Biblical Studies Additions to Daniel
by
Amanda Davis Bledsoe
  • LAST MODIFIED: 26 July 2017
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195393361-0241

Introduction

The Additions to Daniel comprise three additional literary texts that are not found in the Hebrew-Aramaic version of the book. These are all set in Babylon with Susanna and Bel and the Dragon featuring Daniel, while in the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Jews the three friends—Azariah, Hananiah, and Mishael–appear. The Additions include two additional stand-alone narratives about Daniel—Susanna; Bel and the Dragon—as well as a prayer and song that have been integrated within the story of the three Jews in the furnace (Dan 3)–Prayer of Azariah; Song of the Three Jews. It is possible that each of these texts derives from an underlying Semitic original, perhaps an oral rather than a written tradition, although some scholars argue for their original composition in Greek. They are preserved now only in the Greek versions of Daniel and in the later translations. It may be that these were included within the book of Daniel only at the time it was translated into Greek, c. 100 BCE, or that they were composed at that time. The Greek Additions to Daniel, along with several “Pseudo-Daniel” texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, attest to the existence of a broader body of Danielic literature in the late Second Temple period. Today, the Additions are considered canonical in Orthodox tradition, deuterocanonical in Roman Catholic tradition, and “apocryphal” in Protestant tradition.

General Overviews

Brooke 2012 provides an excellent starting point for study. Moore 1977, though dated, is still the best and most detailed English-language resource available. The primary benefit of Collins 1993 is its translation of both Greek versions in parallel with detailed textual notes. Koch 1987 provides the most detailed discussion of the textual history and development of the Additions. Kottsieper 1998 argues for a redaction-critical model of the development of the Additions. Lahey 2015 gives a brief introduction to the Additions and offers an alternative argument that they were composed in Greek.

  • Brooke, George. “Additions to Daniel: The Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon.” In The Apocrypha. Edited by Martin Goodman, John Barton, and John Muddiman, 120–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The most recent introduction to the Additions including a discussion of the main scholarly issues: their text, language, genre, and composition. Brooke also offers a brief commentary on each of the Additions.

    Find this resource:

  • Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Commentary on the book of Daniel including the Additions. Provides parallel English translations of both Greek versions along with textual notes and academic review.

    Find this resource:

  • Koch, Klaus. Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch: Entstehung und Textgeschichte. I: Forschungsstand, Programm, Polyglottensynopse; II: Exegetische Erläuterungen. 2 vols. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 38.1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    German-language commentary on the Additions. The first volume focuses on the textual development and history of the Additions, while the second volume discusses their exegetical and theological function.

    Find this resource:

  • Kottsieper, Ingo. “Zusätze zu Daniel.” In Das Buch Baruch, der Brief des Jeremia, Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel. Edited by Odil H. Steck, Reinhard G. Kratz, and Ingo Kottsieper, 211–329. Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Apokryphen 5. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Focuses on the textual, literary, and historical development of the Additions and their integration within the larger book of Daniel, particularly outlining the compositional and redactional layers of the Additions.

    Find this resource:

  • Lahey, Lawrence. “The Additions to Daniel.” In T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken, 555–567. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Argues that the Additions were composed in Greek as part of the original Old Greek version, and they are based on exegesis of MT Daniel, originating in a Pharisaic school in Judea. Discusses composition, translation, text-critical issues, ideology, and reception history of each of the Additions to Daniel.

    Find this resource:

  • Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions. Anchor Bible 44. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Probably still the best English-language commentary on the Additions. Moore discusses their language, origin, literary effect, theology, and history, with a particular focus on their place in the canon. Further provides a comparison between the different versions of the Additions found in the Old Greek and Theodotion.

    Find this resource:

Language and Historical Background

Although the Additions to Daniel are preserved now only in Greek and the later translations, Koch 1987 and Collins 1993 (among others) suggested that these were likely to have been originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. More recently, Joosten 2009 and Lahey 2015 have argued for a Greek original for the Additions. A Semitic original may be indicative of Israel or the eastern diaspora as the place of composition, while a Greek original may point instead to Alexandria in Egypt. Wills 1995 suggests it is probable that the Additions initially circulated independently from the book of Daniel, perhaps having been composed decades, if not more, before their incorporation into the book. At any rate, they were included at least at the time of the translation of the book into Greek, probably around 100 BCE. The first independent citations of the Additions appear in the Church Fathers of the 2nd century CE. See further Kottsieper 1998 (pp. 211–219), which offers a hypothetical reconstruction of the textual and redactional history of the Additions, though one that has not met with wide support in subsequent scholarship.

  • Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Summarizes the various arguments both for and against a Semitic original for the Additions.

    Find this resource:

  • Joosten, Jan. “The Prayer of Azariah (DanLXX 3): Sources and Origin.” In Septuagint and Reception: Essays Prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa. Edited by Johann Cook, 5–16. Supplements to the Vetus Testamentum 127. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Argues for a Greek origin of the Prayer of Azariah and, therefore, the reception of the Greek version, most probably among Greek-speaking Jews of the (Egyptian) diaspora.

    Find this resource:

  • Koch, Klaus. Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch: Entstehung und Textgeschichte. I: Forschungsstand, Programm, Polyglottensynopse; II: Exegetische Erläuterungen. 2 vols. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 38.1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Koch dates the Additions from the 2nd century BCE and argues for their original composition in Hebrew or Aramaic.

