B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), used by this author, are the alternate designations corresponding to B.C. and A.D. often used in scholarly literature.


See James L. Crenshaw, “Ecclesiastes—Odd Book In,” and Daniel Pawley, “Ecclesiastes—Reaching Out to the 20th Century,” both in BR 06:05.


The Prayer of Azariah and me Song of the Three (between Daniel 3:23 and 3:24) and Daniel, Bel and the Snake.


Pseudepigrapha are Bible-like books often attributed to an ancient worthy. See Hershel Shanks, “Don’t Let Pseudepigrapha Scare You,” BR 03:02.


In the Joseph story (Genesis 39), we have a variation on this theme: Potiphar’s wife invites Joseph to “lie with me.” When he declines the invitation, she accuses him of attacking her and he is jailed.


Including Adriaan van der Burg, Simone Cantarini, Lodovico Carracci, Annibale Carracci, Domenichinio, Guercino, Fa Presto, Rembrandt, Sebastiano Ricci, Peter Paul Rubens, Tintoretto, Vacarro and Paolo Veronese.



For further discussion of the book’s religious character, see Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions, Anchor Bible 44 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), pp. 89–90.


This is known as the Alexandrian Canon Hypothesis. It was first proposed by J.S. Semler, Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons, I (Halle, 1771). Scholars subscribing to this theory could point out that for a Jewish scroll to be canonical (literally “to defile the hands”) it had to be not only divinely inspired (literally “spoken by the Holy Spirit” [Tosefta Yadayim 2:14; Babylonian Talmud Megillah 7] but must also be written on parchment, in ink, in the original Hebrew or Aramaic language, and in the square script (Mishnah Yadayim 4:5).


These three texts have been designated tentatively as Pseudo-Daniela, b, and c.


For details, see David M. Kay, “Susanna,” The Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R.H. Charles, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), pp. 641–642; or Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, pp. 81–84


For a brief discussion of this very complicated issue, see Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah, pp. 30–33, 78–80. For a full discussion of the problem, see works of Armin Schmitt (Stammt der sogennante “O” Text bei Daniel Wirklich von Theodotion?, Mitteilunger des Septuaginata des Septuaginata-Unternehmens, IX [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht 1966]; and J. Schuppenhaus (“Der Verhaltnis von LXX-und Theodotion-Text in den apokryphen Zusatizen zum Danielbuch,” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 [1971], pp. 49–72).


Moore, Daniel Esther and Jeremiah, p. 115.


See Gedean Huet, “Daniel et Suzanne: Note de litterature comparee,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions (RHR) 65 (1912), pp. 277–284, “Daniel et Suzanne,” RHR 76 (1917), pp. 129–130.


See Walter Baumgartner, “Susanna—Die Geschichte einer Legende,” Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft (ARW) 24 (1926), pp. 259–280; “Der Weise knabe und die des Ehebruchs beschuldigte Frau,” ARW 27 (1929), pp. 187–188. Both articles are reprinted in Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (Leiden: Brill, 1959), pp. 42–67.


The latter is referred to in the literature as the “Genoveva” theme. For details on the “Genevieve, Genoveva” genre, see Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed, vol. 11, p. 594; or, more recently and better, see K. 2,112 in Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1957), vol. 4, p. 474.


Mary D. Garrard, “Artemisia and Susanna” in Feminism and Art History: Questioning the Litany, eds. Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard (New York: Harper & Row, 1982), pp. 146–171.


“Susanna Accused” by Antoine Coypel.


Feminism and Art History, p. 165.


Une vie de Saincte Susanne (1470) and Antoine de Montchretien’s Susane ou la Chastete [1601].


Sixtus Bircke’s Susanna (1532) and Hugo Salus’ Susanna im Bade (1901).


Epistill of Swete Susane (mid-14th century) and Ralph Radcliffe’s The Delivery of Susanna (1540).


M. Dephrana’s Istoria tes Sosannes (1671).