CHAPTER IV

The Additions to the Book of Daniel

[LITERATURE.—Brüll, _Das apokryphische Susanna-Buch_, in “Jahrbücher für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur” (1877); Ball, in Wace, II, pp. 305-360; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 183-188, German ed., III, pp. 452-458; Scholz, _Judith und Bel und der Drache_ (1896); Julius, _Die griechischen Daniel-Zusätze und ihre kanonische Geltung_ (1901); Daubney, _The Three Additions to Daniel_, (1906); Rothstein, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 172-193; Bennett, Kay, and Witton Davies, in Charles, I, pp. 625-664. The articles by Marshall in Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, and Kamphausen, in the _Encycl. Bibl._]

I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS

Before dealing with these Additions individually a word may be said about them collectively. None of them occur in the Hebrew Bible and in only one manuscript of the Septuagint proper are they found[408]; but in the great uncials (B, A, Q), which contain Theodotion’s Version of the Septuagint, they all appear as integral parts of the text of Daniel. “In the Greek manuscripts no break or separate title divides these Greek additions from the rest of the text, except that when Daniel is divided into ‘visions,’ the first vision is made to begin at i. 1, Susanna being thus excluded from the number; Bel, on the other hand, is treated as the last of the visions.”[409] What the actual number of Additions originally was is uncertain; they are usually reckoned as three; it is possible, however, that five originally separate pieces were incorporated into the text of the Septuagint, viz. the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, a short narrative piece, the Song of the Three Children, and Bel and the Dragon. The second, third and fourth of these are usually regarded as forming one piece; this question we shall consider immediately. Although some of these Additions are quite inappropriate in their present context, they have from very early times been regarded as belonging to the Book of Daniel proper; “from the Fathers it is clear that in the earliest Christian copies of the Septuagint both Susanna and Bel formed part of Daniel, to which they are ascribed by Irenæus and Tertullian, and implicitly by Hippolytus. The remarkable letter of Julius Africanus to Origen which throws doubt on the genuineness of Susanna, calling attention to indications of its Greek origin, form a solitary exception to the general view; even Origen labours to maintain their canonicity.”[410] Clement of Alexandria also apparently regarded Susanna[411] and the Song of the Three Children[412] and Bel[413] as canonical; and a string of other authorities could be cited. A useful collection of references to and quotations from these Additions in early Christian writings is given by Daubney, _The Three Additions to Daniel_, pp. 76-80, 163-169, 235-239.

II. THE PRAYER OF AZARIAH

This addition consists of two pieces: a narrative portion, verses 1, 23-27, and the Prayer itself, verses 2-22. Now in the Aramaic of Daniel iii. 23, 24 the text runs: (23) “And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down in the midst of the burning fiery furnace. (24) Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, was astonished, and rose up in haste....” Any candid reader must see at once that there is something not in order with the text here; the natural sequence of the text would, one might justly expect, give some reason for Nebuchadnezzar’s astonishment before stating the fact. Something has evidently fallen out of the text after verse 23. If we insert after verse 23 of the canonical Daniel the narrative addition found in the Septuagint (Theodotion’s Version) we get the following:

And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down in the midst of the burning fiery furnace. _And they walked in the midst of the fire, singing the praise of God, and blessing the Lord. And the king’s servants, that put them in, ceased not to make the furnace hot with naphtha, pitch, tow, and small wood; so that the flame streamed forth above the furnace forty and nine cubits. And it spread and burned those Chaldæans whom it found about the furnace. But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace together with Azarias and his fellows, and he drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace; and he made the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind, so that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled them._ Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, was astonied, and rose up in haste; he spake and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

The words printed in italics are from the Septuagint, the rest from the canonical Daniel. There are two things that strike us here: firstly, we get the reason for Nebuchadnezzar’s astonishment; and secondly, we are told how it was that four instead of three men were seen in the furnace. The reference to the fourth person in the furnace, as given in the canonical text, is abrupt; that will be allowed. The whole narrative, as just given, runs smoothly and naturally. We contend, therefore, that this narrative addition of the Septuagint represents—it may not be the exact translation—an original portion of the canonical Daniel. It will be remarked that part of the addition, namely that which refers to the burning of the Chaldæans, is already represented in verse 22 of the canonical Daniel, viz., “the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego”; but these words do not occur in the one manuscript, mentioned above, of the Septuagint proper which we possess, nor in Theodotion’s Version; they are added in the Alexandrian manuscript, but are evidently a later addition as this manuscript also contains the reference to the Chaldæans as given in the quotation above.

