The whole piece makes a mock at idolatry*
with a view of turning men from false worships to
that of the living God. Indeed the end of v. 5 seems
an echo of Gen. i. 1. Jehovah's power to vindicate
Himself and His servants is of course also exhibited,
and this in contrast to the idols, who make no resist
ance to their overthrow.
He is represented as Sole Sovereign, the only
God worthy of worship, with full power to deliver by
wonderful providence His faithful people, who make
their acknowledgments to Him. However far they
may be scattered, His eye is still upon them; He
forsakes not those who seek and love Him (v. 38).
vv. 3, 4, 14 are quoted by Irenseus (iv. ix. 1)
• "More withering sarcasm could scarcely be poured on hea
thenism than in the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon"
(Edersheim, Life and Times of Messiah, 1886, 1. 31). Daniel's laugh
in v. 7 accords with Jeremiah's view of idols (x. 16). Other coinci
dences with Jeremiah may be noted in 1. 2, li. 44 of that prophet.

220 The Three Additions to Daniel
to prove that the one living God was the God wor
shipped by the prophets, as " the God of the living."
Even the heathen king is forced to confess that He
is great and unique, and (in Vulg. only,.i>. 42) calls
Him Saviour, and desires the whole world to worship
Him. It is noteworthy that the king is represented
as the party complaining in the first instance ; it is
his question (v. 4) which draws forth from Daniel
his practical proof of the vanity of idols, inanimate
or animate, culminating in the triumphant exclama
tion at the end of v. 27. And thus the imposture of
idol-worship is revealed, as well as the value of devo
tion to the true Lord of all, by a process commenced
in the opposite interest.
Daniel resists the king's invitation to worship
Bel, which might have led him under the ban of
Deut. xviii. 20 (end) as " speaking in the name of
other gods." False theological opinions are corrected
by Daniel, who not only dissuades from idol-worship,
but persuades to that of the true deity. Hence the
beautiful appropriateness of roixs dyair&vTd<s ere (v. 38)
instead of tou? iXiri£ovra$ eV airov in the corre
sponding point of delivery in Sus. 60 0. For Daniel
was fighting for God, while Susanna was defending
herself. The one was an active plaintiff for God,

The History of Bel and the Dragon 221
the other a passive defendant of herself. Thus
Love in Daniel's case, Hope in Susanna's, has its
own special appropriateness.
In v. 5 Daniel claims God to be tov tj&vra
0e6v} but Cyrus claims for Bel to be only %&v 0e6<s ;
in v. 24 Cyrus makes the same claim for the Dragon,
and then in v. 25 Daniel makes only a like claim for
God (anarthrous), for Daniel takes here the words
out of Cyrus' mouth ; in the former instance it was
vice versa. The same phrases are used by Darius in
vi. 20, 26 0. Thus the prophet makes a more ex
clusive claim for the divinity of his God. In v. 6 a
contrast is afforded with what is said of God in
Ps. xvi. 2 (P. B. aft. Vulg. and LXX), as the Creator
who still retains power over living beings.
As in the canonical Dan. vi. 22 (and in the
other additions thereto), so here an angel intervenes
on behalf of the right, rescuing God's persecuted
prophet. A man is employed in each case also to
carry out the miraculous purposes of God. Further,
compare the angel helping Daniel, after conflict with
the Dragon, with Rev. xii. 7, 8.
The sudden transportation of Habakkuk (v. 36)
is parallelled by that of St. Philip in Acts viii. 39 by
the "Spirit of the Lord." Ezek. viii. 3, which is
printed as a parallel in the margin of A. V. at

222 The Three Additions to Daniel
iii. 12, 14 of that book, may also be compared,* as
well as I. Kings xviii. 12 and St. Matt. iv. 1. For
the latter part of this verse (36), barely intelligible
in the Greek, Gaster's Aramaic gives an excellent
sense. There does not seem to be any undue love of
the marvellous or straining to bring it into promin
ence. Both the statue and the Dragon are destroyed
by ordinary means; and their false position in the
imagination of the people is unmasked without any
resort to the miraculous.t This element does not
enter into the story till the rescue of the persecuted
Daniel, who has been so zealous for fhe honour of
his God.
Though, with its two companion pieces, it has
been cavilled at (not to reckon Africanus' enquiries)
from the time of the Jewish teacher whom Jerome
tells us of in his preface to Daniel, yet even the
most contemptuous deprecators of the 'Additions'
can find little seriously to condemn in the theology
* Ezekiel is transported in the opposite direction, and both
prophets went unwillingly (Trapp). Both, too, were concerned in
suppression of idolatry.
f The destruction of the Dragon, by means which in A. V. and
the Greek appear inadequate, does not come under this head, since
the Aramaic explains it by iron teeth concealed in the ball (v. 27),
an intelligible and practical device.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 223
of this story.* Considering the strong desire which
has existed in some quarters to charge these apoc
ryphal books with grievous doctrinal error, this fact
says much. The knowledge of God and of divine
things is what would be probable at the time it
represents, and is not incongruous with the book to
which it is appended, nor with its fellow-appendices.
This speaks well for its excellence and its con
sistency.
CHRONOLOGY.
The principal chronological points, concerning
which difficulties have been felt, arise : (A) in vv. 1, 2,
concerning Astyages, Cyrus, and Daniel ; (B) in v. 22,
as to the destruction of Bel's temple; and (C) in
v. 33, as to Habakkuk being a contemporary of
Daniel. In connection with A, it is remarkable that
v. 1 forms in the Vulgate the last verse of the pre
ceding chapter, i.e. the last verse of Susanna. This
arrangement may have been made from chrono
logical reasons, possibly to escape an apparent diffi
culty; and in the LXX the verse is wanting alto
gether. Either plan, the attachment of the verse to
* Of general condemnations, Alb. Barnes' may be taken as a
sample: "This foolish story ... is wholly unworthy a place in
any volume claiming Divine origin, or any volume of respectable
authorship whatever" (Comment, on Dan. Vol. I. pp. 79, 81).

224 The Three Additions to Daniel
Susanna, or its entire omission, has the effect of
leaving the king in this piece nameless, and so solves
the imagined difficulty of Cyrus and Daniel acting
together as represented.
The text commented on by Theodoret offers the
same solution in another form, viz. by transferring
v. 1 to the end of chap, xii., and so concluding the
book. He thus introduces it : Ovtco irX'qpeoo-a^ rr/v
diroKaXv^-iv iirrfyayev 6 •jrpo^T'q'! Kal 6 jSao-tXeu?
'Ao-Tvdrfr/s, k.t.X. Theodoret comments no further
on Bel and the Dragon, though his remarks in other
parts of the commentary shew that he favourably
regarded it. See his observations on v. 31, x. 1.
The disappearance in one case, and the displace
ments in the others of this verse, evidently point to
some uncertainty in early times as to its right con
nection. But the difficulties raised as to this verse
even where it stands are not so serious as was once
thought. As Ball says in loc, "The cuneiform
records have thrown unexpected light on difficulties
which were the despair of bygone generations of
scholars," and quotes one which makes Astyages the
captive of Cyrus. J. H. Blunt attempts to shew,
not very satisfactorily, that the king of v. 2 was
Darius. A note in Husenbeth's Douay version, still
less so, quietly says " Astyages, or Darius " !

