The most important surviving manuscripts of the Masoretic Text all come from the ben Asher family. The earliest, providing our best examples of the Masoretic Tradition are: (1) Codex Cairensis (AD 895), containing only the Former and Latter Prophets; (2) Aleppo Codex (AD 930), once a complete copy, but one-fourth destroyed in a fire; (3) Oriental 4445 (AD 950, 1540), containing most of the Pentateuch (Gen. 39:20-Deu. 1:33); (4) Codex Leningradensis, or Leningrad B19a (AD 1008-1009), a complete text of the Old Testament that served as the source for the most current critical editions of the Hebrew text: Biblia Hebraica, ed. Rudolf Kittel (1973), and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, eds. Kark Ellinger and Wilhelm Stuttgart (1984); (5) Leningrad (Petersburg) Codex of the Prophets (AD 916), containing only the Latter Prophets; (6) Damascus Pentateuch (late ninth or tenth century AD), containing most of the Pentateuch; (7) Codex Reuchlinianus of the Prophets (AD 1105), containing on editorial revision of the ben Naphtali text; (8) Erfurtensis Codex (AD 1000-1300), consisting of three manuscripts, all containing the entire Old Testament.2Although the earliest Masoretic text of the book of Daniel is almost 1,000 years later than the time when Daniel wrote, this version has stood the test of time because of the meticulous care with which the Hebrew scribes accurately preserved the text over the centuries. This is known to be true because of evidence provided by the DSS. See Dead Sea Manuscripts. The DSS evidence underscores the reliability of the text preserved in our modern Bibles and contradicts the tendency of some scholars who attempt to construct a version of Daniel based on an eclectic combination of textual witnesses where equal or greater weight is given to the Greek versions of inferior quality to the MT.3 We can trust the Masoretic Text as a faithful witness to the original autograph of Daniel.4
Theodotion’s revision of the LXX version of the Book of Daniel, as is well known, found such favor with the church in early times that it finally displaced the latter [OG] entirely in all current copies of the Greek Bible. Bleek (Introd., 2:415) thinks this change received ecclesiastical endorsement between the age of Origen and that of Jerome. . . . In consequence of this circumstance the original version of Daniel in the LXX passed so completely out of view that it was long supposed to be lost beyond recovery. . . . As it regards the special relation of Theodotion’s version to the Alexandrian [OG], . . . Theodotion simply recast the version of the LXX. At one point he gives its very words, while elsewhere he introduces changes, in some instances, to the extent of a verse or more. Where his copy was abrupt and lacking in clearness, he seeks to make the sense smoother and more intelligible. His motive is everywhere apparent: to make a more acceptable version within the bounds of a respectable, though not slavish, adherence to his authorities.6Theodotion is thought to have written his version in response to perceived problems with the OG version, although this is not entirely clear.7 A popular critical edition of the Septuagint, Ralph’s Septuagint,8 contains parallel columns in the book of Daniel where both the OG and Theodotion versions can be compared side-by-side.9 One of the values of the OG and Theodotion versions is in illustrating how Hebrew was translated into Greek at the time these translations were undertaken. The choice of Greek words used to represent Hebrew terms or concepts provides insight concerning how the Jews of that day saw the two languages relating to one another. These Greek versions can also be useful because they allow us to extend Greek word studies, normally restricted to the NT, to the OT.10It is important to realize that although the Greek versions have value in their own right, they should not be viewed as authoritative alternatives to the MT. The church fathers Origin and Jerome both considered the Septuagint to be inferior to the MT. “Origen, who organized his Hexapla a century later, included work attributed to Theodotion in his sixth column. In certain books, such as Exodus, Joshua, and Job, this sixth-column material may securely be identified with the Theodotionic recension. In such books, and especially in Job, Origen regularly drew on Theodotion to ‘correct’ the then current Greek to reflect more accurately the Hebrew text Origen held in highest esteem.”11 Jerome’s translation of the Latin Vulgate superseded previous Latin translations drawn from the Septuagint for their OT text. “His cry was that the Hebrew text should receive primacy as the text closest to the autographs, and the most authoritative text. Like Origen before him, he saw clearly the discrepancies in the LXX. With much controversy, the scholar from Bethlehem worked diligently to translate a new version into Latin directly from the Hebrew, and in so doing bypassed the LXX altogether.”12 Although it appears the Septuagint was originally translated for the benefit of Hellenistic Jews before the time of Christ, eventually the Jews themselves came to realize the inferiority of these Greek versions in comparison with the MT.13Most modern scholars recognize that the Greek versions show evidence of editing in an attempt to “correct” perceived inconsistencies in the text.14 This is especially true in passages pertaining to biblical chronology where apparent contradictions have been misunderstood and artificially “corrected” introducing errors into the text.15
The Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible . . . contain all of the books found in the Jewish Bible and the Protestant Old Testament, and in almost the same sequence as the Protestant Bible. However, the Catholic Old Testament includes additional books found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible or the Protestant canon: Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (i.e., Wisdom of Joshua ben Sirach, not to be confused with the Book of Ecclesiastes), and Baruch (with the Epistle of Jeremiah). These additional writings are called deuterocanonical books by the Roman Catholic Church. In printed editions, these books are interspersed within the sequence of the other books of the Old Testament. Moreover, the books of Esther and Daniel contain additional material not found in the Jewish or Protestant Bibles. Six additional chapters are found within Esther; and additional material is found in Daniel 3‣, with chapters 13 and 14 being discrete stories entitled Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. Books were included in the Roman Catholic Bible not on the basis of the Hebrew canon, but on according to the contents and sequence of the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate included books translated from the Hebrew and books and material found only in the Greek. . . . The books originally written in Hebrew, however, are now translated from the Hebrew text rather than from the Latin, though often distinctive readings and additional material found only in the Greek or the Vulgate are also included.19There is no evidence that the additions were known by the early Jews, nor were they known by Josephus.20 They were evidently written after the Hebrew text of Daniel and may have originated in Egypt.21Prior to Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate, which drew directly from the Hebrew Scriptures, earlier Latin versions utilized the Septuagint as their basis for the OT. Since the Greek texts associated with the Septuagint contained these additions, they were carried across into those Latin versions. Although Jerome retained the additions within the Vulgate, he himself did not consider them to be inspired:
But both Eusebius and Apollinarius have answered [Porphyry] after the same tenor, that the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew . . . Just as we find in the title of that same story of Bel, according to the Septuagint, “There was a certain priest named Daniel, the son of Abda, an intimate of the King of Babylon.” And yet Holy Scripture testifies that Daniel and the three Hebrew children were of the tribe of Judah. For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew. . . . both Origen, Eusebius and Apollinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and that therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture. [emphasis added]22The DSS manuscripts also witness against the authenticity of the additions:
What forms of this book [Daniel] are found in the scrolls? This is an important question, since Jewish and Protestant Bibles contain Daniel in twelve chapters, whereas Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles have a longer version that includes the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. Seven of the Daniel scrolls contained the book in the shorter form found in Jewish and Protestant Bibles—not the longer form known from Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. But one scroll (4QDane) preserves only material from Daniel’s Prayer in chapter 9, which suggests that it probably contained this prayer alone. It is also interesting to note that every chapter of Daniel is represented in the eight manuscripts, except for chapter 12. Yet this does not mean that the book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since one of the nonbiblical scrolls, known as the Florilegium (4Q174), quotes Daniel 12:10‣ as written in the “book of Daniel the prophet.”23
When it comes to variants, the eight Dead Sea scroll Daniel manuscripts, for the most part, are very close to each other. There is no significant abbreviation and no lengthy expansion in any of the manuscript fragments. “The text of Daniel in these [Cave 4] Daniel scrolls conforms closely to later Masoretic tradition; there are to be found, however, some rare variants which side with the Alexandrian Greek [Septuagint] against the MT and Theodotion” (Cross 1956:86). These manuscript fragments do not contain any of the additions that are in all the Greek manuscripts, such as the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna.24For most who have made a serious study of the inspired text of the OT, the additions are manifestly inferior in nature.25 This is seen in both the style of their presentation and their content:
