The phrase t?? ??s?? ??? comes in strangely, as T, by omitting it, apparently thought. It is suggestive of a translation, perhaps of ?????, which seems to be used of moral disease in Hos. v. 13, and is there rendered by ??s??.

v. 59 ??, T. Why ???? In LXX it comes in very awkwardly, where se would naturally be expected.

Scholz, not improbably, suggests that ??e? (T) and ?st??e? (??) have been caused by reading ??? and ??? 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 ? and the final ? is known.

v. 61 T. ??p??s???, though referring to Susanna, may be a translation of ????, a word apparently regarded by Gesenius as epicene; so in Gen.

xxiii. 3, 4, 8 t?? ?e???? is the rendering of ???, meaning Sarah's corpse, "sine s.e.xus discrimine" (Ges.). But p??s??? may be used here of 'neighbour' collectively without exclusive reference to Susanna.

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

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

STYLE.

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

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

The lack of spontaneity and original freshness sometimes charged[A]

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

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

The latter, in Reuss' opinion (VI. 412), "ist reicher an Einzelnheiten und auch besser stilisiert." With this view, in the main, most will feel themselves in accord.

RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL STATE.

RELIGIOUS.

An unexceptionable O.T. moral standard on the part of the writer is maintained throughout, so that no 'difficulties' arise on this score.

There is not a suggestion of any worship beside that of the Lord; no idolatry is even hinted at. The Captivity had done its work in that respect. Nor is there any symptom of the later developments of rabbinism; not even in their inception.[43] It requires a very sharp eye to find here so much as the germs of error in faith.

The Law of Moses is acted upon; taught by parents to children (v. 3); regarded as the great authority (v. 62). The inst.i.tution of Elders is in full force, as contemplated in Jer. xix. 1 and xxvi. 17. I. Kings xx. 7 and xxi. 8, 11 shew that this body had been continued among the separated tribes, and so naturally carried with them to their new home.

The appearance of corruption among officials in high places, who ought to have been most free from it, is quite in accord with the religious history of mankind in general, and of Israel in particular. Such references as the above to Jeremiah, and that in v. 5 to Jer. xxix. 23, are paralleled by a reference in the canonical Dan. ix. 2 to Jer. x.x.xv.

12.

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

In v. 57 some prejudice is suggested as existing in the writer's mind against the women of Israel as being less chaste than those of Judah.

Possibly he was of the latter tribe himself (_see_ 'Language' on v. 57, p. 137). The reproach to the second Elder of Canaanitish descent is in keeping with Ezek. xvi. 3, where it is hurled against Jerusalem and her abominations.

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

SOCIAL.

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

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

The King of Babylon was content with the subjugation and deportation of the Jews, allowing them considerable liberty when he got them into Babylonia. In this connection Ps. cv. 46 naturally occurs to the mind.

The captives evidently had alleviations granted them in Babylon by their conquerors, witness Evil-Merodach's kindness to Jehoiachin, II. Kings xxv. 28. There is, however, no indication even of the beginnings of that trade and commerce which was so characteristic of much of the dispersion in later years.

Great freedom to regulate their own affairs is shewn, including, to all appearance, the power of inflicting the death-penalty, v. 62. This last power has been objected to as unhistoric. But J.J. Blunt[44]

ill.u.s.trates the possibility of this, by citing Origen's letter to Africa.n.u.s to shew that the Jews under the Romans enjoyed a similar power in his day. Origen defends the correctness of v. 62 by adducing this as a similar instance in his own knowledge. Blunt treats the matter as a kind of "undesigned coincidence," rendering credible the death penalties spoken of in Acts ix. 1, xxii. 4, xxiv. 6.[45] So Edersheim (_D.C.B._ art. _Philo_, p. 365b), "The rule of the Jewish community in Alexandria had been committed by Augustus to a council of Elders." This is also stated in the Jewish Encyclopaedia (New York and Lond., _Alexandria_ I., 362a): "Philo distinctly states that at the time of Augustus the 'gerusia' a.s.sumed the position of the 'genarch.' This is the word he uses for 'ethnarch,' _Contra Flacc.u.m_, -- 10. Origen to Africa.n.u.s, -- 14, writes of this privilege as having been granted by 'Caesar' without specifying which Caesar, and though he does not name Alexandria, his words ?se? ?? pepe??a???? probably imply that place."

These references do not of course prove that the Jews in Babylonia had the like privileges, but they shew, as Origen saw, a parallel case.

Perhaps those who are in favour of the Alexandrian origin of Susanna might use this to shew that the writer had transferred to Babylonia the circ.u.mstances of his own day; but his own day would almost certainly be before the time of Augustus.

There is no mention of any government except the Jews' internal administration; but then the native population of Babylon (unless perchance it be in the shape of the servants) does not enter into the story. The legal working at Babylon of this little "imperium in imperio"

had plainly an unsatisfactory side, although Susanna's rights were vindicated by another power against injustice and oppression. Still, it may not be fair to condemn the whole system on the strength of this single instance.