    Find this resource:

  • Kottsieper, Ingo. “Zusätze zu Daniel.” In Das Buch Baruch, der Brief des Jeremia, Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel. Edited by Odil H. Steck, Reinhard Kratz, and Ingo Kottsieper, 211–329. Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Apokryphen 5. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Proposes a complicated reconstruction for the various stages in the textual and literary development of the Additions, from formation through final redaction.

    Find this resource:

  • Wills, Lawrence M. “The Daniel/Susanna Tradition: From Legend to Novel.” In The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. By Lawrence M. Wills, 40–67. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Outlines a generally accepted theory for the development of the larger book of Daniel, proposing a gradual process of composition, beginning with independent stories (Dan 1–6) and moving toward a fully developed “novel” (especially the Greek versions).

    Find this resource:

Text and Versions

Our principal witnesses to the Additions are two Greek versions: the Old Greek and Theodotion. They are preserved also in Syriac, Latin, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Armenian, as well as a single Aramaic witness, the Chronicle of Jerahmeel. No fragments of the Additions have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (see Susanna at Qumran?). The primary critical edition of the Greek versions of Daniel is Ziegler and Munnich 1999. The two major English translations of Daniel, which include the Additions, are the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). The NETS translation—McLay 2007—often follows the Greek syntax, at times making for an awkward English translation. This allows, however, for the translator to more easily demonstrate the differences or similarities between the two Greek versions. In the NRSV, Levine 2010 provides a smoother, more readable English translation following the text of Theodotion; the Old Greek is not included.

  • Levine, Amy-Jill. “The Additions to the Greek Book of Daniel.” In The New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. 4th ed. Edited by Michael D. Coogan, 1542–1554. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Brief introduction as well as English translation of the Theodotion version of the Daniel Additions.

    Find this resource:

  • McLay, R. Timothy. “Sousanna, Daniel, Bel and the Dragon.” In A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, 986–1027. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Provides parallel texts of translation of both the Old Greek and the Theodotion versions of Daniel with the Additions. This is a rather literal translation, often opting to retain the Greek parataxis over a smoother English text.

    Find this resource:

  • Ziegler, Joseph, and Olivier Munnich, eds. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. 2d ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 16.2. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Gives the Greek text of both the Old Greek and the Theodotion versions of Daniel, printed on opposite pages. The Old Greek version is an eclectic text based on Papyrus 967, Ms 88, Syrohexaplar, and several additional small fragments.

    Find this resource:

Old Greek

The Old Greek version of Daniel was likely the earliest translation of the book into Greek, perhaps taking place as early as the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE. However, it was replaced at an early stage by the version of Theodotion, and it is thus preserved in only a few manuscripts. The oldest surviving witness to the Old Greek is Papyrus 967, dated in Kreuzer 2008 to the late 2nd or early 3rd centuries CE. This manuscript preserves a unique arrangement for the overall book of Daniel: Dan 1–4, 7–8, 5–6, 9–12, Bel and the Dragon, Susanna. This brings the book into better chronological order, moving from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar to Darius and finally to Cyrus. Only the Additions break this order, with Susanna, where Daniel is identified as a “youth” (νεωτέρῳ), forming the book’s conclusion; aside from its Babylonian setting, no chronological markers are found in Old Greek Bel and the Dragon. Two other Old Greek manuscripts are also known, the Syrohexaplar and MS 88. These do not contain the original Greek text, however, but the version of the Old Greek in Origen’s Hexapla. The Syrohexaplar is a highly literal Syriac translation from the early 7th century CE, while the Greek MS 88 dates between the 9th and 11th centuries CE. In contrast to Papyrus 967, these follow the traditional order of the book (Dan 1–12) with the Additions included as Dan 13 and 14, Susanna appearing before Bel and the Dragon. Wills 1995 (pp. 65–66) suggested the inclusion of these additional narratives as the closing to the book of Daniel may be indicative of a shift in the book’s overall meaning through “genre jumping” as the inclusion of more stories following on the apocalyptic visions moves the book back in the realm of entertainment. Conversely, DiTommaso 2005 (pp. 62–63) suggests this arrangement is simply a sign of their secondary authoritative status. We cannot know, therefore, whether this shift in meaning that occurred by the inclusion of the Additions was intentional or merely subconscious.

  • Bruce, F. F. “The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel.” In Instruction and Interpretation: Studies in Hebrew Language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis; Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Louvain 1976. Edited by Hendrik A. Brongers, 22–40. Oudtestamentische Studiën 20. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1977.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Focuses on the differences in meaning brought about by the textual divergences in the Old Greek in comparison with MT and with Theodotion. Understands the Old Greek as a targum-like paraphrase (even in the Additions), while Theodotion is more literal.

    Find this resource:

  • DiTommaso, Lorenzo. The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 20. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Discusses the broader development and reception of the book of Daniel, particularly as reflected in the ancient and medieval apocryphal Danielic literature.

    Find this resource:

  • Kreuzer, Siegfried. “Papyrus 967: Bemerkungen zu seiner buchtechnischen, textgeschichtlichen und kanongeschichtlichen Bedeutung.” In Die Septuaginta. Texte, Kontexte. Edited by Martin Karrer, and Wolfgang Kraus, 64–82. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 219. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An introduction to the contents and history of Papyrus 967 along with detailed discussion of certain technical aspects of its production and its relationship to other known manuscripts.