The History of Bel and the Dragon 225
It has also been suggested, with regard to this
and difficulty C, that another Daniel is here in
tended, to be identified with the Daniel of Ezra
viii. 2 (Bissell).
The second difficulty, B, is raised by the as
serted destruction of Bel's temple in v. 2,2. Now
this is said not to have been destroyed till Xerxes'
return from Greece in 479. Even then Herodotus
(1. 183) merely says that he ' took ' (eXaBe) a golden
statue, and slew the protesting priest; Strabo, on
hearsay, (xvi. 1) and Arrian (Exp. Alex. VII. 17),
however, assert its destruction. But this forms a
small obstacle, unduly magnified. Supposing Bel's
temple to have been destroyed, as v. 22 narrates, it
is far from improbable that another temple may
have been raised before Xerxes' arrival. The people
were evidently attached to Bel's worship, as v. 28
shews, notwithstanding the conviction of their|king
as to the truth of Daniel's God. It is noticeable
that the LXX has no mention of the temple's, but
only of the idol's, destruction ; and that 0, according
to the manuscript Q, has not lepov but vaov in v. 22.
A. Scholz entertains the strange opinion j^that
this and other historic difficulties were purposely
introduced by the writer: "Der Verfasser unserer
Erzahlung kennt sichtlich die Verhaltnisse in Baby-
15

226 The Three Additions to Daniel
Ion, und hat seine Darstellung so eingerichtet, dass
es einfach unmoglich ist, sie geschichtlich zu ver-
stehen " (p. 219). But this is a desperate expedient
to support his view of the whole story being intended
for a 'vision,' and it would be hard to find any
parallel to such a proceeding on the part of the
sacred writers.*
So far as Babylon is concerned, there is no indi
cation of anything but a time of peace, which is
quite in accordance with the supposed period of the
narrative. There is perhaps more difficulty, C, in making
Habakkuk than in making Cyrus, a contemporary
of the grown-up Daniel. Indeed, with the earlier
date formerly assigned to Habakkuk, the difficulty
seemed all but insuperable, except by postulating
two Habakkuks or two Daniels. And, much as it
may lack vraisemblance, either of those suppositions
is of course within the bounds of possibility. So
Trapp notes, rather sneeringly, on Hab. i. 1 : " Those
apocryphal Additions to Daniel, which either are
false, or there were two Habakkuks"; and J. H.
Blunt, more seriously, to a similar effect on Hab. i. 1
* The phrase applied to the Additions in the Introd. to Daniel
in the Speaker's Comm. (p. 216a), ]WB '-ot" if we take toi'O to mean
' poet,' would fall in with this view. . J. M. Fuller does not make
quite clear his source for this phrase.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 227
and Bel 33. Josippon ben Gorion (1. 7) joins the
whole story with the canonical history, but, as given
by Delitzsch (op. cit. p. 40), transposes, presumably
from chronological motives, the den incident to the
beginning of the story, "in ordine chronologico
iudaicse traditioni de Habacuci setate se accommo-
dantem." Josippon, around whom considerable ob
scurity hangs, is dated as of the eighth or ninth
century in the Biog. Univ. art. Gorionides, Paris,
1857 ; but in Hastings' D. B. art. Bel and the Dragon,
p. 2676, c. a.d. 940 is given as his time.
Habakkuk's prophecy is now dated as late as
600 (Driver in Hastings' D.B. art. Habakkuk; Kirk-
patrick in Smith's D. B2. art. Habakkuk, 12566, says
"not later than the sixth year of Jehoiakim") ; and
if Habakkuk prophesied in his youth, our story is not
an impossible one. So Cornelius Jansen (Analecta,
p. 154), " Quapropter nihil obstabit quo minus idem
Habacuc iam senex prandium in Babylonem detu-
lerit," and he quotes a tradition of Isidore Hispa-
lensis (de vit. Proph.) that Habakkuk lived to see
the return from the Captivity, and two years after.
Rosenmiiller, quoted in a note on Hab. i. 1 by
Maurer (neither of whom were too partial to tra
ditional views), thinks that the time of Habakkuk
is consistent with the "vetus fama in apocryphis

228 The Three Additions to Daniel
Danielis additamentis." He even places chap. iii. of
Habakkuk under Zedekiah, though with this Maurer
does not agree (cf. Henderson, Min. Proph., Introd.
to Hab). Jamieson, Brown, and Faussett in their Com
mentary, Introd. to Hab. (1869), by no means in
clined to favour the Apocrypha, say that Bel and
the Dragon agrees with the notion of Habakkuk
prophesying in Jehoiakim's reign.
G. A. Smith, however, in his Book of the Twelve
Prophets, 1900, n. 130, contents himself with calling
it "an extraordinary story of Habakkuk's miraculous
carriage of food to Daniel in the lions' den, soon after
Cyrus had taken Babylon." But A. C. Jennings, in
Bishop Ellicott's Comm. for English Readers, Introd.
to Hab., pp. 523 — 5, says: "The story, worthless in
itself, nevertheless indirectly confirms the theory of
date which we have accepted below " in these words,
"Habakkuk's prophecy dates from the reign of
Jehoiakim, not more than five years at most before
the battle of Carchemish — how much nearer that
great event it is impossible to say." Dean Farrar
also curiously observes, " Habakkuk's appearance in
apocryphal legend (vv. 33 — 39) shews the impression
he had made on the mind of his people, and perhaps
indicates his date as a contemporary of Daniel."

The History of Bel and the Dragon 229
(Minor Prophets in ' Men of the Bible ' series, n.d.,
p. 160). Another instance of belief in the contemporaneity
of Daniel and Habakkuk is afforded by Raymund
Martini (c. 1250) in his Pugio fidei (Paris, 1651,
p. 740): "Habacuc vero Prophetam fuisse contempo-
raneum Danieli inde colligitur ubi in Bereschit
Rabba hoc modo scribitur de Joseph," he says before
quoting a long passage from the B. R. on Gen.
xxxvii. 24. This passage is none other than a
portion of Bel and the Dragon in Chaldee, and is
headed without reserve as 7fcW72. It proceeds
with v. 28 to the end : N^tt by ^711 "ItMDrWl
rrh Nin rwnrr irb in paw yk$ "lasnnNi
help ttwrta *nn h^b «a7D. Then follows a
Latin translation, after which Martini adds " Hucus-
que traditio," and, after quoting Hab. i. 6, finishes
his work.
Martini's good faith in quotation is defended by
Neubauer in his Chaldee Tobit (Oxf, 1888, xviii. to
xxiv.). He also identifies the Breshith Rabbah quoted
with the Midrash Rabbah de Rabbah. The real
Breshith is probably as early as the 4th century;
but neither in the Venice edition of 1566, nor the
Leipzig one of 1864, is the passage to be found under
Gen. xxxvii. Cf. Payne-Smith's note, as to Martini's

230 The Three Additions to Daniel
quotations, in Pearson on the Creed, Oxf. 1870, p. 306,
where it is shewn that by Breshith Rabbah the
book by Moses Haddarshan (of the 11th century) is
sometimes meant. Etheridge states that only frag
ments of this book are extant (p. 406). Delitzsch
(de Habacuci Proph. vita atque cetate, Lips. 1842,
p. 34) also defends Martini's sincerity, and says "Non
dubito fore, ut fragmentum a Raymundo nobiscum
communicatum aliquando in antiquis Genesis Rabba
Codd., qui sane rarissimi sunt, inveniatur."
The fact incidentally brought out in the story
that Habakkuk was not engaged in reaping, but
was occupied in taking out food for the reapers, fits
in well with the idea of his advanced age. Such a
task might well be undertaken by one who was no
longer strong enough for field labour.*
All these difficulties would, on other grounds, be
deprived of much of their importance by the theory
of A. Scholz, if that could be accepted as true. He
regards the entire book of Daniel, including of course
the Additions, as a series of apocalyptic visions
(p. 201). This he considers as the earliest explanation,
* Sozomen; H. E. vii. 29, says that Habakkuk's tomb was found
at Keilah, KeKa, f) irplv Kei\a . . . Kuff t)V S 'Afiaicobp (sic) tbpedr)
Now Keilah is mentioned in 1 Sam. xxiii. 1 as having threshing-
floors worth robbing, and so presumably lay in a corn-growing
district.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 231
supported by the heading opacris to each chapter of
Daniel in A and some other MSS. But while remov
ing one set of difficulties, this theory introduces others
of a character at least as serious ; and it is by no
means easy to convince oneself that there is an
" apocalyptic" tone about this or the other Additions.
This remarkable theory cuts, rather than unties, such
knots as are above noted, and carries with it to most
minds a strange and improbable air.
CANONICITY.
What is said as to Susanna on this point holds
almost entirely good here. Both pieces have been
called in question on nearly the same ground, and
have stood or fallen together. Possibly this one
presents rather more difficulty in some of its details.
It is often included in Scripture lists under
the title Daniel ;* and is often quoted in the same
manner, e.g. by St. Cyprian, ad Fortunatum, § 11,
" Daniel, Deo devotus & sancto spiritu plenus ex-
clamat et dicit," v. 4. The quotations given under
' Early Christian Literature and Art ' will shew how
• Delitzsch thought it likely, though not certain, that the 0i$\ia
mentioned by Josephus (Ant. x. 11. 7) as left by Daniel refer to the
Additions as portions of the canonical book (De Hab. vita, etc., LipB.
1842, p. 25).

