Such a task might well
be undertaken by one who was no longer strong enough for field
labour.[80]
All these difficulties would, on other grounds, be deprived of much of
their importance by the theory of A. Scholz, if that could be accepted
as true. He regards the entire book of Daniel, including of course the
Additions, as a series of apocalyptic visions (p. 201). This he
considers as the earliest explanation, supported by the heading ??…???±???‚
to each chapter of Daniel in A and some other MSS. But while removing
one set of difficulties, this theory introduces others of a character at
least as serious; and it is by no means easy to convince oneself that
there is an "apocalyptic" tone about this or the other Additions. This
remarkable theory cuts, rather than unties, such knots as are above
noted, and carries with it to most minds a strange and improbable air.
CANONICITY.
What is said as to Susanna on this point holds almost entirely good
here. Both pieces have been called in question on nearly the same
ground, and have stood or fallen together.
Pages:
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259