The statements made by E.L. Curtis at the end of art. Daniel in Hastings' B.D., that this and Bel and the Dragon are separate books in the LXX, have question marks justly affixed to them. In the Jacobite Syriac, Susanna is joined with Judith, Ruth, and Esther, as a "Female Book" (Urtext und Uebersetz. p. 230). Gwynn says (D.C.B. art. Thecla, IV. 895b), that in "Syriac O.T.'s these are usually placed together and classed as the four books of the 'Book of Women.'"

Yet another position is suggested by J. Fürst (quoted in Bissell, p. 444), who thinks its proper place is after Dan. i. 20. This is a very plausible conjecture, but evidence to support it is at present wanting. A slight confirmation of it however is afforded by the Byzantine Guide to Painting (see 'Art,' p. 171); and by the position given by Sulpicius Severus to his epitome of the story (see 'Christian Literature,' p. 167). E. Philippe (Vigouroux, Dict. II. 1267a) attempts to account for its removal from, or want of position in, the Massoretic Daniel, "parce qu'elle est infamante pour les juges d'Israel," obviously adopting Origen's reason (see 'Canonicity,' p. 157) which is not a very satisfactory one.

All things considered, the position of Susanna in the A.V. as a detached piece, along with Bel and the Dragon, is as suitable as any which have been suggested. For its original place cannot now, from the information in our hands, be determined with absolute certainty.

Date And Place Of Writing.

Date.

Susanna is deemed by J.M. Fuller (Speaker's Comm., Introd. to Dan., 221a) to be probably the oldest of the three additions. This opinion is however by no means universally accepted.

If a Semitic original really existed, it no doubt preceded the Greek texts. R.C. opinion (e.g. Dereser, quoted by Bissell, p. 444), as that of all who regard the booklet as canonical, treats it as part of Daniel, and therefore whatever date is assigned to that book is made to apply to this also. Professor A.A. Bevan (Comm. on Dan., Camb. 1892, p. 45) thinks that this piece and Bel and the Dragon "appear to have been circulated independently before they were incorporated with the book of Daniel." C.J. Ball ascribes the origin of the piece to the struggles between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, B.C. 94-89 (p. 330a). But to attribute it thus to the outcome of these quarrels, brings the original down to a later date than is at all probable, in view of its incorporation with the LXX.[[31]] Nor does the bitterness of those disputes seem stamped with sufficient strength upon the document itself to compel us to see in them its period of origin.

[31] Kothstein (Kautzsch i., 176) gives the first quarter of the last century B.C. as the latest possible date for the LXX version of Daniel. Exceedingly little time therefore would be allowed, on Ball's theory, for the original publication, the translation, and the incorporation into the Alexandrian canon, of this Susanna-book.

J.T. Marshall (Hastings' D.B. IV., 631-2) conjectures that the latter part of the story arose out of Simon ben Shetach's efforts, about 100 B.C., to get the law as to witnesses in criminal cases altered. This view is perhaps a trifle more probable than Ball's.

As to the true LXX text, Bissell (p. 444) rather inclines to deem it to have been from the first a part of the LXX. So Pusey, quoted by Churton (p. 389), says that it is "admitted to have been contemporary with the LXX version;" and W. Selwyn (D.B. III., p. 1210a) thinks that this, with the other additions, was "early incorporated with the LXX." Rothstein in Kautzsch, very hesitatingly and with much caution, suggests (I., p. 178) the second century before Christ.