ADDITIONS TO DANIEL. II. THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA. THIS piece is not so intimately connected with the canonical Book of Daniel as the preceding. In fact, it rather resembles one of the separate narratives which collectively make up the first six chapters of that work, in being a whole complete in itself. It is variously entitled Susanna' (Syro-Hex.) or 'History of Susanna' (so Syr. W1.), or 'Daniel' (Syr. W2., 'The Book of little Daniel; the History of Susanna '), or 'The Judgment of Daniel,' &c. The last title is certainly that which expresses the clearest insight into the real point of the story. So far as is known, its claims to credibility and consequently to canonicity were first called in question by the historian Julius Africanus, circ. 240 A.D., who expressed his doubts in a letter to Origen. Africanus roundly calls it a spurious portion (kíẞdŋλov μépos) of the Book of Daniel; and while admitting its merit as a graceful story, he declares it to be a modern fabrication (xapièv pèv aλλws σuyγραμμα, νεωτερικὸν δὲ καὶ πεπλασμένον). Örigen, after recourse to some Rabbis of his acquaintance, wrote an elaborate reply to the objections of his correspondent. The first of these was that vv. 45, 46, which represent Daniel as prophesying under direct inspiration (ἐπιπνοίᾳ προφητική), are inconsistent with what is told of him elsewhere. By way of answer to this really pertinent objection, Origen simply refers to Heb. i. I. Not less cavalierly, as Fritzsche observes, does he set aside the second objection, that the conviction of the Elders in vv. 52 sqq. has an element of the theatrical, by appealing to the Judgment of 1 'Africani ad Orig. Epist.' p. 10, apud Migne, xi. col. 44. Solomon as related in 1 Kings iii. 16 sqq. But he is greatly perplexed by the remark that the paronomasia of vv. 55, 59, prove that the original text was Greek. He says: "As this passage gave me no rest, and I often dwelt upon it in doubt, I had recourse to not a few Hebrews with the question what was the pîvos called in their tongue, and what was the word for pičev, and similarly how they expressed oxivos and oxíge." Some did not know the Greek terms, but asked to be shewn the trees, which Origen accordingly pointed out, but to no purpose. One said that he could not tell what a tree not mentioned in Scripture would be called in Hebrew. Sometimes a perplexed writer would for despatch use a Syriac instead of a Hebrew term. He too asked Origen to shew him a passage of Scripture where the holm-oak and mastick-tree were certainly mentioned. Origen concludes: "As this was what the Hebrews said with whom I conversed, and so nothing is to be learned about it, I am careful not to express an opinion whether these words are preserved among the Hebrews in such a relationship and in the like significance or not." It does not seem to have occurred to this learned Father that a twofold coincidence of this kind in two languages so remote from each other as Greek and Hebrew was a thing not to be expected. But what is more surprising than an ancient writer's philological perplexity is the fact that modern critics have actually found in these instances of paronomasia the clearest proof that the piece was originally composed 1 Migne, xi. pp. 61-65. Bab. Talmud. in Greek. Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Grätz, But there are plenty of other possiand Fritzsche do not seem to have re- bilities, as the following will shew:membered how common the figure paro-, "nut-tree," Cant. vi. 11, and often in nomasia is in Hebrew and Oriental literature, and at the same time the extreme unlikelihood that any given instance could be exactly reproduced in an alien language. Can we successfully imitate in English the prophet Isaiah's ", "He looked for judgment (Dawn), but If 66 ,"will cut in two,' I Kings iii. 25. Or 1; cf. Nah, i. 12. fig-tree; "the angel will multiply thy sorrow," UNI MUND 2 27, Lam. ii. 5; Isa. xxix. 2. Cf. also Ps. xci. 10. See Sanhedr. 41 A, cited infra. "cypress" (a Babylonian tree).... S 75,"he will not forgive thee." lence;, Ruth i. 20. Aramaic was the original language of the piece, NY, "a palm," and, "to cool" (of passion). behold oppression (DVD); for righteous-,"palm," the Babylonian tree par excelness (p), but behold a cry (npyx)”? Whether, as Scholz supposed, the Greek translator of Susanna correctly rendered the Hebrew verbs, and then chose names of trees to match, or whether he found it necessary to give up both the verbs and the nouns of the original text, in order to produce a successful imitation, can hardly perhaps be decided. But the 66 fact that one of Lagarde's Syriac texts (L.) gives a fair paronomasia in the first case between Lamo, pāstēgā, “pistachio-tree," and the verbo, pesaq, "to cut off," and in the second, between soi, rummānā, a pomegranate-tree," and boi, rumcha, "a sword," is enough to relieve us from the perplexities of Africanus and Origen. This Syriac