139). The 'vision'
theory, however, is a difficult one to maintain, serviceable though it
may be in evading historic difficulties.
Lists of books of the canon do not help us much, as it is often
uncertain whether 'Daniel' covers the Additions or not. We may safely
conclude, however, that it does in Origen's own list, as preserved for
us by Eusebius (_H.E._ VI. 25).
In the pseudo-Athanasius' _Synopsis sacr. script._ ?§ 74, Susanna is
named, after the books he deems canonical, as ??????„????‚ ????? ?„?????„?‰??, along
with four books of Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon. In this case we
might conclude that ?”?±?????®?» does not cover Susanna; but in the beginning
of the _Synopsis of Daniel_ (?§ 41) the story is mentioned as part of
that book, and Bel and the Dragon, at the end, in the same way. This
author's view, then, for and against the canonicity looks somewhat
undecided. So in Cyril of Jerusalem's list in _Catech._ IV. ?§ 35,
'Daniel' pretty certainly includes Susanna and probably the other two
Additions, because in _Cat.
Pages:
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186