Heresy VI, Of the Book of Daniel

OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL — Heresy VI (De Libro Danielis. Haeresis VI)

To cut off, from the book of Daniel — which is falsely written under his name — many fabulous narrations.

ASSERTORES HVIVS HAERESEOS [The Assertors of this Heresy]

This heresy, drawn from the fountains of the Manichaeans — although all the Anabaptists most vainly defend it — yet they somewhat disagree among themselves concerning it. For some reject the whole volume of Daniel entirely, as supposititious [spurious] and false; but others receive only those [parts] which the Hebrews believe to be Daniel’s, and reckon alone among the Hagiographa, the rest being cast away which are not had in the Hebrew codices: such as are the hymn of the three boys [the Song of the Three Children], the history of Susanna, the narration of Bel, and the history of Daniel cast into the den [of lions] and of Habakkuk [Abacuch] carried off [thither]. ¹

IMPVGNATIO [The Refutation]

All those things which are read in the book of Daniel by the Church show [themselves] most true — the infallible and most certain outcomes of those matters which in it are found predicted many ages before they came to pass. For Daniel left [behind], as Josephus says, [some] of those things which he wrote, whence the integrity of his prophecy, and no change or variation in those things which he foretold, can be recognized. For he not only predicted future things (which is common to all prophets), but also foresaw most certainly at what time, and under what kings, and — the years being numbered in order — [that] those things ought to come to pass. Whose prophecy had so great credibility, that to incredulous men he seems not to have foretold future things, but to have narrated things past. For almost nothing is contained in the histories of the nations about the four Monarchies — of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans — which is not read fore-announced in the book of Daniel many ages before. ² Since, indeed, those things which the same prophet predicted concerning the three prior Monarchies down to the times of Antiochus the Illustrious, even the Gentiles who wrote against his prophecies confessed to have been all most truly fulfilled. For Porphyry — who wrote the twelfth of his fifteen books against Daniel — when he saw all things most faithfully fulfilled just as they had been fore-announced, the histories of the Gentiles attesting to the outcome, overcome by the truth of history, could not deny that Daniel, at least down to the times of Antiochus, had most truly prophesied. But that he prophesied, without any error, concerning those things which came to pass after Antiochus, the same histories of the nations most lucidly show. Whence Jerome, in the preface to the commentaries on Daniel, rightly said that to understand this book there is need of the manifold history of the Greeks and Latins — namely of Sutorius [Callinicus], Callinicus, Diodorus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius, Claudius, Theon, and Andronicus, and also of Josephus and of those whom Josephus sets down; but especially of our [own] Livy, and Pompeius Trogus, and Justin, who narrates the whole history of the last vision, and, after Alexander, [the history] down to Caesar Augustus, of the [kings] of Syria ³

(printed p. 641)

[the kings] of Syria and Egypt — that is, of Seleucus, and Antiochus, and of the Ptolemies — describe [their] wars. All which things defend the truth of this book not only against the heretics, but also against the infidels. To these accedes the consensus of the sacred volumes — as much of the old as of the new testament — attesting to the prophecy of Daniel. In the first book of the Maccabees, Mathathias [Mattathias], nearest to death, exhorts his sons to the observance of the law and to the toleration of hardships, examples being received from this book — of the three boys, who were freed from the furnace of burning fire, and of Daniel, who was saved from the mouth of the Lions. ⁴ And Christ, in Matthew, out of this book announces the destruction of the city and the abomination of the temple of Jerusalem, predicted by Daniel. And Paul, to the Hebrews, mentions the history of the three boys, and of Daniel in the den of Lions, when he says: “They extinguished (Extinxerunt) the force of fire, they stopped the mouths of the Lions.” To which testimonies is added, that in all the catalogues of the divine books, through all the successions of the churches, the volume of Daniel was always numbered among the prophets, and — together with the hymn of the three boys, and the history of Susanna, of Bel, and of Habakkuk [Abacuch] — received into authority. ⁵ For the hymn of the three boys is testified — by Rufinus, in the second book against Jerome, and by Augustine, in the forty-seventh sermon on the saints — always to have been sung, from the very beginning of the nascent Church, in every solemnity, in the sacred assemblies of the faithful. But the history of Susanna, Ignatius the martyr praises in the epistle to the Magnesians; and Rufinus, in the aforesaid book, affirms that the same history was read, for four hundred years before himself, as an exemplar of chastity and of modesty, to the married and the unmarried in the churches. And Origen, in the first homily upon Leviticus, approving the history of Susanna, says: “But it is time (Sed tempus est), against the wicked, to use the words of Susanna” — which [words] they [the heretics], as it were repudiating, cut away the history from the catalogue of the divine volumes; but we both receive [it], and opportunely bring [it] forth against them: “Straits (Angustiae) are on every side for me.” But the Church, every year, reads this history at the [appointed] season in the sacred mysteries of the Mass, and with like honor venerates — reading at the same time — the history of Bel, of the Dragon, and of Habakkuk the dish-bearer [discophorus]. ⁶

