The citations of Dn so far examined offer a paradigmatic occasion to reflect about the difficulty to determine which translation was assumed by the author and, consequently, which version of the
“book” circulated in a specific context.
The composite nature of the text manipulated by the bishop of Carthage was underlined since the very beginning of the research concerning this field, which was tackled at the end of the 90th century by F.C. BURKITT114. The hypothesis proposed by the author, and on the whole accepted by the other scholars115, was that, contrary to what is generally supposed to happen in antiquity, Cyprian would not have prevalently assumed Θ, but rather a mixed text, probably a copy of an OL version translated from DnOG and half corrected from the new version of DnΘ. In other words, against what is overall affirmed about patristic literature, Cyprian would be supposed to use, so to speak, Θ less than OG. Without meaning to take a stand against such hypothesis, that moves from a general analysis of the whole assumption of Dn in the bishop’s work, it is necessary to stress that the passages here studied seem to unveil a more complicated panorama.
The citation of “tales” in epistle 6 can be divided into two different parts: the first section116 does not represent a literal quotation, but rather a generic description of the situation in the furnace, that does not tell a lot about the possible text from which it would have been taken. The author may have resorted to his own memory and personal knowledge of the biblical passage, evoking it “by heart”. The most specific and literal element in the exposition is represented by the allusion to the refrigerium offered to the Hebrews in the furnace, which allows to establish a connection with Dn 3:49-50; the detail does not anyway offer a real indication about the text assumed, since both DnΘ and DnOG include the same reference to the πνεῦμα δρόσου provoked by God’s angel.
114 F.C. BURKITT,The Old Latin and the Itala, Cambridge 1892, develops a line-by-line comparative analysis that takes in consideration the parallel quotations in Tertullian’s production, in De Pascha Computus and in Victorinus of Pettau’s work.
115 See in part. M.A. FAHEY, Cyprian and the Bible: a Study in Third-Century Exegesis, Tübingen 1971 (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Biblischen Hermeneutik 9), pp. 592-596. The study of Dn use in Cyprian has not been widely inspected in a punctual way. For references to the Bible used by the author see J.N.D. KELLY, The Bible and the Latin Fathers, in D.E. NINEHAM (ed.), The Church’s Use of the Bible Past and Present, London 1963, pp. 41-56;
O. SKARSAUNE, The Development of Scriptural Interpretation in the Second and Third Century, in M. SAEBØ (ed.), Hebrew Bible Old Testament. The History of its Interpretation, I/1: Antiquity, Göttingen 1996, in part. pp. 440-442.
116 Cyprianus, Epistulae, ed. G.F. DIERCKS, CCSL 3b, p. 34; 6, 3:1. Inclusis in caminum cesserunt ignes et refrigerium flammae dederunt praesente cum illis Domino et probante quod in confessores et martyras eius nihil posset gehennae ardor operari, sed quod qui in Deum crederent incolumes semper et tuti in omnibus perseverarent.
The second part of the citation represents, on the contrary, a literal quotation that directly reports the Hebrews’ words in the furnace. Here follows a scheme presenting in red the words that can be connected with DnOG 3:16-18 and in green those from the same chapter of DnΘ117.
Epistula 6, 3:2. Nabuchodonosor rex, non opus est nobis de hoc verbo respondere tibi. Est enim Deus cui nos servimus potens eripere nos de camino ignis ardentis, et de manibus tuis, rex, liberabit nos. Et si non, notum tibi sit quoniam diis tuis non servimus et imaginem auream quam statuisti non adoramus118.
Facing readings of scarce significance, which may be interpreted as due to an operation of Latin conversion of the Greek text, a specific element emerges and definitely suggests that Cyprian is assuming in this case DnΘ. Only this text actually presents the inclusion of the significant et si non, the expression on which the entire exegesis of the author focuses119. In DnOG version the clause is not included at all, so that Ananias, Azarias and Misael would not have represented a proper type of those confessores whose “martyrial dignity” strictly depends on their intimate and fearless acceptance of the possible bodily death120. As has been underlined, such declaration could represent, in a generic sense, a good point to support communities and give sense to their difficult condition, becoming even more so a gorgeous propeller of Cyprian’s reflections about the same sense of martyrdom.
In the light of such evidence, it becomes easier to understand why Ananias, Azarias and Misael are not called, in the same epistle, with the Greek names they assume in DnOG: if G.
