Part 4 (2/2)

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 wors.h.i.+p to which they had been accustomed. Yet this position of affairs is spoken of as if it were not one of very long standing.

(_Cf._ the use of ??? 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 v. 38 may have had behind them some idea of softening a discrepancy. This supposed lack of consistency has been taken as an indication of double authors.h.i.+p of the Prayer and the Song; and of course, if the Prayer were a later interpolation than the Song, even the appearance of contemporary inconsistency 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 Sacri_), apparently accepting the statements of v. 38 as correct, writes: ”Harum rerum penuria animos venture Evangelio praeparabit.”

Another chronological difficulty, that of ”no prophet,”[25] in the same verse (38) has even been offered as a 'proof' of non-canonicity (Cloquet, _Articles_, p. 113). So T.H. Horne in Vol. IV. of his _Introduction_, quoted by A. Barnes on Daniel (I. 81), says that ”v. 15 (38) contains a direct falsehood”; and in Vol. II. 937 of his _Introduction_ (ed. 1852), he a.s.serts that the author ”slipped in the part he a.s.sumed.” More just is his observation that ”Theodotion does not appear to have marked the discrepancy.” Ball, too, joins in the condemnation, by expressing an opinion that the writer had ”lost his cue” (_Introd. to Song_, p. 308); and Reuss, ”Hier verrat sich der Verfa.s.ser” (_O.T._, Brunswick, 1894, VII. 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 cla.s.ses was in existence. And this seems to fit in better with an early period of the Captivity than with a later age, when Simon Maccabeus is said to have had the t.i.tle ??????? on his coins: and Mattathias is called ????? in I Macc. ii. 17. Gesenius says in his _Thesaurus_ under ???? on the authority of F.P. Bayer (_de numis hebraeosamaritanis_, p. 171, append, p. xv.), that Simon's coins had the inscription ????? ???? ?????[26]; but it is now doubted whether the coins formerly attributed to Simon are really of his time. (_Cf._ Bp.

Wordsworth of Lincoln on I Macc. xv. 6.) Zockler's idea (_Comm. in loc._) that ????e??? must be understood here as equivalent to ”priest”

is unsupported and needless. ?????? 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 propheta 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 unlikely that Hos. iii. 4 was in the mind of the writer of the Song, as being fulfilled in his days.

If, however, we a.s.sume 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 circ.u.mstances 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 a.s.sumed, 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 summoning them, with the rest of creation, to praise their Maker. And, a.s.suming this verse to be contemporary 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 Nebuchadnezzar's subjects were ordered to wors.h.i.+p 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 connection 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 such he puts it forward.

Until the correspondence of Origen with Africa.n.u.s, 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.

713b). So Schurer (II. III. 185), ”Julius Africa.n.u.s 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 (_Praef. in Dan._), although he included them in his translation, with a notice that they were not found in the Hebrew. Polychronius, Theodore of Mopsuestia's brother, refused to comment on this piece because it was not part of the original Daniel, nor in the Syriac, ?? ?e?ta? ?? t??? ??a????? ? ?? t??? S???a????

??????. 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 Pes.h.i.+tto (_D.C.B._ arts.

_Polychronius & Polycarpus Ch.o.r.episc._). 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 Christians regard this, with its two companions, ”as part and parcel of the book of Daniel.” (Letter to the writer from F. Givargese, Princ.i.p.al 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 Alexandrian 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 Alexandrinis 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 Bleek (_Introd. to O.T._, II. 303, Engl. transl, Lond. 1869), says ”the additions to Esther and Daniel were certainly looked upon by the h.e.l.lenistic 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. _cond. Ap._ I. 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 xlii. 17, Prov. xxiv. 22, I. 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 ?????? were probably attached to the canon by a looser bond at Alexandria than in Palestine. However 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 or sign of misgiving, as may be seen in the quotations given in the chapter on 'Early Christian Literature,' 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 touchant l'autorite des deutero-canoniques, ont regardes ces livres comme inspires. Ils ne les croyaient pas bons pour etablir le dogme; mais cela est parfaitement compatible avec l'inspiration, attendu qu'un livre peut-etre inspire sans etre dogmatique, et que s'il n'est pas dogmatique par son contenu il ne saurait 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 a.s.signed to them; least of all this first 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 Macc._ 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 the force of this decision, which, if it removes some difficulties, certainly introduces others. Outside the Roman Church the position of these books, in common with the rest of the Apocrypha, remains, as always, more or less insecure.

<script>