232 The Three Additions to Daniel
strong a hold this story had in many quarters, and
what use was made of it.
Pseudo-Athanasius, in his Synops. S. S., men
tions the story at the end of § 41 as included in
Daniel, but he does not name it at the close of the
Synopsis as being outside the canonical books, as he
does in the case of Susanna. The writer of De Mira-
bilibus Script. Sacr., often attached to St. Augustine's
works (Migne, Patr. lat. xxxv. ; Benedict, ed. appx.
to Vol. III.), expressly declares against its canonicity.
This treatise is thought to have been composed in
England or Ireland in the 7th or 8th century (Loisy,
0. T. p. 154).
The hesitation of the earlier Church, however,
found no counterpart in the canonizing decree of the
Council of Trent ; while, on the other hand, Pro
testant opinion has run almost entirely against
canonicity. Diametrically opposite views are steadily
maintained by authorities on both sides; although
among English-speaking Protestants there is perhaps
a decrease in the contempt with which this story was
once treated.
Among the Syriac-using Christians of the
Malabar coast, Bel and the Dragon, with the other
additions, is reckoned as "part and parcel of the
book of Daniel " (Letter to present writer of Aug. 8,

The History of Bel and the Dragon 233
1902, from Rev. F, V. J. Givargese, Principal of Mar
Dionysius Seminary, Kottayam). Bar-Hebrseus, too,
comments on it, but says at the head of his remarks
that " some do not receive this story " (op. cit. p. 27).
The many resemblances and coincidences be
tween this and the canonical book pointed out under
other heads (' Language and Style,' ' Religious and
Social State,' etc.) of course tell, so far as they go, in
its favour. Schrader (Schenkel's Bibel Lex. 1869, art.
Habak. p. 556) classes Bel and the Dragon with
pseudo-Epiphanius' and Rabbinic legends of the
same tale, as " reine Fabeln und Legenden zu erken-
nen." This seems too positive an opinion of their
untrustworthiness. It is agreed with, however, by
Orelli (Introd. to Hab., Clarke's Transl.), who styles
Bel and the Dragon, or at least the Habakkuk inci
dent in it, "an idle story." A. B. Davidson also
(Encyclop. Brit. ed. 9, II. 181) writes of it as being
"completely fabulous;" and Ewald speaks of the
episode of Habakkuk as an example of an unhistoric
spirit, growing rapidly and dangerously (v. 487).
Cloquet's plea that non-canonicity is 'proved'
(XXXIX Arts. 1885, pp. 112, 113) by six days being
named here, and one day in the canonical book, as
the length of Daniel's incarceration in the den, is

234 The Three Additions to Daniel
beside the mark. It assumes for controversial pur
poses that the two passages must refer to the same
event. This writer also speaks generally (p. 115) of
Bel and the Dragon's " direct contradictions of Scrip
ture." Such strictures are only worth noticing as
specimens of many instances in which possible dis
crepancies between canonical and uncanonical books
are treated by a particular class of writers as certain,
in the hope of depreciating the latter. These are
sometimes attacked with extreme violence as full of
fables, superstitions, and impieties — apocryphal in
the worst sense. But they deserve to be saved from
this unmerited contempt, indulged in usually for
polemical purposes, and only rendered possible by an
insufficient study of the works themselves and the
many admirable points which they contain.
Our own Church indulges in no rash or sweep
ing assertions, but follows the golden mean. She
states in Art. VI. her present practical view of this
and the other Additions in common with the rest of
the Apocrypha. While not making any special doc
trine to turn upon an apocryphal text, she directs
the perusal of this, with the other books of its class,
for purposes of practical edification. In singularly
guarded and cautious terms she is careful not to
commit herself to anything more than a statement

The History of Bel and the Dragon 235
of her authorized practice. Thus she has not closed
the door, as the Council of Trent is supposed to
have done,* against the entry of fresh knowledge,
with its corresponding changes of view or modifica
tions of usage.
EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND ART
LITERATURE.
The following examples from primitive Christian
writings bear more or less directly upon this book.
New Testament. Compare B.V.M.'s words in
St. Luke i. 38 with Daniel's at the end of v. 9, 0.
With John xviii. 35 compare Bel 38, O' and 0,
as to a Gentile being taken for a Jew. Moreover
the phrase rd aeBdayLara v/i&v in Acts xvii. 23 is
very like a reminiscence of Bel 27, 0, end. But
A. Scholz's idea that our Lord's words in John x. 9
are based on vv. 3, 6, 13 has little likelihood :
" gegensatzlich so nahe verwandt, dass in den Evan-
* Cf. Revue biblique Internationale (Dominican) Paris, Jan. 1901,
p. 149, "L' eglise romaine s'est prononcee des ce moment, et si elle
n'a pas dis lore impose sa solution comme definitive et irreformable,
elle ne s'en est du moins jamais ecartee et c'est cette solution qui
explique Punammite pratique de I'Eglise latine, ou les doutes
n'etaient plus que le reflet erudit d'anciennes controverses." See
also Sanday on Inspiration, Note B. to Lect. V. " The Use of the
term Deutero-canonical in the Boman Church."

236 The Three Additions to Daniel
gelium darauf Bezug genommen sein konnte " (note
on v. 13).
IRENAEUS (f200) in iv. ix. 1 quotes vv. 4, 5, 24,
as coming from Daniel, apparently without the
smallest misgiving. His quotations accord with 0
as against O', v. 4 being the same in both. As
Schiirer says in Hauck's Encyclopaedia (1. 640) :
"Irenaus benuzt die Uebersetzung des Theodotion
und so alle Folgenden." But see under Cyprian.
Clement of Alexandbia (f220) refers, Strom.
I. 21 (middle, ed. Potter, Oxf. 1715), among a chain of
historic events, to the closing scene in this piece : rore
Sid SpaKovra AavirfX ets XaKKov Xeovrtov BX7]0el<;, vreb
'AfjuBaKovfi* rrpovoia 0eov rpafefc, l/SSo/ttato? dva-
a&^erai. Tertullian (f240). In de Jejun. vn. (end) refer
ence is made to vv. 35—39; and in ix. the story is again
mentioned. In de Oratione, 29, he quotes vv. 33, 34,
seemingly with full acceptance. In de Idol. XIX. he
says that " Daniel nee Belum nee draconem colere."
Origen (^254). Besides the question dealt with
in his controversy with Julius Africanus, Origen in
the Fragment of his Strom, bk. x. expounds Bel.
He also quotes it in his Exhort, ad martyrium, § 33.
* So spelt in Migne in this instance, though elsewhere with
final 11.. A misprint may be suspected.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 237
Cyprian Cf258) in ad Fortunatum, 11, quotes
v. 5, apparently following a translation of the O',
and not of 0's, text. The same verse is again quoted
by him in Ep. Iviii. 5 in exactly the same words. It
is curious that both passages are preceded, in the
same sections, by a quotation of Dan. iii. 16 — 18,
apparently based on 0's version. In the case of v. 5
in Ep, Iviii. there is a slight variation in the readings
of some MSS. as given by Hartel. Cf. Prof. Swete's
Introd. 1902, p. 47.
Pseudo-Cyprian (3rd century ?) gives parts of
vv. 37, 38, in Oratio n. 2, following O' a little more
closely than 0.
Passing of Mary (3rd or 4th century, see
D. C. B., Mary, 11426). In the First Latin form
vv. 33 — 39 are clearly referred to.
Athanasius (f373) in his Discourse against
Arians, II. 8, quotes v. 5 as words of Daniel, which
he also refers to in in. 30.
Ephrem Syrus (f378). In the hymn de Jejunio
there is, according to T. J. Lamy (Mechlin, 1886),
a reference to Bel and the Dragon, " cum Daniel
jejunavit." Gregory Nazianzen (f390) in his poetical Prae
cepta ad Vvrgines has the line, speaking of Daniel,
depir]v S' ivl xePaip eSefaro Saira Trpo<pi]TOV.

