The Three Additions to Daniel, a Study Part 2

Prof. Kautzsch (I. 121) deems III. Maccabees, in vi. 6 of which book there is a reference to v. 27 (50) of the Song, to date from some time between the end of the second century B.C. and 70 A.D. at the latest.

Within these limits he fixes upon the commencement of the Christian era as the most likely time. Dr. Streane, moreover (_Age of Macc._ p. 157), thinks that while century I. B.C. is very possible, it cannot be of earlier date, on account of the proof given by this verse of acquaintance with the Song. This reference, therefore, undoubted as it is, does not greatly help us in solving the problem of date, except as to its _ad quem_ limit.

Tob. xii. 6 and xiii. 10 (the latter especially in the Vulgate) are very similar in phraseology to the refrain of the _Benedicite_; vv. 29, 30 (52) too, in both Greek versions, strongly suggest an acquaintance with Tob. viii. 5, since ????e appears more likely to have been added to, than omitted from, the later doc.u.ment of the two. This is on the a.s.sumption that Tobit is, as Streane thinks (p. 148), pre-Maccabean, or at any rate earlier than this Song. But as the words used are not very distinctive, it is quite possible that they might have been independently prepared. The mention of Ananias, Azarias, and Misael in I. Macc. ii. 59 is not conclusive as to its writer's knowledge of the Song, but the order of the names, which does not occur elsewhere, makes a remembrance of v. 88 not improbable. I. Macc. is dated by Kautzsch (I. 31) from 100 to 90 B.C.; Streane (p. 149) allows slightly wider limits; and Westcott (Smith's _D.B._ II. 173) suggests 120 to 100. As to another possible indication given by v. 66 (88), see 'Chronology,' p.

69.

Of that scepticism which followed the refinements of rabbinism there is no trace, either here, or in Susanna, or in Bel and the Dragon. The tone of them all is that of an earlier time, free from any symptoms of this later decline. But still the signs of date are not sufficiently decided to justify us in fixing upon a narrow period with any degree of certainty. Taking the piece as independent of the original Daniel, the second century B.C. might perhaps be named as far from improbable. But a closer date than this it is hardly safe to fix.

PLACE.

If we a.s.sume an _Aramaic original_, Babylonia most probably will be the place for its production; Palestine somewhat less probably. But indications of place in the piece itself are very faint. It is true, however, that the order "nights and days" is "in conformity with the Shemitic custom of fixing the beginning of the day at the preceding evening" (McSwiney, _Psalms and Canticles_, 1901, p. 644).

Everyone must have noticed the frequency with which things watery and things cold are mentioned in the Song. The number of times they occur seems quite out of proportion with the scale on which it is conceived.

Water, showers, dew, cold, frost, snow,[12] sea, rivers, fountains, all that move in the waters, are apostrophised in succession. The preponderance of these objects is very noticeable, even to a cursory reader. Now both Babylon and Alexandria are alike situated in hot countries; but of the two, a resident in the former would be more likely to have had these things brought before his eyes than a resident in the latter. Lower Egypt with its almost rainless climate, and its one river, does not seem the most likely locality to suggest a constant reference to such topics. Chaldaea, on the other hand, is better watered and is within the region of rain, and at any rate in its northern parts, of frost and snow. Dura, according to Keith Johnston's map, is close to the hills. But the position of "the plain of Dura," where the martyrdom took place, has not been certainly identified. J.M. Fuller's note on v. 42 (64), "Rain and dew have that prominence which naturally belongs to them in the parched East," is far from sufficing to explain the oft recurring mention of these matters.

Still less does Bishop Forbes' remark[13] that "the element of water seems specially to have received the benediction of the Lord," serve to elucidate the cause of its preponderance here.

The slight anthropomorphism in v. 54, where 'sitting' is implied in T, expressed in ??, is more conformable to Babylonian than Alexandrian ideas; but this may be a mere reminiscence of Psalms lx.x.x. 1, xcix. 1.

The mention of pitch or bitumen is inconclusive, inasmuch as it is found in both Babylonia and Egypt; but the mention of "heavens" and "stars of heaven" (vv. 59, 63), agrees very well with Chaldean origin. So far, therefore, as these considerations go, they turn the scale, to a small extent, in favour of Babylonia.

