Part 11 (2/2)

exemplo, non ignorantes quoniam in Hebraeo positum non est, sed quoniam in ecclesiis tenetur. Alterius autem temporis est requirere 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 ???s???? et divinis habitos 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, ta?ta ?? ??? ?? t?? ???da??? ?????te? ?????ta? ??? pe????pte?? t??

????, f?s???te? ? ?e??s?a? ta?ta ?? ?a?????? a?s????e??? t? ?p? t??

p?es?t???? ?at? ??e???? t?? ?a???? ?e?e??????. On which Bardenhewer (_op. cit._ p. 76) remarks, ”Susanna soll also fruher auch in dem judischen Kanon gestanden haben und erst spater (unliebsamen Vorwurfen gegenuber) aus demselben entfernt worden sein.”

A. Scholz, however, who treats the book allegorically as a 'vision,'

attributes early opinions adverse to its canonicity to the ”Missverstehen der Erzahlung und die unlosbaren Schwierigkeiten, die dieselbe bei der historischen Auffa.s.sung 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 conclude, 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 ??t?? d? t??t??, along with four books of Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon. In this case we might conclude that ?a???? 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 Irenaeus IV. x.x.xv. 2, xli. 1; Tert. _de Cor. IV._; Clem. Alex. _Proph. Ecl._ 1. Methodius, Bishop of Tyre, introduces Susanna into his Virgins' Songs as an example of brave sanct.i.ty, calling upon Christ[54] (see exact words under'Early Christian Literature,' p. 166).

In the _Apost. Const._ II. 49, 'concerning accusers and witnesses,' this trial is instanced ?? t??? d?? p?es?t????? ?at? S?s????? ?? ?a?????, 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 observable, I think, in the N.T.

is in Matt, xxvii. 24, unless the name of Susanna in St. Luke viii. 3 be taken from our heroine's. It is of course emblematic of lily-like purity, and therefore very suitable for a woman. The story, with some omissions, forms the Epistle for Sat.u.r.day 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, _O.T._, Venables' transl., 1869, II.

339).

In the Greek Church the Synods of Constantinople 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 denounced Cyril Lucar's conduct in styling them Apocrypha as ignorance or wickedness (Bleek, II. 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. a.s.soc., Lond., 1901, p. 19). Also Bar-Hebraeus (1286), the Monophysite, comments on these fragments as if Holy Scripture (Loisy, p. 245). We see then that the testimonies to canonicity are of considerable strength, more so than is perhaps generally realised, even though the arguments to the contrary 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, quorum tria maiora fere inde a seeulo 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 (??) there is a strong similarity in the use of the word ?ste???, as well as in Exod. ii. 2.

”Among names taken from the O.T., that of Susanna 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 history, 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 notice of her in _D.C.A._, as commemorated in various Martyrologies on August 11th.

IRENaeUS (200). In _Adv. Haer._III. xlii. 1 there is an apparent reference to v. 55; in IV, x.x.xv. 2 to v. 42; and in IV. xli. 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. x.x.xi. 2) may be a reminiscence of the phrase ? t?? ???pt?? ???st?? in v. 42; and still more probably perhaps ”qui est absconsorum cognitor” in IV. x.x.xv. 2 has its origin in this same verse.

CLEMENT or ALEXANDRIA (220). 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 p?? t?? ?e??se?? in -- 37 are referred to Susanna 43 (T); but it is hardly safe to a.s.sume that we have here more than an accidental approximation of wording.

<script>