All of these apocryphal appendages to the questions relating to Daniel furnish a very important testimony in attestation of the superior historical rank and genuine prophetical character of the canonical Daniel, inasmuch as their artificial stamp and legendary tone present a contrast to the far more sober and credible contents of that book, analogous to the familiar contrast between the apocryphal and the canonical Gospels, which serves so strongly to endorse the credibility of the latter.26
Jahn . . . does not hesitate to declare that the work is purely a product of the imagination, and that it was interpolated into the canonical book. A careful and unprejudiced examination of it will serve to confirm this decision. It is supposed to be the prayer and the song of three persons thrown by the servants of Nebuchadnezzar into a fiery furnace. But the entire composition is extremely general in its character, and only at its close are the youth called upon to praise the Lord for their deliverance. If it be genuine, and was leisurely composed by Daniel or some other person, shortly after the event,—for that it was really spoken and composed on the spot, who will believe?—why has the author said so little concerning the one central fact? Again, why has he in one part virtually declared that the temple does not exist, or any priest, or prophet, and yet afterwards presupposed the existence of both? If it is said, as by many, that the two parts of the work were composed by different persons at different times, such a view would in this case be equally fatal to any proper theory of genuineness.27
[With the advent of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments] we are able to compare for the first time in history the Hebrew and Aramaic of the book of Daniel with manuscripts of the same book that are about 1,000 years older. A comparison between the MT and the earlier manuscripts contained in 1QDana, 1QDanb, and 6QDan, based upon a careful study of the variants and relationships with the MT, reveals that “the Daniel fragments from Caves 1 and 6 reveal, on the whole, that the later Masoretic text is preserved in a good, hardly changed form. They are thus a valuable witness to the great faithfulness with which the sacred text has been transmitted” (Mertens 1971:31). These textual witnesses demonstrate that the MT was faithfully preserved and confirm that the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel is reliable.30The manuscript fragments at Qumran show no evidence of the additions found in the Greek versions31 and that the book was treated as part of the Hebrew canon at Qumran.32 These factors indicate that the MT, upon which our modern translations are based, is a reliable witness to the autograph of the book of Daniel.
1“Scriptorium Monk at Work, from Lacroix (1891).” Image courtesy of William Blades. Image is in the public domain.
2Randall Price, Searching for the Original Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2007), 59-60.
3“The official Greek translation of Daniel used in ancient times was that of Theodotion, an Ephesian (ca. 180 AD). His translation, which has antecedents (Schmitt 1966), has ‘the distinction of having supplanted the current version of the book of Daniel’ (Jellicoe 1968:84). Further, around 400 AD Jerome ventured the opinion that the Septuagint ‘differs widely from the original [Hebrew], and is rightly rejected.’ Thus we have two ancient Greek versions of Daniel, and only the one by Theodotion has a close affinity with the MT. These, along with some other considerations, have caused leading modern scholars to have little confidence in the MT. Professor Klaus Koch is a supporter of the hypothesis that there is no authoritative, original text for the book of Daniel available. He suggests that while we have a Hebrew/Aramaic text and two Greek versions, none of these three is original, and that an original text is to be reconstructed with the best tools available (Koch et al. 1980:22, 23; Koch 1986:16-21). This essentially is also the view of L. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella, who point out that there are ‘no iron rules or golden rules’ in this process of textual reconstruction (Hartman and Di Lella 1978:75). These and other scholars assume that the book of Daniel in its entirety was written originally in the Aramaic language and that the Hebrew parts of the book are translations from Aramaic into Hebrew. Other scholars, however, oppose this hypothesis. Evidently this is a complex picture. The newly published Daniel materials from Qumran appear to throw important new light on the issue of the original text of Daniel. We say this because there is great harmony between the MT and the Cave 4 finds of the book of Daniel. Thus it no longer seems permissible to dismiss the Hebrew-Aramaic text as unreliable. . . . An eclectic approach, using the Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Greek, and other versions as if they were all on the same level without giving priority to the Hebrew text is no longer supportable, if it ever was previously. The Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text of the book of Daniel now has stronger support than at any other time in the history of the interpretation of the book of Daniel.”—Gerhard Hasel, “New Light On The Book Of Daniel From The Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Bible and Spade, vol. 5 no. 2 (Landisville, PA: Associates for Biblical Research, Winter 1992), 45, 50.