238 The Three Additions to Daniel
Ambrose (f397), in his Commentary in Ep. ad
Rom. 1. 23, writes, "Coluerunt et serpentem draconem
quem occidit Daniel, homo dei" (Basel, 1527, IV.
p. 768). Chrysostom (f*07), In Danielem, cap. xiii.
(xiv.) comments on Bel and the Dragon as part of
the book, seemingly without reserve or alteration of
tone. Prudentius (|410), in his Cathemerinon, iv.,
has several verses on the den episode, of which this
is one :
"Cernit forte procul dapes ineuntas
Quas messoribus Habakkuk propheta
Agresti bonus exhibebat arte."
Jerome (f420), though excluding this and the
other Additions from the canon, according to what
he writes in his preface to Daniel, " veru anteposito
easque jugulante subjecimus,'' retains it in his Bible.
In his Onomadicon de Nominibus Hebraicis he
includes under Daniel, Astyages, Bel, Ambacum,
without distinction from the rest of the names in
Daniel. But for this last work he was chiefly in
debted to Eusebius, LTepl t&v tottik&v ovofidrav.
(D.C.B. 11. 336a).
Hesychius of Jerusalem (t438), in his Snxvpov
on the XII prophets, says of Habakkuk that, whether

The History of Bel and the Dragon 239
he was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried to
Babylon, ehrelv to aatpes ovk e^w.
Theodoret (f457), towards the close of Ep. cxlv.,
quotes v. 36 with clear belief in the miracle. He
also comments on vv. 1, 2 as if forming v. 14 of
Dan. xii.; and then ceases.
We see, then, that the more than respectful
references to this piece in the writers of ancient
Christendom, if not quite so frequent as the citations
of the Song and of Susanna, are still numerous and
clear. ART.
This apocryphal tract has afforded two fairly
popular subjects for artistic illustration, viz., Daniel
destroying the dragon, and Daniel and Habakkuk
in the lions' den.
Daniel destroying the Dragon is a subject
represented on glass from the catacombs (D. C. A.
art. Glass, p. 733a). Garrucci (Vetri, xhi. 13) has
a glass vessel in which Christ is represented with
Daniel, who is giving cakes to the dragon (D. C. A.
Jesus Christ, Representations of, p. 8776). In
Paganism in Christian Art in the same Dictionary
(p. 1535a), it is said, "Hercules feeding the fabled
dragon with cakes of poppy-seed appears to have
furnished the motive for the representation of the

240 The Three Additions to Daniel
apocryphal story of Daniel killing the dragon at
Babylon." Presumably this means the dragon Ladon
in the garden of the Hesperides. But the conneetion
between the two dragon episodes of Hercules and
Daniel seems a little difficult to establish by indis
putable evidence.
In Walter Lowrie's Christian Art and Archae
ology (Lond. and New York, 1901, p. 363) is a
woodcut of a fragment of gold glass, with Daniel
slaying the Dragon. This is correctly described on
p. 209, but is wrongly entitled under the figure
itself, as ' Daniel slaying Bel.' The picture is said
to be taken from Garrucci, Storia dell' Arte, but no
further reference is given. On p. 365 of Lowrie's
book is a smaller scene of the same in glass, again
with an erroneous description on p. XXI. as " Daniel
and Bel." No dates are suggested for the above
pieces of glass, but they appear to be very ancient.
In the Vatican cemetery a representation of
Daniel's destruction of the dragon has been found
on a sarcophagus ; nor is this a solitary instance. (See
0. T. in Art, D. C. A. p. 1459a.) And on the south
side of the Angel Choir in Lincoln Minster, among
a series of sculptures in the spandrils of the trifo-
rium arches, occurs a figure, described by Cockerell,
the architect, as that of the " Angel of Daniel," with

The History of Bel and the Dragon 241
a monster under his feet, deemed to be "the old
Dragon " (Archseol. Institute's Memoirs of Lincoln,
Lond. 1850, p. 222).
Habakkuk with the loaves often appears in
representations of the lions' den (0. T. in Art, 1459a).
In fact there is reason to think that this apocryphal
scene was at least as frequently represented as the
corresponding canonical one ; e.g. on a sarcophagus at
Rome figured in the frontispiece to Burgon's Letters
from Rome, thought by him to be of about the
5th century (p. 244). There is also a woodcut of
this in D.C. A. art. Sculpture, p. 1868. A sarco
phagus of the 4th century also, like Burgon's, in the
Lateran Museum (though not, it would seem, iden
tical) is mentioned in W. Lowrie's Art and Archae
ology, p. 260, as carved with the same subject of
Daniel and Habakkuk.
In Bohn's edition of Didron's Christian Icono
graphy (Lond. 1886, 11. 210) there is a woodcut of a
miniature in the Speculum hum. salv. (circ. 1350),
in the library of Lord Coleridge, portraying Daniel
among the lions. The appearance of Habakkuk
guided by the angel in the background, carrying
food, identifies the scene with Bel and the Dragon,
and not with the history of Dan. vi. Even in repre
sentations of this, the canonical den-scene, it is
16

242 The Three Additions to Daniel
noteworthy how often Daniel is shown in a sitting
posture, although all mention of this is confined to
v. 40 of the apocryphal story.
It is a little remarkable that Daniel's dramatic
disclosure of the priests' trick (v. 21) has not, so far
as the writer is aware, commended itself to artists.
The ash-strewn floor of Bel's temple, the tell-tale
footmarks, and the emotions of exultation and sur
prise on the face of Daniel and the King respec
tively, with a possible introduction of the detected
impostors at the side, might make, in capable hands,
a very effective picture.
"EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION
OF MANNERS."
The whole story, in addition to proving the
vanity of idols, shews how God watches over the
fate of those who bravely discharge his work ; while
idolaters and persecutors meet with punishment,
Religious fraud, deceit under mask of piety, is dealt
with very severely. Retribution is not to be escaped.
Even J. M. Fuller (S.P.C.K. Comm. Introd.), who
regards the story as " essentially apocryphal," admits
"an edifying element."* This element might
• It was told as a story to Miss Yonge when a child by her
father (Life, 1903, p. 78), and apparently remembered with pleasure
through life. So Saml. Johnson : " When I was a boy I have read
or heard Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, etc." (Prayers and Medita
tions, Lond. [1905], p. 78).

The History of Bel and the Dragon 243
perhaps be used with advantage more than it is
by missionaries to idolatrous peoples.
The sordidness and trickery of heathen priests*
is*contrasted with the uprightness and single-minded
devotion of Daniel. His God moreover delivers him,
but their|gods do not deliver them. The Bel of this
history is as dumb as the Baal of I. Kings xviii. ;
their names and characters quite agree.
The once flourishing temples of iniquity are
conspicuously brought to nought, affording a lesson
of confidence and patience to those who fear the
Lord. Thus the angry opponents, who made certain
of slaying Daniel, were disappointed, and judgment
quickly overtook them.
With v. 6 Arnald, in loc, finely contrasts the
P. B. V. of Ps. xvi. 2 — the God who was estimated by
the amount of provisions he consumed, and the God
to whom earthly goods were nothing. But the
Hebrew will hardly bear the P. B. V. rendering.
The character of Daniel, without fear or re
proach, is not out of keeping with that displayed in
the canonical book, and in the companion story of
Susanna. He affords an example of:
(a) Courage in his fearless attacks upon idolatry,
• So Butler in his Hudibras of the Presbyterian Assembly of
Divines : " Bell (sie) and the Dragon's chaplains were
More moderate than those by far." — (I. m. 1181).