    Find this resource:

  • Wills, Lawrence M. “The Daniel/Susanna Tradition: From Legend to Novel.” In The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. By Lawrence M. Wills, 40–67. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Discusses the literary features of Old Greek Daniel and its function as an early Jewish novel, including how the incorporation of the Additions would have created a shift in the genre and focus of the larger book.

    Find this resource:

Theodotion

A second version of the book of Daniel in Greek is the so-called Theodotionic edition. Schmitt 1966 outlines the evidence that suggests it was probably named after a translator of the 2nd century CE rather than the historical person whom it likely predates by as much as two centuries—so a more accurate designation may be “Proto-Theodotion.” At a very early stage in the transmission of the Greek Old Testament, already by the time of Jerome, this version of Daniel replaced the Old Greek. It is, therefore, the text preserved in the majority of the manuscripts, including in the important Alexandrian and Vatican Codices. The preference for the Theodotion version of Daniel is attributable to the fact that it more closely resembles the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic Text, though it too included the Additions to the book. The larger relationship of this edition to the Old Greek and Hebrew-Aramaic versions is contested, though it is generally regarded as later and to some degree dependent on these, as argued in McLay 1996. In the Theodotion version, Susanna is included at the beginning of the book of Daniel, followed by Dan 1–12 (including the Additions of Dan 3), and Bel and the Dragon serves as the book’s conclusion.

  • Jerome. “Preface to Daniel.” In Patrologia Latina. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne, 28, col. 1357. 217 vols. Paris: Garnier, 1844–1864.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Jerome wrote that the Theodotion version of Daniel was used in the churches, as the Old Greek version differed widely from the original and was rightly rejected.

    Find this resource:

  • McLay, Timothy. The OG and Th Versions of Daniel. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 43. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Argues against the standard view that Theodotion Daniel is a revision of the Old Greek in light of the Hebrew-Aramaic text. Proposes instead that Theodotion is a fresh translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic text with an eye toward the Old Greek. The difference here is probably not so substantial and the evidence presented may be argued in either direction.

    Find this resource:

  • Schmitt, Armin. Stammt der sogenannte “Θ”-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion? Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 9. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Argues that the “Theodotion” version of Daniel, although a formal, literalistic translation, differs in many respects from other translations that have been attributed to Theodotion (i.e., the kaige recension).

    Find this resource:

The Relationship of the Greek Versions in the Additions

For the relationship of the Greek versions of the larger book of Daniel, there is general agreement that Theodotion represents a later stage in the transmission than does the Old Greek, argued most thoroughly in McLay 1996. Although Theodotion is likely to some extent dependent on the Old Greek (it is debated whether the Old Greek or Proto-Masoretic Text served as the base text with an eye toward the other), there are several notable divergences in these two versions, including in the Additions. This is most evident in the placement of these within each of the Greek versions. In Theodotion, Susanna appears as an introduction to the book before Dan 1, while Bel and the Dragon is appended to its end as Dan 13. In the Old Greek, on the other hand, both of these are included after Dan 12. In Papyrus 967, the earliest Old Greek manuscript, Bel and the Dragon precedes Susanna (Dan 13 and Dan 14, respectively), while in other Old Greek manuscripts Susanna is followed by Bel and the Dragon. Only the placement of the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews is the same in both Old Greek and Theodotion, with this material inserted in chapter 3 between Dan 3:23 and 3:24 MT. The text of the Additions often varies between the two versions, in only minor ways in the additions to chapter 3, but more substantially in Bel and the Dragon and especially Susanna. While the relationship of the Greek versions for the larger book of Daniel has been much studied, their relationship for the Additions of Daniel has been largely neglected (note their absence in McLay 1996). For discussion of the relationship of the versions in the individual Additions, see sections below.

  • Koch, Klaus. Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch: Entstehung und Textgeschichte. I: Forschungsstand, Programm, Polyglottensynopse; II: Exegetische Erläuterungen. 2 vols. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 38.1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Koch dates the Additions from the 2nd century BCE and argues for their original composition in Hebrew or Aramaic.

    Find this resource:

  • Kottsieper, Ingo. “Zusätze zu Daniel.” In Das Buch Baruch, der Brief des Jeremia, Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel. Edited by Odil H. Steck, Reinhard G. Kratz, and Ingo Kottsieper, 211–329. Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Apokryphen 5. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Offers a hypothetical reconstruction for possible stages in the textual and literary development of the Greek Additions, from formation through final redaction, which has not found wide support in subsequent scholarship.

    Find this resource:

  • McLay, Timothy. The OG and Th Versions of Daniel. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 43. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Argues against the standard view that Theodotion Daniel is a revision of the Old Greek in light of the Hebrew-Aramaic text. Proposes instead that Theodotion is a fresh translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic text with an eye toward the Old Greek. The difference here is probably not so substantial.