4In cases where some Hebrew manuscripts vary from the MT, determining whether the differences reflect a true difference in the original textual witness vs. editorial activities is extremely complex. “Our historical study, however, has suggested that some differences between these translations and MT, and between variant Hebrew manuscripts and MT, themselves reflect interpretative activity. They may not indicate that they are mediating to us an earlier text of the book. The trend of contemporary textual criticism is to recognize that biblical books were preserved in a number of textual traditions (e.g., in different geographical areas). A reading suggested by one of the ancient translations that seems to us preferable to the one provided by MT may not actually be nearer to what the author of Daniel wrote.”—John E. Goldingay, “Daniel,” vol. 30 in Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, eds., Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Books), xxxviii. This is the same difficulty that attends the use of the Septuagint in an attempt to “correct” the Masoretic text. “With frustrating frequency, even the most capable scholar will be unable to decide with certainty whether a given reading in the Greek is due to a variant parent text or to the work of the translator. Generally speaking, if a difference between the Hebrew and Greek can be easily explained by one of the several frequent types of mechanical errors scribes were known to make in copying the texts, that explanation is to be preferred over translation technique or literary creativity. On the other hand, if the difference is consistent with the translator’s method of work, as evidenced in the book as a whole, then one would need weighty reasons to posit a variant parent text.”—Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 150.
5 “The genuine Septuagint text of Daniel was not published until 1772, when Simon de Magistris, a Romish priest of the oratory, published it from a Codex Chisianus.”—Otto Zöckler, “The Book of the Prophet Daniel,” in John Peter Lange, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1880), 48. “Among interesting cursives, we may note especially the famous Chigi manuscript (88), which has two distinctions: it is one of the few manuscripts that include the Hexaplaric signs, and it is the only Greek manuscript that preserves the Old Greek (rather than the Theodotionic) version of Daniel in its entirety . . .”—Jobes, Invitation to the Septuagint, 63. “The first witness to the study of Daniel is the Old Greek translation (c 150 B.C.), known only through the incomplete Manuscript 967 of the Chester Beatty papyri from the third century, through Codex 88, the Chigi manuscript of Origen’s Hexapla, from about the eleventh century, and through a ninth-century manuscript of the Syrian translation of the Hexapla, known as Syh (cf. Geissen and Hamm; Roca-Puig; Ziegler [see Bibliography]). OG is mostly quite close to MT but further from it in chaps. 4-6 and in one or two key passages later.”—Goldingay, Daniel, xxvi.
6Edwin Cone Bissell, “The Apocrypha of the Old Testament,” in John Peter Lange, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1880), 442-443.
7“According to the traditional view, Theodotion was a convert to Judaism who lived in Ephesus in the late second century. Taking the existing Greek version as his base, he revised it toward the standard Hebrew text. His work—which may fairly be characterized as literal, but not excessively so—includes features reminiscent of Aquila. One peculiarity is his penchant for transliteration (i.e., using Greek letters to represent the sound of Hebrew) rather than translating certain words, such as the names for animals and plants. His translation of the Book of Daniel supplanted that of the Septuagint (better, the Old Greek) which was widely regarded as defective. [Specifically, all but two surviving manuscripts have Theodotion’s translation, not the Old Greek, for Daniel. The exceptions are manuscripts 88 (11th century) and 967 (a second-century papyrus that is part of the Chester Beatty collection discovered in 1931).] One of the problems with this description is that certain renderings once thought distinctive to Theodotion are now known to have existed a century or two before he lived. . . . Also debated is the question of Daniel-Theodotion in particular. Some argue that the characteristics of this translation do not fit those found in materials otherwise attributed to Theodotion. Moreover, doubts have been raised about the usual view that Daniel-Theodotion is a revision of the Old Greek. These and other questions will continue to occupy scholars for years to come. . . . Note, for example, the reference to Daniel 6:23‣ in Hebrews 11:33. Although the author of Hebrews is otherwise heavily dependent on the ‘Septuagint’ or the Old Greek, this passage reflects Theodotion’s rendering ‘[God] shut the mouths of the lions’ (enephraxe ta stomata tōn leontōn), rather than the Old Greek, which says, ‘God saved me from the lions’ (sesōke me ho theos apo tōn leontōn). This phenomenon led to speculation about the existence of a ‘Proto-Theodotion,’ and recent discoveries have confirmed the view that, for at least parts of the Hebrew Bible, a translation very similar to Theodotion’s was already in use in the first century B.C.E.”—Jobes, Invitation to the Septuagint, 41-42.
8“Work on a full critical edition [of the Septuagint] had to be postponed because of the First World War and its aftermath, but Rahlfs undertook the production of a provisional critical edition, which appeared just before his death in 1935. His text is based primarily on the three great uncials—Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus—but many other sources were used extensively. Rahlfs’s edition, in spite of its provisional character, has since been regarded as the standard Septuagint text, even though for many books of the Bible it has now been superseded by individual volumes of the larger project, often referred to as ‘the Göttingen Septuagint.’ ”—Ibid., 75.
9“Of the versions, the Greek translations designated Theodotion and the Septuagint are by far the most important.... Both Greek translations of Daniel are attested in the New Testament. Daniel 7:13‣ in the LXX seems to be reflected in Mat. 24:30; 26:64; and Rev. 14:14‣, whereas Theodotion’s rendering of Dan. 6:22‣ is found in Heb. 11:33.”—Stephen R. Miller, “Daniel,” in E. Ray Clendenen, Kenneth A. Mathews, and David S. Dockery, eds., The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 49-50.
10Many caveats attend such comparisons because different translators, translation methodologies, and time periods are reflected in the resulting translations.
11Leonard Greenspoon, “Theodotion, Theodotion’s Version,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York, NY: Doubleday, c1992, 1996), 6:447.
12Erich D. Lanser and Schwartz, “The Red Sea in the NT,” in Bible and Spade, vol. 21 no. 1 (Landisville, PA: Associates for Biblical Research, Winter 2008), 7.
13“The scrutiny of the texts that occurred when the Septuagint was adopted as Scripture by the Christians highlighted the differences of the Greek texts in circulation from the Hebrew text that had become the standard in Judaism. In the second century, most Jews became distrustful of the Septuagint. As discussed in chapter 1, Aquila made a new Greek translation faithful to the standardized Hebrew text, and this version continued to be used in Greek-speaking synagogues until at least the sixth century. The Jewish scholars who produced the Talmud and other rabbinic writings, however, worked on the basis of the Hebrew text, with only passing references to the existence of Greek versions. The Greek versions have virtually no place in modern Jewish worship, although they had occupied a very prominent place in the lives of Jews of the Hellenistic period. In effect, by the end of the second century the Septuagint had passed into the care and keeping of the Christian church.”—Jobes, Invitation to the Septuagint, 83.
14“The LXX translators attempted to harmonize various readings of the Hebrew that seemed to be contradictory, and in doing so, they produced various readings that cannot be assembled into a coherent chronology without postulating multiple arbitrary emendations.”—Roger C. Young, “Inductive and Deductive Methods as Applies to OT Chronology,” in Richard L. Mayhue, ed., The Master’s Seminary Journal, vol. 18 no. 1 (Sun Valley, CA: The Master’s Seminary, Spring 2007), 103n15. “Generally speaking, the MT can be shown to reflect a text superior to that of the LXX’s parent text, meaning that in a majority of demonstrable cases, the readings of the LXX appear to be secondary.”—Jobes, Invitation to the Septuagint, 153-154.
