Argument of the Chapter
The
history of Susanna: By two elder judges of the people, snares are laid
for the chastity of Susanna (13:1-27); but she, a distinguished victor,
chooses to suffer any evil rather than to sin. She is accused by the
same men of adultery through a fabricated narration of events and is
condemned. But Susanna invokes God as witness of her innocence
(13:28-44). Nor does God act in vain: for He stirs up the spirit of the
youth Daniel, who accomplishes what had been omitted—namely, he examines
the credibility of the accusers and witnesses; when these, miserably
disagreeing among themselves, are convicted of lying, Susanna is freed
from the charge, but the elders pay for their crime with death
(13:45-64).
a) Susanna, a Wife of Outstanding Virtue (13:1-27)
Jeremiah writes to the exiles: “Build houses, plant gardens”
(Jeremiah 29:5); whence it is clear—as also from the example of
Tobias—that the exiles were able to acquire wealth and property for
themselves. Therefore, it can in no way be a cause of offense that
Joakim, Susanna’s husband, possessed both a spacious house and an
orchard.
When
he himself was led away into captivity is not certain. Perhaps at the
same time as Daniel; perhaps with Jehoiachin, with whom many nobles were
led away (2 Kings 24:14).
Daniel indeed is called at the time when this event took place παιδάριον νεώτερον [paidarion neōteron] by the LXX, νεώτερος ὤν [neōteros ōn]; but παιδάριον expresses the Hebrew naʿar, by which word a youth of twenty years and more is not infrequently signified. Thus, for example, Benjamin is called naʿar
in Genesis 43:8, whose ten sons are nevertheless soon enumerated
(46:21); by the same name the brothers of David are designated, who was
the youngest of them and yet, diligently performing the duty of a
shepherd, had already boldly attacked and conquered a lion and a bear (1
Samuel 16:11; 17:34ff.); by the same name Absalom is called after he
had already stirred up rebellion against his father (2 Samuel 18:5)—in
which passages παιδάριον is read in the LXX. And even if Daniel is called νεώτερον, that appellation is comparable to that by which Solomon calls himself in 1 Kings 3: naʿar qaton, παιδάριον μικρόν
[paidarion mikron], although he was already king and had already
begotten a son (cf. 3 Kings 11:42 and 14:21). Therefore, by that word
you are by no means prevented from thinking—if it seems to you that the
condition of the times is thus better served—that Joakim was led away to
Babylon together with Jehoiachin.
If
so, this narrative properly ought to be placed after the second
chapter—which perhaps is also suggested by verse 64, by which Daniel is
said to have become great in the sight of the people, namely his own,
after he had already become great in the royal court and honored by the
king. By this event also it is proved that God gave Daniel wisdom and
understanding (1:17), and that before his own people, just as in chapter
2 the same is proved in the royal court.
St.
Jerome notes regarding his version: “Up to this point we read Daniel in
the Hebrew volume; what follows to the end of the book has been
translated from Theodotion’s edition.”
Verse 1-4: The Beauty and Piety of Susanna, the Wealth and Authority of Joakim
Verse 1: “And there was a man dwelling in Babylon, and his name was Joakim.”
Verse 2: “And he took a wife named Susanna, daughter of Hilkiah, very beautiful and fearing God.”
Verse 3: “For her parents, since they were just, had educated their daughter according to the law of Moses.”
Verse 4: “Now
Joakim was very rich, and he had an orchard adjoining his house, and
the Jews resorted to him because he was more honorable than all.”
In
the Syriac version, according to the edition of Thomas, bishop of
Heraclea (ed. her.), it is read: “When Daniel was twelve years old,
there was a man named Joakim”; the same age is also ascribed to him in
the interpolated epistle of St. Ignatius the Martyr to the Magnesians
(Migne 5, 760) and by Sulpicius Severus, Hist.
2.1 (Migne 20, 128). Ammonius calls Joakim a king whom Nebuchadnezzar
led away to Babylon. The Syncellus attributes the same opinion to
Hippolytus and considers it probable: πιθανὸς ὁ λόγος [pithanos ho logos], Chronographia,
ed. Dindorf, I, p. 413. But if he had been a king—that is,
Jehoiachin/Jehoiachin—this would not have been passed over in silence in
the narrative.
Hippolytus
also thinks that Susanna was the daughter of that Hilkiah the priest
who found the book of the law in the house of the Lord, and that she was
the sister of the prophet Jeremiah. Also in the Heracleensis edition,
Helkanas is called a priest; that name seems to have been quite common
in priestly or Levitical families (cf. Jeremiah 1:1; 29:3; 1 Chronicles
6:30, 26; 11; Nehemiah 8:4); whence it is not improbable that Susanna
traced her origin from Levitical stock or a priestly family.
The
name Susanna is said to mean “lily” (cf. Canticle 2:1; Hosea 14:6); and
that the appellation of lily was deservedly imposed upon her, her
exceptional virtue and chastity declared. In the Heracleensis edition it
is added that in the house of Joakim the Jews had a synagogue, a sacred
assembly, and that Susanna was with her husband for a few days and
spent the rest of her life in widowhood, exercising herself day and
night in the worship of God.
Her
parents are praised, who, being just themselves, sanctly and piously
educated their daughter in God’s commandments according to the law. Thus
the sacred author sets forth how useful the pious instruction and
education of a girl was.
In
the “fear of God” true piety is designated: reverence, observance of
the commandments—in brief, a life conducted according to the norm of the
law.
Not
without art is mention made immediately of both her beauty and her
piety and of the orchard adjoining the house; by mention of these things
the subsequent narrative is prepared for.
Pomarium [orchard] = παράδεισος [paradeisos] = Hebrew pardes (Canticle 4:13); in the old Latin version, verse 20, viridarium [garden] is read.
Lansselius
not inappropriately observes: Nebuchadnezzar the king, who admitted
noble Jewish youths into his court, also kindly fostered leading Jewish
men; it is altogether probable, therefore, that it should not seem
surprising if Joakim possessed a distinguished house with an orchard and
other ornaments, as one excelling others in honor and dignity, in whose
house it was permitted to the Jews to conduct their cases before judges
of their own nation.
The
exiled Jews administered their own affairs and used their own judges.