OBJECTIONS OF THE HERETICS (Obiectiones Haereticorum)

1. In the first place, it is sufficiently agreed that Daniel — whose deeds and visions the present volume relates — was not that Daniel who is memorialized among the holy men and prophets in certain places of holy scripture, but some other, who falsely usurped his name to himself, to whom [the things] which Ezekiel wrote concerning the prophet Daniel can in no way be accommodated. Who [Ezekiel], when he prophesied in the sixth year of Ioachim [Jehoiakim] king of Juda, reckoned Daniel the prophet among men of more advanced age and now great in birth [i.e. elderly], and among married men, having sons and daughters. But Daniel, of whom this book speaks, was in the same year of Ioachim king of Juda still a boy; and, together with the three boys Annania [Hananiah], Azaria [Azariah], and Missael [Mishael], erudite in the letters of the Chaldeans, the first chapter of this volume commemorates [him], and enumerates [him] among the royal Eunuchs. ⁷ And Jerome, in the first book against Jovinian, confirms that that one [Daniel] was a eunuch (spado), and [that] in him was fulfilled that vaticination of Isaiah which he brought forth over King Ezechias [Hezekiah], saying: “Of thy sons (De filijs tuis), who shall be born from thee, they shall take, and make Eunuchs in the house of the king.” Another, therefore, is the Daniel author of this book, [different] from him who is named among the prophets. Which also Jerome — Rufinus being witness — seemed to feel, when in the preface to Daniel he admonished the readers that this book, among the Hebrews, is not had among the prophetic books. ⁸

2. It appears also that this book [was] not [written] by the prophet Daniel, but composed by an uncertain author after the times of Antiochus, who did not predict future things, but narrated things already past. The argument of which thing is, that the visions of the lion, bear, and leopard correspond to the things done by Nebuchadnezzar down to Antiochus the Illustrious; but in those things which he predicted after Antiochus, down to these our times — since he was not a seer — he deceived himself, and others who believed him. For nothing has yet been fulfilled of those things which he foresaw concerning the fourth Beast — that is, concerning the fourth Monarchy of the Romans — describing ten horns (that is, ten kings, who at one and the same time were to sit [reign] in the Roman kingdom), and immediately another little horn (that is, a little king about to ascend, and to overthrow three of those kings). ⁹

3. The phrase [varied style] of the volume, moreover, indicates that not Daniel, but a certain Greekling (Graeculus), friendly to the Jews, was the author of the book — who, although he lied egregiously, that he might the more easily impose upon the reader by [using] as much Chaldee as Hebrew speech, nevertheless could not so long conceal the imposture but that, at last, at almost the foot [end] of the volume, he betrayed himself [as] a Greek, when he brought in Daniel responding to the elders by Greek word-plays: the word σχίσαι (schisai) — that is, “to cleave” (scindere) — being derived from the word σχῖνος (schinos), that is, “the mastic tree” (lentiscus); and the word πρίσαι (prisai) — that is, “to saw” (secare) — from the name πρῖνος (prinos), that is, “the holm-oak” (ilex): which etymologies can be fitted neither to the Hebrew nor to the Chaldee tongue. ¹⁰