15“That the variations in the Septuagint are due to contrivance or design, and not due to accident, is plain from the systematic way in which the alterations have been made. It is simple to demonstrate which list is correct. The majority of LXX manuscripts give 167 as the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son, Lamech (the Hebrew reads 187, Gen. 5:25). However, if Methuselah were 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech 188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood (as recorded in the LXX), Methuselah would have been 955 at the date of the Flood. Since he lived to be 969 (the life span given in both) the LXX becomes entangled in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years! Yet Genesis 7-10 and II Peter 3:20 are adamant in proclaiming that only Noah, his three sons and their wives, that is, only 8 souls survived the Deluge. Discordances of a similar nature and magnitude are found with regard to the Post-diluvian Patriarchs except that here the life spans also differ, often by more than 100 years. The Patriarchal chronology of the LXX can be explained from the Hebrew on the principle that the translators of the former desired to lengthen the chronology and to graduate the length of the lives of those who lived after the Flood so as to make the shortening of the life spans gradual and continuous, instead of sudden and abrupt. This fit into their philosophic concept of gradual and uniform change (pre ‘Uniformitarianism’), which philosophy embraced the basic precepts of evolution. That is, they were primeval evolutionists. Thus, the dramatic life span changes, which manifested the historic results of the sudden catastrophic transformations upon the earth and all life due to the worldwide Deluge, were altered to eliminate such positive evidence which was contrary to their religious-philosophic beliefs. The constructor of the scheme lengthens the chronology of the Patriarchs after the Flood unto Abraham’s leaving Haran by 720 years. He also graduates the length of the lives of the Patriarchs throughout the entire register, both those before and after the Flood. The curious result is that with the three exceptions of Enoch, Cainan (whose life exceeds that of his father by only 5 years) and Reu (whose age at death is the same as that of his father), every one of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham is made to die a few years younger than his father. Could anything be more manifestly artificial?”—Floyd Nolen Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to Basics, 4th ed (The Woodlands, TX: KingsWord Press, 1993, 1999), 13. Also see [Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1983), 89-94] for a discussion of the unreliability of the LXX in chronological matters.
16Daniel tuant le dragon de Baal (1632-1675). Image courtesy of Jacob de Whet. Image is in the public domain.
17Zöckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, 49.
18Relating to, or being a second canon, especially that consisting of sections of the Old and New Testaments not included in the original Roman Catholic canon but accepted by theologians in 1548 at the Council of Trent.
19Jobes, Invitation to the Septuagint, 81-82.
20“Evidently never a part of the Jewish canon (neither the one probably established by ca. 150 B.C. [HJP 2: 317]) nor as it existed in Josephus’ day in the 1st century A.D. (HJP 3/2: 706-8), the Adds were regarded as part of the Christian canon of the Western Church until the time of the Protestant and Catholic movements, at which time they were rejected by Protestants and were termed ‘apocryphal’ while the Roman Catholic Church at its Council of Trent in 1546 reaffirmed them and termed them ‘deuterocanonical.’ ... There is no ms evidence for their existence among the Jews of antiquity, not even among the Dead Sea Scrolls, where there have been found, to date, seven Semitic copies of Daniel, most of them quite fragmentary (Milik 1981), and three Aramaic texts containing hitherto unknown legends about him (Pseudo-Daniela,b,c [Milik 1956]). Josephus mentions none of the Adds in spite of the fact that he does record some other noncanonical legends about the prophet Daniel (cf. Ant 10.11.6-7).”—Carey A. Moore, “DANIEL, ADDITIONS TO,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York, NY: Doubleday, c1992, 1996), 18.
21“Since none of the LXX additions is found in the Qumran texts, it is reasonable to assume that they originated outside of Palestine, possibly in Egypt.”—Miller, Daniel, 50.
22Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (Translated by Gleason L. Archer Jr.) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 407, 1958), 492-493.
23Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1999), 482-483.
24Hasel, New Light On The Book Of Daniel From The Dead Sea Scrolls, 50.
25A reading of Susanna shows it to be completely out of character with OT revelation. For example, “Now when the maids were gone forth, the two elders rose up, and ran unto her, saying, Behold, the garden doors are shut, that no man can see us, and we are in love with thee; therefore consent unto us, and lie with us.” (vv. 19-20). The means by which Daniel slays the dragon in Bel and the Dragon is unconvincing: “Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon’s mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder . . .” (v. 27)
26Zöckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, 50.
27Bissell, The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, 445.
28“It is a highly surprising phenomenon that no fewer than eight manuscripts of Daniel have been identified among the materials discovered in three of the 11 caves of Qumran. In order to appreciate the significance of this fact, we need to compare it with the manuscript finds of other Biblical books from the same caves. To my knowledge, the most recent listing of published materials from the Dead Sea scrolls appeared in 1977. The listing speaks of 13 fragments of scrolls from the Psalms; nine from Exodus; eight from Deuteronomy; five from Leviticus; BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) four each from Genesis and Isaiah (Fitzmyer 1977:11-39); and no fewer than eight scrolls representing Daniel. Although we have no sure knowledge yet of the total scrolls that have been preserved from the Bible at Qumran, it is evident from this comparison that the book of Daniel was a favorite book among the Qumran covenantors.”—Hasel, New Light On The Book Of Daniel From The Dead Sea Scrolls, 46-47.