    Find this resource:

The Aramaic Chronicles of Jerahmeel

An Aramaic version of the Additions to Daniel is known from the medieval Chronicle of Jerahmeel, dating probably to the 11th century CE. This work contains an Aramaic version of the whole of the book of Daniel, including the Additions in Dan 3. The story of Susanna (§65) appears between a narrative of the two false and adulterous prophets, Ahab and Zedekiah (§64) and the episode of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness (§66). Although not explicit, this probably reflects the post-biblical tradition that associates the two elders of Susanna with these two false prophets—a tradition also known by Origen and Jerome and discussed in DiTommaso 2005 (p. 63). Gaster 1899 believed the Chronicles to be the Vorlage for Theodotion’s version of the Additions. Subsequent scholarship, however, has generally regarded this work to be more likely a retroversion of Theodotion’s version of the Additions back into Aramaic, reflecting a broader literary phenomenon. Koch 1987 (1.19–39) has revived several of Gaster’s arguments for the priority of the Chronicles, though suggesting that sometimes Chronicles is closer to OG than Theodotion, thus, the Aramaic text represents a Vorlage of the Greek and Syriac translations, but this has not been met with much agreement. A recent essay, Brooke 2012 supposes this text was “produced independently from the Greek versions, probably to make a Hebrew original fit its Aramaic context” (p. 120).

  • Brooke, George. “Additions to Daniel: The Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon.” In The Apocrypha. Edited by Martin Goodman, John Barton, and John Muddiman, 120–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Argues that Chronicles was produced independently of the Greek (and possibly even of the Syriac) versions.

    Find this resource:

  • DiTommaso, Lorenzo. The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 20. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Provides a brief bibliography of available literature on Chronicles. Also summarizes its contribution to the reception of traditions, particularly in the Additions, where relevant; for example, in the tradition of Daniel’s death and burial.

    Find this resource:

  • Gaster, Moses. The Chronicles of Jerahmeel. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1899.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Initial publication of the Aramaic Chronicles of Jerahmeel, in which Gaster argued for this text being the Vorlage for parts of the Greek Additions to Daniel.

    Find this resource:

  • Koch, Klaus. Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch: Entstehung und Textgeschichte. I: Forschungsstand, Programm, Polyglottensynopse. II: Exegetische Erläuterungen. 2 vols. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 38.1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Argues again for the priority of Chronicles, suggesting it represents the Vorlage of the Greek and Syriac versions of the Additions.

    Find this resource:

Other Versions

The Additions to Daniel are also included in other versions of the book, the majority of which are translations from the Greek versions. For example, in Syriac, Latin, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Armenian.

  • Cowe, S. Peter. The Armenian Version of Daniel. University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 9. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Critical edition of the Armenian version of Daniel with the Additions. Provides text with comments and discussion, particularly of the relationship of this version with the Greek, Syriac, and Georgian versions.

    Find this resource:

  • DiTommaso, Lorenzo. The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 20. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Offers comments and bibliography for much of the literature on the ancient versions of Daniel, including the Additions, particularly in their various later versions and translations.

    Find this resource:

  • Hjälm, Miriam Lindgren. Christian Arabic Versions of Daniel. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2016.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Provides information on and analysis of the Arabic manuscripts of Daniel, including the Additions. Traces the lineage of these Arabic versions from earlier versions of the book.

    Find this resource:

  • Taylor, Richard A. The Peshiṭta of Daniel. Monographs of the Peshiṭta Institute Leiden 7. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1994.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Critical edition of the Syriac text of Daniel with the Additions. Taylor gives an introduction to the Syriac text of Daniel along with translation and notes. For the Additions, he offers a discussion of the relationship to the Greek versions.

    Find this resource:

Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews

The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews have been integrated into the larger narrative of Dan 3. This tale recounts how Daniel’s three companions are thrown into the fiery furnace for refusing to bow down before the golden image erected by King Nebuchadnezzar. In both Greek versions this additional material is inserted into the narrative between Dan 3:23 and 3:24 MT, just after the three Jews have been thrown inside the fiery furnace. This Addition may be divided into three distinct sections: the prayer of Azariah (Dan 3:24–45 [Eng. 1–22]), the song of the three Jews (Dan 3:52–90 [29–68]), and a prose link between the two (Dan 3:46–51 [23–28]). The Prayer of Azariah is a long communal confession of sin followed by a plea for deliverance. This type of prayer was common in the Second Temple period—for example, Dan 9:4–19; Ps 106; Ezra 9:6–15; Neh 1:5–11; 9:5–37; Bar 1:15–3:8. The short narrative link explicitly identifies the fourth man that the king sees within the furnace as an angel of the Lord, who came down into the furnace to protect the three Jews from the harm of the flames. The Addition closes with the Song of the Three Jews, which itself consists of two units: an ode praising the Lord (3:52–57 [Eng. 29–34]) and a psalm, which is a call to praise the Lord (3:57–90). According to Hammer 1972 (p. 213), the overall literary effect of this additional material is to shift the focus of the narrative away from Nebuchadnezzar and to the three Jews, who set an example as they elegantly bless and acknowledge God even before the king does.

  • Gilbert, M. “La Prière d’Azarias. Dn 3, 26–45 Theodotion.” La nouvelle revue théologique 96 (1974): 561–582.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Discusses the literary structure of the prayer and traces allusions to biblical texts within the prayer (some more convincing than others).

    Find this resource:

  • Haag, Ernst. “Die drei Männer im Feuer.” In Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie. Edited by Jan Willem van Henten, 20–50. Studia postbiblica 38. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1989.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Discusses in detail the history of the composition of the text.