The only natural object which may be regarded as telling in the opposite direction is ??t? (v. 79), which might be thought to point to knowledge of the Mediterranean Sea (_see_ Child Chaplin, _Benedicite,_ 1879, p. 324).

The birthplace of the LXX text is surely Alexandria. The character of this, as of the other additions, indicates, according to Westcott (_D.B._ ed. 2, I. 1714a) and Wordsworth (on Dan. iii. 23), the hand of an Alexandrian writer.

It is well, however, to notice that this, with its companion pieces, has as few indications of Greek philosophy and habits of thought as any part of the Apocrypha; and in common with most Alexandrian writers it has little or nothing of purely Egyptian character. Still, Dereser's idea that "Daniel may have written his book in Greek at Babylon with all the additions" (quoted by Bissell, p. 444) seems most unlikely, and could hardly have been advanced except under the necessity of supporting the Roman view of the book.

Theodotion's version, so far as concerns the locality where it originated, shares the obscurity which hangs over much of Theodotion's personal life. Ephesus may be suggested, for Irenaeus (III. xxiii.) styles him ? ?f?s???; though Epiphanius calls him ???t???? (_D.C.B._ art. _Hexapla_, p. 22a). The latter author is, for the most part, the less accurate of the two. In _De Mensuris, etc._, XVII. he states that T's version was issued in the second Commodus' reign, 180--192, "obviously too late."[14] The pre-Theodotionic version which T is thought to have used may of course have been an Alexandrian production; but at present little is known of it.

That Theodotion had some earlier rendering, besides the LXX as his basis, the quotations in Rev. ix. 20, etc., and St. Matt. xii. 18, coinciding with his version,[15] render highly probable, inasmuch as he wrote subsequently to any likely date for those books. Possibly he may have used Aquila's version, or that of some unknown translator.

Professor Gwynn's idea (_D.C.B._ art. _Theodotion_, 977a) of "two rival Septuagintal Daniels"[16] seems to have more "inherent improbability"

than he is inclined to admit. But where this ground text, circulated apparently in Palestine and Asia Minor, was made, who can say? But if we take St. John as the author of Revelation, his connection with Ephesus, and the probable publication of his work there, give some little support to the theory of an Ephesian origin of Theodotion's translation.

It is strange that a version supposed to be made by one who was not an orthodox Christian, if Christian at all, should have been preferred, as far as concerns Daniel, by the Christian Church for ordinary use.[17]

Jerome (_Praef. in Dan._) says, as if he felt that some explanation was needed, "et hoc cur acciderit nescio," though he proceeds to suggest some possible reasons why the version of one "qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit" should have been so much honoured. The religious work of a Jew, who lived before Christ, and that of one who refused to acknowledge his advent after it had taken place, stand obviously, for Christians, on a different footing.

FOR WHOM AND WITH WHAT OBJECT WRITTEN.

FOR WHOM.

Undoubtedly for Jewish readers, who were already interested in the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; designed for those who had Daniel's book in their hands, who felt the Three to be heroes rightly honoured.

Of course, if the words were really spoken by Azarias, they were for the honour of G.o.d and the benefit of himself and his companions in the fire; and the Song itself becomes a real thanksgiving, on the spur of the moment, for the literal fulfilment of such promises as Isai. xliii. 2--a form, for their own personal use, to express their immediate feelings.

Verse 24 (??) might suggest the idea that the prayer (and perhaps the Song also) were uttered in the interval between the issue and the execution of the king's order for burning alive; but the words ?? ?s?

t? p??? in v. 25 forbid this view. (As to a possible subsequent insertion of the prayer, see 'Integr. and State of Text,' p. 42.) Theodotion also precludes this idea by his insertion of ?? ?s? t??

f????? in v. 24 itself, as well as ?? ?s? t?? p???? in v. 25. The slight change in the case of the last two words lessens the likelihood of their having been transferred from v. 25 of one version to v. 25 of the other. But it is quite possible that T may have purposely omitted the clause in v. 24 of ??, beginning ?te a?t???, in order to shut out the idea of these devotions having taken place in the interval suggested above.