29Passages from Daniel with witness from the Dead Sea Scrolls: 1:10-17 (1QDan a), 1:16-20 (4QDan a), 2:2-6 (1QDan a), 2:9-11, 19-49 (4QDan a), 3:1-2 (4QDan a), 3:22-30 (1QDan b), 4:29-30 (4QDan a), 5:5-7, 12-14, 16-19 (4QDan a), 5:10-12, 14-16, 19-22 (4QDan b), 6:8-22, 27-29 (4QDan b), 7:1-6, 11(?), 26-28 (4QDan b), 7:5-7, 25-28 (4QDan a), 8:1-5 (4QDan a), 8:1-8, 13-16 (4QDan b), 8:16, 17(?), 20, 21(?) (6QpapDan), 10:5-9, 11-16, 21 (4QDan c), 10:8-16 (6QpapDan), 10:16-20 (4QDan a), 11:1-2, 13-17, 25-29 (4QDan c), 11:13-16 (4QDan a), 11:33-36, 38 (6QpapDan) “Manuscripts known to exist but contents not yet published: 4QDan d, 4QDan e.”—Harold P. Scanlin, The DEAD SEA SCROLLS & Modern Translations of the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993), s.v. “Index of Biblical Passages, Daniel.” “In 1955 D. Barthélemy published two scroll fragments: lQDana and lQDanb (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:150-52). These contain parts of 22 verses from Daniel 1‣-3‣, that is, Daniel 1:10-17‣; 2:2-6‣ (1QDana) and 3:22-30 (1QDanb). In 1962 Maurice Baillet published a papyrus fragment from Cave 6, containing possibly parts of Daniel 8:16‣, 17‣, 21‣, 22‣; and clearly 10:8-16‣; 11:33-36‣, 38‣ (Baillet and Milik 1962:114, 115; pl. 23). The most extensively preserved scroll of the book of Daniel from Qumran is one from Cave 4: 4QDana, which contains large portions of Daniel. Preserved are Parts of Daniel 1:16-20‣; 2:9-11‣, 19-49‣; 3:1‣, 2‣; 4:29‣, 30‣; 5:5-7‣, 12-14‣, 16-19‣; 7:5-7‣, 25-28‣; 8:1-5‣; 10:16-20‣; 11:13-16‣. Scroll 4QDanb contains Daniel 5:10-12‣, 14-16‣, 19-22‣; 6:8-22‣, 27-29; 7:1-6‣, 11‣(?), 26-28; 8:1-8‣, 13-16‣; and 4‣QDanc has Daniel 10:5-9‣, 11-16‣, 21‣; 11:1‣, 2‣, 13-17‣, 25-29‣ (Ulrich 1987:18). This means that we have at our disposal from the Dead Sea scrolls parts of all chapters, except Daniel 9‣ and 12‣. Of course, the unpublished 4QDane is to have a few words of various parts of Daniel 9‣.”—Hasel, New Light On The Book Of Daniel From The Dead Sea Scrolls, 46.
31“These [Daniel] manuscript fragments do not contain any of the additions that are in all the Greek manuscripts, such as the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna.”—Ibid., 50.
32“In his 1989 Daniel commentary, written before the newest publications of the Qumran Daniel manuscripts were accessible, John Goldingay stated, ‘There are no real grounds for suggesting that the form of the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel indicates that the book was not regarded as canonical there, though neither for affirming that it was (Goldingay 1989:xxvii). These doubts and uncertainties about the canonicity of Daniel among the Qumran people can now be laid aside for good. They have been based largely on the ‘roughly square proportions of the columns of 1QDana and because Pap6QDan is written on papyrus’ (Ulrich 1987:19). But professor Ulrich now says, “From Cave 4 we now have overriding evidence on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or “canonical,” including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms. . . . However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later explicitly termed “canonical,” the book of Daniel was certainly in that category’ (Ulrich 1987:19).”—Ibid., 51.