    Find this resource:

  • Hammer, Raymond J. “The Apocryphal Additions to Daniel.” In The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha: Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel and Prayer of Manasseh. Edited by John C. Dancy, 210–241. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Offers an introduction to the Danielic Additions, with a discussion of the contents, origin, and theology of the individual Additions.

    Find this resource:

  • Kuhl, Curt. Die drei Männer im Feuer: Daniel Kap. 3 und seine Zusätze. Beiheifte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 55. Giessen, Germany: Töpelmann, 1930.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Provides a Hebrew reconstruction of the Greek Additions to chapter 3.

    Find this resource:

Original Language and Composition

The three sections of this Addition were likely first separate pieces, independent from the Daniel tradition and also from each other, composed in different periods and for distinctive purposes. The Prayer of Azariah invokes God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel as a purposeful contrast to the miserable conditions the nation is currently facing, notably the cessation of the temple offerings and the absence of a national leader. Instead, they have been given into the hand of “an unjust king, the most wicked in the world” (Dan 3:32 [Eng. 3:9]). Newman 2008 (p. 183) notes that commentators have understood this as a reference to the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, indicating a date of composition in the 2nd century BCE. In the Song of the Three Jews, on the other hand, no persecution is apparent and mention is made of the temple, apparently still functioning, suggesting a different setting than the Prayer (Newman 2008 [pp. 186, 190]). Nevertheless, there are clear literary links between these individual units, which unite them into a coherent whole. For example, both the Prayer and the Song open with an almost identical blessing of God and his name. There is nothing to connect this Addition specifically to Daniel aside from a brief mention of the Jews being saved from the fire at Dan 3:88 [66]—notably here it is their Hebrew names that are used, while elsewhere in the chapter they are referenced by their Aramaic names. The Prayer’s communal confession of sin further seems inappropriate to the context in which the Jews are being punished for their faithfulness. Newman 2008 (p. 183) further points out that it is difficult to assess the original language of this Addition, as both a highly semitized Greek and a Semitic version from which a Greek translator worked are both plausible. The prose interlude between the Prayer and the Song shows no evidence of a Semitic original, so it may have been composed at the time these texts were incorporated into the book of Daniel.

  • Bogaert, P. -M. “Daniel 3 LXX et son supplément grec.” In The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Edited by A. S. van der Woude, 13–37. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 106. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters, 1993.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Concludes that Theodotion Daniel depended on the Old Greek in both the Hebrew-Aramaic portions and the Prayer and Song, with the Addition material taken from a small prayer book attributed to the martyrs in Maccabean times, or from a narrative work originating at the same time.

    Find this resource:

  • Joosten, Jan. “The Prayer of Azariah (DanLXX 3): Sources and Origin.” In Septuagint and Reception: Essays Prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa. Edited by Johann Cook, 5–16. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Discusses the Prayer of Azariah in order to shed light on the composition, context, and process of supplementation for the Additions to chapter 3 and also on the relationship of the two Greek versions. Joosten identifies a variety of biblical parallels, which suggest the Prayer was composed in Greek, referencing the Greek scriptures (i.e., Septuagint).

    Find this resource:

  • Koch, Klaus. “Der ‘Märtyrertod’ als Sühne in der aramäischen Fassung des Asarja-Gebets.” In Die Reiche der Welt und der kommende Menschensohn. Studien zum Danielbuch. Edited by Martin Rösel, 66–68. Gesämmelte Aufsätze 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Criticizes Kuhl’s Hebrew reconstruction of the Prayer of Azariah, supporting instead the Aramaic Chronicles of Jerahmeel, as an earlier Semitic version of the Additions.

    Find this resource:

  • Newman, Judith. “The Prayer of Azariah.” In Early Jewish Prayers in Greek. By Pieter van der Horst and Judith Newman, 181–214. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Offers a detailed discussion of the Prayer’s content, context, and purpose(s).

    Find this resource:

Susanna

The story of Susanna features a Jewish woman living in Babylon, who is renowned for both her beauty and her piety. While in her husband’s orchard, Susanna is watched by two Jewish elders, who are judges of the people. They lust after her beauty and subsequently attempt to entice her to adultery. Upon her refusal they conspire together to bring charges against her in the assembly of the people, claiming to have seen her having intercourse with a young man. Due to their testimony, Susanna is condemned to death. In her anguish she cries out in prayer to God, who stirs the spirit of a youth named Daniel. Daniel chastises the people of the assembly for their hasty judgment and for accepting the lies of the elders. Daniel then publicly interrogates the judges individually, asking them under which type of tree they saw Susanna with the man. Each gives a different answer and so Susanna is cleared of the false accusations. The elders are killed in her place. Daniel’s role in this story is somewhat different from that of the other Danielic stories (Dan 1–6); here Daniel assumes the position of lawyer, acting within the Judean community of Babylon, as opposed to the other stories in which he appears as a wise and virtuous courtier serving at the royal court of the Babylonian and Persian monarchs.

  • Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Outlines the structure of Susanna in each of the Greek versions, highlighting their different redactional emphases. Also provides a detailed textual commentary and discussion of the chapter’s setting and function.

    Find this resource:

  • Engel, Helmut. Die Susanna-Erzählung: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar zum Septuaginta-Text und zur Theodotion-Bearbeitung. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 61. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    German-language introduction, translation, and commentary on the story of Susanna in the two Greek versions.

