Chapter Thirteen

Chapters 13 and 14 are translated from the Greek, because they are absent in the Hebrew text.

In the contemporary Hebrew text there is no account of Susanna, nor was there in ancient times—at the time of Origen (Epistol. ad Afr. 13) and Jerome (Com. in Dan. Pro). The text of this account has been preserved in the Greek translations of the LXX and Theodotion, in the Old Latin, Coptic, Arabic, Syriac, Vulgate, Armenian, and other translations. In the Chisian codex containing the LXX translation and in the Theodotion translation, as well as in the Vulgate, it is placed at the end of the book of the prophet Daniel, forming chapter 13; but in the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus codices, in the Old Latin, Coptic, Arabic, and Armenian translations it comes before the first chapter. The absence of the account of Susanna in the Hebrew-Aramaic text of the book suggests, apparently, that it was not originally in it, but first appeared only in the LXX and Theodotion translations.

Such an assumption was expressed in ancient times by the Neoplatonist Porphyry and Julius Africanus, supporting it among other things by the fact that in the Greek text of the account there is a play on words... “from the schinus to be split and from the prinus to be sawed” (vv. 54–69), more characteristic of the Greek language than of the Hebrew.

In modern times the existence of a Hebrew original of the account of Susanna, based on Hebraisms found in the Theodotion translation, is defended by Catholic exegetes and some of the Protestant ones: Eichhorn, Delitzsch, De Lagarde, and the English scholars Bissell and Ball, while the majority of the latter reject it. A similar division of views is notable in Russian theological literature on the book of the prophet Daniel. The possibility of a Hebrew original is admitted by Professor Pesotsky, while Archbishop Bukharev and Smirnov decidedly reject it; Professor Yungerov, however, does not incline toward either opinion.

The question of the historical reliability of the account also has not received a definitive answer. While recognized by Catholic exegetes, it is denied not only by Protestants, but also by some Russian theologians: Metropolitan Philaret and Metropolitan Arseny. According to the former, “the history of Susanna is subject to doubt, because at the very beginning of the captivity it attributes to the Jews their own tribunal with the right of life and death; to Joakim a magnificent house and gardens, which are very difficult to expect at the beginning of the Babylonian captivity, and are not confirmed by the testimony of the Jews themselves.”

Metropolitan Arseny, in support of the historicity of the account, points to the “too hasty judgment” both of the elders against Susanna and of the elders themselves, “inconsistent with the manner of Eastern justice,” and to the fact that the Jews “did not have the right of life and death” (Cf. Pesotsky, p. 283, note 3; p. 290, note 2). The question of the reasons for the deviations of the Theodotion translation from the LXX text—its greater extent and peculiarities in the account (vv. 6–19; 22–27; 30–35; 36–40; 41, 42–50; 51–60, etc.)—is also decided differently. According to the defenders of the Hebrew-Aramaic original, Theodotion had a different Hebrew-Aramaic manuscript, according to which he “corrected and supplemented” the LXX text; but according to the defenders of the Greek origin, Theodotion used oral tradition and made his deviations accordingly. As for the time of composition of the account of Susanna, it is certain that, as being similar in language to the LXX translation, it existed by the time of the latter.