Turning now to the Prayer itself, we notice first that there is nothing in it which connects it with the episode to which it is supposed to belong; the words of verse 2, which introduce the Prayer, viz. “Then Azarias rose up and prayed thus, and opened his mouth in the midst of the fire and said,” are an expansion made in order to give it an appearance of connection with verse 1; probably the words ran originally: “Then Azarias rose up and prayed thus,” or something to this effect. The Azarias here mentioned is not one of the “Three Children”; moreover, if the Prayer had originally been written in reference to them we should expect it to have been put into the mouth of Hananiah (Ananias), i.e. the equivalent of the Aramaic Shadrach, whose name is always placed first.

That the Prayer was composed during the early part of the Maccabæan struggle seems probable for the following reasons: in verse 5 it says, “In all the things that Thou hast brought upon us, and upon the holy city of our fathers, even Jerusalem, Thou hast executed true judgements; for according to truth and justice hast Thou brought all these things upon us because of our sins.” The nation has thus suffered adversity. In verse 9 it says further: “And Thou didst deliver us into the hands of lawless enemies, and most hateful forsakers of God, and to a king unjust and the most wicked in all the world.” These “lawless enemies” who are “most hateful forsakers of God” are the extreme Hellenistic Jews mentioned in 1 Maccabees i. 11-15; and by the “king unjust and the most wicked in all the world” is meant Antiochus Epiphanes (cp. 1 Macc. i. 20-24, 41-64). The sore plight in which the nation found itself is shortly but graphically described in verses 14, 15; “For we, O Master, have been made less than all the nations, and are brought this day in all the world because of our sins. Neither is there at this time prince, or prophet, or leader, or burnt-offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, or place to offer before Thee and to find mercy.” This certainly describes the state of affairs in Palestine at the beginning of the Maccabæan struggle; the date of the composition would, therefore, be about B.C. 170; and the passages quoted read like the words of one who lived in Palestine. The indications in the Prayer of its having been originally written in Hebrew[414] would point in the same direction.

The conjecture may be hazarded that in its original form it was in no way connected with the Book of Daniel; it was inserted, before the Greek translation was made, because its author happened to have the same name as one of the heroes in the Daniel story; but since some copies of Daniel must have existed which did not contain this addition there was a doubt as to whether it had any right to a place there. The canonical Daniel and the Septuagint represent respectively these two opinions.

With the Prayer should be compared Daniel ix. 4-19 and Baruch i. 15-iii. 8; all three partake of a liturgical character; this becomes abundantly clear if one reads them in connection with certain portions of the modern Jewish Liturgy (“Morning Prayer,” see Singer’s edition, _The Authorized Daily Prayer Book_, pp. 37 ff.). It is difficult to get away from the conviction that all three of the pieces just mentioned were in some way connected with the ancient Jewish Liturgy; whether extracts from time-honoured prayers, or based upon these, it is of course impossible to say, but they quite distinctly breathe the Jewish liturgical spirit.

III. THE SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN

This Song is introduced with the words of verse 28: “Then the three, as out of one mouth, praised, and glorified, and blessed God in the furnace saying”; thus the connection with the “Three Children” is brought about. In verse 66, at the conclusion of the Song, another connecting link is brought in:

O Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, bless ye the Lord, Sing His praise and highly exalt Him for ever. For He hath rescued us from Hades, and saved us from the power of death, And delivered us from the midst of the burning fiery furnace, even out of the fire hath He delivered us.

A concluding doxology (verses 67, 68) is added. It is probable that all these three verses form a later addition.

This Song again, apart from the added verses, has nothing in it which would connect it with the “Three Children.” Its tone of exultation is in strong contrast to the despondent tone of the Prayer; this is, however, one indication of the date of its composition, though a negative one, viz., it cannot have been written during the Maccabæan struggle. It cannot, on the other hand, have been written before this struggle as the advanced belief in the future life taught in verse 64 precludes this; that verse runs:

O ye spirits and souls of the righteous, bless ye the Lord, Sing His praise, and highly exalt Him for ever.