These judges perhaps were appointed to their office by the king, in a
similar way to how, when Jews were left in Palestine, the king appointed
the Jew Gedaliah [as governor]. Therefore we learn at the same time
that the king was by no means concerned that the Jews should be governed
by the laws and customs of the Babylonians, but only aimed that taxes
be paid. Consequently, that even in exile the Jews used their own
magistrates has nothing alien to the truth. For those skilled in the
histories of the ancients altogether admit that it was not the custom
among the ancients to refer the administration of all things to one
certain supreme magistrate in such a way that all cities, provinces,
individual peoples, tribes, and nations were governed by one norm and
the same laws (cf. Cornely, Introd. II, 2, p. 508, note 10).
Verses 5-14: The Occasion by Which Two Elders, Captivated by Love of Susanna, Laid Snares
Verse 5: “And
two elders were appointed judges from the people in that year, of whom
the Lord spoke, because iniquity went forth from Babylon, from the elder
judges who seemed to rule the people.”
Verse 6: “These frequented the house of Joakim, and all who had lawsuits came to them.”
Verse 7: “But when the people had returned at noon, Susanna would enter and walk in her husband’s orchard.”
Verse 8: “And the elders saw her every day, entering and walking, and they were inflamed with concupiscence toward her.”
From
where those words of the Lord are taken is uncertain. Some think of
Jeremiah 23:14 or 29:22 (cf. Maldonatus, Calmet, Röhling, Sanctius). Not
improbably he opines that this saying is from some prophet which has
been preserved for us at this place, in the way in which, for example,
the word of the Lord has been preserved for us by St. Paul: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). Perhaps Christ often said to Martha: “If you believe, you will see the glory of God”—which sentence we would lack unless Christ repeated: “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”
(John 11:40). Just as, therefore, certain words of Christ preserved by
tradition are read among ecclesiastical writers, so since many prophets
existed who left nothing for us in writing, you might easily suppose
that such a saying is recalled to memory at this place, just as in
historical books various oracles of prophets are recounted (cf. 1 Kings
2:30; 2 Kings 7:14; 3 Kings 20:22). This seems more probable to me,
since those passages adduced from Jeremiah little agree with the sense
of the words.
St. Jerome observes: “A Hebrew used to say that these were Ahab and Zedekiah, concerning whom Jeremiah writes: ‘May the Lord make you like Ahab and Zedekiah, whom the king of Babylon roasted in fire’”
(Jeremiah 29:22). The same opinion of the Jews is mentioned in the
commentary on Jeremiah 29:21; and Origen also reports that the same
thing was said to him by a learned Hebrew, the son of a man wise among
them (Ep. ad Afric.,
n. 7); and in n. 8 he reports that it was said by another Hebrew that
those elders concerning whom Daniel affirms that they brought a vice
upon women had been given to them the promise to beget Christ, and that
by this lie the women were deceived.
But
very many consider that opinion a fable and reject it (cf. Maldonatus,
Pererius, Sanctius, Lansselius, Calmet, Estius on Jeremiah 29:22);
likewise Lapide defends it; Lyranus, Tirinus, and among more recent
scholars, Wiederholt (Tübinger Quartalschrift,
1869, p. 395ff.) and Tirinus observe that everything corresponds very
well: both lived in Babylon, both in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, both
liars, both adulterers, both punished for adulteries, to both it was
said by God: ‘I am judge and witness’;
nor does it contradict that prophets be chosen as judges, nor does it
contradict that judges convicted of so enormous a crime were brought to
the tribunal of Nebuchadnezzar.
In
a similar way Wiederholt argues that they could have been both prophets
and judges, nor does it stand in the way that in Jeremiah they are
punished by the king, while here they are said to have been killed by
the people; for the narrative can be so explained that the people
accused them, but the king condemned them to death.
It
is objected indeed that these judges were stoned—for that penalty is
proposed for adultery (Deuteronomy 22:24; Ezekiel 16:40; John 8:5,
7)—and since false witnesses ought to undergo the same punishment which,
if the accusation had been true, would have been undergone by the
accused, it is rightly concluded that they were stoned. To which some
respond in vain that they were first stoned and then roasted in fire, or
that by the name of fire every violent death is designated. But in the
narrative at Daniel’s place it is only said that they were killed by the
people, nor yet by what death; and at Deuteronomy 19:16ff. satisfaction
is made if the judges underwent the penalty of death, by which deed it
could be said that it was done with them according to the law of Moses.
To
this indeed—as we have seen—the age of Daniel does not stand in the
way; but since the Hebrews are altogether frequent in fabricating such
things, little weight rests on their tradition. Then, at Jeremiah 29:23
other crimes are assigned on account of which they are said to be
delivered into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar by God—namely, adulteries
committed with the wives of friends and false oracles which they uttered
in the name of God; but here they are condemned for false testimony
spoken against an innocent person. Therefore that opinion does not seem
probable.
In the Heracleensis edition they are called Amid and Abid.
Ammonius observes that it is well said ἐδόκουν κυβερνᾶν
[edokoun kybernan]: “they seemed to govern”; for in appearance they
were seen as governors, but in truth they plunged obedient souls into
shipwreck. For in truth, as Albert notes, they did not rule but
perverted the people; yet they displayed such gravity in speech, such
simulated holiness in morals, that they seemed as if they would preserve
others in every duty and integrity of morals—but it was simulated
holiness (Sanctius). Others prefer to explain: “who seemed to themselves
to be something.”
To
these judges came into the house of Joakim whoever had lawsuits among
themselves. But when at noon itself, with judgments concluded, each
returned to his own home, Susanna was accustomed to proceed from her
chamber and solitude and to walk in the garden. Moreover, the judges,
after the departure of the people, remaining there for a while for the
sake of consultation or conversing familiarly with Joakim, frequently
saw her and were inflamed with lustful love.
The
cause of the lustful love of the elders is rendered, as Maldonatus
says. But captured by that disturbance of lust, they were altogether
infatuated; for lust is accustomed most of all to pervert the sense of
reason.
Verse 9: “And
they perverted their sense and turned aside their eyes that they might
not see heaven nor remember the judgments of the just.”
Verse 10: “So both were wounded with love of her, nor did they indicate their grief to each other.”
Verse 11: “For they were ashamed to indicate their concupiscence to each other, wishing to lie with her.”
In
verse 9 the author excellently teaches by what arms lust ought to be
expelled: the eyes ought to be lifted to heaven, to God; His help ought
to be implored; His precept ought to be remembered; and His just
judgments ought to be considered, who pursues crimes with severe
chastisement. Those wretched men fear a human friend; they do not dare
to lay bare the sense of lust before God, who searches reins and hearts;
they are not suffused with shame. This is indeed the foolishness of
sinners.