version may, in fact, have preserved the original names of the trees: for, as Jacob of Edessa, cited by Bugati, observes, neither the axivos or masticktree, nor the pîvos or holm-oak, was native in Babylonia, nor were they planted in gardens; whereas the pistachio and the pomegranate, mentioned in the Syriac version of his day, were both garden trees, although their names did not correspond in sound with the terms "he will rend thee," ɔ, něsaddēgāk, "he will rend thee, nessĕrak, "he will saw thee," and 66 used by Daniel in cursing the Elders. The Greek translator may have been reminded by pasteqa of the the likesounding Greek term paσríxn, which means 'gum mastick," the resin of the axivos, which last he, therefore, adopted. The Heb. rimmôn (Syr. rummānā) in like manner reminded him of ρivos. But what could have been the Heb. paronomasia thus imitated in Syriac and in Greek? Perhaps as Brüll thinks, Other such plays on words might be suggested; but these may suffice to shew how far those of the Greek text are from constituting an insuperable objection to the theory of a Hebrew original.1 Africanus next expresses suspicion of the fact implied by the narrative, that the Jews during the Exile were permitted to exercise the power of life and death among themselves, and even, as in this case, over the royal consort. If, on the other hand, Joacim was not the former king, the account of his external prosperity and high distinction is not true to the historical conditions of the time. Origen's reply is that the state of the Jewish community in the Exile was not altogether wretched; Joacim was the forat the present day conquered peoples mer king; and as to the jus gladii, even are sometimes allowed to live under their own native jurisdiction. Moreover, it might be that such cases were tried secretly. He is greatly perplexed by the remark that the piece is not found in the Book of Daniel as received by the "The History of Susanna was confessedly written in Greek. No other explanation can be given of the verbal allusions 54-5, 58-9. In regard to the other additions there are no data." (Pusey, Daniel the Prophet,' p. 378 and note.) In the same context, Dr. Pusey remarks of the LXX. version of the Book of Daniel, that "the Greek itself is, in many parts, purer and more elegant than that of any other of the Septuagint isms, which Theodotion subsequently restored, and, in some places, substituted a classical Greek word." (Ibid. 378-9.) So far, then, as this applies to the Additions, it is obviously no argument against the supposition that they were translations. The translator avoided Hebra originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, like : רמו... הרים ראשך and פסתקא...יפסק ראשך Dan. viii. 11; Ezek. xxi. 26. the rest of the book. Jews; and can only reply that the Jews must have intentionally omitted it, on account of its contents. Many other pieces are also found only in the LXX., and so would have to be rejected along with Susanna. But may it not be that Providence was mainly solicitous of edification in the Holy Scriptures; and ought we not to be mindful of the proverb, "Remove not the ancient landmark" (Prov. xxii. 28)? Africanus further objected that no prophet elsewhere makes use of a quotation in the manner of v. 53, for no prophet required to do so; and lastly he thinks the style different from the Book of Daniel, which Origen denies; but neither goes into detail. For many centuries the matter lay where Africanus and Origen had left it. After the Reformation, Protestant writers, such as Ludovicus Cappellus, strongly attacked the piece, in the interests of theological controversy, calling it a "silly fable"-fabula ineptissima, and the author a "trifler"-nugator. Houbigant replied with considerable advantage. Michaelis set himself to expose a whole mass of absurdities in the legal proceedings against Susanna and her accusers. Eichhorn again examined the question, only to prove that "the whole piece may be a moral fiction" (eine moralische Dichtung). Jahn saw in it a parable, shewing that “ not always even to men of riper years must an uneringly right judgment be attributed.” Bertholdt divined its nature far more correctly in pronouncing the piece a traditional history or Jewish Haggada: “Es scheint daher besser zu sein die Sache als eine Sagengeschichte, als eine jidische Aggadah zu betrachten.” The moral appended in the LXX. text, vv. 63, 64, which is the ground of Jahn's conclusion, is merely a reflection added by the author of that text, and is wanting in Theodotion. Fritzsche rightly remarks that the story is told as authentic history; and he adds: "It is very possible that a tradition (Sage) lay at the basis of the narrative, as the substance of it unhappily stands in direct contradiction to no period; but it may with more certainty be affirmed that the connexion with Daniel is arbitrary. The person of Daniel is, in our opinion, involved in much obscurity; hence it is the more remarkable that this piece is connected with him, according to the etymology of his name [Daniel, "my judge is El"], and that here, as in Ezek. xiv. 14 sqq., xxviii. 3, he is represented as a model of righteousness and wisdom." And here he leaves the matter, although Plessner had already pointed to materials in the Talmud and Midrash which confirm Bertholdt's conjecture. Frankel and Geiger have referred to an old Halachah, which explains much that is surprising in the story; and lastly, Dr. N. Brüll, in an elaborate monograph, has sought to establish, by a careful combination of all available materials, the probable meaning and character of this curious relic of antiquity.1 Among these materials are certain statements in Origen's reply to Africanus which receive an entirely new significance, when brought into connexion with the data supplied by the Hebrew sources. Origen relates that a learned young Jew, the son of a Rabbi, had informed him that the Two Elders of the story were Ahab and Zedekiah, the false prophets spoken of in Jer. xxix. 20-23, and that the punishments Daniel predicts for them refer to the other world. Thus What else Origen heard about these Elders may be given in his own words: Kai ἕτερον δὲ οἶδα Ἑβραῖον, περὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τούτων τοιαύτας παραδόσεις φέροντα, ὅτι τοῖς ἐν τῇ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ ἐλπίζουσιν διὰ τῆς Χριστοῦ ἐπιδημίας ἐλευθερωθήσεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπὸ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς δουλείας προσεποιοῦντο οἱ πρεσβύτεροι οὗτοι ὡς εἰδότες τὰ περὶ Χριστοῦ σαφηνίζειν. Καὶ ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν ἀνὰ μέρος ᾗ περιετύγχανε γυναικὶ καὶ ἣν διαφθεῖραι ἐβούλετο, ἐν ἀπορρήτῳ δῆθεν ἔφασκεν, ὡς ἄρα δέδοται αὐτῷ ἀπὸ θεοῦ σπεῖραι τὸν Χριστόν. εἶτ ̓ ἀπατωμένη τῇ ἐλπίδι τοῦ γεννῆσαι τὸν Χτὸν ἡ γυνὴ ἐπεδίδω ἑαυτὴν τῷ ἀπατῶντι. καὶ οὕτως ἐμοιχῶντο τὰς γυναικὰς τῶν πολιτῶν οἱ πρεσβ. Αχιὰβ Kai Zedekias. To these malpractices, added the Jew, Daniel alludes in addressing the first Elder with Teaλaμéve τὴν What follows is mainly an abstract of Dr. Brüll's ingenious argument, Das apokryphische Susanna-Buch, in his 'Jahrbücher für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur' (Frankfurt am Main: 1877). ¡μepŵv kakŵv (v. 52), and the second with οὕτως ἐποιεῖτε θυγατράσιν Ἰσραήλ κ.τ.λ. (v. 57). St. Jerome also was acquainted with this Jewish tradition, independently of Origen, as it would seem, for he makes the false prophets give a different reason for their conduct: "Aiunt Hebraei-quod propheta nunc loquitur, Et locuti sunt in nomine meo mendaciter, quod non mandavi eis (Jer. xxix. 20), illud significari putant, quod miseras mulierculas, quae circumferuntur omni vento doctrinae, sic deceperint, quo dicerent eis, quia de tribu erant Juda Christum de suo semine esse generandum; quae illectae cupidine praebebant corpora sua, quasi matres futurae Christi" (Comm. in Jerem.' ad fin.). Compare with these passages Susanna 56, 57. In the Midrash Tanhûmâ on Leviticus, No. 6, we read: "Ahab b. Kolaiah and Zedekiah b. Maaseiah were already sinners in Jerusalem, but that was not enough. Carried captive to Babylon, they pushed their wickedness there to even further lengths. What did they in Jerusalem? There they were lying prophets. But in Babylon they did not abdicate this their profession, and they assisted each other's guilty designs. Ahab went to one of the magnates of Babylon and said, 'God has sent me hither to speak a word to thy wife.' He said: 'She is before thee; go in.' When Ahab found himself alone with her, he said, 'God willeth that thy children be prophets. Go, therefore, and company with Zedekiah, and thou shalt become the mother of prophets.' She believed him, and did accordingly. In the same way, and can you assert such a thing? Has your God changed his mind? Whether ye be true or false prophets, I know not; but Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah Í have already proven. Although I had the furnace heated seven days for them, yet they came forth alive and well. For you I will only heat it one day. If you are not hurt by the fire, I shall have the best proof that you are true prophets, and we will do all your bidding.' They objected: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were three, we are only two, and a miracle cannot be wrought save for three.' Nebuchadnezzar asked: 'Is there then a third such as you?' 'Yes, the High Priest Joshua.' They thought they would be saved for his sake. So Joshua was brought, and thrown with them into the furnace. They were both consumed, but Joshua remained unhurt, as it is said, Zech. iii. 2, 'Lo, that is the brand plucked from the burning.' And from Zedekiah and Ahab was the curse taken which was in the mouth of the whole captivity at Babylon: The Lord make thee like Zedekiah,' &c. (Jer. xxix. 22)." The same story occurs in the Talmud Bablî Sanhedrin 93 A, where the same passage of Jeremiah is cited with comments. "It is not said whom he burnt (), but whom he roasted (bp),' said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Jochai, teaching that they did as it were vilenesses (p)." Commenting on the next verse, "Because they have done folly in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours' wives," the Gemara continues: מאי עבוד אזול לגבי ברתיה דנבוכדנצר אחאב ... .Zedekiah went, and acted for Ahab אמר לה כה אמר ה' השמיעי אל צדקיה וצדקיה So they went on, until they came אמר כה אמר ה' השמיעי אל אחאב אזלה -to Semiramis, the wife of Nebuchad ואמרה ליה לאבוה nezzar. When Zedekiah went to her and spake as before, she answered, 'I can do nothing without my husband's consent; he must come and tell us that he wills it.' So she went to her husband Nebuchadnezzar, and said, 'Send for them.' When they were come, he asked them, 'Did ye speak thus to my wife?' They said, 'Yes, for God will cause prophets to come of her.' 'I have heard,' said N., that your God abhors unchastity. Did 24,000 men perish, because of Zimri's degeneracy (Num. xxv. 8, 9), "By doing what? by going to Nebuchadnezzar's daughter. Ahab said to her, Thus saith the Lord, hearken thou to Zedekiah; and Zedekiah said, Thus saith the Lord, hearken thou to Ahab. She went and told her father," &c. (The italicized variation will be noticed.) The Baraita of R. Eliezer again, c. 33, on the authority of R. Johanan, mentions neither the wife nor the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, but the Chaldean women generally, as thus attempted by substituted; and to make everything plausible, she was provided with a suitable name, Semiramis. And as the old tradition made the two miscreants promise the birth of the Messiah, and this could be no inducement to Babylonian אחאב בן קוליה וצדקיה בן מעשיה נעשו רופאי שקר והיו מרפאים את נשי כשדים ובאים Women, this difficulty was got rid of by עליהם בתשמיש המטה שמע המלך ואמר "Ahab ben Qolaiah and Zedekiah ben Maaseiah became pretended physicians. And they used to treat the wives of the Chaldees, and debauch them. The king heard thereof, and commanded them to be burnt." In the Pesiqta again (Ed. Buber), No. 25, p. 164 f., the story is further modified: substituting prophet for Messiah. The 66 אחאב בן קוליה וצדקיה בן מעשיה נביאי שקר היו והיו מנאפין נשי רעיהן הה"ד יען אשר עשו וגו' (ירמיה כ"ט כ"ג) scope to pretenders of all sorts; and it ומה הוון עבדין חד מנהון אזיל לגבי איתתא ואמר לה חמית דייתי חברי לגבך ואת מקיימת נביא בישראל. is quite possible that Ahab and Zedekiah had higher designs than the mere gratification of lust in their attempt on Susanna. In the Midrash Wayyiqra Rabbā, Par. xix., a story is told indicative of contemporary Jewish fears that the House of David might become extinct with Jehoiachin's death. The Great Sanhedrin is said to have sought and obtained, through the intercession of Queen Semiramis, permission for the wife of Jehoiachin to visit him in his prison. In the sequel of the story, which it is unnecessary to translate, the wife of Jeconiah appears as preserving her purity, according to Jewish ideas, under circumstances of great temptation: and she utters an exclamation, i.e. "Ahab ben Qolaiah and Zedekiah ben Maaseiah were pretended prophets. And they used to commit adultery with their neighbours' wives, as it is written, Jer. xxix. 23. And what would they do? One of them went to a woman and said unto her, 'I have seen (in a vision) that my fellow will come unto thee, and that thou wilt raise up a prophet in Israel.'" The matter went on, until they attempted the queen in the same fashion, with the result mentioned above. Here we are at once struck with the strangeness of the implication that not only Jewesses, but even Babylonian ladies, even the queen, could be influenced by the promise of, which, curiously giving birth to a Jewish prophet. How are we to account for this transformation of the original tradition, which brings in Babylonian women instead of Jewesses? The reason, Brüll thinks, was probably genealogical. In the interests of purity of descent, the fact had to be suppressed that during the Babylonian Exile Jewish matrons had been misled into fornication. If the Haggada also told of an attempt upon a noble lady-say the wife of a former Jewish king-and this attempt led to the ruin of the perpetrators, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar was naturally enough, contains the name of the heroine of our Apocryphon. Dr. Brüll supposes that this cry of hers gave rise to her popular designation; a supposition which he confirms by the fact that Susanna is not known as a Hebrew proper name of earlier date. (See Bk. of Jubilees, viii. 1.) And when she leaves her husband, she takes a bath of purification, which detail coincides with the fact that Susanna in the Apocryphon is about to take a bath when the Elders attack her. On these grounds, Brüll thinks, and we are disposed to agree with him, that the |