    Find this resource:

  • LaCoque, André. “Susanna.” In The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel’s Tradition. By André LaCoque, 21–30. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1990.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Introduction to the story of Susanna along with its composition history and later interpretation.

    Find this resource:

In the Greek Editions

Of all the Additions to Daniel, the two Greek versions are most different in the story of Susanna. While the general details of the story remain the same, the version of Susanna in Theodotion is significantly longer than that of the Old Greek—some 64 versus 46 verses. In particular, the two versions give a very different introduction and conclusion to the story. Theodotion opens with an introduction of the setting and main characters and closes with a note on Daniel’s renown. The Old Greek, on the other hand, begins abruptly with a saying about lawlessness and ending with a general admonition on the piety of youths. This difference is partly due to the distinctive placement of the story in the two editions. In Theodotion it appears before Daniel chapter 1, while in the Old Greek it is included at the end of the book as either chapter 13 or 14 in the various manuscripts. Following the order of the Vulgate, Susanna appears as chapter 13 in modern Catholic Bibles.

  • Engel, Helmut. Die Susanna-Erzählung: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar zum Septuaginta-Text und zur Theodotion-Bearbeitung. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 61. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    German introduction, translation, and commentary on the two Greek versions of the story of Susanna.

    Find this resource:

Original Language and Composition

As early as the time of Jerome, the subject of the original language of the story of Susanna was much discussed. This story has sometimes been supposed, for example in Bruce 1977 (pp. 38–39), to have been composed originally in Greek, primarily due to the wordplay evident in Daniel’s interrogation of the elders, where the names of the trees are linked to their ultimate fate through rhyming in Greek. Moore 1977 (pp. 81–84), among others, however, has argued for a Semitic original behind the story. Susanna may have been composed either concurrently or just after the other Daniel tales (Dan 1–6). It was probably only secondarily associated with the Daniel tradition, as evidenced by several important differences from the other tales. According to Collins 1993 (pp. 437, cited under General Overviews), these include its lack of a court setting, its focus on an intra-Jewish conflict, and its portrayal of Daniel’s actions as based on his cleverness rather than divine action. On the other hand, some commentators, for example van Henten 1990 (pp. 1–14), have argued that the story of Susanna was composed as a commentary on Dan 1 in order to clarify the biblical chronology and particularly the traditions about Jehoiakim.

  • Bruce, F. F. “The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel.” In Instruction and Interpretation: Studies in Hebrew Language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis; Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Louvain 1976. Edited by Hendrik A. Brongers, 22–40. Oudtestamentische Studiën 20. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1977.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Bruce views the shared Greek wordplay as evidence that the Old Greek was a targumic-style paraphrase of a Proto-Theodotion Greek text.

    Find this resource:

  • Clanton, D. W., Jr. “(Re-)Dating the Story of Susanna: A Proposal.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 34.2 (2003): 121–140.

    DOI: 10.1163/157006303766489960Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Provides a survey of previous scholarship on the date of the composition of Susanna, suggesting a somewhat later date than typically assumed.

    Find this resource:

  • Koch, Klaus. Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch: Entstehung und Textgeschichte. I: Forschungsstand, Programm, Polyglottensynopse; II: Exegetische Erläuterungen. 2 vols. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 38.1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Koch suggests Susanna was rather an independent creation from the other Daniel stories.

    Find this resource:

  • Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions. Anchor Bible 44. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Moore identifies several Semitisms in the Theodotion version of the story not present in the Old Greek, concluding that the Theodotion version of Susanna was based on some Semitic original and the Old Greek.

    Find this resource:

  • van Henten, J. W. “The Story of Susanna as a Pre-rabbinic Midrash to Dan 1:1–2.” In Variety of Forms: Dutch Studies in Midrash (Papers Read at the Workshop “Midrash”). Edited by A. Kuyt, E. G. L. Schrijver, and N. A. van Uchelen, 1–14. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 1990.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Argues that Susanna was intended as a commentary (“midrash”) on the text of Daniel 1:1–2, namely the destruction and pillaging of the temple during the reign of Jehoiakim by Nebuchadnezzar. Relates the name of Susanna’s husband with that of the Judean king.

    Find this resource:

Susanna at Qumran?

In the initial publication of some small fragments of 4Q551, Milik 1981 suggests that these may shed light on the early composition history of the Susanna story, perhaps representing its original Semitic Vorlage. These claims, however, have been subsequently refuted in Beyer 1984 and Nickelsburg 1997 as it was demonstrated that the text more closely parallels Judges 19 than Susanna. In the official publication in the Discoveries in the Judean Desert series, Puech 2009 changes the name of the text to reflect this ambiguity.

  • Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    See pp. 224–225. Provides an early transcription of 4Q551 along with a German translation. Discusses its association with Judges 19:15–23 and Genesis 19:4–7.

    Find this resource:

  • Milik, Józef-Tadeusz. “Daniel et Susanne à Qumrân?” In De la Tôrah au Messie: Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles. Edited by Maurice Carrez, Joseph Doré, and Pierre Grelot, 337–359. Paris: Desclée, 1981.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Gives a French translation and comments on the Old Greek version of Susanna along with transcription, photographs, translation, and notes on 4Q551. Milik proposed that 4Q551 has much in common with Susanna, and it should perhaps be viewed as belonging to the story’s Aramaic Vorlage.