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

The Elders grossly abused Joacim's hospitality. Seemingly they had plenty of time to waste, and worse. It is noteworthy that two 'judges'

were chosen, annually, it would seem, from the 'elders of the people.'

This last phrase occurs in Numb. xi. 16, and is frequent in the N.T., but not with ?? as here.

The modest veiling of Susanna in _v. 32_, more distinctly expressed (??

??? ?ata?a?????) in T than in ??, 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 b.a.l.l.s" of _v. 17_ (A.V. and R.V.); this last term is peculiar, and is used apparently for soap.[47] It is so employed in Gerard's _Herbal_, ed. 1633, p. 1526, where he says, "of this gum [storax] there are made sundry excellent perfumes... and sweet washing b.a.l.l.s." The 'sawing' or 'cutting asunder' of _v. 35_ was a Babylonian punishment, as is shewn in ii. 5 and iii. 29 of the canonical book.

The death penalty for adultery (_vv. 43, 45_) is in agreement with Lev.

xx. 10, Deut. xxii. 22, and Ezek. xvi. 38, though not with the laxity of later times (_see_ art. _Adultery_, Smith's _D.B._; _Marriage_, Hastings' _D.B._). The Syriac W2 interpolation after _v. 41_ seems to regard precipitation as equivalent to stoning. In the ?? of v. 62 both this punishment and that of fire are meted out to the Elders as retributive justice. Reuss' note on the trial is amusing, "die Richter sich als 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 historical facts."

THEOLOGY.

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

G.o.d is represented as being in heaven, as One on whom the heart relies (v. 35); as eternal, a knower of secrets, of entire foreknowledge (v.

42); One to be appealed to by His servants in danger (v. 43), efficaciously answering humble requests. The value of ejaculatory prayer to Him in sudden peril is shewn (v. 44).

G.o.d had not so entirely cast off His people as to cease from caring for separate souls. He hears the prayers of individuals (v. 35, end, ??), 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 inst.i.tution (v. 50); as forbidding injustice (v. 53); as giving sentence to an angel to execute upon an individual (v. 55); as worthy to be praised for saving those who hope in Him (v. 61). A special Providence is recognised as watching over the destinies of separate souls; inspiring Daniel for a special effort; rescuing Susanna from a special danger. Heaven is regarded as the seat of the Divine Judge, towards which the innocent Susanna turned her eyes (v. 35), but from which the guilty Elders averted theirs (v. 9).

In v. 5 G.o.d is termed ? desp?t?? (_cf._ St. Luke ii. 29, Acts iv. 24); in vv. 24, 44, ?????? in vv. 55, 59 (T) ?e??, for which ?? has ??????, a word which it seems to prefer, as in i. 17, ii. 45, ix. 18.

The fear of the Lord is evidently approved (v. 2), and instruction in the Law of Moses regarded as proper (v. 3), which is also referred to in vv. 33 and 62 (T only), and in act in v. 34. It would appear likely too that II. Sam. xxiv. 14 is quoted in v. 22 (T), Susanna in her strait borrowing the exclamation of David in his, and the words of both may well be contrasted with the idea of Hos. iv. 16b. Adultery is condemned as "sin before the Lord" (v. 23).

An angel is spoken of in vv. 44, 45 (?? only) as giving a spirit of understanding to Daniel. The former verse might be taken to mean that he was visible.[48] He enabled Daniel to clear Susanna from her false accusation. An angel is also named in v. 55, in both versions, as likely to execute G.o.d's vengeance on the lying Elders. He is also mentioned in v. 62 of ?? as bringing a judgment of fire. This frequent mention of angels is quite in keeping with the canonical Daniel and other late books. And as E. Bunsen remarks, "the apocryphal doctrine about angels and evil spirits is sanctioned by the recorded doctrine of Christ"

(_Hidden Wisd. of Christ_, 1865, I. 186). But it is singular that what has generally been considered the later recension should have less of it in this case than the earlier.

The description (v. 9) of the workings of conscience, while overt sin was under consideration, but before it was actually committed, shews a deep knowledge of the human heart, such as is found in the biblical writers. A process the reverse of 'turning unto G.o.d,' 'having the eyes unto Him' (II. Chron. xx. 12, Ps. xxv. 14), is very accurately depicted, as the dwelling upon some attractive l.u.s.t is allowed to engage the mind.

A better way of narrating such a matter it would be hard to devise.

Hippolytus, in his _Comm. on Dan._, treats the whole story as having an allegoric meaning. Joacim represents Christ, Susanna the Christian Church; the bath represents Holy Baptism; and the two Elders the Jews and Gentiles persecuting the faithful (_D.C.B._ art. _Hippolytus_, p.