In
the LXX: “One dissimulated to the other the evil by which he himself
was held, nor did the woman know anything.” They long nourished the
flame in their souls.
Verse 12: “And they watched daily, more solicitous to see her.”
Verse 13: “And one said to the other: ‘Let us go home, because it is the hour of dinner.’ And going out, they departed from each other.”
Verse 14: “But
when they had returned, they came into one place, and inquiring from
each other the cause, they confessed their concupiscence; and then in
common they established the time when they might be able to find her
alone.”
He
wished, namely, that each dismiss the other from himself and remain
alone; and when they had pretended to go home, by another way again they
returned to the same place (Maldonatus, Sanctius).
Maldonatus
observes that Job made a covenant with his eyes that he not even think
of a virgin (Job 31:1); but those elders seem to have made a covenant
with their eyes that they be directed not to heaven but only to the
aspect full of danger.
Otherwise
the matter is narrated in the LXX: “When morning came, each hastened so
that he might arrive sooner than the other and speak with her; and
behold, she, according to custom, was walking; and one of the elders had
arrived, and behold the other also approached; and one asked the other:
‘Why have you gone out so early in the morning, not taking me with
you?’ And they confessed their grief to each other, and one said to the
other: ‘Let us go to her’; and agreeing among themselves, they
approached her and attempted to do violence to her.” The rest is
altogether omitted up to verse 22.
What
therefore we have already observed elsewhere in the book of Daniel (cf.
5:3; 6:18), here too we perceive—namely, those things which savor of
Venus are omitted as much as can be done.
Verses 15-23: The Snares Which They Constructed
Verse 15: “And
it came to pass, when they watched for a suitable day, she entered at a
certain time, as yesterday and the day before, with only two maids, and
she wished to wash in the orchard; for it was hot.”
“Yesterday and the day before” is a Hebraism (cf. Genesis 31:2; Exodus 4:10; Joshua 4:18): namely, as she had been accustomed to do before.
After a bath the body was accustomed to be anointed with oil. Smigma
(σμήγμα), according to usage among profane writers, has a threefold
meaning: either it denotes an ointment having the power of cleansing
away filth and purifying (soap), or also a fragrant ointment, or among
physicians an ointment having healing power (cf. Fritzsche, Esther 2:3,
9). The word in the LXX is read for mirqachoth,
in which places ointments and perfumes are understood with which girls
to be brought to the king were adorned. Moreover, mention of anointing
after a bath is also made in Ruth 3:3; 2 Kings 12:20; Judith 10:3: “She washed her body and anointed herself with the best myrrh.”
Lest Susanna seem given over to luxuries, the author seems to excuse the use of the bath by mentioning the heat.
Verse 16: “And there was no one there except the two elders, hidden and gazing upon her.”
Verse 17: “Therefore she said to the maids: ‘Bring me oil and smigmata, and close the doors of the orchard, that I may wash.'”
Verse 18: “And
they did as she commanded, and they closed the doors of the orchard,
and they went out by the back door that they might bring what she had
ordered; nor did they know that the elders were hidden inside.”
Theodotion, verse 18: κατὰ τὰς πλαγίας θύρας [kata tas plagias thyras]: “through the side doors.” The Old Latin has verse 20: “consent to us and be with us”—more according to the word according to the Greek text, or: “condescend, so to speak, to us; comply with us” (Maldonatus).
In the Syriac version the elders threaten that they will bear false testimony.
Truly
they perverted their sense; for the eyes of the Lord are much brighter
than the sun, looking upon all the ways of men and the depths of the
abyss and beholding the hearts of men in hidden parts (Sirach 23:28).
Which thing Susanna excellently teaches them:
Verse 22: “Susanna
sighed and said: ‘Anguish is on every side for me. For if I do this,
death is for me; but if I do not do it, I shall not escape your hands.'”
Verse 23: “But it is better for me without [this] deed to fall into your hands than to sin in the sight of the Lord.”
It is added in both Syriac versions: “death from the Lord”;
and that it is so to be understood Maldonatus rightly observes, and it
is also clear from the other member of verse 23. Therefore she calls
sinning “death before the Lord”—the death and destruction of the soul
(cf. Sá, Sanctius, Lapide, Tirinus). And St. Jerome notes: “He calls sin
‘death’; just as, therefore, to one who commits adultery death is
adultery, so every sin which leads to death ought to be called ‘death.'”
Sometimes
they explain: “I shall be guilty of death by the Mosaic law”
(Menochius)—which explanation they also attribute to Origen and St.
Jerome (Maldonatus, Lapide). But this is little, nor was it to be feared
lest the elders themselves reveal the crime; therefore, with the crime
admitted, she could not fear the penalty of death. Therefore another
acceptance is necessarily required.
Regarding verse 23, St. Jerome observes: “In Greek it is not αἱρετώτερον [hairetōteron], that is, ‘better,’ but αἱρετόν
[haireton], which we can interpret as ‘good’; whence elegantly he did
not say ‘it is better for me,’ lest by comparison with sin, which was
not good, this seem to be called ‘better’; but he says ‘it is good’: not
to do evil and to fall into your hands, lest I sin in the sight of the
Lord.” Therefore it ought not to be read comparatively: “better.”
In the LXX it is read: κάλλιον [kallion].
Interpreters
also ask: Was Susanna obligated that by crying out she expose herself
to danger of death and repel the lust of the elders from herself? They
respond that it was permitted to her in so great a danger of infamy and
death to behave negatively and to permit their lust upon herself,
provided that by internal act she did not consent to it, but detested
and execrated it; because fame and life are a greater good than
chastity. Therefore she was not bound to cry out, as Soto teaches (De Iustitia, 1.5, q. 1, art. 5) and Navarrus (Manual, c. 16, n. 1); thus Lapide, Tirinus.
Therefore
that she cried out and by no means permitted anything to be committed
in herself was an act of outstanding and heroic virtue (Lapide,
Tirinus). She understood that the burning lust of the elders could not
be extinguished by prayers; whence she had recourse to arms which arm
and fortify feminine weakness (Sanctius).
Verses 24-27: The Accusation and the Shame of the Servants
Verse 24: “And Susanna cried out with a loud voice; but the elders also cried out against her.”
Verse 25: “And one ran to the doors of the orchard and opened [them].”
And
they themselves, namely, cried out—as having now been betrayed by
Susanna’s cry—that they might accuse her, lest they seem not the
perpetrators but the avengers of the crime (Lapide, Maldonatus). And
those crafty old men suddenly so arrange their affair that suspicion and
appearance of crime might be turned upon Susanna; and immediately it
occurred to them what was to be done—namely, that with the door opened
they might be able to say that the young man whom they were going to lie
had been there had escaped.
St. Ambrose praises and commends this cry of Susanna, writing concerning her: “I,
placed between two presbyters—between two, indeed, judges of the
people—alone, situated among the woods of paradise, could not be
conquered because I did not wish” (De Lapsu Virginis, Consol. 4.12; Migne 16, 370).
People
run to the cry; certainly the elders so raised their voice that their
shouting might be heard before the cry of Susanna—which greatly
contributed to casting the crime upon her.
Verse 26: “Therefore
when the servants of the house had heard the cry, they rushed into the
orchard by the back door that they might see what the matter was.”
Verse 27: “But
after the elders had spoken, the servants were greatly ashamed, because
never had a word of this sort been said concerning Susanna.”
They
were ashamed when they heard their mistress accused of adultery by
judges, and those elders; and although her unblemished and immaculate
life beforehand seemed to offer suitable testimony of chastity,
nevertheless it seemed irreligious to them not to believe the elders
(St. Augustine, Sermon 343; Migne 39, 1505).
In
the LXX all these things after verse 23 are omitted. But in the Syriac
version they are narrated with various additions; thus, for example, to
verse 22: “If I do this,
death will be for me from the Lord, because I have brought reproach upon
the bed of Joakim my husband; and if I do not do it, I shall receive an
evil death from your hands, with an evil name, and it does not befit my
nobility, and I shall abandon my shame to my whole family on account of
the false testimony of wicked men, who add upon the contrition and upon
the evil of Israel with mockery among foreign nations.”
And to verse 23: “That Lord will by no means forget that I trust in Him, that I will be freed from your hands by Him.”
And verse 24: “And Susanna cried out with a loud voice on account of her affliction from the hands of impudent men.”
And in verse 26 the elders now set forth the story fabricated by themselves: “When
we were passing outside the garden, looking so that we might see the
garden, we saw Susanna resting with a certain young man; we ran that we
might seize them, and we were not able to hold the young man, because he
was stronger than us.”
And verse 27: “And
when they heard the words of the elders, all the servants of Susanna
were affected with shame concerning that which they said she had done.”
But the other version (ed. her.) much more follows the text of Theodotion; only a few things are added, chiefly in verse 27: “And
when the men of her house and much people had come at their cry, they
asked the archisynagogues what that cry was; and again they added to
their sins and spoke impure words: ‘Susanna has committed adultery, and
we have caught her with a young man in the garden.’ And the servants and
handmaids of Susanna were put to shame, because nothing of that sort
had been heard concerning Susanna; and they cast bonds upon Susanna, and
she was in custody three days.”
b) False Testimony Concerning Her (13:28-44)
On the following day Susanna is summoned to court by the same elders.
Verse 28: “And
the next day came; and when the people had come to Joakim her husband,
the two presbyters also came, full of wicked thought against Susanna,
that they might kill her.”
Verse 29: “And they said before the people: ‘Send for Susanna, daughter of Hilkiah, wife of Joakim.’ And immediately they sent.”
In Theodotion: “And
it came to pass on the next day, when the people had convened at her
husband Joakim, the two elders came, etc. ‘Send,’ that is, ‘fetch her.'”
In the LXX: “But
the wicked men went away, threatening among themselves and lying in
wait that they might kill her; and they came to the synagogue of the
city where they dwelt, and all the sons of Israel who were there were
gathered; and the two elders and judges rising up said, etc.”
Therefore, according to the LXX, judgment was not held in the very
house of Joakim; but her house is assigned in the Syriac version.
In Theodotion it is not read “immediately”; but it is had in the LXX.
With
great display of compassion her relatives accompanied Susanna, that by
their presence and grief they might bear witness concerning her life
excellently spent and await the outcome of the unusual matter.
Verse 30: “And she came with her parents and children and all her relatives.”
Verse 31: “Moreover, Susanna was exceedingly delicate and beautiful in countenance.”
Verse 32: “But those wicked men ordered that she be uncovered; for she was covered, that thus they might be satisfied by her beauty.”
The
author well depicts the opposite matter: her friends grieve and mourn,
having her probity of life so clearly perceived; those elders, with lust
profligated, desire to satiate pleasure from her aspect.
They
order her to put off the veil. A woman accused on suspicion of adultery
is ordered to stand in the sight of the Lord with head uncovered
(Numbers 5:18). Therefore perhaps by that law the elders were striving
to cloak the wicked affect of their minds before others; the veil thrown
before the eyes defended from ignominy, which is some relief to the
wretched—but that lustful old age takes away (Sanctius).
That by this thing the grief of Susanna was greatly increased and no small reproach was inflicted upon her is clear.
According
to the law (Leviticus 24:14), witnesses and accomplices of a crime are
ordered to place hands upon the head of the accused.
Verse 34: “But the two presbyters rising up in the midst of the people placed their hands upon her head.”
Verse 35: “Who, weeping, looked up to heaven; for her heart had confidence in the Lord.”
“She
was silent and cried out in her heart,” as St. Augustine says (on Psalm
118:2; Migne 37, 1775; and Sermon 156.14; Migne 38, 858). St. Ambrose
also praises this silence: “There
is also a busy silence, as was that of Susanna, who accomplished more
by being silent than if she had spoken; by being silent she spoke to
men, to God; nor did she find any greater indication of her chastity
than silence. Conscience was speaking where voice was not heard; nor was
she seeking the judgment of men for herself, who had the testimony of
the Lord; therefore she wished to be absolved by Him whom she knew could
by no means be deceived. And again Susanna was silent in dangers, and
she considered the loss of modesty more serious than that of life; nor
did she think that safety was to be guarded by danger to modesty. She
was speaking to God alone, to whom chaste modesty could speak concerning
duties” (De Officiis Ministrorum 1.3.18; Migne 16, 26-43).
In the LXX it is added what she prayed to herself three times, looking up: “O
Lord God eternal, knower of all things before they exist, You know that
I have not perpetrated those things which those wicked men have
wickedly fabricated against me.”
And the Lord heard her prayer—He anticipates therefore that prayer
which is read in almost the same way in Theodotion afterwards (verses
42-43), in which place there is nothing in the LXX.
By the imposition of hands the elders declare themselves witnesses.
Verse 36: “And
the presbyters said: ‘As we were walking in the orchard alone, this
woman entered with two maids, and she closed the doors of the orchard
and dismissed the maids from herself.'”
This is to be read with contempt, as Albert notes.
Verse 37: “And a young man came to her who was hidden, and he lay with her.”
Verse 38: “Moreover, when we were in a corner of the orchard, seeing the iniquity, we ran to them and saw them mingling together.”
Verse 39: “And him indeed we were not able to seize, because he was stronger than us, and with the doors opened he leaped out.”
Verse 40: “But
her, when we had seized, we asked who that young man was, and she was
not willing to indicate him to us. Of this thing we are witnesses.”
The Old Latin has verse 38: “and we saw them running together”; and verse 40: “we attest these things.”
In the LXX they thus speak: “We
saw this woman resting with a man; and standing by, we saw them
conversing with each other; and they did not know that we were present.
Then we said among ourselves: ‘Let us learn who these are’; and having
approached, we recognized this woman; but the young man fled veiled; but
her, seizing, we asked, etc.”
By
their authority the elder judges so prevailed that all further inquiry
into the matter was omitted. The people acquiesced—perhaps mindful of
Deuteronomy 19:15: “One
witness shall not stand against anyone, whatever that sin and crime may
be; but in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand.” But these by a twofold title—both of old age and of judicial power—seemed to merit credibility and to demand it by their right.
Verse 41: “And the multitude believed them, as elders and judges of the people, and condemned her to death.”
The
last member is not read in the LXX; but immediately transition is made
to verse 45. But in the Heracleensis edition it is added: “to
the sentence of death; and they said: ‘She who has committed adultery
is worthy of death, and that she be stoned’; and at the ninth hour
Susanna was handed over that they might cast her down from the place
from which adulteresses are cast down; and many were gathered to watch.”
Susanna Invokes God as Witness of Her Innocence
Susanna solemnly invokes God, the omniscient, as her witness.
Verse 42: “But
Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said: ‘O eternal God, who art
the knower of hidden things, who knowest all things before they come to
pass.'”
Verse 43: “You
know that they have borne false testimony against me; and behold, I
die, when I have done none of these things which these men have wickedly
fabricated against me.”
Verse 44: “And the Lord heard her voice.”
The
affection of the heart, the pure confession of the mind, and the good
conscience had made her voice clearer; whence great was her exclamation
to God, which was not heard by men (St. Jerome).
She
implores the help of God, hoping for aid from Him (cf. verse 35), who
in the old covenant had promised even a temporal reward to virtue.
Therefore she can safely entrust her case to God.
Moreover,
this solemn invocation of God as witness of innocence, at that time
when she was already being led to death, was also suitable by which
prudent judges ought to be warned and stirred up that, inquiry having
been made, they might examine the matter more accurately.
Susanna
therefore acted piously and prudently in every respect; the moderation
of her soul is also admirable, by which she speaks concerning those
wicked men who were eager to snatch away both her honor and her life.
With a placid mind she awaits death, conscious of no crime; she sets
forth her case to God, nor does she importunately demand that He snatch
her from danger, but leaves all things to the good pleasure of God,
displaying that mind which those three youths also show (3:17-18).
c) Her Innocence is Revealed (13:45-64)
Verse 45: “And when she was being led to death, the Lord raised up the holy spirit of a youth, whose name was Daniel.”
According to the LXX: “The angel of the Lord gave Daniel the spirit of understanding.”
Daniel detains the people and, standing in their midst, says: “Thus you are foolish, sons of Israel,” etc.
Therefore,
by a singular impulse of God, the mind of Daniel was illuminated, and
audacity and industry were imparted to him, by which he might dare to
resist and might discover by what path that fraud might be laid open
before the eyes of all. God therefore imparted to him the spirit of
prophecy, by which he might certainly know Susanna to be innocent from
those things which had just occurred, since the pious and upright mind
of Daniel is illuminated by God and stirred up to a matter pleasing to
God; therefore it is meritoriously called a holy spirit.
By
common consent, Susanna had been condemned; against which Daniel makes
intercession and removes all blame from her in every respect, and
declares with a loud voice that those who had condemned her are guilty
of murder, guilty of innocent blood. By this voice he turns the eyes of
all upon himself.
Verse 46: “And he cried out with a loud voice: ‘I am innocent of the blood of this woman.'”
Verse 47: “And all the people turned to him and said: ‘What is this word that you have spoken?'”
Verse 48: “And
when he stood in their midst, he said: ‘Thus you are foolish, sons of
Israel, not judging, nor knowing what is true, you have condemned a
daughter of Israel.'”
He
reproves them because they condemned a daughter of Israel—a woman of
hitherto excellent reputation, pious, not originating from a foreign
nation but of the same race as themselves—so precipitately that they in
no way investigated, judged, or examined what had been said by the
witnesses, but simply believed what was said (cf. Ammonius).
In the LXX, two verses (49 and 50) are not read. In the Heracleensis edition, some things are added to verse 48: “He
prophesied and said: ‘Listen, attend to the word of the Lord, and hear
the voice of his prophet, and do not condemn an innocent person. In the
upright judgment of God, judge true judgment, lest the Lord cast upon
you the fury of his terrible wrath; for his plague is terrible, nor can
you bear it.'” And he said
to them: “Are you then so foolish, sons of Israel, and do you not judge
true judgment, but make a mockery of justice?” And all the people
wondered.
The Trial is Renewed
The
presiding judges easily acquiesce; for, warned by the voice of Daniel,
they recognize that what had been prescribed by law had been omitted by
them—namely, that testimonies given should be explored by diligent
examination (Deuteronomy 19:18): “and the judges shall inquire diligently,” etc. (Hebrew).
Verse 50: “Therefore
the people returned with haste, and the elders said to him: ‘Come and
sit in our midst, and indicate to us, because God has given you the
honor of old age.'”
“The honor of old age”
(τὸ πρεσβεῖον) is the right of judging or directing judgment, for which
experience and prudence are needed. Since these things are now seen in
Daniel more than in the elders, God himself is said to have conferred
upon him the authority which otherwise is accustomed to belong to
seniors.
These
words certainly are not of those same elders and accusers—which
Maldonatus, Lapide, Menochius, and Tirinus say were spoken either
ironically or for the sake of flattery, that they might win Daniel over
to themselves by showing him honor—but, with Sanctius, Calmet, and
Röhling, it must be said that the words are of others, namely those who
were presiding over the judgment hastily completed. Nor is it probable,
as Trochon thinks, that the whole people is designated by that name.
According to the Heracleensis edition, a chair is also brought from the treasury and placed so that Daniel might sit.
Verse 51: “And Daniel said to them: ‘Separate them from each other at a distance, and I will judge them.'”
Most
prudently Daniel orders that the witnesses be separated from each
other, lest they might confer anything between themselves which might
artfully conceal the fabricated crime (Sanctius).
Verse 52: “When
therefore they had been separated, one from the other, he called one of
them and said to him: ‘Inveterate in days of evil, now your sins have
come which you were doing before.'”
“Inveterate”—that
is, “O wicked and criminal old man, who have consumed a long time of
life in sins; now your sins have come to their full measure and
maturity, and at last they will have the punishments they deserve”
(Maldonatus).
Daniel, endowed with the prophetic spirit, knew their hidden crimes. He cites the place from Exodus 23:7 (cf. Leviticus 19:5).
Verse 53: “Judging
unjust judgments, oppressing the innocent, and dismissing the guilty,
while the Lord says: ‘The innocent and the just you shall not kill.'”
Verse 54: “Now therefore, if you saw her, tell under what tree you saw them conversing with each other.”
In verse 54, εἴπερ [eiper], by which particle some doubt is already signified: “if indeed,” “if at all.” ὁμιλοῦντας [homilountas]—with which word the LXX used in verse 37—the Old Latin renders as “dealing with” [tractantes].
“Who said: Under a mastic tree.”
Schinus in Latin is lentiscus [lentisk], and the Old Latin has “under a lentisk” (cf. St. Augustine, Sermon 343.1; Migne 39, 1506).
Verse 55: “But
Daniel said: ‘Rightly have you lied to your head; for behold, the angel
of God, having received sentence from him, will cut you in two.'”
Daniel
responds: “By your own response, as if by a sword, you have slain
yourself; for by your own words I will prove you a false witness”
(Sanctius). “You have lied aptly, that you might condemn yourself by
your own words” (Maldonatus).
What
is added concerning the angel signifies that you will not escape divine
judgment and vengeance; already sentence has been pronounced against
you by God. He commemorates the angel because angels are executors of
divine judgments, and he explains how certainly punishment threatens the
wicked. Others explain more subtly that the angel will kill him if the
people spare him (cf. Sanctius, Maldonatus, Lapide, Röhling, Trochon).
According
to the LXX, Daniel also warns the people not to decide among themselves
that they are elders who do not lie; he says he will judge according to
what occurs.
In
the Syriac version, that utterance of the Lord is not adduced, but in
its place it is said: “The Lord is just and pure”; then: “Now tell us
concerning this woman: what did you see, and under what tree did you see
them conversing?”
In
the Heracleensis edition, Susanna is first loosed from her bonds, and
Daniel professes that he will not judge from the judgment-seat, but
standing, and that he will judge concerning the elders as the Lord will
give and show, and that he will demonstrate that they have borne false
testimony concerning Susanna through iniquity.
Verse 56: “Then, when that one had been removed, he ordered the other to come, and said to him: ‘O seed of Canaan and not of Judah!'”
Verse 57: “Beauty deceived you, and concupiscence subverted your heart.”
In verse 57, ὡμίλουν ὑμῖν [hōmiloun hymin]—the Old Latin: “they were lying with you” [concumbebant vobiscum]; or as St. Augustine has it, “they were acquiescing to you” (Questions 78 on Exodus).
Verse 58: “Thus
you used to do to the daughters of Israel, and they, fearing, were
speaking with you; but the daughter of Judah did not endure your
iniquity.”
In verse 58, the Old Latin: “dealing with each other” [invicem tractantes]; ὁμιλοῦντας ἀλλήλοις [homilountas allēlois].
He
calls him “seed of Canaan,” for someone is said to have such fathers as
whose morals and character he imitates (Sanctius; cf. Ezekiel 16:3,
45). Concerning the morals of the Canaanites, cf. Leviticus 18:3; Wisdom
12:3ff.; 14:24ff.
The
LXX: “Why is your seed perverse, like the seed of Sidon, and not like
that of Judah?”—that is, “your character, which indeed seems to be
derived from a wicked race.”
“Beauty deceives you”; “petty concupiscence”—if the reading is genuine. They also propose the reading μιαρά [miara]; explain the word as “vile concupiscence” and “contemptible,” in which notion μικρός [mikros] is sometimes employed by profane writers, and is also read in most manuscripts of Joshua 22:19 for the Hebrew אָמֵט [amet], “impure.”
In the Heracleensis edition, to the response of the elder in verse 58 is added: “And
the whole assembly cried out with a loud voice and praised God, the
revealer of secrets, who renders to the innocent according to his
innocence, and requites the wicked, and puts his way upon his head.”
And also in verse 59 some things are added.
Verse 58: “Now therefore tell me: Under what tree did you apprehend them conversing with each other?”
Verse 59: “Who said: Under an evergreen oak.”
In the Old Latin, the elder responds: “Under a holm oak” [sub ilice].
Verse 59: “But
Daniel said to him: ‘Rightly have you lied, you also, to your head; for
the angel of the Lord remains, having a sword, that he may cut you in
two and kill you.'”
In the Greek text, in both [LXX and Theodotion], a paranomasia [play on words] is observed: in verse 54, ὑπὸ σχῖνον [hypo schinon, “under a mastic tree”] and σχίσει [schisei, “he will cut”]; and in verse 58, ὑπὸ πρῖνον [hypo prinon, “under an evergreen oak”], verse 59, πρῖσαι [prisai], καταπρίσῃ [kataprisē, “to cut,” “he will cut through”] (LXX)—which same [wordplay] is found in no other version.
The names of the trees also vary: in the Old Latin, “under a lentisk,” “under a holm oak”; in the Syriac, אַתְמְטַב [atmṭab, “terebinth”] and אֶטוּלְבָּא [‘eṭulbā, “oak”]; in the Heracleensis edition, אַקַתְסַפ [‘aqatsap, “pistachio”] and אַנְמוֹר [anmor, “pomegranate”].
From
this play on words which is found in Greek, Africanus already concluded
that this narrative is spurious—that is, written originally in Greek,
and therefore cannot be referred to Daniel nor to the Hebrew Bible.
