Additions
to Daniel - Will the real book of Daniel please stand up!
Why is
Daniel longer
in Roman
Catholic Bibles?
Roman
Catholics formally added several books and passages to
Scriptures at the Council of Trent (1545-1563
A.D.), solely based on their own authority. Though considered
important and well know historical documents, each of those works had
not been an accepted part of Scriptures. As part of this unparalleled
attempted wholesale alteration of Scriptures, three passages were
added to the book of Daniel. In so doing, the Roman Catholic Church
was repeating an error that had been attempted by some in the early
church, yet had been tested and rejected.
Jerome
(lived 340-420 A.D.),
an early translator of Scriptures, acknowledged a problem with some
copies given to him of the book of Daniel...
Therefore,
I have shown these things to you as a difficulty of Daniel, which
among the Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of
the three young men, nor the fables of Bel and the dragon...
Notice the
final term he applied to these unwarranted additions -
"fables". Even though they were in circulation very early,
he rejected them as fables because they were not in the Jewish
Scriptures. In fact, it is quite likely that some of them were
composed many hundreds of years after the time of the true book of
Daniel. While this makes them old, from at least a century before the
time of Christ, the Jews (to whom Old Testament scriptures were
given) never had accepted these passages. Numerous Dead
Sea manuscripts of the book of Daniel testify to the accuracy of
the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel as utilized by Jews and Protestants.6
These Dead Sea scrolls
date to at least a couple centuries before the time of Jesus and do
not have the "fables" as a part of them. Jerome was right.
Simply
put, these Daniel additions are works of religious fiction that some
erroneously tried to add to Scriptures at a later time. The decision
of the Roman
Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, to add to Scriptures
was, and is, unjustifiable and, in fact, went against Jerome who they
celebrate as an early church father and noted translator of the Latin
Vulgate. The church (or any group) cannot decree something to be
Scriptures; God alone determined what writings would comprise His
word. He then enabled His people to be able to recognize, by test,
the Word He gave - all given through His Prophets and Apostles.1
2 Peter
3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy
prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your
apostles. (NIV)
For the
record, the three spurious additions to Daniel are as follows:
The
Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (alt. ...
and Song of the Three Young Men)5:
Added into Daniel chapter three, in the Roman Catholic and some
Orthodox Bibles. This story appears as verses 24-90 inserted between
what is truly verses 23 and 24 in the Hebrew and Protestant Canon.
Susanna
and the Elders4: Appears as
chapter 13 in the Roman Catholic text, whereas the book normally ends
with chapter 12 in the Hebrew and Protestant texts.2
Bel and
the Dragon3: Appears as chapter 14
in the Roman Catholic text, whereas the book normally ends with
chapter 12 in the Hebrew and Protestant texts.2
Daniel 1:1
to Daniel 12:13, without these fables, is God's Word given to man and
fully to be trusted and believed as truth! As for the extra passages,
if you like works of religious fiction they make a good read, but
don't base your faith and doctrine on them.
|
End Notes
1.
The pope in Rome does not meet the test of being a true Apostle
either, as all were directly appointed, "sent (the meaning of
the word Apostle)" by the resurrected Lord. The decree of a
false apostle is still a false decree no matter how many follow it.
Indeed the true apostles of Christ never added to the Old Testament
Scriptures, that canon had been entrusted to the Jewish people and
was fully recognized and complete before the time of Jesus.
Romans
3:1-2 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is
there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, they have
been entrusted with the very words of God. (NIV)
To some of
the apostles, God gave the task of adding a new body of work to
Scriptures; the New Testament. Again, it was not to revise or add to
the Old, it was completely new. Rome's adding to the Old Testament is
without precedent or merit, the act of an apostate
religion, unchanged to this day.
2.
Even Jerome kept these ancient stories attached loosely to
Scriptures but he directly noted them to be apocryphal. This problem
of keeping ancient important works, that were not Scriptures,
together with Scriptures, led to confusion over time. It's easy for
age and tradition to try and ascribe additional and unwarranted
importance to the stories merely because they were kept with Scriptures.