TAPONECCO considers such detail as an evidence that testifies “la grande popolarità di costoro, indipendentemente dalla LXX, presso le comunità cristiane nel nord Africa”121, it becomes here
117 DnOG 3:16-18. Βασιλεῦ, οὐ χρείαν ἔχομεν ἀποκριθῆναί σοι ἐπὶ τῇ ἐπιταγῇ ταύτῃ. 17. ἔστι γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἷς κύριος ἡμῶν, ὃν φοβούμεθα, ὅς ἐστι δυνατὸς ἐξελέσθαι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῇς καμίνου τοῦ πυρός, καὶ ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν σου, βασιλεῦ, ἐξελεῖται ἡμᾶς. 18. καὶ τότε φανερόν σοι ἔσται, ὅτε οὔτε τῷ εἰδώλῳ σου λατρεύομεν οὔτε τῇ εἰκόνι σου τῇ χρυσῇ, ἣν ἔστησας, προσκυνοῦμεν.
DnΘ3:16-18.Οὐ χρείαν ἔχομεν ἡμεῖς περί τοῦ ῥήματος τούτου ἀποκριθῆναί σοι. 17. ἔστι γὰρ θεός, ᾧ ἡμεῖς λατρεύομεν, δυνατὸς έξελέσθαι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς καμίνου τοῦ πυρὸς τῆς καιομένης, καὶ ἐκ τῶν χρειῶν σου, βασιλεῦ, ῥύσεται ἡμᾶς. 18. καὶ ἐὰν μή, γνωστὸν ἔστω σοι, βασιλεῦ, ὅτι τοῖς θεοῖς σου οὐ λατρεύομεν καὶ τῇ εἰκόνι, ᾗ ἔστησας, οὐ προσκυνοῦμεν.
118 Cyprianus, Epistulae, ed. G.F. DIERCKS, CCSL 3b, p. 35. The passage is discussed also in F.C. BURKITT
1892 , pp. 26.
119 See supra, pp. 249-254.
120 It is interesting to notice that the same passage is cited by Tertullian, Scorpiace 8, according to DnOG,which means without the mention of the et si non. About the passage see infra, in part. pp. 284-285, and F.C.
BURKITT 1892 , p. 20. In this occasion, it is clear that Cyprian and Tertullian are using different biblical versions to convey different theological meanings.
121 G. TAPONECCO, in C.DELL’OSSO-G.TAPONECCO-M.VINCELLI (edd.), SCAR 5/1, p. 113.
possibile to simply underline that Cyprian may have assumed the Hebrews’ names of DnΘ because he way actually using that text.
A similar situation seems to emerge from the analysis of epistle 58: also in this occasion the story of the Hebrews is remembered at the beginning by the generic mention of some biblical elements shared by both translations of Dn, such as the young age of the protagonists, the conquest of Jerusalem and their subsequent refusal of idolatry122. The following, literal citation is identical to that one of epistle 6, and clearly derives from DnΘ . The same consideration can be formulated for epistle 61, where the element of et si non, allows to establish a dependence from that translation, although the reference to the story of chapter 3 is absolutely generic and non-literal.
The situation changes in the case of epistle 67, which presents a reference to the strength of Daniel in front of persecutions and isolation, without mentioning details that may allow either to understand which narration of the prophet’s story is recalled (chapter 6 or 14), or which translation is assumed; in the same way, also the episode of the Hebrews is mentioned in its guidelines, with an undefined allusion to the courage of the Hebrews in front of the menaces and the king.
Conclusively, two principal elements seem to emerge from the short panorama here presented: on one side, the difficulty to assume, for the case of the epistles, the diffused paradigm that makes of DnOGthe text from which Cyprian would depend in the most consistent way, since one the contrary, at least the reading et si non apparently establishes a privileged link between the author of Carthage and DnΘ. In addition, it must be noticed that the author prevalently mentions the biblical narrations in their outlines, apparently resorting to his personal and absorbed knowledge rather than to a specific text reporting them. Such considerations represent a paradigmatic occasion to reflect about the fluidity of Dn “tales” circulation, which probably resulted from a mix and a conjunction between the individual background and memory of each author – probably influenced also by the diffusion of a widespread patrimony of images that must have contributed in “fixing”
each story in the conscience of the community members – and the circulation of different translations.
122 Cyprianus, Epistulae 58, ed. G.F. DIERCKS , CCSL 3c, pp. 325-327; 5:1. Imitemur tres pueros Ananiam, Azariam, Misael, qui nec aetate territi nec captivitate fracti Iudaea devicta et Hierosolymis captis in ipso regno suo regem fidei virtute vicerunt, qui adorare statuam quam Nabuchodonosor rex fecerat iussi et minis regis et flammis fortiores extiterunt, proclamantes et fidem suam per haec verba testantes(...).