THE CANONICITY OF THESE ADDITIONS.-All these additions are regarded as canonical by the Roman Church. Both the Greek and Latin Fa thers commonly quote them as parts of Daniel's prophecy (comp. Irenxus, Cont. Her., iv. 11, 44 ; St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, iv. ; Tertid lian de Idol, xviii. ; De yieven. vii. ix. ; St. Cyprian, etc., quoted at length by Du Pin, History of the Canon). Against this, however, is to be urged : That these Fathers regarded the Septuagint and the Latin version as containing the canonical books ; 2. That these stories were among the many popular Jewish legends which never existed in a definite form, but were shaped by the Jews into different forms and used as parables as circum stances required, without their believing them to be true. This may be seen, not only from the different embellishments which these stories re ceived in the Septuagint by Theodotion, in the Midrash, and by Josippon, but also from the fact that the Jewish teacher, as St. Jerome tells us, ridiculed the idea of the three youths leisurely com posing metrical hymns in the fiery furnace ; that this Rabbi maintained that Daniel neither required a miracle nor inspiration to detect the frauds of the crafty priests of Bel, and to kill the Dragon with a cake of pitch, but ordinary sagacity ; that he re garded the idea of an angel carrying Habakkuk by the hair of his head through the air from Juclxa to Babylon as most preposterous, and having no parallel in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that he therefore maintained the apocryphal character of these portions of Daniel (Prxf. ad Danielem) ; 3. That in consequence of their legendary character these portions have never been admitted into the Hebrew Bible, nor are they mentioned in the Jew ish catalogues of their Canon (Baba Bathra 15); 4. That those Fathers who knew most of Hebrew, and had most intercourse with the Jews, and hence had the best means of ascertaining which books were in the Jewish Canon, rejected these additions as uncanonical. Thus St. Jerome distinctly says, Apud Hebrmos nec Susannm habet historiam, nec hymnum trium puerorum, nec Belis draconisque fabulas : quas nos, quia in toto orbe dispersie sunt, vent anteposito, eoque jugulante, subjecimus, ne videremur apud imperitos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse' (Proem ad Dan). Again,
he says that Origen, Eusebius, Apollinarius, and other ecclesiastics and doctors of Greece have de clared these portions as having no authority of sacred Scripture, 'Et miror quasdam pour indignari milli, quasi ego decurtaverim librum quum et Origenes, et Eusebius, et Apollinarius, aliique ecclesiastici viri et doctores Grwciae has, ut dixi visiones non haberi apud Hebrmos fateantur, nec se debere respondere Porphyrio pro his rime nullam scripturat sanctat auctoritatem pratbeant.' St. Jerome therefore wrote no commentary upon these apocryphal additions, but simply collected some observations from the tenth book of Origen's Stromata ; and in despair of being able to answer the objections against their contents, the Father concludes—' Quod facile solvet qui hanc historians in libro Danielis apud Hebrmos dixerit non haberi. Si quis autem potuerit cam approbare esse de Canone, tune qunrendum est quid ei respondere debeamus.' The literature on these apocryphal additions.— josippon ben Corion, ed. Breithaupt, 1710, p. 34, etc. ; Whitaker, Disputation on Scripture, the Par ker Society's ed., p. 76, etc.; Du Pin, History of the Canon, London, 1699, pp. 14, etc., 117, etc. ; Arnold, A Critical Commentary upon the Apocry phal Books ; Zunz, Die CattesdiensIlichen Vortrage der yuden, p. 122 ; De Wette, Einleitung in die Bibel, 1852, P. 353, etc. ; Delitzsch, De Habaczni vita et celate, 1844 ; Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel von der Zerstorung des ersten Tempels, etc., 1847, p. 316 ; Graetz, Geschichte der yetelen, p. 308 ; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, iv. p. 557, etc. ; Fritzsche, ICuregefasstes exegetisches Handbuth en den Apocryphen des A. T., i. p. lir, etc.; Davidson, The Text of the Old Testament considered, etc., p. 936, etc. ; Keil, Lehrbuch der historicch-kritischen Einleitung, etc., 1859, p. 732, etc.—C. D. G.