We must, therefore, date it after the Maccabæan struggle, probably soon after, on account of its jubilant tone. Like the Prayer, this Song was written in Hebrew, though the arguments for a Greek original in both cases cannot be lightly dismissed. Why it came to be placed in its present position can be quite naturally accounted for; it was due to the desire to put into the mouth of the Three Children a hymn of blessing and glory to God for their wonderful deliverance. It must have been put into its present place subsequently to the Prayer, but as regards its further history one must hazard a conjecture similar to that mentioned above in reference to the Prayer. It is also highly probable that, like the Prayer, the Song was used in public worship. For the _form_ in which it is composed one should compare two liturgical pieces preserved in the modern Jewish Liturgy, viz. the “Abinu Malkenu” (Our Father, our King)[415] and the “Order of counting the Omer”[416]; both differ wholly in content from that of the Song, but the liturgical form is similar in each case. See also the “Psalm of Thanksgiving” which occurs in Ecclesiasticus li. after verse 12 (only preserved in the Hebrew), and compare with it the “Shemoneh ‘Esreh” in the Jewish Liturgy (Singer, _Op. cit._, pp. 44 ff.).[417] That the Song, when one remembers its history—and if we are right in believing that it was at one time used in public worship by the Jews—has been incorporated into the English Church Liturgy seems to be only in the fit and natural order of things.

IV. THE STORY OF SUSANNA

The position of this addition varies in the manuscripts; in some it precedes the first chapter of the canonical Daniel; this is the case in the uncials, while in the one manuscript extant of the Septuagint proper which contains it, it forms chapter xiii. of that book.

The story is briefly as follows: Susanna was the daughter of a Jew dwelling in Babylon, named Joakim; she was beautiful and devout. Among Joakim’s friends were two elders of the people who were judges; these two were frequent visitors at the house of Joakim. They both fell in love with Susanna, unbeknown to each other; but each was detected by the other one morning when they had gone out into the garden where Susanna was wont to bathe. They, therefore, agreed to act together in their wicked design; but on approaching Susanna they were repulsed by her with indignation, and in order to protect themselves they accused her of having been unfaithful to her husband by admitting a young man secretly into the garden. This accusation they bring against her in the public court. As Susanna has no means of proving her innocence she is, according to the Law, condemned to death. On her way to execution the crowd is separated by a young man named Daniel, who maintains that Susanna’s condemnation is due to false witness; and, basing his demand on the Law, insists that there shall be anew trial.[418] At this new trial the young man Daniel examines the two witnesses, and asks each separately under which tree in the garden the crime of which they accuse Susanna took place; one says, under a mastick tree, the other, under a holm tree. This contradiction reveals their falseness, and they are condemned. “So when they had gagged them, they led them out and hurled them into a chasm; then the angel of the Lord cast fire in the midst of them. And thus was innocent blood kept safe on that day” (verse 62_a_, Septuagint).

The purpose which the writer of this story had in view is reflected in the quotation given above from the Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 2, where two points are specially emphasized, namely, that a criminal who has been condemned is to have every chance of clearing himself, even up to the very end; and that adequate witness must be forthcoming before an accused man may be condemned. In fact the passage referred to is one of several others which could be given implying that a reform in the administration of justice had at one time taken place among the Jewish authorities. Ball, following Brüll,[419] shows, in the admirable introduction to his commentary on this book, that this reform was instituted at the instance of Simon ben Shetach who lived during the reigns of Alexander Jannæus (B.C. 103-76) and Alexandra[420] (B.C. 76-67); it consisted, firstly, in the institution of a proper examination of witnesses; in the Mishna, Pirqe Aboth i. 9 it is said: “Simon ben Shetach used to say, Examine the witnesses abundantly, and be cautious in thy words, lest they learn from them to give false answers.” But Simon ben Shetach was also, in the words of Ball, “the champion of another reform in connection with the law of testimony. As the brother-in-law of king Alexander Jannæus, he was able, after a long struggle, to secure the triumph of his party, the Pharisees, in the Sanhedrin, and of their principles in the administration of the Law, over their opponents, the Sadducees.... According to Sadducæan principles, they who had falsely accused a man of a capital crime were only put to death if the sentence had already been executed on their victim. The legal aphorism, ‘life for life,’ was construed literally. The Pharisees, on the other hand, relying on Deuteronomy xix. 19,[421] considered the _intention_ of the accusers as equivalent to actual murder. According to them, the maxim ‘life for life’ came into application as soon as, in consequence of the false depositions, sentence had been pronounced, although not yet carried out. The law at the time extraordinarily favoured informations. The witnesses, who were also the accusers, were only examined about the main fact, so that their falsehood could not easily become evident; and even if it did, they got off without punishment, though the accused had actually been executed. This crying evil the Pharisaic party sought to remedy by the introduction of a more rigorous examination of witnesses, and by making the law more severe against false witnesses.” The author’s aim, therefore, in writing this book, was to show, by means of a story, that the administration of justice was in some most important particulars defective, and to put forth the Pharisaic suggested reform as the proper remedy.