244 The Three Additions to Daniel
attacks which, as the event proved, could not be
indulged in with safety. He faces terrible crises at
much personal risk, with decision and absence of
self-distrust, as in the canonical chapters and in
Susanna. He boldly defends his religion when it is
called in question, and ousts rival worships.
(6) Resistance to temptation in refusing to
worship as the king wished. No half compliance is
suggested, such as worshipping Bel and God together.
Observe how he claims for God to be rbv tj&vra 0e6v,
while Cyrus only claims for Bel to be £&v 0e6s
(vv. 5, 6, 0), as noticed under 'Theology.'
(c) Wisdom, 'of the serpent,' in his plan for
detecting fraud, and in his skill and versatility in
choosing suitable means for unveiling each kind of
imposture; of which another striking instance occurs
in Susanna. He was a man of right understanding,
clear insight, and practical sagacity, as shewn by his
methods of dealing with opposing forces, moral or
physical. As a man of great resource he rapidly
adapts himself to fresh conditions.
(d) Endurance of persecution for righteousness'
sake. One trial overcome, a yet greater presents
itself; but with unflinching constancy he faces it
and passes unharmed, Ps. lvii. 3, 4.

The History of Bel and the Dragon 245
(e) Perseverance, in not resting upon his laurels,
won over Bel, but proceeding against the Dragon.
His promptitude of resource is not mere rashness,
but is combined with steady determination in pur
suing his task. As an active and diligent worker
he is far-sighted and firm of purpose.
(/) Gratitude. On receiving Habakkuk's visit
he at once acknowledges God's faithfulness, and
addresses himself to the great First Cause imme
diately (v. 38), as the ever-watchful shaper of events.
(a) Mindfulness of faith and duty, by being
ever foremost, even in association with a heathen
king whose eyes he opens and to whom he acts as a
missionary, in shewing hatred of falsehood and love
of truth (as in Susanna). Absence of selfishness
and willingness to undertake responsibility are
manifested. (h) Disinterested service of God in clearing away
two great obstacles to his worship. His aims are
realised without any trace of self-aggrandisement;
for those aims are directed to his Maker's rather
than to his own glory.
(i) Pleasure in God's service. The tone of the
whole story implicitly conveys the idea that Daniel
enjoyed, and was happy in the achievement of these
works, because they were designed to honour God

246 The Three Additions to Daniel
and to benefit man. Thus he finds his tasks
thoroughly interesting and congenial.
It is to be observed that Daniel's character
is in contrast with that of everyone in the story,
except Habakkuk.
Per contra, Daniel might perhaps be accused of
cruelty in his method of slaying the dragon,* espe
cially as described in Gaster's Aramaic, and by Josip
pon ben Gorion, given by Arnald, in loc, from Selden.
In Habakkuk we see obedience to a divine com
mand, apparently impossible of execution, for which
the way is suddenly made plain. He becomes instru
mental in alleviating such a state of affairs as he
deplores in i. 4 of his Prophecy: "for the wicked
doth compass about the righteous, etc." So in the
hymn "Warum betriibst du dich mein Herz? " doubt
fully attributed to Hans Sachs, we find the seventh
stanza bearing upon this matter :
Des Daniels Gott ihm nicht vergass,
Da er unter den Lowen sass:
Sein Engel sandt er hin,
Und liess ihm Speise bringen gut,
Durch seiner Diener Habakkuk.
Habakkuk's obedience served God's purpose.
In Cyrus' character we see something of the
* J. H. Blunt (Comm. on v. 27) makes an unaccountable mistake
in supposing that the balls were put into the statue of Bel, not eaten
by the Dragon. "The composition would not of itself burst the

The History of Bel and the Dragon 247
impulsiveness of the despotic monarch, giving hasty
directions on the spur of the moment as to matters
of much importance. But the events of the story
exert an educative influence upon his mind, culmi
nating in his sentiments as expressed in v. 41, which
apparently imply that Daniel's God was to be his
God. Certainly the monarch's testimony proves that
his religious opinions had been corrected, and raised
above the stage represented in v. 6.
Probably some allegoric, or more strictly 'tro-
pological,' instruction may be drawn from the story.
In Bel we are taught to fight against crafty decep
tion however generally believed in ; in the Dragon,
against fierce, repulsive, and terrifying adversaries.
This kind of interpretation is sometimes strained
however, as when in Neale's edition of the Moral
Concordances of St. Antony of Padua (p. 125, n. d.),
v. 27 is given as applicable to St. Bartholomew.
An unexpectedly adverse opinion on the use
of Bel and the Dragon as a lesson (Nov. 23, matins,
old Lectionary) is expressed by J. H. Blunt in his
Diredorium Pastorale (1864, p. 59) : " I confess I
can see no good which can arise from the public
hollow statue either by chymical explosion or mechanical expansion."
Almost as ridiculous is the abusive phrase " Offspring of Bel and tbe
Dragon," which Congreve puts into the mouth of Fondlewife in his
play of The Old Bachelor, Act iv. so. i.

248 The Three Additions to Daniel
reading to a congregation, composed principally
perhaps of young persons, of such lessons as Bel and
the Dragon, or Lev. xviii., Deut. xxii., xxv." Then
he adds the following curious note: "It is a fact
that a man was once sent into a fit of loud and
uncontrollable laughter, although he was honestly
preparing for holy orders, by hearing this lesson
(Bel and the Dragon) read for the first time in the
chapel of a Theological College." One cannot help
thinking that this gentleman must have had an
abnormally developed sense of humour under excep
tionally bad control.
John Wesley exhibits in his Journal (July 5th,
1773) an equally low opinion of the story, though
free from ill-timed mirth : " St. Patrick converting
30,000 at one sermon I rank with the History of
Bel and the Dragon " (Quoted in Church Quarterly
Review, Jan. 1902, p. 323).
These opinions seem too contemptuous and ini
mical to a narrative which yields many valuable
lessons. Indeed it may be said of this, as in the
Bishops' reply at the Savoy Conference to the
Puritan objection to reading the Apocryphal lessons
in general : " It is heartily to be wished that ser
mons were as good" (Procter-Frere, Hid. of P.B.
1902, p. 174).

MtJZX i.

PROPER NAMES.

Addison, 63, 64
Africanus, J., 49, 71, 119, 132,
144, 145, 162, 157, 222, 236
Alexander, Abp., 125
Altdorfer, 172
Ambrose, 79, 167, 238
Antony of Padua, 66, 176, 247
Apollinarius, 118, 186
Aquila, 34, 49
Arnald, 104, 105, 243, 246
Adrian, 225
Athanasius, 9, 78, 107, 160, 166,
168, 186, 237
Athanasius, pseudo-, 232
Augustine, 167, 232
Ball, C. J., 21, 41, 50, 52, 53,
67, 84, 110, 175, 186, 212,
217
Barclay, P., 94
Bardennewer, 159, 164
Barnes, A., 12, 37, 67, 223
Barry, Bp., 85
Bassus, 158
Bayer, F. P., 68
Behrmann, 112
Bengel, 75
Bevan, Prof., 28, 34, 110
Bissell, 21, 22, 45, 50, 71, 103,
126,127,131,153,157,186,191, 192, 225
Blackie, J. S., 94
Blakesley, Dean, 212
Bleek, 10, 73
Blunt, J. H., 26, 68, 186, 224,
226, 246, 247
Blunt, J. J., 115, 144
249

Boys, Dean, 93
Breshith Eabba, 12, 185, 229,
230
Brightman, Canon, 89
Brown, Sir Thos., 214
Briill, 127
Bugati, 22, 106, 128, 132, 154,
184, 186, 216
Buhl, 71
Bullock, "W. T., 61
Bunsen, 150
Burbidge,,90Burgon, Dean, 241
Bury St. Edmunds, 82
Ceesariue of Aries, 86
Calvin, 10
Cambridge, Trinity College
Chapel, 82
Cappellus, Ludovicus, 118
Carr, 71
Carracci, 172
Castillo, de, 151
Ceriani, 22
Chaplin, Child, 33, 94
Charles, 42
Chigi, Cardinal, 126
Chrysostom, 79, 167, 238
Churton, 18, 19, 104, 148, 210
Clement of Alexandria, 7, 77,
161, 164, 233
Cloquet, 67, 233
Cockerell, 240
Congreve, 247
Cope, L. C, 210
Cornelius a Lapide, 10, 42, 62,
69, 161

250 Index I. Proper Names

Comely, 23
Cornish, H. P., 92
Correggio, 172
Coypel, 172
Curteis, G. H., 188
Curtis, E. L., 108
Curtius, Quintus, 146
Cyprian, 78, 165, 231, 237
Cyprian, pseudo-, 237
Cyril of Alexandria, 168
Cyril of Jerusalem, 9, 79, 160,
167
Damasus I., 88
Daniel, E., 83
Davidson, 233
Deane, H., 21
Deane, W. J., Ill
Deissmann, 51, 194, 205
Delitzsch (elder), 105, 131, 132,
159,170,204,207,208,211,
227, 230, 231
Denys, the Carthusian, 10
Dereser, 33, 109
Didron, 171, 241
Donaldson, 172
Driver, Dr., 107, 186, 227
Duchesne, 86
Dyck, van, 172
Ebed Jesu, 104, 183
Edersheim, 145, 219
Eichhorn, 58
Ephrem Syrus, 78, 166, 237
Epiphanius, 34
Epiphanius, pseudo-, 232
Etheridge, 121, 187, 230
Eusebius, 78, 118, 132, 157, 160,
165, 186, 238
Ewald, 24, 29, 233
Farrar, Dean, 37, 131, 228
Faussett, 228
Feltoe, Dr., 89
Florence, Council of, 10
Forbes, Bp., 32
Frank, Archd., 65
Freeman, Archd., 92

Fritzsche, 53, 127, 163
FuUer, J. M., 28, 32, 83, 109,
127, 148, 210, 213, 226, 242
Furst, J., 108, 184
Garrucci, 239, 240
Gaster, 26, 28, 45, 46, 52, 55,
199, 200, 203, 214, 246
Gerard, 147
Gesenius, 138, 196
Givargese, F., 72, 233
GoodaU, F., 172
Gorionides, 227
Gratian, 166
Gray, Bp., 20, 38, 84, 116, 158,
211
Gregory of Nazianzus, 14, 237
Gregory of Nyssa, 167
Grenfell, 63
Grotius, 53, 67, 135, 216
Guercino, 172
Gunkel, 213
Gwillim, 171
Gwynne, Prof., 34, 108
Hauck, 46
Hebrasus, Bar, 104, 162, 197,
210, 232
Henderson, 228
Heppner, A., 104
Herodotus, 225
Hesychius, 186, 238
Hieronymus Grsscus, 79
Hilary of Poitiers, 166
Hippolytus, 77, 104, 107, 151,
162, 154, 155, 156, 159, 164,
173, 175, 183
Holmes, 18, 104, 105, 183
Hooker, 174
Home, T. H., 20, 67
Hotham, 85
Humphry, W. G., 83
Hunt, 63
Irenaeus, 34, 46, 115, 161, 164,
236
Isaacson, S., 95
Isidore Hispalensis, 227

Index I. Proper Names

251

Jacobus Edessenus, 164
Jahn, G., 20, 22, 42, 47, 142
Jahn, J., 123
Jamieson, 228
Jansen, Cornelius, 227
Jennings, 228
Jephet ibn Ali, 22
Jerahmeel, 46
Jerome, 35, 49, 62, 71, 79, 108,
118, 132, 133, 151, 157—
161, 167, 222, 238
Jocelin of Brakelond, 88
Johnson, S., 242
Josephus, 73, 114, 117, 231
Josippon, 214, 227, 246
Julian, Dr., 47
Justin Martyr, 77
Kamphausen, 111, 212
Earlstadt, 10
Kautzsch, 29, 30
Keil, 186, 188
Keilah, 280
Kells, 86
Kennedy, J., 37, 117
Kirkpatrick, Prof., 227
Lagarde, 129
Liddon, 64
Lightfoot, Bp., 156
Littledale, 38
Loisy, 9, 74, 81, 162, 232
Lowrie, "W., 169, 240, 241
Lucar, Cyril, 162
Lueretia, 167
Luther, 10, 52, 133, 162, 198
Lyra, Nich. de, 10
Maccabseus, Simon, 68
Mamertus, Claudianus, 168
Margoliouth, D. S., 22
Marshall, 51, 110, 122, 192, 208,
212
Marti, 4, 106
Martin, D., 20, 133
Martini, 12, 185, 229
Mary, Passing of, 237
Maskell, 90
Mattathias, 68

Maurer, 227, 228
Melito, 132
Merrick, 94
Methodius, 161, 166
Meyer, 73
Milton, 40
Moone Abbey, 81
Moses Haddarshan, 230
Movers, 72
Mozley, 218
M'Swiney, 17, 31, 88
M'Whirter, 82
Muis, de, 95, 98
Munk, S., 204
Nachman, Babba bar, 185
Nachmanides, 131
Nectarius, 162
Nestle, 116
Neubauer, 229
Nicephorus, of Constantinople.
158
Nobilius, Flaminius, 104
Orelli, 233
Origen, 8, 9, 22, 49, 78, 119,
128, 132, 144, 145, 151, 152,
157, 165, 203, 236
Parker, M., 59
Parsons, 18, 104, 105, 183
Patrick, St., 248
Pearson, Bp., 230
Peronne, 69, 161
Perowne, Bp., 25
Philippe, E., 21, 48, 109, 158,
184
Philo, 145
Pilate, 216, 218, 219
Polychronius, 22, 71
Porphyry, 118, 132, 157, 186
Procter, F., 83, 248
Prudentius, 238
Pusey, 110. 190
Quignon, Card., 26, 88

252 Index I. Proper Names

Bembrandt, 172
Eeuss, 68, 123, 141, 148, 154,
188
Eose, H. F., 68
Bosenmiiller, 227
Eothstein, 22, 26, 28, 41, 42, 63,
84, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113,
126, 127, 186, 190, 203
Eubens, 172
Eufinus, 79, 85, 132, 157
Eyle, Bp. H. E., 11, 73
Eyssel, Prof., 39
Sabatier, 104
Sachs, Hans, 246
Salmon, Prof., 85, 117, 127
Sanday, Prof., 236
Santerre, 172
Sayce, 154, 188, 212
Scholz, A., 76, 112, 119, 125,
133, 138, 159, 183, 198, 205,
207, 209, 225, 230, 235
Schrader, 196, 233
Schiirer, 63, 71, 107, 117, 186,
191, 203, 214, 236
Scrivener, 154, 202
Sedulius. 80
Selden, 246
Selwyn, Prof., HI
Severus, Sulpioius, 79, 109, 167
Shann, G. V., 90
Shetach, Simon ben, 110, 122
ShuBhan, 106
Sidon, 114
Smith, Prof. G. A., 228
Smith, Prof. Eobertson, 70
Sozomen, 230
Spenser, 139
Stahelin, O., 7
Stephens, A. J., 94
Stenhens, Dean, 25
Stokes, M., 81
Strabo, 225
Streane, Dr., 9, 25, 29, 30, 76,
131, 209, 210