Initially
even Protestants (who were concerned about teaching only what was in
God's word, apart from traditions) kept these apocryphal additions
together with Scriptures, as a separate section called the Apocrypha
- as did the first edition of the King James Bible in 1611 A.D. Later
Protestants found it wise to remove them completely from being added
on to Scriptures because of the propensity of people to ascribe some
extra value to these non canonical works.
Even in
ancient times, among some of the Greek manuscripts, the account of
Susanna and the Elders is found as a separate section before Daniel
1:1 as a prologue. Bel and the Dragon appeared after the conclusion
of the real book in chapter 12 verse 13, as a separate section or
epilogue. It's this type of inclusion that likely led to, or
encouraged, later acceptance as being Scriptures itself. Again, with
the Old Testament being entrusted to the Jews, a comparison with the
Jewish (Hebrew and Aramaic) canon, as used by Jesus and the Apostles,
shows that these works were not part of the original.
3.
Details on Bel and the Dragon:
&ldots;
Bel and the Dragon is preserved in two Greek versions, running to 40
and 42 verses, respectively (Septuagint and Theodotion), in the
uncanonized Additions to the Book of Daniel. Daniel sets out to
combat idol worship. First he proves to the king of Babylon (Cyrus in
Theodotion) that it is the priests and their families and not the god
Bel who deceitfully consume the sacrifices brought to the idol. The
king then allows Daniel to shatter the idol. Next Daniel overcomes a
living dragon worshiped as a god by feeding it a cake made with
pitch, fat, and hair that causes its stomach to burst. This time the
Babylonians force the king to throw Daniel into a lion's den, but he
remains unharmed and after six days is brought food to sustain him by
the prophet Habakkuk at the command of an angel of the Lord. When the
king sees that Daniel has survived he releases him and hurls his
accusers into the den. (The New Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by
Geoffrey Wigoder, G.G., The Jerusalem Publishing House, Ltd.)
4.
Details on Susanna:
The story
is set in Babylon and concerns two Jewish elders appointed as judges
who become enamored of the beautiful and pious Susanna, wife of the
wealthy Joakim. After watching her bathe in the privacy of her garden
they accost her, but she rejects their advances. To get back at her
they accuse her of adultery with a young man in her garden, and on
the basis of their false testimony she is condemned to death. At this
point the young Daniel intervenes, claiming that the two accusers
have not been cross-examined properly. Under his examination, they
become confused, one stating that the alleged transgression occurred
beneath a mastic tree, the other under an oak, and Susanna is thus
exonerated and the two elders are put to death.
The brief
Book of Susanna and the Elders has been preserved in two Greek
versions, in the Septuagint (48 verses) and in Theodotion (64
verses), the latter giving a more graphic account of the garden
scene. The book is part of the uncanonized Additions to the Book of
Daniel. (The New Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Geoffrey Wigoder,
G.G., The Jerusalem Publishing House, Ltd.)
5.
Details on The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children:
An
apocryphal addition to the ancient versions of the canonical text of
the Book of Daniel. It was inserted into the Greek version of Daniel
between 3:23 and 3:24, at the point where Shadrach, Meshach and
Abed-Nego fall down bound in the midst of the burning furnace. The
date of writing is the 2nd or 1st century B.C. It contains a
penitential prayer of Abed-Nego (Azariah) and a song of praise of the
Three Young Men. A problem taken up by Jewish thinkers of the
Greco-Roman period was the contradiction between Israel's covenant
with God and its own existential misfortune. This idea is taken up in
the prayer of Azariah (vs. 3-5), as it is in the Book of Baruch and
the Psalms of Solomon. Although the prayer is uttered at a time when
the speaker's life was in danger, it is not so much a plea for
salvation from immediate threat as a confession of the nation's sins
and a prayer for its deliverance. (The New Encyclopedia of Judaism,
edited by Geoffrey Wigoder, G.G., The Jerusalem Publishing House, Ltd.)