The questions of authorship, date, place of writing, and language, are all practically answered by what has been said; it was written by a Pharisee, during the last quarter of the first century B.C., in Jerusalem (or, at any rate, in Palestine); the language was in all probability Hebrew.

The judicial acumen of the “young man” who examined the false witnesses, and upon whom “a spirit of discernment” (verse 45, Septuagint) was bestowed, was probably the reason of the name of Daniel (“My judge is El”) being given to him. Thus would sufficiently explain why it became prefixed, or added, to the Book of Daniel, with which it has otherwise no connection.

V. BEL AND THE DRAGON

This addition follows the preceding one in all the Greek manuscripts by which it is treated as an integral part of the canonical Daniel.

The story tells how Daniel proved to the king (called “Cyrus the Persian” in Theodotion’s Version, but not specified by name in the Septuagint manuscript) that the Babylonian idol Bel was not a living god. The king is convinced that Daniel is mistaken, and as proof thereof points to the food which the god demolishes daily. But Daniel undertakes to show the king that not Bel, but his priests, with their wives and children, are those who daily consume the food which they place before him. Daniel and the king, then, go into the temple and watch the food being set before Bel; thereupon the king’s seal is set upon the entrance to the temple, but not before Daniel has managed to get the ashes of wood strewn all over the floor of the temple. During the night the priests with their families enter the temple, as is their wont, by secret doors and enjoy the food set before Bel. The next morning the king, accompanied by Daniel, enter the temple; the king, seeing the footprints of men, women and children in the ashes on the floor, realizes the fraud of which he has been the victim, and which has now been exposed by the wisdom of Daniel. The image of Bel is destroyed, and his priests put to death.

There follows then the exploit of Daniel with the dragon. Daniel had scoffed at Bel because he had been made of clay and bronze; but this god, as the king says, “liveth, and eateth, and drinketh.” However, Daniel undertakes to kill this living god without sword or staff, and thus prove that he is no god. So he takes pitch, and fat and hair, and makes lumps of them, and puts them into the dragon’s mouth; the dragon eats them and bursts asunder. The king is convinced. But the populace threaten to rise against him unless he delivers unto them the destroyer of their gods. The king gives way; and Daniel, being delivered up, is cast into a den of lions. After remaining in the den for six days, without being touched by the lions, Habakkuk (presumably the prophet of that name is intended) brings him his dinner, having been conveyed by an angel from Palestine to Babylon for this purpose. Finally, Daniel is released by the king, at whose order those who would have brought about his destruction are cast into the den of lions and devoured instead.

The purpose of this addition is obviously to throw ridicule on idolatry; although the story is somewhat puerile it may well reflect forms of idolatry which obtained not only in Babylon in earlier days, but also among the Gentiles at the time when the author lived (about B.C. 100, or a little earlier); that is to say that both images and living animals were worshipped. By the “dragon” is probably meant a serpent[422]; we know that serpents were kept at Greek shrines; for example, in the temple of Aesculapius at Epidaurus,[423] and elsewhere, and were, therefore, probably objects of worship.[424] The writer of this addition may likely enough have had this kind of idolatry in mind when speaking of the “dragon.” That Daniel slaying the “dragon” was intended to be a reference to the myth of Merodach and his conflict with Tiamat seems highly improbable, for the addition is clearly a philippic against idolatry, and there would be no point in referring to this primeval combat. As it is not likely to have been written for Jews, the original language was probably Greek; there is nothing in the composition which indubitably stamps it as having been translated from a Semitic original. We are inclined to regard it as belonging to the same type of literature as the Sibylline Oracles, and written for the purpose of Jewish propaganda; cp. verse 28, “The king has become a Jew,” and verse 41, “And the king cried out and said, Great is the Lord God, and there is no other god beside Him.” The universalistic attitude of the writer, and his silence about the Law, the sacrifices, and the priesthood, also point in the direction indicated.

As the author chooses Babylon as the scene of his story, it is not unnatural that he should make Daniel his hero; this would account for the addition having subsequently been appended to the Book of Daniel.

The verses 33-39_a_, which introduce the Habakkuk episode, are probably from some legend regarding the prophet of that name; they have been ineptly inserted here; the narrative reads far better without them, viz.: (verse 32) “And Daniel was in the lion’s den six days; (verse 39_b_) but the Lord God remembered Daniel....”

It would be hazardous to attempt to assign any particular place as the home of this addition, beyond saying that, if we are correct in supposing that the little composition was written for propagandist purposes, it is more likely to have been written somewhere in the Dispersion than in Palestine.