Though this Addition therefore has its chronological difficulties, they need not be regarded as absolutely insurmountable.
Canonicity.
Before the correspondence of Origen with Julius Africanus, whose letter is "a model of sober criticism" (Swete, Patristic Study, p. 56)—a correspondence renewed between Eusebius of Cæsarea and Porphyry[[53]], and between Rufinus and Jerome, with less sobriety—we have no record of the point having been mooted. For, as Bissell writes (p. 448), "We have no evidence that these pieces were not regarded as fully on a level with the remainder of the book." Africanus heard Origen use Susanna in controversy with one Bassus, and subsequently wrote to remonstrate, he himself being resident in Palestine. Some of his objections in this famous letter have considerable force, while others are very weak (D.C.B. I. p. 54b).
[53] See Jerome's Pref. to Daniel, end.
Origen deems Susanna part of the genuine Daniel, cut out by the Jews, as he suggests in his Epistle to Africanus. Bishop Gray (O.T. p. 612) describes this Epistle as 'suspected'; but it appears now to be generally accepted. Origen thinks that the motive of Susanna's exclusion was its relation of particulars discreditable to the Jewish nation. But the Bishop truly says, "there is no foundation for this improbable fancy." It is, however, maintained by Philippe in Vigouroux' Dict. (cf. 'Title and Position,' p. 109).
Origen also asserts the canonicity of Susanna in Hom. in Levit. § 1 (middle): "Sed tempus est nos adversus improbos presbyteros uti sanctæ Susannæ vocibus, quas illi quidem repudiantes, historiam Susannæ de catalogo divinorum voluminum desecrarunt. Nos autem et suscipimus, et opportune contra ipsos proferimus, dicentes 'Angustiæ mihi undique,'" etc. (v. 22).
Again, Origen refers to the matter in his In Matthæum Commentariorum Series. He quotes Daniel's words in v. 55, "angelus Domini habens gladium scindet te medium," and also "ausi sumus uti in hoc loco, Dan. exemplo, non ignorantes quoniam in Hebræo positum non est, sed quoniam in ecclesiis tenetur. Alterius autem temporis est requirere de huiusmodi" (Migne, Patr. gr. XIII. 1696). Delitzsch (op. cit. p. 103) says, on second thoughts, that he "adductum esse, ut ipsos libros apocryphos ab Origine pro γνησίοις et divinis habitos esse censeam."
About the same time, or probably a little earlier, St. Hippolytus (†230) gives a similar reason for the extrusion of this episode. He notes on v. 8, ταῦτα μὲν οὐν οἱ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἄρχοντες βούλονται νῦν περικόπτειν τῆς βίβλου, φάσκοντες μὴ γενέσθαι ταῦτα ἐν Βαβυλῶνι· αἰσχυνόμενοι τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν γεγενημένον. On which Bardenhewer (op. cit. p. 76) remarks, "Susanna soll also früher auch in dem jüdischen Kanon gestanden haben und erst später (unliebsamen Vorwürfen gegenüber) aus demselben entfernt worden sein."
A. Scholz, however, who treats the book allegorically as a 'vision,' attributes early opinions adverse to its canonicity to the "Missverstehen der Erzählung und die unlösbaren Schwierigkeiten, die dieselbe bei der historischen Auffassung macht" (p. 139). The 'vision' theory, however, is a difficult one to maintain, serviceable though it may be in evading historic difficulties.
Lists of books of the canon do not help us much, as it is often uncertain whether 'Daniel' covers the Additions or not. We may safely conclude, however, that it does in Origen's own list, as preserved for us by Eusebius (H.E. VI. 25).