Глава 13

Chapters XIII and XIV are translated from Greek because they are not in the Hebrew text. There is no story about Susanna in the modern Hebrew text, just as there was no story in it in ancient times - under Origen (Epistol. ad Afrte. 13) and Jerome (cell. in Danf. Pro). The text of this story is preserved in the Greek translations of LXX and Theodotion, in ancient Italian, Coptic, Arabic, Syriac, Vulgate, Armenian, etc. In the codex Hyzian, containing the translation of the LXX and in the translation of Theodotion, as well as in the Vulgate, it is placed at the end of the book of the prophet Daniel, forming chapter 13; in the Vatican codices, Alexandrian translations, ancient Italian, Coptic, Arabic, Armenian - before the first chapter. The absence of a narrative about Susanna in the Hebrew-Aramaic text of the book apparently gives reason to assume that it was not originally there, and it appeared for the first time only in the translations of LXX and Theodotion. A similar assumption was expressed in ancient times by the Neoplatonist Porphyry and Julius Africanus, citing in support of it, among other things, the fact that in the Greek text of the story there is a play on words... πρινου πρισαι” (vv. 54–69), more characteristic of the Greek language than the Hebrew. In modern times, the existence of the Jewish original of the story of Susanna, on the basis of the Hebraisms found in Theodotion’s translation, is defended by Catholic exegetes and some of the Protestant ones: Eichorn, Delitzsch, De Lagarde and the English Bissel and Ball, while most of the latter reject it. A similar division of views is noticeable in Russian literature about the book. Prophet Daniel. The possibility of a Jewish original is allowed by Mr. Pesotsky, and Arch. Bukharev and Smirnov resolutely reject it; prof. Yungerov is not inclined to side with either one or the other opinion. The question of the historical authenticity of the story also did not receive a definite solution. Recognized by Catholic exegetes, it is denied not only by Protestants, but also by some of the Russian theologians: Metropolitans Philaret and Arseny. According to the first, “the story of Susanna is subject to doubt, because at the very beginning of the captivity she attributes to the Jews their own judgment seat with the right of life and death; Joachim has a magnificent house and gardens, which is very difficult to expect at the beginning of the Babylonian captivity, and is not confirmed by the testimony of the Jews themselves.” Metropolitan Arseny, in support of the unhistorical nature of the narrative, refers to the too “hasty judgment” of both the elders over Susanna and the elders themselves, “disagreeing with the image of the Eastern court,” and to the fact that the Jews “did not have the right of life and death” (Cf. Pesotsky: p. 283, pr. 3; p. 290, pr. 2). Finally, the question of the reasons for the deviation of Theodotion’s translation from the text of LXX is resolved differently - its greater vastness and features in the narrative (vv. 6-19; 22-27; 30-35; 36-40; 41, 42-50; 51-60, etc.). According to the defenders of the Hebrew-Aramaic original, Theodotion had a different Hebrew-Aramaic copy, according to which he “corrected and supplemented the text of the LXX; and according to the defenders of the Greek original, Theodotion used oral tradition and made his deviations from it. As for, finally, the time of compilation of the narrative of Susanna, there is no doubt that, being similar in language to the LXX translation, it existed at the time of the latter. You might be interested in: