Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 9: On certain chapters of Daniel
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book I: On the Canonical Books of Scripture. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The Jews (blessed Jerome witnessing, in the preface on Daniel) make nothing of the Hymn of the Three Children, which is had in chapter 3 of Daniel, nor of the history of Susanna, which is had in chapter 13, nor of the history of the dragon which Daniel slew, which is had in chapter 14. By like reason Porphyry, in the twelfth of those fifteen books which he wrote against the Christians (the same Jerome witnessing, in the preface of his Commentary on Daniel); and also the heretics of this time, as Chemnitz in his Examination of the fourth session of the Council of Trent, and chiefly the Anabaptists, are engaged in the same error. And not only heretics, pagans, and Jews, but even of the Catholic Christians, of old Julius Africanus rejected the history of Susanna as spurious and of recent date (Eusebius witnessing, book 6 of the History, chapter 23); of the more recent, John Driedo, book 1 On the Ecclesiastical Scriptures and Doctrines, last chapter; and of the half-Christians, Erasmus, in the scholia on the preface of blessed Jerome on Daniel, thought the same.
But nevertheless it is certain that all these parts of Daniel are truly canonical. Which is proved, first, from the Council of Trent and the use of the Church — which argument, with Driedo and the rest of the Catholics, ought to have great force. The Council, session 4, commands that the sacred books be received with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church; but the Hymn of the Three Children is read, both in the Mass on the Ember Saturday, and on all feast-days in the prayers of the morning Office; the history of Susanna is read entire in the Mass on the Saturday before the fourth Sunday of Lent; and lastly the history of the dragon slain is read in the Mass of the Tuesday after the fifth Sunday of Lent. And not only at this time, but even twelve hundred years ago, all these parts of Daniel were read in the Church, as Rufinus witnesses, book 2 against Jerome. It is proved, secondly, by the testimonies of the ancients. Blessed Ignatius, in the epistle to the Magnesians, cites the history of Susanna out of chapter 13 of Daniel; the same Tertullian cites, in the book On the Soldier's Crown. St. Cyprian, in the Sermon on the Lord's Prayer, produces the Hymn of the Three Children, and says that the Scripture in which that hymn is contained is divine; the same, in the Sermon on the Lapsed: “The divine Scripture speaks,” etc., citing the words of those same children in the fire; book 1, epistle 8, he brings forward the history of Susanna; book 4, epistle 6, the history of the dragon; and the same, book 3, epistle 1, book 1, epistle 4, likewise the Sermon on the Lord's Prayer, and the Sermon on Alms, cites the history of the meal of Habacuc brought to Daniel. Blessed Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 30; Epiphanius, in the Ancoratus; and blessed John Chrysostom, homily 4 to the people, cite the hymn or history of the three children; and in the Sermon on the Three Children, and the Sermon on Susanna, which are had at the end of the first volume, he expounds those same histories and calls them divine. Theodoret, in his Commentary on Daniel, expounds also the Hymn of the Three Children with the other parts of the same Prophet. Blessed Ambrose, book 3 On the Holy Spirit, chapter 7, treating the history of Susanna, plainly teaches that it is divine Scripture, as are the other parts of the same Prophet. Blessed Augustine, in the book On the Nature of Good, chapter 16, proves against the Manichees, from the Hymn of the Three Children (where light and darkness, etc., praise God), that corporeal things are good; and epistle 122 to Victorianus he cites the prayer of Azarias, which he poured forth in the furnace of burning fire; and tractate 36 on John he brings forward the history of Susanna. Origen studiously defends these parts of Daniel, and chiefly contends that the history of Susanna is canonical Scripture, both in homily 1 on Leviticus and in the epistle to Julius Africanus. Blessed Athanasius, in the Synopsis, where he comes to Daniel and briefly explains the argument of the whole book, mentions in express words Susanna, the Hymn of the Three Children, and the dragon slain, and plainly indicates that all these pertain to the body of the divine Scripture. Finally it is credible that the ancient Councils, as the Laodicene and the Third of Carthage, and the ancient Fathers who used the Greek edition, when they referred Daniel into the number of the holy Scriptures, spoke of that book of Daniel which was had in the Greek Vulgate codices. But in the Greek Vulgate codices all these parts were without doubt had, as is plainly gathered from the Synopsis of Athanasius and the Commentary of Theodoret, and also from the preface of Jerome on Daniel, where he witnesses that the Church of Christ reads Daniel from the edition of Theodotion, in which edition all these things were had.
But the adversaries object, first, the opinion of blessed Jerome, who, both in the preface of Daniel turned by him into Latin, and in the preface of his Commentary on Daniel, sufficiently indicates that these chapters are of no authority. Jerome himself answers, in the second Apology against Rufinus, near the end, that he explained not in those prologues what he thought, but indicated what the Jews said. But Jerome even there calls the history of Susanna and of the dragon fables. I answer: when he says fables, he means to say histories which the Jews call fables. I add also that the ancients sometimes by the name of fables call not feigned things, but true narrations. As in Luke, last chapter, And it came to pass, while they talked (fabularentur) and reasoned with themselves, etc.; and Minucius Felix, at the beginning of the dialogue which he entitled Octavius, calls a certain true narration, I know not of what voyage, a fable; Clement of Alexandria too, in Eusebius, book 3 of the History, chapter 23, about to narrate a most true history of St. John: “Hear,” he says, “a fable that is no fable,” etc., as if he should say, Hear a fable, yet not feigned and false, but sure and true.
Secondly they object that in the history of Susanna Daniel is introduced as a boy: The Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy. But this cannot be true; for above, chapter 6, Daniel is said to have been one of the first satraps of the kingdom of Darius the Mede, at which time certainly he was not a boy; how then is he afterward, in chapter 13, said to be a boy? If you say that Scripture narrates not all things in order, but the things which were done afterward first, and that therefore in the Greek codices, where the order is kept, the whole book begins from the history of Susanna — on the contrary: for in that chapter 13 it is plainly enough indicated that the history of Susanna happened at the beginning of the reign of Cyrus King of the Persians; for thus is the chapter concluded: And King Astyages was gathered to his fathers, and Cyrus the Persian received his kingdom. And so from that chapter we have that Daniel was a boy in the time of Cyrus; but this is false. For Daniel as a boy was carried away with King Jechonias by Nabuchodonosor from Jerusalem into Babylon, as is said, Daniel 1; and from that time even to Cyrus flowed seventy years, as is plain from the first book of Esdras, chapter 1. At the beginning therefore of the reign of Cyrus Daniel was about eighty or ninety years old; what sort of boy, then, was he of ninety years? Add that even in the time of Nabuchodonosor Daniel seems not to have been a boy, but already long dead; since Ezechiel, who prophesied in the time of Nabuchodonosor, in the fifth year of the transmigration (as is said Ezechiel 1), mentions Daniel as one long dead; for thus he says, chapter 14: If Noe, Daniel, and Job be in the midst thereof, as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter. Daniel therefore at that time had already had sons, and was dead, like Noe and Job. I answer that the history of Susanna happened long before the times of Cyrus, when Daniel was indeed a boy, and therefore is deservedly placed among the Greeks at the beginning of the book; nor yet is it ill among the Latins thrown to the end of the book, that we might understand that it is not had among the Hebrews. But as to what is said at the end of chapter 13, after the history of Susanna, And Astyages was gathered to his fathers, and Cyrus the Persian received his kingdom, it refers not to the history of Susanna just narrated, but is the beginning of another history which happened under Cyrus. And so in the Greek codices the history of Susanna is the first chapter of the whole book; but those words, And King Astyages was gathered to his fathers, are set at the beginning of the last chapter, where is narrated the history of Bel destroyed and the dragon slain. But to that concerning Ezechiel blessed Jerome answers, book 1 against Jovinian, that mention is made of Daniel by Ezechiel, not as of one long dead like Noe and Job, but because he was known to the people for the deliverance of Susanna and for the interpretations of dreams; or (as the same Jerome says on chapter 14 of Ezechiel) because, as Noe saw the felicity of the world before the flood, then the calamity in the time of the flood, and again felicity after the flood; and Job saw his felicity before the temptation, then his misery in the temptation, and again felicity after the temptation; so Daniel saw himself happy in the court of the Jews before the captivity, then captive and miserable, and at length again happy, when by Darius he was set among the chief princes. Nor is it necessary that Daniel then had sons and daughters, because Ezechiel speaks by hypothesis, as if he should say: even if these three were here, and had sons and daughters, they could not deliver them from the imminent evil.
They object thirdly that the things said in chapter 14 of Daniel cast into the lions' den fight with those said in chapter 6. For in chapter 6 he is said to have been only one night in the lions' den; in chapter 14, six days. I answer that Daniel was twice cast into the lions' den: once by Darius the Mede, because he had prayed to God against the king's command, and then was there only one night, and this is narrated in chapter 6; and again he was cast in by Cyrus on account of the dragon slain, and then was there six days, as is said chapter 14. Add that it is not improbable that this Daniel who freed Susanna, destroyed Bel, and slew the dragon, and was six days in the lions' den, is not the same as he of whom the matter is treated in the earlier chapters; for that many of old so thought Jerome witnesses in the preface of his Commentary on Daniel, and plainly the Greek edition of the Seventy has that this latter was of the tribe of Levi (as Jerome there notes), whereas it is certain that the former was of the tribe of Juda. And if these things be so, the two arguments already made have no difficulty.
They object fourthly that the history of Susanna seems altogether feigned by some Greek. For where we have: Tell me under what tree thou sawest them talking together; and he said, Under a mastic tree. And Daniel said, Rightly hast thou lied against thy own head; for behold the Angel of God shall cut thee in two — in the Greek there is a most elegant allusion from the tree schinos to the action of cutting; for schinos is the tree, schizein is to cut; and when the other said that he saw them under a prinos (holm-oak), Daniel alluded from the tree prinos to the action of sawing; for prinos is the tree, prisein is to saw; as if one should say, Where sawest thou them? Under the holm; forthwith therefore shalt thou be slain. But in the Hebrew no such allusion could be made; for what the Greeks call prinos, we the holm, the Hebrews would call by one word, and to cut, cleave, divide they say by other words [the Hebrew forms are here garbled in the sole surviving scan and cannot be reproduced]. Origen answers, in the epistle to Julius Africanus, that Daniel said neither holm nor mastic, but something else unknown to us, to which nevertheless, according to the propriety of the Hebrew or Chaldean tongue which he himself used, some word of cutting corresponded. For the Hebrews have very many words which signify to cleave or to cut; and further, that the Greek translator rendered not word for word, but to the sense, and, that he might preserve the allusion, took other like trees whose Greek names should answer to the word of cutting.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. De quibusdam capitibus Danielis. Judsei, teste B. Hieronymo prsefatione in Danielem, nihili faciunt Hymnum trium pue¬ rorum, qui habetur cap. III. Danielis, nec non Susannse historiam, quse habetur cap. XIII., et historiam draconis quemDaniel in- • terfecit, quse habetur cap. XIV. Pari ratione Porphyrius lib. XII., ex iis quindecim quos scripsit adversus Christianos, eodem Hiero¬ nymo teste praefatione Comment. in Danie¬ lem; nec non haeretici hujus temporis, ut Kemnitius in examine IV. sess. Concil.Trid., et praecipue Anabaptistse in eodem versan¬ tur errore. Nec solum Haeretici, Pagani et Judaei, sed etiam ex Christianis Catholicis, olim Julius Africanus historiam Susannse tanquam adul¬ terinam' et neotericam repudiavit, teste Eu- sebio lib. VI. hist. cap. 23. Ex recentiori- bus, Joannes Driedo lib. I. de Scripturis et dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis cap. ult. Ex semi- christianis, Erasinus in scholiis super prae¬ fationem B. Hieronymi in Danielem, idem senserunt. At nihilominus certum est, has omnes partes Danielis vere esse canonicas, quod probatur primo ex Concilio Tridentino, et usu Ecclesiae ; quod argumentum apud Drie- donem cseterosque Catholicos magnam vim habere debet. Concilium sess. IV, jubet, re¬ cipi libros sacros cum omnibus suis partibus prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueve¬ runt : Hymnus autem trium puerorum legi¬ tur, cum in Missa in Sabbato quatuor tem¬ porum, tum omnibus diebus festis in preci¬ bus Officii matutini : Historia Susannse legi¬ tur tota in Missa in Sabbato ante Dominicam quartam Quadragesimae : denique historia draconis interfecti legitur in Missa feriae ter¬ tiae post Dominicam quintam Quadragesi¬ mae. Neque solum hoc tempore, sed etiam ante annos 1200, legebantur in Ecclesia istae omnes partes Danielis, ut Ruffmus testatur lib. II. adversus Hieronymum. Probatur secundo testimoniis Veterum. Beatus Ignatius in epist. ad Magnesianos ci¬ tat historiam Susannse ex cap. XIII Danie¬ lis : eamdem citat Tertullianus libro de Co¬ rona militis. S. Cyprianus in serm. de ora¬ tione Dominica producit hymnum trium puerorum, ac dicit, Scripturam esse divi¬ nam, in qua ille hymnus continetur. Idem in serm. de lapsis : « Loquitur, inquit, Scri¬ ptura divina, etc. » citat verba eorumdem puerorum in igne. Lib. I. epist. 8. adducit historiam Susannse, lib. IV. epist. 6. histo¬ riam draconis , et eamdem lib. III. epist. 1. 1. 1. epist. 4. item serm. de orat. Dominica, et ser. de eleemosyna citat historiam prandii Habacuc allati ad Danielem. B. Basilius lib. De Spiritu sancto cap. 30. Epiphanius in Ancorato, et B. Joannes Chrysostomus hom. 4. ad populum, citant hymnum, vel histo¬ riam trium puerorum : et serm. de tribus pueris, ac serm. de Susanna , qui habentur in fine primi tomi , easdem historias expli¬ cat, et divinas vocat. Theodoretus in Com¬ ment. Danielis , etiam hymnum trium pue¬ rorum cum cseteris partibus Prophetae ejus¬ dem exponit. B. Ambrosius, libr. III. De Spiritu sancto, cap. 7. tractans historiam Susannse, aperte docet, eam Scripturam esse divinam , ut sunt alise partes ejusdem Pro¬ phetae. B. Augustinus libro De natura boni cap. 16. probat contra Manichaeos, res corporeas esse bonas ex hymno trium puerorum , ubi lux et tenebrae, etc. laudant Deum. Et epist. 122. ad Victorianum citat orationem Azarise, quam fudit in fornace ignis ardentis. Et tract. XXXVI. in Joan. adducit historiam Susannae. Origenes studiose defendit has partes Danielis , et praecipue Susannae histo¬ riam, canonicam Scripturam esse contendit ; tum homil. I. in Levit, tum in epistola ad Julium Africanum. B. Athanasius in Synopsi ubi ad Danielem pervenit , et argumentum CAPUT IX. 89 totius libri breviter explicat , disertis verbis meminit Susannae , hymni trium puerorum, et draconis interfecti : et aperte indicat, haec omnia ad corpus divinae Scripturae per¬ tinere . Denique credibile est , Concilia vetera , ut Laodicenum, et Carthaginiense III., et pris¬ cos Patres qui Graeca editione utebantur, cum Danielem in numerum sanctarum Scrip¬ turarum retulerunt, de eo libro Danielis esse locutos, qui in Graecis vulgatis codicibus ha¬ bebatur. In Graecis autem vulgatis codici¬ bus istae omnes partes sine dubio habeban¬ tur, ut ex Synopsi Athanasii, et Commenta¬ rio Theodoreti aperte colligitur, necnon ex praefatione Hieronymi in Danielem, ubi tes¬ tatur, Ecclesiam Christi Danielem legere ex editione Theodotionis , in qua editione haec omnia habebantur. Sed objiciunt adversarii, primo B. Hiero¬ nymi sententiam, qui cum in praefatione Da¬ nielis a se in Latinum conversi, tum in prae- fat. Commen. in Danielem satis indicat ista capita non esse alicujus auctoritatis. Respon¬ det ipse Hieronymus in Apologia II. contra Ruffinum circa finem, se non quid sentiret explicuisse in prologis illis, sed quid Judaei dicerent indicasse. At Hieronymus etiam ibi vocat fabulas hi¬ storiam Susannae et draconis. Respondeo ; eum cum dicit fabulas, velle dicere historias, quas Judaei fabulas vocant : addo etiam, in¬ terdum Veteres nomine fabularum , non res fictas, sed veras narrationes appellare. Quo¬ modo Luc. ult. Et factum est , dum fabula¬ rentur , etsecum quaererent , etc. (1), et Minutius Felix initio dialogi, quem Octavium inscri¬ psit, fabulam vocat veram quamdam narra¬ tionem nescio cujus navigationis. Clemens quoque Alexandrinus apud Eusebium libro III. histor. cap. 23. narraturus verissimam historiam S. Joannis : « Audi , inquit , fabu¬ lam non fabulam, » etc. quasi dicat, audi fabulam, non tamen fictam et falsam , sed certam et veram. Secundo objiciunt, quod in historia Su¬ sannae Daniel introducitur tanquam puer : Suscitavit , inquit, Dominus Spiritum sanctum pueri junioris (2). At hoc non potest esse ve¬ rum, nam supra c. VI. dicitur Daniel fuisse unus ex primis Satrapis regni Darii Medi, quo tempore certe non erat puer; quomodo ergo postea cap. XIII. dicitur esse puer? Si dicas, Scripturam non ordine narrare omnia, sed prius quae postea facta sunt, et propterea in codicibus Graecorum , ubi ordo servatur , ab historia Susannae totum librum incipere. Contra : nam in isto cap. XIII. satis aperte indicatur, historiam Susannae conti¬ gisse initio regni Cyri Persarum Regis ; sic enim concluditur caput : Et Rex Astyages appositus est ad Patres suos , et suscepit Cyrus Perses regnum ejus (3). Itaque ex isto capite habemus, Danielem fuisse puerum tempore Cyri : hoc autem est falsum. Nam Daniel puer translatus est cum Rege Jechonia aNa- buchodonosor ex Hierusalem in Babvlonem, ut dicitur Dan.I. Porro ab eo tempore usque ad Cyrum fluxerunt anni septuaginta, ut pa¬ tet lib. I. Esdr. cap. 1. Initio igitur regni Cyri Daniel agebat circiter annum 80 vel 90., qualis ergo puer erat nonaginta anno¬ rum? Adde, quod etiam tempore Nabuchodono- sor non videtur Daniel fuisse puer , sed jam olim defunctus ; cum Ezechiel , qui prophe¬ tavit tempore Nabuchodonosor, anno quinto transmigrationis' ut dicitur Ezech. I., memi¬ nerit Danielis tanquam olim defuncti ; sic enim ait capit. XIV. Si Noe , Daniel et Job fuerint in medio ejus , vivo ego , dicit ‘ Dominus Deus , quia filium et fliam non libera¬ bunt (4). Daniel igitur eo tempore jam ha¬ buerat filios, et mortuus erat sicut Noe et Job. Respondeo, historiam Susannae contigisse longe ante tempora Cyri, cum Daniel revera esset puer, et idcirco merito apud Graecos poni in principio libri : nec tamen male apud Latinos rejectum esse ad extremum librum, ut intelligeremus eam non haberi apud He¬ braeos. Quod autem dicitur in fine cap. XIII, post historiam Susannae: Et Astyages apposi¬ tas est ad Patres suos , et suscepit Cyrus Perses regnum ejus; non refertur ad historiam Su¬ sannae proxime narratam, sed est initium al¬ terius historiae quae contigit sub Cyro. Ita¬ que in codicibus Graecis, historia Suzannae est I. cap. totius libri : illa autem verba : Et Rex Astyages appositus est ad Patres suos , po¬ nuntur in principio ultimi capitis, ubi nar¬ ratur historia Belis destructi, et draconis in¬ terfecti. Ad illud autem de Ezechiele respondet B. Hieronymus lib. I. in ‘Jovinianum; ab Eze¬ chiele mentionem fieri Danielis, non olim (1) Luc. XXIV. 15. — (2) Dan. Xlll. 45. — (3) Dan. Xlll. 65. — (4) Ezecli. XIV. 14. 90 LIBER I. et Job, quia notus erat populo ob liberatio¬ nem Susannae , et interpretationes somnio¬ rum : vel, ut idem Hieronymus dicit incap. XIY Ezech., quia sicut Noe vidit felicitatem Mundi ante diluvium, postea calamitatem tempore diluvii , et rursum felicitatem post diluvium: et Job vidit felicitatem suam ante tentationem, postea suam miseriam in ten- tatione , et rursum felicitatem post tentatio¬ nem : itaDaniel vidit se felicem in regia Ju¬ daeorum ante captivitatem, postea captivum et miserum, tandem rursum felicem, cum a Dario inter summos Principes est constitu¬ tus. Neque necesse est , tunc Danielem ha¬ buisse filios et filias, quia per hypothesim loquitur Ezeehiel, ac si diceret : etiamsi isti tres hic essent, et haberent filios et filias, non possent eos ab imminenti malo liberare. Objiciunt tertio , quae dicuntur cap. XIY de Daniele misso in lacum leonum pugnare cum iis, quae dicuntur cap. VI. Nam c. VI. dicitur, fuisse tantum una nocte in lacu leo¬ num, cap. XIV sex diebus. Respondeo , bis Danielem missum esse in lacum leonum, semel a Dario Medo, quo¬ niam precatus erat Deum contra praeceptum Regis, et tunc fuisse tantum una nocte ; et hoc narrari cap. IV. Iterum autem missum esse a Cyro propter interfectum draconem, et tunc fuisse sex diebus , ut dicitur c. XIV. Adde, quod non est improbabile , non eum- dem esse Danielem istum, qui Susannam li¬ beravit, Bel destruxit, ac draconem interfe¬ cit, et in lacu leonum sex diebus fuit , cum eo de quo agitur in superioribus capitibus, ita enim multos olim sensisse testatur Hie¬ ronymus praefat. in Comment. Daniel., et aperte Graeca editio LXX habet, hunc poste¬ riorem fuisse de tribu Levi , ut ibidem Hie¬ ronymus notat, cum certum sit, priorem fuisse de tribu Juda. Quae si ita se habeant, duo argumenta jam facta nullam habent dif¬ ficultatem. Objiciunt quarto , historiam Susannae vi¬ deri omnino confictam ab aliquo Graeco. Nam ubi nos habemus : Dic , sub qua arbore videris eos colloquentes sibi ; equi ait, sub Schi¬ no. Dixit autem Daniel , recte mentitus es in caput tuum ; ecce enim Angelus Dei scindet te medium (I) : in Graeco allusio quaedam est ele- gantissimaab arbore Schino ad actionem scin¬ dendi ; nam a/hog est arbor, <r^t?stv est scin¬ dere ; et cum alter dixerit se vidisse eos sub prino, allusit Daniel ab arbore prino ad actio¬ nem secandi ; nam nptvos est arbor, npi^m est secare : quomodo si quis diceret, ubi vi¬ disti eos ? sub ilice ; illico ergo interficieris. At in Hebraeis nulla talis allusio fieri potuit; nam quod Graeci dicunt irpfo ov, nos ilicem, Hebraei dicerent min. At secare , scindere, dividere dicunt p“]D 3DXZ7 VDftf p-HQ. Respondet Origenes in epistol. ad Julium Africanum, Danielem non dixisse ilicem, ne¬ que lentiscum, sed aliquid aliud nobis igno¬ tum, cui tamen secundum proprietatem lin¬ guae Hebraicae vel Chaldaicae , qua ipse ute¬ batur, aliquod verbum secandi responderet. Plurimas enim voces Hebraei habent , quae significant scindere, vel secare : porro inter¬ pretem Graecum non vertisse ad verbum, sed ad sensum, et ut servaret allusionem accepisse alias arbores similes , quibus in Graeco responderet allusio ad verbum scin¬ dendi.