Possibly this one presents
rather more difficulty in some of its details.
It is often included in Scripture lists under the title Daniel;[81] and
is often quoted in the same manner, _e.g._ by St. Cyprian, _ad
Fortunatum_, ?ยง 11, "Daniel, Deo devotus & sancto spiritu plenus exclamat
et dicit," v. 4. The quotations given under 'Early Christian Literature
and Art' will shew how strong a hold this story had in many quarters,
and what use was made of it.
Pseudo-Athanasius, in his _Synops. S.S._, mentions the story at the end
of Section 41 as included in Daniel, but he does _not_ name it at the
close of the _Synopsis_ as being outside the canonical books, as he does
in the case of Susanna. The writer of _De Mirabilibus Script. Sacr._,
often attached to St. Augustine's works (Migne, _Patr. lat._ XXXV.;
Benedict, ed. appx. to Vol. III.), expressly declares against its
canonicity. This treatise is thought to have been composed in England or
Ireland in the 7th or 8th century (Loisy, _O.T._ p. 154).
The hesitation of the earlier Church, however, found no counterpart in
the canonizing decree of the Council of Trent; while, on the other hand,
Protestant opinion has run almost entirely against canonicity.
Pages:
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260