4. But however it be believed concerning the author of this book, it certainly cannot be denied that a great part of this volume was fabricated: as that which is read in it concerning the adoration of Daniel. For — be it that it was not impossible that Nebuchadnezzar, such and so great a king, adored [worshipped] a Eunuch, his own servant (which can scarcely be believed) — nevertheless it is an impiety to believe that Daniel, a good man, suffered himself to be adored, and to be worshipped as God with sacrifice offered by his own most powerful king; when Paul was execrated [and refused], with garments rent, the same honor from the Lycaonians, who wished to sacrifice to him; and [when] the angel rebuked John, prostrating himself at his knees, saying: “Do not (Ne feceris) do [it], for I am thy fellow-servant.” ¹¹ Similarly also the hymn of the three boys is suspected: for, beyond that it is not verisimilar that three boys had so much leisure that, in the midst of the flames, they should play [compose] in hexameters, and invoke all the elements in order to the praise of God — it [the hymn] is also found nowhere in the Hebrew exemplars.

5. Moreover, the history of Susanna — which the aforesaid etymologies of the ilex and the mastic indicate to have been written by a Greek author — the most ancient fathers of the Church reject as fabricated; and Eusebius, in the sixth book of the Ecclesiastical History, relates the opinion of Origen and of Julius Africanus concerning this history, in these words: “Through (Per) ¹²

(printed p. 642)

“Through (Per) the same time there was also Africanus, a man noble in ecclesiastical scriptures. His epistle is reported [to have been] written to Origen, objecting to him, or proposing [to him], that the history of Susanna, which is written in Daniel, seems fabricated, and alien to prophetic scripture. To whom Origen, most magnificently replying, asserts that in no way are the fabrications and frauds of the Jews to be listened to, but that this alone is to be held for true in the divine scriptures which the Seventy interpreters translated — for that alone is [true] which has been confirmed by apostolic authority.” By which words it appears that Africanus thought this history [to be] the invention of a certain Greek; but that Origen esteemed the same to have been the fraud of some Jew — perhaps of Symmachus, or of Theodotion. Besides these things, also the time of the judgment of Susanna does not agree with the age of the boy Daniel. For the deed of Susanna, as is written at the foot of the 13th chapter, happened after the death of Astyages, king of the Medes and Persians, [in] the reign of Cyrus, who succeeded to the kingdom of Astyages. At which time, indeed — as is agreed from the same book — Daniel was not a boy (as he is brought in [introduced] in the judgment of Susanna), but, [being] now greater than sixty years old, lived in honor before Cyrus. ¹³

6. But above all [things], the destruction of Bel, and the translation of Abacoch [Habakkuk] to Daniel in the den of Lions, are fabulous. For, besides that that Dragon is feigned to have been slain by a lump of pitch, in imitation of the Cretan Minotaur; and [besides] the fraud of the priests, detected by the sprinkling of ash — which could have been done, without any prophetic spirit, by whatsoever man even of mediocre talent — this also accedes, that the author of the fable is not consistent with himself: who, when he had first said that Daniel was only one night in the den, and thence in the first morning was drawn out by the King, afterward, little mindful [of himself], writes that he remained in the den for seven continuous days, and was refreshed by a meal by the prophet Abacuch [Habakkuk] — if, nevertheless, it be worthy to be believed that a man of heavy body traversed, in a moment of time, so great spaces of lands from Judea into Chaldea; when nothing ever similar is read to have been done in the [holy] scriptures. ¹⁴

7. Wherefore, most prudently, Josephus — when he wrote out the deeds of Daniel in the tenth book of the Antiquities — omitted narrations of this kind as fabulous. And Jerome, in the preface to Daniel, called them fables, and, as [things] unworthy to be read, transfixed [them] with an obelus, or spit [veru], jugulating [them]; and truncated [them] from the rest of the volume of Daniel; and, the person of a Jew objecting being assumed, confuted those [fables] with many arguments. And in the preface of the commentaries on Daniel, deriding the defenders of these fables, “I wonder (Miror),” he says, “that certain μεμψιμοίρους (mempsimoirous) — that is, querulous [complainers] — are indignant at me, as if I had truncated the book; when both Origen, and Eusebius, and Apollinaris, and other ecclesiastical men and Greek doctors, confess these visions (as I said) not to be had among the Hebrews, nor [that] they ought to respond to Porphyry on behalf of those things which furnish no authority of holy scripture.”

