Order of Sections in Greek Daniel
In a previous post, I noted different orders of the sections/pericopes of the book of Greek Daniel according to B, Q, and Syh. B and Q represent (though with different paratextual features) what appears to have become the dominant order in MSS: Sus–Dan–Bel et Draco, and Syh represented Dan–Sus–Bel–Draco, all set off with separate titles, even though the opening title of the book was "Daniel according to the Seventy" in this same MS. In a post from last week, I commented on Ra 967 in conjunction with my research on Esther but did note that the order of pericopes for Daniel are as follows: Dan–Bel et Draco–Sus, though we can't be certain whether there were pericope divisions or titles since the joins between Dan–Bel and Draco–Sus in the MS are in lacunae. This MS appears to be the only one that has this order of the sections, and one wonders whether it was because the 2nd/3rd century scribe wanted to place Susanna next to Esther, but I speculate here.
Enter: The Africanus-Origen Correspondence
The Africanus-Origen correspondence probably occurred around 248 AD. This is not the place to launch into all the debates over certain matters in this correspondence (e.g. Origen's views of the Seventy and Hebrew texts), but there are a couple of places where these letters appear to provide a clue as to the order of the sections of Greek Daniel. First, in Ep. Or. 7, Africanus says, "Now above all these, this pericope (περικοπή) [Susanna] together with the other two at the end (ἐπὶ τῷ τέλει) does not circulate in the [book of] Daniel having been received by/among the Jews." He does not name Bel et Draco, but he knows of these pericopes at the end of the book and mentions "two other" pericopes–not one.
In his reply, Origen resumes this point (Ep. Afr. 3), "...concerning the other two sections (περικοπαί) at the end of the book, both concerning the affairs having been recorded about Bel (τὸν Βήλ) and the Dragon (τὸν δρακόντα), neither of them having been written/recorded in the Daniel of the Hebrews...." Why does the editor of the SC edition only capitalize Bel and not dragon, when two sections are specifically mentioned? Interesting. And again in sec. 4, he says, "And just as, (as you [Africanus] say), the forgery concerning Susanna and the final (αἱ τελευταῖαι) pericopes in Daniel were in both versions [Seventy and Theodotion], so also...." Origen notes that the pericopes of Susanna, Bel, and Dragon are in both the versions of the Seventy and Theodotion. Furthermore, he mentions that Bel and the Dragon are the final pericopes of the book.
The question is: where do Africanus and Origen picture the placement of Susanna in the book of Daniel? From these statements, the only option precluded is Dan–Bel et Draco–Sus, the order of Ra 967. It's unclear from their statements whether they would picture Susanna before Daniel (e.g. B) or directly after Daniel (Syh). There may be a way forward, however, if we pay close attention to the colophon at the end of Syh, which locates the source for the Syriac translation ultimately in the Tetrapla. This colophon brings us near to the work of Origen and his associates after him (Pamphilus and Eusebius), and accordingly, it may also bring us to the form of the book of Daniel that Origen knew and discussed with Africanus: Dan–Sus–Bel–Draco. Both Africanus and Origen put Bel and Dragon at the end of Daniel and both mention them as two other pericopes. Syh Dan is the only MS of which I'm aware that puts them at the end and separates them with different titles and locates the origin of the textual transmission of the book in the Tetrapla.
Conclusion
Even if this hypothetical reconstruction is correct, it doesn't mean Dan–Sus–Bel–Dragon is the oldest order of the pericopes of Daniel. But it would date this order to the middle of the 3rd century, about a century before B. One can explain how a scribe might alter this order to join Susanna to Esther as in Ra 967 by simply transposing Bel et Draco and Susanna; that is, they were already at the end of the book. One might also explain how B and/or his exemplar moved Susanna to the beginning of the book of Daniel because it contained material related to Daniel's youth. It's a little more difficult to explain how Susanna ends up directly after Daniel before Bel unless that's the oldest order. One more possibility is that B contains the oldest order, but doubts about Susanna arose, and scribes began to copy it at the end of the book. But there's little evidence for this doubt, except for Africanus and much later, Jerome. Of course, I'm speculating about all of this. I'm not certain we have sufficient evidence to put together the full picture of the form of Greek Daniel. But I probably haven't looked at all of the earliest evidence either.
What do you think?