    Find this resource:

  • Nickelsburg, George W. E. “4Q551: A Vorlage to Susanna or a Text Related to Judges 19?” Journal of Jewish Studies 48.2 (1997): 349–351.

    DOI: 10.18647/2004/JJS-1997Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Nickelsburg argues contra Milik’s claims (Milik 1981) that these fragments more likely represent a portrayal of the story of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19 than the story of Susanna.

    Find this resource:

  • Puech, Émile. “551. 4QRécit ar.” In Qumrân Grotte 4: XXVII. Edited by Émile Puech, 47–56. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 37. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Official edition of the 4Q551 manuscript fragments, providing transcription and discussion of the text in French.

    Find this resource:

Reception in Later Tradition

In early Christian interpretation, Susanna—along with the Jewish protagonists of Daniel 3, 6, and Bel and the Dragon—came to be viewed as an exemplary figure for those facing religious persecution. The characters of these stories, though ultimately rescued by divine action, chose death rather than compromise their religious devotion. Susanna in particular became a paradigm of chastity and sexual purity, not only within the bounds of marriage, but also with her story serving as a model for virgins and widows. The story of Susanna was subsequently transformed and expanded beyond the Greek versions in various Samaritan, Arab-Islamic, and Jewish Ethiopic traditions; see Pennacchietti 2006 and Tilford 2012. Clanton 2006 points out that in the later history of interpretation, the focus shifted to Susanna’s beauty and sexuality, and she became regarded moreso as a seductress. Bal 1993 discusses the reception of Susanna’s encounter with the elders, which has been an especially prominent subject in artwork, from the early Christian catacombs to Rembrandt and Picasso.

  • Bal, Mieke. “The Elders and Susanna.” Biblical Interpretation 1 (1993): 1–19.

    DOI: 10.1163/156851593X00377Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Focuses on the reception of the story of Susanna, particularly in artistic portrayals of the elders and Susanna.

    Find this resource:

  • Clanton, Dan W. The Good, the Bold, and the Beautiful: The Story of Susanna and Its Renaissance Interpreters. New York/London: T&T Clark, 2006.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A study on the interpretation of Susanna in the Renaissance period, also including a narrative-rhetorical reading of the story and a detailed study into the work’s composition history, arguing for a date in the 1st century BCE.

    Find this resource:

  • Pennacchietti, Fabrizio. Three Mirrors for Two Biblical Ladies: Susanna and the Queen of Sheba in the Eyes of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Explores the wealth of receptions of the story of Susanna with a strong focus on its interpretation in Arab-Islamic culture.

    Find this resource:

  • Spolsky, Ellen, ed. The Judgment of Susanna: Authority and Witness. Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and Its Literature 11. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Contains nine individual essays commenting on the ancient and modern contexts of reading the Susanna narrative.

    Find this resource:

  • Tilford, Nicole. “Susanna and Her Interpreters.” In Women’s Bible Commentary. 3d ed. Edited by Carol A. Newsom, Sharon H. Ringe, and Jacqueline E. Lapsley, 432–435. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A general introduction to the story of Susanna and its history of interpretation and feminist critique.

    Find this resource:

Susanna and Women’s Studies

The story of Susanna stands out as one among several works of the Second Temple period that have a strong focus on women—see, especially Esther (with the Additions) and Judith. This emphasis probably dates from Antiquity as evidenced by the arrangement of one manuscript of the Syriac Peshitta: the 6th-century Ambrosian Codex. In this collection, the story of Susanna appears not directly with Daniel; rather, it is grouped with other “women’s stories,” namely Ruth, Esther, Judith, and Sirach; see Hartman and Di Lella 1978 (pp. 27–28). Susanna’s status as female and thus outsider has been a special focus of feminist scholarship in the past decades; see, for example, Glancy 1995 and D’Angelo 2015. Levine 1995 reads Susanna and the female body as a metaphor for the vulnerable Jewish community. Reinhartz 2000 focuses on the role of women within the domestic space in the books of Susanna and of Judith.

  • D’Angelo, Mary R. “Susanna’s Choice.” In A Most Reliable Witness: Essays in Honor of Ross Shepard Kraemer. Edited by Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Nathaniel DesRosiers, Shira L. Lander, Jacqueline Z. Pastis, and Daniel Ullucci, 133–144. Brown Judaic Studies 358. Providence, RI: Brown University, 2015.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Focuses on the role of gender in Susanna and offers a comparison between the Jewish heroine and the figures of Asenath and Lucretia.

    Find this resource:

  • Glancy, Jennifer A. “The Accused: Susanna and Her Readers.” In A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna. Edited by Athalya Brenner, 288–302. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 7. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1995.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Explores the mechanisms of gender representation in the narrative of Susanna.

    Find this resource:

  • Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible 23. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Briefly discusses the material arrangement of the Ambrosian Peshitta manuscript, in which Susanna is placed between the stories of Ruth and Esther, rather than directly following the book of Daniel.

    Find this resource:

  • Levine, Amy-Jill. “‘Hemmed In on Every Side’: Jews and Women in the Book of Susanna.” In A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna. Edited by Athalya Brenner, 303–323. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 7. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1995.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Examines the literary function of women’s bodies as the place for expressing threats facing the Jewish community, particularly in a diaspora setting.

    Find this resource:

  • Reinhartz, Adele. “Better Homes and Gardens: Women and Domestic Space in the Books of Judith and Susanna.” In Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson. Edited by Stephen G. Wilson and Michael Desjardins, 325–339. Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le Christianisme et le Judäisme. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An examination of the role of domestic space in the books of Susanna and Judith.