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE OBJECTIONS (Dissolutio Obiectorum)

1. The first argument which is brought by the Anabaptists, the divine Jerome, in the first book against Jovinian, dissolves in these words: “We say that Ezechiel [Ezekiel] mentioned Daniel not [as] a man, but [as] still a boy. But if any one should oppose that which is said in Ezekiel — ‘Noe [Noah], and Daniel, and Job, in the sinning land could not free their sons and daughters’ — it is to be responded that it was said according to a hypothesis [hypothetically]. For neither were Noah and Job [alive] at that time, whom we know to have been many ages before; and the sense is: if such and such men were in a sinning land, they would not be able to free their sons and daughters. But the boy Daniel is numbered among the two aged men, either because he was still known as a boy to the people, or on account of the interpretation of the dreams of the king, or on account of the liberation of Susanna and the killing of the elders. He is also numbered among those married men — not because he had a wife and sons, but because those three men (as the same Jerome, in the fourth book upon Ezekiel, and R. Kimki [Kimhi], upon the fourteenth chapter of Ezekiel, judge) experienced, in three diverse states, a great calamity and felicity beyond [that of] the rest. Noah saw the prosperity of the age before the flood, [its] ruin in the flood, and its reparation after the flood. Job saw his felicity, then saw the destruction of [his] sons and of all his goods, and again saw himself restored. Daniel saw himself illustrious in the palace of his kingdom before the captivity; then saw himself a captive; and after the captivity saw himself exalted to [high] rank.” But as to what Rufinus objected to Jerome — that he denied Daniel to be a prophet — Jerome himself abundantly confuted [it], showing that he never denied Daniel [to be] a prophet, whom he had straightway, in the front of the prologue, confessed to be a prophet; but that he had only indicated what the Hebrews say. ¹⁵

2. To the second argument of the Anabaptists — which is taken from the twelfth book of Porphyry, Jerome being witness — the same blessed father [Jerome] satisfied [answered], in the seventh chapter upon Daniel, in these words: “Therefore (Ergo) we say — that which all the ecclesiastical writers have handed down — [that] in the consummation of the world, when the kingdom of the Romans is to be destroyed, there will be ten future kings, who shall divide the Roman world among themselves; and an eleventh little king will arise, who shall overcome three of the ten kings — that is, the king of the Egyptians, and of Africa, and of Ethiopia (as in the following [passages] we shall say more manifestly); [and] these being slain, the other seven kings also will submit [their] necks to the victor.” These [things] Jerome, concerning the sentence of Daniel: to which are conformable those things which are written in the Apocalypse concerning the beast having ten horns, where thus the angel expounded that vision of Daniel, saying: “The ten horns (Decem cornua) which thou sawest are ten kings, who have not yet received the kingdom, but shall receive power as kings for one hour, etc.” Nor are there lacking [those] who, by the denary [tenfold] number of kings, understand a great and indeterminate number — according to that [saying] in the fourteenth [chapter] of Numbers: “They have tempted (Tentaverunt) me now ten times.” But by the little horn [is understood] the kingdom of Antichrist, which Christ shall destroy in the consummation of the age. Since, therefore, the calumny of Porphyry can be refuted in so many ways, no necessity compels us to suspect the book of Daniel [to be] written after the times of Antiochus: especially since Josephus writes that, to Alexander the Great — who preceded Antiochus — upon [his] entering Jerusalem, [the book of Daniel] was brought forth by the priests ¹⁶

(printed p. 643)

[was brought forth by the priest]s the volume of Daniel, in which it was written that a certain king of the Greeks was to destroy the power of the Persians; and [Josephus writes] that Alexander greatly rejoiced, because he judged himself to be [the one] whom the scripture signified. ¹⁷

3. Now, that which they adduce concerning the etymologies of σχίνου καὶ πρίνου (schinou kai prinou — of the mastic and of the holm-oak*)* proves nothing. For we confess that the history of Susanna — whose those words are — as Jerome and all the fathers testify, is neither read in the Hebrew codex, nor [was written] by a Hebrew writer, but [was written] by a certain pious Greek, according to the truth of the deed, in the Greek tongue; and then, indeed, by the judgment of the apostolic Church, added under [at] the end of the book of Daniel, as a thing worthy of such a prophet.

4. The fourth argument also, taken by the Anabaptists from the twelfth book of Porphyry, Jerome refutes in the third chapter upon Daniel, in these words: “Porphyry calumniates this place (Hunc locum), that a most proud king never adored a captive — as if the Lycaonians also had not, on account of the magnitude of the signs, wished to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas. But this also we can say: that the king himself expounded the causes of adoring, and of immolating victims, and of incense, and of sacrifice, saying: ‘Truly (Vere) God seems [to be], the God of Gods.’ Therefore, not so much Daniel, as in Daniel he adores God, who revealed the mysteries. Which we read that Alexander the Great, king of the Macedonians, also did before the pontiff Ioiada [Jaddua]. But if this displeases, it is to be said that Nabuchodonosor, confused by the magnitude of the signs and by stupor, was ignorant of what he did — [so] that he, who understood [there was] a true Lord and [that Daniel was] the lord of kings, [nevertheless] adored his [own] servant, and burned incense to him. But in this the calumniator strives to reprehend the prophet: because he did not refuse the gifts, and willingly received the Babylonian honor — not considering that the king had for this reason seen the dream, and [that] the mysteries of the interpretation were revealed through the boy, that Daniel might grow, and in the place of captivity become the prince of all the Chaldeans, and the power of God be known. Which indeed we read was done to Joseph before Pharaoh, and [in] Egypt; and to Mardochaeus [Mordecai] before Assuerus [Ahasuerus] — so that in each nation the captive and sojourning Jews might have solace, seeing a man of their nation to be the prince of the Egyptians, or of the Chaldeans.” These [things] Jerome, concerning the honor received by Daniel. ¹⁸ To which, when the Anabaptists oppose that Paul and the angel refused such things, it is to be responded that the cause was disparate in each. For Paul tore his garments at the divine honors offered [to him], because he saw that the Lycaonians wished to worship, in those honors, not God in himself and in Barnabas — as Nabuchodonosor [worshipped God] in Daniel — but himself and Barnabas as the impious gods of the gentiles (namely as Jupiter and Mercury), moved by a certain foolish opinion. For which cause also the angel prohibited John, prostrating himself at [his] knees: because he had perceived that he [John] esteemed himself to have God present; which, lest he should falsely believe [it], the angel indicated, with a rebuke, that he was not God. But concerning the hymn of the three boys — just as we confess that it is not found among the Hebrews, so we believe that it was sung by those boys in the furnace of fire; nor does it seem wonderful to us that, in the midst of the heats of the flames, they could play [compose] in meter, and, in order, invoke the single creatures to the benediction of God; since, by the benignity of God, they could [do] much greater and more wonderful [things] — namely, walk through the midst of the fires with garments intact, and the tips of [their] hair unharmed.

5. Concerning the opinion of Origen and of Africanus, there is nothing why we should be moved: since Africanus, not by deciding, but by doubting, asked of Origen whether this history seemed to be fabricated. But Origen was so far from an opinion of this kind, that he most strongly confuted it in a long and erudite epistle, and at the foot of the same epistle so wrote in praise of this sacred history: “These things (Haec) have been said by me for the defending of the history of Susanna; and would that I could celebrate an encomium of the scripture of Susanna — as much by dwelling on the single words, as by showing the excellent senses” — that which some private [person], who shall have studiously and abundantly meditated in the divine [scriptures], will be able to compose. But neither does Eusebius relate this history [to have been] rejected by Origen, but affirms only this: namely, that he moved [a doubt], lest the fables of the Jews should be received, but only those [things] which the Seventy Interpreters translated. Which Origenic words indeed are not to be referred to the scripture of Susanna, but to certain other Apocrypha, which Origen enumerates in that epistle. But concerning the times of the boyhood of Daniel, and of the liberation of Susanna — which seem to discrepate among themselves — it is to be known that those words, “And king Astyages (Et rex Astyages) was gathered to his fathers, and Cyrus received his kingdom” — which are read at the end of the thirteenth chapter — do not pertain to the history of Susanna commemorated just above, but to the history of Bel and the dragon, and to that [which follows] next, in the 14th chapter following, whose time is designated when it is said: “And king Astyages was gathered to his fathers, etc.” ¹⁹

6. Concerning the diverse number of days in which it is read that Daniel was in the den of lions, certain [men], following the opinion of those whom Jerome relates to have distinguished two Daniels, thus dissolve [it], saying: [that] this Daniel, who is placed in the history of Susanna, and of Bel, and of the dragon, is not he whose deeds are narrated in the book of Daniel, but another — who was not of the tribe of Juda, and a Eunuch of the king of Babylon, but of the tribe of Levi, a priest, concerning whom Abacuch [Habakkuk], son of Jesu [Jesus/Joshua], of the tribe of Levi, wrote. Accordingly there is no contradiction within [the book], since the history of Susanna, of Bel, and of Habakkuk does not pertain to the book of Daniel, but is a part ²⁰ of the prophecy of Abacuch [Habakkuk], son of Jesu, of the tribe of Levi — as, according to the seventy interpreters, is placed in the title of the same history of Bel: “A certain man (Homo) was a priest, by name Daniel, son of Abda, a table-companion of the king of Babylon” — whereas [distinct from the fact that] the holy scripture testifies that Daniel and the three boys were of the tribe of Juda. These [things] they [say]. But we, approaching nearer to the continuation of the history, take away the controversy in this manner. Daniel was sent into the den not once, but twice, and for diverse causes. First, under Darius Hystaspes (Istaspes), because, against his edict, he adored his own God within the thirty prohibited days; and then — as is read in the sixth chapter of this book — he was one night only in it, and thence, in the following light [morning], was drawn out by the king. But secondly, he was again sent into the den on account of the destruction of Bel and the killing of the dragon, under Cyrus ²¹

(printed p. 644)

[under] Cyrus the king — who reigned with Darius Istaspes [Hystaspes] two years, and after him twenty-two years — and [Daniel] was in it [the den] six continuous days, and on the seventh was freed by Cyrus the king. But that Daniel lived after Darius the king, under the reign of Cyrus, is not doubtful: since he himself, in the tenth chapter of this book, testifies that in the third year of the reign of Cyrus, in Chaldea, beside the river Tigris, he saw a vision. Nor is it wonderful that Habakkuk [Abacuch] was carried to Daniel by an angel. For if — God permitting — the Devil could carry our Savior, with the whole weight of [his] body, from the desert into the temple, and from the temple onto the mountain (as Luke says) in a moment of time, why ought it to seem incredible that — God commanding — an angel could, within the space of one hour, bodily transport Habakkuk from Judea into Chaldea? ²²

7. The last [argument], which they oppose from the judgment of Josephus and of Jerome, those same authors refute. For Josephus, in the tenth book of the Antiquities, confesses that he passed over these, and many other sacred histories — not because he judged them unworthy of his narration, but because in the ancient books of the Hebrews they were not written, which alone he had taken to translate. But Jerome, responding to Rufinus (who had noted [reproached] him concerning the cut-off codex of Daniel), writes these things: “But as to what (Quod autem) I report — what the Hebrews are wont to say against the history of Susanna, and the hymn of the three boys, and the fables of Bel and of the dragon (which are not had in the Hebrew volume) — he who criminates me [as] foolish proves himself a sycophant. For I explained not what I myself thought, but what they are wont to say against us. If I did not respond to their opinion in the prologue — studying brevity, lest I should seem to write not a preface but a book — I think that I straightway subjoined [it]; for I said: Concerning which it is not of this place to dispute. Otherwise, also, from that which I asserted — that Porphyry said many things against this prophet, calling as witnesses of this matter Methodius, Eusebius, [and] Apollinaris, who responded to the many thousands of verses of his madness — he [Rufinus] will be able to accuse me, [saying] that I did not, in a little preface, write against the books of Porphyry.” These [things] Jerome. Whom, if any one should again wish to carp at, because he everywhere called these histories “fables,” we will respond that he derived the name of “fable” (fabula) not from “fabricating” (fabulando), but from “speaking” (fando). For also those who narrate true things are said, by the common speech of the nations, to “fabulate.” As, concerning the two disciples speaking on the journey about the death of Christ, Luke said: καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὁμιλεῖν αὐτούς (kai egeneto en to homilein autous) — which the old interpreter [the Vulgate] translated, “And while (Et dum) they fabulated [talked] with one another,” that is, “conversed.” And these things concerning the prophetic books, said against the heretics. Now let us accede to the books which are called Parenetic [hortatory] and Moral. ²³