Origen
responds to him that not a few Hebrews had been consulted by him, but
they said that they were ignorant of Greek words and demanded that the
trees themselves be shown to them. When Origen had done this,
nevertheless nothing was accomplished, because they themselves did not
know how trees which are nowhere named in the Scriptures would be called
in Hebrew (cf. Migne 11, 44, 61). Whence Origen concludes: “I fear to
pronounce whether even among the Hebrews a similar derivation of names
is preserved or not.”
St.
Jerome also warns that diligent inquiry must be made concerning the
names, whether they exist among the Hebrews and what etymology they
have; “but if it is not found, we will be compelled by necessity also to
acquiesce in the opinion of those who wish this to be a περικοπή [perikopē,
“section”] of Greek speech only, which has Greek etymology only and
does not have Hebrew. But if anyone should show that the etymology of
these two trees—of ‘cutting’ and ‘section’—stands in Hebrew, then we
will be able to receive this Scripture also.”
Various ways have been devised to untie this knot.
And
Calmet indeed says: just as it would be rash to affirm that this play
on words occurred in Hebrew, so the contrary is asserted only with the
greatest impudence—by which the former part seems to be destroyed. It
can happen that in a version a play on words exists which is not found
in the text itself. Thus, for example, in the Greek Gospel of St.
Matthew some agnominationes [wordplays] are found which perhaps were not
found in the Aramaic text: 6:16, ἀφανίζουσιν ὅπως φανῶσι [aphanizousin hopōs phanōsi, “they disfigure [their faces] that they may appear”]; 21:41, κακοὺς κακῶς [kakous kakōs, “wicked men, wickedly”]; and similarly in the Latin interpretation of the Recognitions 4:10: “quo per aquam mundus effectus mundum denuo repararet” [wordplay on mundus as “world” and “clean”]; and 5:17: “serpens qui serpit per sensus nostros” [wordplay on serpens/serpit].
But
in our place such a thing cannot be assumed; for the allusion occurs
twice and seems to have been employed studiously. Therefore it seems
necessary that a similar [wordplay] existed in the text—I say similar, for it is not necessary to assume that the same words were placed in Hebrew.
Well,
after Pererius, Sanctius observes: “Thus therefore I think that the
Greek interpreter employed words which did not altogether correspond to
the Hebrew or Chaldean, but of which the sense in another idiom was not
dissimilar, and a similar allusion; and for the sake of example he
adduces that a Latin interpreter, for example, could have placed the
names of trees malum [apple/evil] and prunum [plum], and said to one: male peribis [‘you will perish badly’], to the other: prunis concremaberis [‘you will be burned with plums/embers’]; or a play could also have been made from the Old Latin: sub lentisco, non lente peribis [‘under a lentisk, you will not perish slowly’]; sub ilice, illico occideris [‘under a holm oak, you will be killed instantly’]” (cf. Lapide); or a play between cedrum [cedar] and caedere [to cut] (Maldonatus, Menochius).
And
indeed, not even now are there lacking Hebrew words by which a similar
allusion is effected, although certainly no one will deny that many
names of trees which were formerly known among the Hebrews have not come
down to us.
Already Lansselius has these things: “It could have been in Hebrew: הַזְרָת [hazrat, ‘cypress’] and הָזַר [hazar, ‘to weaken’]; or הַלָּא [halla, ‘oak’] and הָלַל [halal, ‘to curse’ or ‘imprecation’].”
Haneberg also adduced similar things: הַזְרָת [hazrat] and Arabic דָּרַת [darat, ‘to crush’]; יָרַץ [yarats] and הָרַץ [harats, ‘he split, made fissures’].
But by others it is denied that יָרַץ [yarats] is the name of a tree, and at least in biblical usage it does not denote a tree but ῥητίνην [rētinēn, ‘resin’] (Genesis 37:25; 43:11; Jeremiah 8:22; 46:11; 51:8; Ezekiel 27:17; cf. Schegg, Biblische Archäologie, p. 208).
Although
by these examples it is not demonstrated that a tree or shrub of resin
could not have been called by the same or a similar name—compare, for
example, malus [apple tree] and malum [evil], and similar things.
Indeed, there are those who doubt whether the trees πρῖνος [prinos] and σχῖνος [schinos]
existed in Babylonia (cf. Wiederholt, loc. cit., p. 303). If so, it has
been clearly demonstrated that the LXX and Theodotion, as in other
places, so here also more freely translated the names of trees—which was
all the more permissible in our place so that regard might be had for
the paranomasia, and it might be preserved by some imitation.
For in the same way St. Jerome, Jeremiah 1:11-12, does not translate “a rod of almond” [virgam amygdalinam], which is the meaning of the word שָׁקֵד [shaqed], but “a watching rod” [virgam vigilantem], because what follows is שֹׁקֵד אֲנִי [shoqed ani, “I am watching”]; thus he placed the same thing in Genesis 2:23, virago [woman], so that what follows might be understood: “quia de viro sumpta est” [“because she was taken from man”]. And in the LXX it is read, Genesis 3:20: “And
Adam called the name of his wife Ζωή [Zōē, ‘Life’], because she is the
mother πάντων τῶν ζώντων [pantōn tōn zōntōn, ‘of all the living’]”—Hebrew: חַוָּה [Chavvah, “Eve”].
Therefore,
those who think that detriment is done to the truth and integrity of
the narrative if the Greek interpreter used other names of trees than
those which were in Hebrew, judge too severely (Lapide), nor do they
consider how great is the variety in rendering the names of trees,
animals, stones, etc., among the LXX, and even among St. Jerome himself.
I have given some examples at Micah 1:8 (Prophetae Minores, I, p. 402); at Job 30:29; at Isaiah 13:22, etc. Concerning trees, for example: הָאֵל [ha’el] is rendered δρῦς [drys, ‘oak’] (1 Samuel 17:19), τερέβινθος [terebinthos] (Genesis 35:4; Judges 6:11; Isaiah 1:30; 6:13); and Genesis 34:11, τερέβινθος [terebinthos] is also rendered for אֵלֹנִים [elonim]. The word אֶרֶז [erez] is rendered κέδρος [kedros, ‘cedar’] (Ezekiel 27:5), κυπάρισσος [kyparissos, ‘cypress’] (2 Kings 19:23; Isaiah 37:24), πεύκη [peukē, ‘pine’] (1 Kings 5:10 [Hebrew 5:24]), ξύλον [xylon, ‘wood’] (Isaiah 14:8).
It is ridiculous what Reuss asserts: that such a play on words cannot be conceived in a translation—“ce jeu de mots ne se concevrait pas dans une traduction”—and
therefore the Greek text must be the original text. But how false this
is is already shown in Matthew 16:18, where in both the Greek and Latin
versions a paranomasia is observed: “Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram”
[“You are Peter and upon this rock”], although Christ spoke neither in
Greek nor in Latin but in Aramaic, where the same paranomasia exists: Kephas and כֵּיפָא [kepha].
Finally, Reuss refutes himself; for in the French version he imitates both paranomasias: “sous
un cognassier, voici arriver l’ange avec l’arrêt de Dieu qui va te
cogner de manière à te pourfendre par le milieu; sous un houx, l’ange de
Dieu va te houssiner” [wordplays: cognassier/cogner (“quince tree”/”to strike”); houx/houssiner (“holm oak”/”to thrash”)] (cf. Vigouroux, Les livres saints et la critique rationaliste, IV, p. 350).
In
the text, it seems beyond controversy that an allusion existed. That
the interpreter wished to express it by imitation will likewise be
certain. But as to what he ought to be considered to have done for this:
certainly, first he directed his mind to the sentence pronounced by
Daniel; then he looked to the words of “cutting,” “splitting”; these he
is to be thought to have retained, and to Greek words expressing these
he sought out Greek names of trees by which that paranomasia might stand
and be expressed.
Therefore
it is most probable, as the ancients already established and recent
scholars following them, that interpreters seek out Hebrew words with
that meaning and join to them names of trees which are called by similar
sound: for example, הַעֲצִיק [ha’atsiq, ‘laurus cassia’] and עָצַק [atsaq, ‘he cut’]; הַעֲקַבִּית [ha’aqabbith, ‘gourd’] and עָקַב [‘aqab] or עָקַב [‘aqab, ‘it split, was ruptured’]; זּוּגָא [zugā, ‘nut’] and זָזַג [zazag, ‘he sheared, cut’]; and see also others in Welte, Specielle Einleitung in die deuterocanonischen Bücher, p. 248; Wiederholt, loc. cit., p. 308; Cornely, Introductio, II, 2, p. 508.
To
these add that in the Arabic version the paranomasias are expressed
altogether aptly. Therefore, even if we cannot attain by certain
conjecture what was formerly read in the text, nevertheless it in no way
follows from the paranomasia that the narrative was written in Greek
from its very origin.
Verse 60: “Therefore the whole assembly cried out with a loud voice, and blessed God, who saves those hoping in him.”
Verse 61: “And
they rose up unanimously against the two presbyters; for Daniel had
convicted them from their own mouth of having borne false testimony; and
they did to them as they had wickedly done against their neighbor.”
The dissonance of the testimonies revealed the truth and liberated chastity (St. Augustine, loc. cit.).
Verse 62: “That they might do according to the law of Moses; and they killed them. And innocent blood was saved in that day.”
She therefore had her reward, having placed her trust in God (cf. verse 35).
In the law, against false witnesses the penalty of talion is established (Deuteronomy 19:19): “You shall do to him as he thought to do to his brother; and you shall remove the evil from your midst,” etc.—from which place, among the LXX, ὃν τρόπον ἐπονηρεύσατο ποιῆσαι [hon tropon eponēreusato poiēsai,
“in the manner in which he wickedly intended to do”]—also here the
expression is drawn, both among the LXX and among Theodotion.
Moreover, the penalty established for adulterers was stoning (cf. Deuteronomy 22:21, 24; John 8:5).
Since
judges from their own nation were granted to the Jewish exiles, it is
altogether to be thought that the right of the sword was also granted to
them; moreover, the exiles were governed by their own laws and paid
tribute to the victorious king, to whom certainly it mattered little by
what method the judges of the Jews administered justice among their own
people.
Nor
is it to be said, with some, that this judgment was conducted with
tumult and precipitation. The narrative indeed is brief and succinct,
but the guilt of the witnesses had been proved and explored, nor was
there doubt concerning the penalty; what therefore further was required?
Moreover, if the narrative seems briefer to anyone, it can be said that
only the chief points are briefly touched upon.
According to the LXX, the assembly exclaims that the youth had shown them to be false witnesses from their own mouth. Verse 62: “And they stopped their mouths, and leading them out, cast them into a chasm, and the angel of the Lord cast fire among them.”
In the Heracleensis edition, the assembly cries out: “Praise to God, who gives life, preserves in life all who believe in his name”; and it is added in verse 62: “And the Lord requited them with evil vengeance as they deserved.”
Verse 63: “But
Hilkiah and his wife praised God for their daughter Susanna, with
Joakim her husband and all their relatives, because no shameful thing
was found in her.”
From
the happy outcome of the matter, both joy arose for the relatives of
Susanna, and glory, authority, and reputation for Daniel among his
countrymen.
Worthily,
as saints praise God, not because Susanna was freed from the hand of
the presbyters—for this is not sufficiently praiseworthy, nor of great
consequence if she had not been freed—but because no shameful thing was
found in her (St. Jerome).
The
parents perceive the fruit of pious education (verse 3), who
themselves, by praises given to God, excellently manifest their piety.
Verse 64: “But Daniel became great in the sight of the people from that day and thenceforth.”
Daniel,
who perhaps was already illustrious in knowledge in the royal court and
known by his knowledge of secret things (1:17; 2:1ff.), also obtained
among his own people the reputation and name of a youth led by the
Spirit of God.
The LXX provide quite different things here: “Therefore
the youths of Jacob were beloved in their simplicity; and let us also
guard strong youths as sons; for the youths are pious, and there will be
in them a spirit of understanding and knowledge forever and ever.”
In
the Syriac text, the parents praise and celebrate God, and also praise
their daughter. In the Heracleensis edition, they rejoice concerning
their daughter, and God is praised by the whole people and the whole
family of Susanna. Moreover, Daniel grew and prevailed in authority in
the family of Susanna and in the whole assembly of Israel, and always
rendered judgment and justice in his people, and the fame of the
excellent things done by him was celebrated in the whole people on
account of the hidden and secret things which were made known to him.
Therefore,
to the holy and chaste youth God granted that he might vindicate an
innocent woman from calumny and punish the impure elders with the
deserved penalty.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment