" This estimate is a much too severe one, and very different
from the opinion formed by some other equally qualified judges. The fear
lest a favourable opinion of the quality of these pieces should lend any
countenance to the Tridentine decree as to the Apocrypha, or seem to
weaken the Protestant position with regard to them, appears to have
operated, consciously or unconsciously, in shaping the views on this
subject expressed by such writers. Probably acting under similar
sentiments Ludovicus Cappellus, ?? 1658 (quoted by Ball, 325a), calls
the author "a trifler" (nugator), and styles his production "fabula
ineptissima."
Jerome, in the Prologue to his _Commentary on Daniel_, says that
Eusebius and Apollinarius replied to Porphyry's objection to these
additions that "Susann?¦ Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in
Hebraico, sed partem esse prophet?¦ Abacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi;"
and apparently acquiesces in this statement. As there appears to be no
other authority for attributing Susanna to Habakkuk, it is a question
whether the LXX title to Bel and the Dragon was not applied to Susanna
also "per incuriam.
Pages:
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141