Dean Farrar even says that the Song is "not very apposite" (_Expositor's Bible_, Daniel, Lond. 1895, p. 180), though other minds find it remarkably so. In writing on v. 27 (50) he erroneously subst.i.tutes ??t??? for d??s??. This is probably copied from Ball's note _in loc._ If the latter part of v. 66 (88) was in the original Song, the reference to their own position is of course apposite enough.

Even a writer of such a stamp as Albert Barnes (_Comm. on Dan._ iii. 23) is obliged to confess that "with some things that are improbable and absurd, the Song contains many things that are beautiful and that would be highly appropriate if a song had been uttered at all in the furnace."

But to a contrary effect J. Kennedy goes even further than Dean Farrar, calling it "an elaborate composition by some one whose imagination failed to realise what was fitting and natural to men in the position of the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace" (_Dan. from a Christian Standpoint,_ 1898, p. 55).

The pa.s.sage vv. 26 to 34 is provided in Littledale's _Priest's P.B._ (1876, p. 95) as a suitable Scripture reading for those "in fever."

Although there is a kind of appropriateness in the narrative of the fire being driven off, many would regard this application of the extract as highly fanciful, and not quite agreeable to the object with which the piece was written.

OBJECT.

Unless we a.s.sume the writer to be purely an imaginative novelist, the preservation of serviceable traditions as profitable records of religion, is clearly his princ.i.p.al aim. This addition cannot reasonably be said in any way to distort or disagree with, though it adds to, the sacred narrative. It is very well fitted into the main story; and the non-appearance of Daniel is quite in accord with his absence from the scene in chap. iii.

An edifying purpose is most conspicuous, and, if we a.s.sume that it is really an interpolation of the original book, we may well suppose with Bishop Gray, that "some writer desirous of imitating and embellis.h.i.+ng the sacred text" has left us this specimen of his work; that the veneration of some h.e.l.lenistic Jew probably induced him to fabricate this ornamental addition to the history (_op. cit._ pp. 610, 611).

One aim would be to satisfy the interest awakened by the wonderful experiences of the three, which afforded a narrative ground-work for this extension; falling in this respect, as Prof. Ryssel points out (Kautzsch I. 167), into the same category as the Prayer of Mana.s.ses and the additions to Esther. It may be said that resistance to idolatry, securing divine deliverance, is, as in Bel and the Dragon, the "motif"

of the piece. But this is not accomplished without great peril and anxiety to these martyrs in will, who kept before them an uncompromising standard, worthy of their n.o.ble lineage (Dan. i. 3), as well as of their true religion.

In some respects we are reminded of Jonah's prayer, which had a similar object, viz., to secure a deliverance from hopeless danger, a deliverance as marvellous as that of the Three. The words by which it is introduced are similar (?a? p??????at? ?????... ?? t?? ?????a? t??

??t??? ?a? e?pe?, Jon. ii. 2; ?a? s?st?? ??a??a? p??????at? ?a?... ??

??? t?? p???? e?pe?, Dan. iii. 25, T); and the spirit of turning to G.o.d in dire straits is the same. But Jonah's prayer differs from Azarias' in containing much mention of his immediate danger. Yet the absence of this from Azarias' prayer hardly amounts to a probable indication of forgery; indeed the possibility of so long an utterance implies some restraint of the consuming power of the furnace, such as is described in v. 27 of the Chaldee.

A subsidiary purpose answered in the Song proper is that of joining nature with ourselves, by addressing it in a series of invitations to magnify Him who is its G.o.d and ours alike, thus interpreting the feelings which nature maybe supposed to entertain. It is recognised that the irrational as well as the rational have their rightful spheres of action; and a wholesome sympathy is manifested with those portions of nature--which we think are lower than ourselves. With this may be compared Adam and Eve's morning hymn (in Milton's _Paradise Lost_, Book V., 1. 153 _sq._), which is very similar in tone and in sequence of objects apostrophized.

The Song so readily leads itself to use as a Canticle that the idea inevitably arises of its having been composed with that purpose in view; but proof that it was ever so used by the Jews seems entirely wanting.