Susanna, St., 163
Swete, Prof., 25, 34, 53, 73, 157,
191, 216
Syncellus, 152
Tertullian, 8, 77, 161, 165, 236
Thackeray, 174
Theodoret, 80, 168, 182, 200,
201, 224, 239
Theodotion, 20, 34, 67, 107, 114,
126, 190, 193, 209, 216
Thomas of Harkel, 157
Tintoretto, 172
Toledo, 4th Council of, 87
Toy, C. H., 204, 214
Trapp, 222, 226
Trent, Council of, 9, 13, 75, 232,
235
Trommius, 2
Valentin, 172
Van Ess, 18
Vatican, Council of, 1 3
Verecundus, 80
Veronese, P., 172
Waldo, P., 94
Warren, Canon F. E., 161
Walton, Bp. B., 105, 107
Wesley, J., 248
Westcott, Bp., 22, 30, 33, 53,
71, 104, 116, 127, 192, 200
Wheatley, 26, 40, 83
Wilson, Bp., 173
Wilton, E., 94
Wintle, J., 197
Wordsworth, Bp. Chas., 201
Wordsworth, Bp. Chris., 33, 69,
87
Wyon, W. G., 91
Xerxes, 225
Yonge, Miss, 242
Zimmer, 91
Zpckler, 21, 69, 217

Intrex HE.

SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

GENESIS.
i. 1  219
ii. 2, 3  132
vii. 14  43
x. 15  114
xxi. 17  136
xxii. 18  64
xxiii. 3, 4,8  138
xxiv. 65  147
xxvi. 4  64
xxxi. 5  135
xxxiv. 29  194
xxxvii  12
„ 24  185, 229
EXODUS.
ii. 2  163
iv. 3  212
vii. 9  212
ix. 16  51
LEVITICUS.
ii. 9, II  51
xviii  248
xx. 10  147
xxiii. 7  126
xxvi. 21  136
NUMBEES.
xi. 15  76
„ 16  147
DEUTEEONOMT.
v.21  134
x. 17  63
xviii. 20  220
xxii  248
253

xxii. 22  147
xxv  248
xxviii. 49, 50  59
xxxii. 4  59
„ 23  205
JOSHUA.
xxii. 19  137
I. SAMUEL.
xxiii. 1  230
II. SAMUEL.
xxiv. 14  116, 135, 149, 177
I. KINGS.
iii  124
x. 8  206
xv. 19  51
xvi. 28  73
xviii. 12  222
„ 27  196
„ 32  193
xx. 7  142
xxi. 8, 11  142
II. KINGS.
xiii. 5  135
xxiv. 8, 12  153
xxv. 28  144
„ 27  155
I. CHEONICLES.
ii. 31, 34, 35  106
xxi. 13  135

254 Index II. Scripture Texts

II. CHBONICLES.
iv. 5  106
xii. 12  51
xx. 12  151
xxxv. 3  50
„ 15  50
xxxvi. 8, 9  163
EZBA.
iv. 12  50
„ 15  15
viii. 2  226
NEHEMIAH.
ix. 33  49
ESTHEE.
ii. 3  136
„ 9  135
,,12  135
vii. 8  135
JOB.
i. 1  53
i. 8  53
ii. 3  53
xxxiii. 10  206
xiii. 17  73
PSALMS.
xv. 11  51
xvi. 2  221, 243
xxiii  93
xxv. 14  151
xxviii. 7  78
xxxiv. 19  173
xlix. 1  63
xlix. 18  52
lvii. 3, 4  244
lx.3  51
lxxiv. 9  67
lxxx. 1  33
xoix. 1  33
civ. 4  62
cv. 46  144
cxxxvi  26, 56
„ 2  63
cxlviii  26

PEOVEBBS.
xxiv. 22  73
xxvi. 27  176
SOLOMON'S SONG.
ii. 1, 2  106
iv. 12  167
ISAIAH.
v. 2  138
v. 7  132
v. 10  193
xvii. 1  182
xliii. 2  „.36
,, *  137
xlv.l  207
JEEEMIAH.
x. 15  219
xi. 10  61
xiv. 21  52
xix. 1  142
xxii. 24  163
xxv. 12  142
xxvi. 17  142
xxviii. 1 — 4  156
xxix. 5  144
„ 21  128
„ 23  177
„ 22  60
„ 23  142
xiii. 11  63
xliv. 8  192
1. 2  219
li. 34  213
li. 44  219
EZEKIEL.
iii. 12, 14  222
viii. 3  221
xvi. 3  143
„ 38  147
xxxviii. 6  48, 52
DANIEL.
i. 1  103, 153
i. 3  39

Index II. Scripture Texts 255

i. 15  171
i. 17  149
i. 20  108
ii. 6  147
ii. 9  135
ii. 28, 29  136
ii. 31  138
ii. 32, 33  218
ii. 45  149
ii. 47  64
iii. 1  197
iii. 14  197
iii. 16—18  237
iii. 21  53
iii. 22  42,47
Hi. 23  33,47
iii. 24  23
iii. 28—30  215
iv. 6  160
iv. 8  196
iv. 14  49, 134
iv. 25  23
iv. 27  40, 98
iv. 36  52
v. 3  201
v. 23  134
v. 25—28  132
v. 31  224
vi. 17  218
vi. 20  221
vi. 21, 22  211, 221
vi. 25— 28  215,218
vi. 26  221
vi. 28  142, 189
vii. 9  52
vii. 11  53
viii. 10  61
ix. 2  142
ix.4  22
ix. 5  62
ix. 13  136
ix. 14  23
ix. 15  50
ix. 17  50
ix. 18  149
x. 1  224
x. 1  201
xi. 36  64

xii. 3  61
xii. 14  201
xiii. 1  161
HOSEA.
iii. 4  69
iv. 15  137
iv.16  160
v. 13  138
xii. 6;  168
xiv.5  106
JONAH.
ii. 2  39
MICAH.
i. 10  132
HABAKKUK.
i. 1  106,226
i.4  246
i. 6  218
ii. 18  186
ZEPHANIAH.
i. 11  168
I. ESDEAS.
i. 37  153
i. 43  153
iv. 52  51
iv. 62  133
v. 58  186
II. ESDEAS.
iii. 2  144
JUDITH.
iv. 6  153
xx. 8  153
TOBIT.
iii. 2  173
viii. 6  30, 96
x. 10  194
xii. 6  30
xiii. 10  30

256 Index II. Scripture Texts

ESTHEE.
xiv. 6, 7  62
ECCLESIASTICUS.
xvi. 13  xii
xliii. 4, 22  56
xliv  19
BAEUCH.
i. 3  153
ii. 9  49
SONG OF THE THEEE
CHILDEEN.
(Greek verse numbers.)
24  36, 42,44
25  24, 37, 39
26  38, 77
27  23, 36, 49, 59, 77
28  42, 56,89
29  62, 79, 89
30  50, 89
31  50
32  50, 60
33  50
34  61
36  61
37  51
38  41,45, 51,58, 66, 67,76
39  69
40  44, 61
41  50
44  51, 66
47  23,56
48  42
49  48,51,78
50  29, 37, 62, 56, 77, 80
51  19,41, 52
52  30
53  41, 66, 67
54  32, 52, 79
56  89
57  18, 62
59  33, 52
63  33, 80

64  32, 52
65  52, 65
67  44
68  44, 52
77  83
84  41, 66
86  6, 52, 76
87  52, 76
88  43, 52, 64, 69, 77
89  62
90  52
91  42, 63
SUSANNA.
1—6  127, 155
2  154
3  134, 142,149
4  152
5  128, 134, 142, 149, 153,
154, 177
6  ..134
7  134, 153, 163
8  134, 136, 169
9  149, 150
11  135
13  155
14  134, 135
15  134, 135, 165
17  135, 147
19  134, 135
20  164
22  116, 135, 149, 165, 168, 177
23  136, 168
24  149
26  136, 164
27  130, 136,140
28  130, 134
29  207
30  135
32  147
33  140, 146, 147, 149
34  149
35  147, 148, 149
36  136
39  135
41  120,140
42  140, 148, 161, 167