6.
The Dead Sea Scroll
evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the Book of Daniel being
canonical from an early date, the work being composed in the
timeframe represented within it, and that the so-called additions to
Daniel do not belong with the work.
Daniel is
one work that had multiple copies at Qumran
(including on Papyrus such as 6QDana, alt. 6Q7, versus most on
leather parchment). This multitude of manuscripts shows that it was
well accepted, on par with other books such as Isaiah, Deuteronomy,
and Psalms. This was surprising for textual critics and Biblical
minimalists who had long maintain that Daniel could not have been
written until very late, because its prophecies were so clearly
fulfilled. They, of course, dismiss any possibility that there could
be supernatural origin to these prophecies. The widespread use of
Daniel at Qumran
shows that Daniel was well established as Scriptures from
considerably before the mid second century B.C.[LINK: http://www.bibleistrue.com/qna/qna63.htm]
In fact, scholars who have tried to date the oldest fragments of
Daniel, from Qumran, to merely the mid second century B.C. have much
evidence against that late of date.
Consider
that the book itself claims to originate during the Babylonian exile,
from the first deportation of the Jews into captivity (605 B.C., i.e.
Daniel 1:1-2) up to the early days of the Persian Empire (circa 537
B.C., i.e. Daniel 10:1). Again, it is the accurately fulfilled
prophecies regarding subsequent empires that cause scholars to have
to date the work after 332 B.C. and, for many, in the Maccabean
period (circa 167 B.C.). If they can accept God as the source of
these prophecies, there is other evidence for the much earlier date
of composition. Take, for example, one manuscript fragment, 4QDanc (4
= Cave 4, Q=Qumran, Dan = Daniel, C=Fragment Designation, also known
as 4Q114): Still trying to hold a second century date for this
fragment, they must ignore linguistic evidence. The Aramaic used in
Daniel, at Qumran,
testifies to a much earlier date of composition than the second
century B.C. Word usage also reveals that the book was authored in a
region other than Judea. For example, the Genesis Apocryphon, found
in cave #1, is truly a second century B.C. document written in
Aramaic during the same period they try to argue for Daniel's
composition. But, in comparison, the linguistic features and Aramaic
are very dissimilar. Linguists acknowledge that Daniel reflects
Aramaic with Eastern characteristics and not Western forms as it
would if it was composed in Israel. In fact, the Hebrew portions of
the book also reflect a much earlier usage of that language too, in
contrast to Hebrew compositions dating later and pertaining
specifically to the Qumranic community. The evidence points to an
author in eastern exile at a much earlier date than some later
nameless "Jewish patriot in Judea" that minimalists claim
as an author.
Manuscript
fragments of the Book of Daniel provide the entire book except
chapter 12, but this is not to say that the last chapter never
existed at Qumran.
It is quite common for the last portion of a manuscript to be
damaged first when rolled up as a scroll. In the case of the final
chapter of Daniel, another work found at Qumran
(4Q174) quotes from chapter 12 and specifically ascribes it as being
written in "the Book of Daniel the Prophet". This reference
to Daniel is similar to how Jesus refers to "Daniel the
prophet" in Matthew 24:15. What is missing, in all fragments of
Daniel and other commentaries is any mention or reference to the
three apocryphal additions. Simply put, they were never accepted as
Scriptures. Manuscript fragment 1QDanb (1Q72) spans Daniel 3:22-30
and specifically shows the absence of the "Prayer of Azariah and
Song of the Three Men."
The Book
of Daniel has a portion in Aramaic, which led some scholars to
speculate that the entire book was composed in Aramaic, with some of
it being translated back into Hebrew at a later date. This, of
course, was appealing to their theory of a late composition date,
assuming it was composed at a time where Aramaic was in widespread
common usage. Qumran
manuscripts, 1QDana (1Q71), 4QDana (4Q112), and 4QDanb (4Q113), all
verify that the ancient work included both Hebrew and Aramaic as it
has been transmitted to us in Hebrew Scriptures.
|