The statements made in some P.B. manuals that it was so used appear to have arisen from a misunderstanding of an ambiguous sentence of Wheatley's (_see_ 'Liturgical Use,' p. 83). Still, there may have been an _arriere pensee_ in the composer's mind of providing models of prayer and of praise for others, in crisis of trial or deliverance, to offer unto G.o.d. It is pleasing to note in this respect, that the thanksgiving is not stinted, but is even longer than the prayer. Nowhere is the manifold wealth of G.o.d's revelation in nature more fully and comprehensively set forth in the most exalted spirit of praise; so that, if this were one of the composer's objects, it is most abundantly answered.

INTEGRITY AND STATE OF THE TEXT.

It has been suggested by Prof. Rothstein (in Kautzsch I. 174, 175) that the prayer of Azarias, the intermediate narrative, and the Song itself, were not all written at the same time. But this view is based purely on internal probability, and derives little or no support from any of the MSS. or versions, unless the introduction of t.i.tles in the Arabic after v. 28 (51), and in some Greek copies to the prayer of Azarias, be thought to give it countenance; yet these may have crept in from their convenience for liturgical use, and so be accounted for merely on practical grounds.

To base this separation, however, on a supposed disagreement between v.

15 (38) and vv. 31 (53), 62 (84), is certainly insufficient cause, as Ball points out (307b), for a.s.signing Prayer and Song to different writers (_see_ 'Chronology,' p. 67). But the observation that the narrative pa.s.sage between the Prayer and the Song fits in well after the canonical v. 23[18] seems a stronger basis for supposing that the prayer is a later introduction than the Song. Rothstein points out (p. 181, note d) that v. 1 (24) in T has relation to the Song, but not to the Prayer, and originally, as he imagines, took the place of the present v.

28 (91) of similar import. Corn. a Lap. notes of v. 1 (24) "est hysterologia." This view is also mentioned with favour in Charles'

article on Apocrypha in the 1902 vols. of _Encycl. Brit._ (_cf._ 'For whom written,' p. 36).

It is observable also that the statement of v. 26 (48) is not a mere repet.i.tion of that in v. 22, but refers to the scorching of the onlookers, while v. 22 speaks of those who executed the king's order.[19]

The repet.i.tion of the same invocation at the commencement of the Prayer and the Song is noteworthy; if the two are not contemporary, it has probably been borrowed by the composer of the Prayer. But the difficulty (often magnified) of reconciling the statements of v. 15 (38) with the Jews' civil and ecclesiastical condition at the time of Daniel iii.

wears quite a different aspect if the Prayer is regarded as an interpolation of later date by another hand. Altogether this theory of the interpolation of the Prayer is surrounded with a considerable air of probability.

Five extra verses are interspersed in the Syriac of the Song, calling upon the hosts of the Lord, ye that fear the Lord, cold and heat (the winter and summer of our _Benedicite_), the herbs of the field, and the creeping things of the earth (Churton's translation). Of these "frigus and aestus" is in the Vulgate, taken from T. The source of the others is unapparent, though creeping things would very naturally follow beasts and cattle, as in Gen. vii. 14.

The present ending of the Song, after the usual refrain in the middle of v. 66 (88) is of a laboured nature with a decidedly "dragging" style. It certainly has the appearance of being an afterthought, added by some not very skilful composer, who fancied the original termination to be too abrupt, and thought he could attach an appropriate supplement. But of this theory no external evidence is at present forthcoming.

T agrees with the ?? text much more closely in this than in the other additions. Most verses are the same, word for word; and many others have but the slightest variations. He makes a few small omissions, as in (Greek) vv. 24, 40, 67, 68; but in general he follows ?? exactly. Even vv. 67, 68, are contained in A, in both places, in Daniel and in the Odes at the end; also they are in the Turin Psalter, though omitted in the Veronese (Swete's LXX). As they are found, with a little difference in the ?? text, they may have fallen out of B and Q accidentally. The identical refrain at the end of each verse would naturally facilitate an error of this kind.

The princ.i.p.al MSS. available for T's text are the same as those for the canonical part of Daniel, A, B, and Q. G fails us here, as in other pa.s.sages, except from vv. 37--52, in which its variations are unimportant.