Index II. Scripture Texts 257

43  129, 147, 164
44  136, 149, 150
45  128, 148, 149, 150, 153,
155, 160, 167, 218
46  6, 163
48  117
50  140, 149, 174
52  175, 176
53  136, 149. 175, 175
54  133
65  133, 137, 149, 150, 157,
164, 173, 176
56  114, 117, 134, 135, 137,
164, 168, 175, 176
57  117, 125, 137, 143, 175
59  138, 149
60  146, 173,220
61  138, 149, 175
62  130, 138, 142, 144, 145,
148, 149, 150
63  135, 146
64  128, 138
BEL -AND THE DEAGON.
1  200, 223, 224, 239
2  191, 192, 200, 216, 223,
224, 239
3  192, 194, 204, 219, 235, 236
4  212, 219, 220, 231, 236
6  196,219,221,237,244
6  205, 221, 235, 243, 244, 247
7  189, 199, 202, 205, 217,
218, 219
8  217
9  200,201, 235
10  201, 205, 216
11  201, 202, 205, 212, 218
12  200, 206, 212
13  200, 202, 206, 235, 236
14  206, 218, 219, 236
15  200
17  202
18  206
19  189, 201, 206, 217
21  201, 215, 217, 242

22  197, 202, 203, 208, 209,
218, 223, 225
23  182, 199,213
24  199, 203, 213, 221
25  196, 221
26  199,207
27 ...7, 192, 196, 199, 200,201,
205, 207, 220, 222, 235, 246,
247
28  185, 199, 207, 215, 218, 225
29  199, 217, 218
30  218
31  200, 211
32  194, 216
33  182, 207, 223, 227, 228,
236, 237
34  202, '228, 236, 237
35  201, 228, 236, 237
36  200, 202, 207, 221, 228,
236, 237
37  228, 236,237
38  219, 220, 228, 236, 236,
237, 245
39  200, 228, 236, 237
40  200, 208
41  202,247
42  208, 218, 220
I. MACCABEES.
ii. 17  68
ii. 59  30
xv. 6  69
II. MACCABEES.
ix. 17  216

III. MACCABEES.

vi. 6.

.29

ST. MATTHEW.
i. 11, 12  154
iv. 1  222
v. 28  175
xi.21  114
xi. 29  76
xii. 18  34
17

258 Index II. Scripture Texts

xiii. 42, 50  60
xxiv. 51  176
xxvii. 24  6,161, 163
„ 26  218
ST. LUKE.
i. 38  236
ii. 29  149
ii. 42  156
ii. 52  156
viii. 3  161
xxi. 24  193
ST. JOHN.
x. 9  235
xi. 1  130
xviii. 18  60
„ 35  216, 235
xix. 16  218
ACTS.
ii. 10  72
ii. 23  209
iv. 24  149
vi. 9  72, 73
viii. 39  221
ix. 1  145
xiii. 13  48
xvii. 17  53
„ 23  7, 235

xxii. 4  145
xxiv. 6  145

EOMANS.

i. 23

.238

II. COBINTHIANS.
i. 10  173

ii. 12

i. 18.

i. 7 ..
ix. 5..
a. 34 .
xi. 23.

EPHESIANS.

II. TIMOTHY.

HEBEEWS.

.50

.76

...62...50 .201
.163

xi. 34  193
xii. 23  6, 76
EEVELATION.
ix. 20  34
xii. 7, 8  221
xii. 9  212
xiii. 4  213
xiii. 14  193
xxi. 13  194

dFmisi.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian
Church. Cambridge University Press Warehouse. Price 3*.
BOOKMAN.— ¦" A lucid setting forth of the Ancient and Modern Use of
the Apocrypha."
CHURCHWOMAN.—" An admirable and interesting monograph . .
sure to interest clerical and other scholars."
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY.— "For the general student
of historical theology it is of importance."
JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES.—" He deserves our grati-
tude for the industry and care which has given us a very timely and useful
book." EXAMINER. — "The writer of this scholarly and interesting volume
champions a losing cause, but he champions it well . . . The fine scholarship
and earnest pleading of this volume are worthy of a better cause."
EXPOSITORY TIMES. -"It is very valuable. It is first-hand work,
and the author has judgment to select as well as industry to gather his facts."
DEUTEROCANONICA.— "This is a scholarly yet popular work, which
we cannot commend too highly. It is probably the best apologia of the
Apocrypha which exists."
SCOTSMAN. — "It is a learned essay, which argues . . . that the
Apocrypha should be more widely used ... a view which cannot but gain
ground when so devoutly and so eruditely supported as it is here."
GLASGOW HERALD.— "May be commended to all those who wish a
short and yet learned statement of the position which these writings have
hitherto occupied in the Christian Church."
THEOLOGISCHE LITER ATURZEITLNG (Prof. E. Schurer).—
" Der Verfasser is wohl orientirt, und bringt namentlich uber den Gebrauch in
der englischen Kirche Manches bei, was fur deutsche Leser der Gegenwart,
welche nur die rigorose Stellung der englischen Bibelgesellschaften kennen,
neu und von Interesse sein wird . . . Er hat . . . Materiel heigebracht, fur
welches wir ihm dankbar sein diirfen."
PILOT. — " Mr. Daubney does good service in calling attention to the great
value ofthe Apocrypha, and we hope that this very interesting book will remind
Churchmen ofthe serious loss that results from its omission from Bibles.
CHURCHMAN. — " It is a useful and very interesting little book."
REVUE DE L'HISTOIRE DES RELIGIONS.— "L'auteur 6crit avec
une grande surete* d'information, avec clart£ et agre"ment. Son opuscule fera le
bonheur de ceux qui aiment l'erudition aimable et les discussions courtoises . . .
Quoiqu' ecrit dans un interet confessionnel, le livie de M. Daubney se recom-
mande au Iecteur par une scrupuleuse exactitude et par une foule de rapproche
ments de textes aussi heureux que frappants." T. O.

WORKS BY THE SAME kWmOH-continued.
The Christian Use of the Apocrypha. London :
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Price 2d.
DEUTEROCANONICA.—" One of the best pamphlets on the subject,
which should be circulated broadcast.''
Brief Notes for Village Confirmation Class In
struction. Cambridge: J. Palmer. London: G. J. Pal
mer & Sons. Price 63.
GUARD/AN-. — " Is what it professes to be. Clear and well arranged."
NA TIONAL CHURCH.—" We are much pleased with it."
ELY DIOCESAN REMEMBRANCER.— "We think it will prove
highly useful."

By the Rev. HENRY LATHAM, M.A., late Master of
Trinity HaU, Cambridge.
Twelfth Thousand.
Pastor Pastorum ; or, the Schooling of the Apostles
of our Lord. Crown 8vo. 6*. 6^.
Fifth Thousand.
The Risen Master. A Sequel to 'Pastor Pastorum.'
Revised, with 2 Photogravure Plates. Cr. 8vo, cloth. 6*.
Fourth Thousand.
A Service of Angels. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. A/^s

Now Beady.
The Psalms in Three Collections. Translated,
with Notes, by E. Gr. King, D.D. Cr. 4to, cloth. 12*. net.
Also in Three Parts, sewed.
First Collection, Psalms i.— xli. 6s.
Second Collection, Psalms xlii. — lxxxix. 6*.
Thied Collection, Psalms xc. — cl. 5*.
Cambridge: DEIGHTON BELL & CO.
London: GEO. BELL & SONS.

J. PALMER, PRINTER, ALEXANDRA STREET, CAMBRIDGE.

1

111

jii j

1

1

,;

ii
1

' ;

!li!
liii!
1 1! I 'iii
iffl
nil
Vm I;i
!
Ill
lilllllililllilJliSJl! I P"
111
1
i
ililSili
lip
im in
::'!