    Find this resource:

  • Valeta, David M. “Crossing Boundaries: Feminist Perspectives on the Stories of Daniel and Susanna.” In Feminist Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Retrospect. Vol. 2. Edited by Susanne Schulz, 294–312. Recent Research in Biblical Studies. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Susanna is described as a victor, not only a victim, in that her resistance to rape by the elders, serves as an indictment against sexual harassment and attack in the community.

    Find this resource:

Bel and the Dragon

The story of Bel and the Dragon (or Snake) comprises two separate, brief episodes presented as a continuous narrative united by the appearance of the figures of Daniel and Cyrus of Persia. In the first of these episodes, Daniel has a conversation with the king and denies that Bel is a living god. Upon threat of death, Daniel enters into a contest with the priests of Bel over who it is that eats the daily offerings. Unbeknownst to the priests, Daniel sprinkles ashes on the floor of the temple of Bel, before the door is locked and sealed with the king’s ring. The next morning, upon entering the temple, the food is gone but Daniel points out the many pairs of footprints in the ashes, showing that the priests and their families enter the temple each night and eat the offerings. The story ends with Daniel victorious and Bel and the temple given into his hands for destruction. In the following episode, Cyrus presents Daniel with an undeniable “living god,” a large snake that is revered by the Babylonians. Daniel again refuses to worship any but his own God and proposes another test to prove the snake is a false deity. Daniel prepares a cake of pitch, fat, and hair, which upon eating causes the snake to burst open and die. The Babylonians become outraged, exclaiming: “The king has become a Jew.” They demand Daniel’s death and he is thrown into a pit with seven lions. After six days, an angel appears to the prophet Habakkuk, who is preparing a stew, and carries him by the hair of his head to Daniel in the pit to provide him with food. After this, the king returns to the pit and finds Daniel alive, having been miraculously saved from the lions. Daniel’s accusers are then thrown into the pit and are immediately devoured. Each of these episodes bear strong resemblance to the stories of Daniel 1–6, with Daniel serving in the court of a Near Eastern king and his faith both bringing him into direct conflict with those around him, resulting in the threat of death, and then delivering him from the situation. The second half of the narrative concerning the snake comes especially close to the story of Daniel 6, in that again Daniel is thrown into a pit of lions due to his disregard of pagan religious concerns. Here, however, Daniel remains in the pit for seven days rather than only one, and the prophet Habakkuk is sent to him to provide him with food. In addition, contrary to the other Daniel stories, the narrative is not set at court (though he does have close interaction with the king) and in the Theodotion edition Daniel is explicitly identified as a priest.

  • Collins, John J. “‘The King Has Become a Jew’: The Perspective on the Gentile World in Bel and the Snake.” In Seers, Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. By John J. Collins, 167–177. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 54. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1997.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Discusses the perspective the author of Bel and the Dragon takes with regard to the gentile world as a means of situating it socially, politically, and, to a lesser extent, chronologically. Collins notes both a strong emphasis on polemic against idols and a congenial attitude toward the king, which together suggest a different Sitz im Leben than the stories of Dan 1–6.

    Find this resource:

  • Haag, Ernst. Die Errettung Daniels aus der Löwengrube: Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der biblischen Danieltradition. SBS 110. Stuttgart, Germany: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Explores the (especially Babylonian) origins of the Danielic tradition of being rescued from the pit of lions.

    Find this resource:

  • Wills, Lawrence M. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Jewish Court Legends. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 26. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Wills argues for a close relationship between the development of the story of Daniel in the lion’s den as preserved in Bel and the Dragon and in Dan 6, concluding that the version in Dan 6 has borrowed motifs from the earlier account in Bel and the Dragon.

    Find this resource:

In the Greek Editions

The two episodes of Bel and the Snake differ substantially in the two editions, most notably in the opening verses of the narrative. While the Old Greek identifies Daniel as a priest and son of Abal, the name of the Babylonian king is not given. On the other hand, Theodotion names the king as Cyrus the Persian and presents a picture of Daniel more in line with the stories of chapters 1–6 in that he is “a companion of the king” and “more distinguished than all his friends.” The OG and Theodotion versions of this story differ much less than in Susanna, but enough to distinguish some tendencies. The Theodotion text of Bel is more developed than that preserved in the Old Greek edition, and the story of the Snake is simpler in Theodotion while the OG evidences secondary developments. Only the verses dealing with the appearance of the prophet Habakkuk in the narrative evidence substantial agreement in both accounts, perhaps suggesting it was a secondary addition to the broader narrative. It seems likely that these two episodes may have initially circulated separately before later becoming linked. Thus, the differences represented by the two editions may trace back to a common Vorlage, which has been adapted in distinctive ways in both the OG and Theodotion editions. These differences further add support to the assumption that stories associated with the figure of Daniel may have continued to circulate separately from the Daniel story-collection of chapters 1–6 in the time just before the Common Era. In Theodotion Daniel, these stories are placed just after chapter 12, while in the Old Greek they instead appear after the story of Susanna. Modern Catholic Bibles follow the placement of the Vulgate, which agrees with the OG, in placing these as chapter 14, with the story of Bel as 14:1–22 and the Snake as 14:23–42.

  • Amara, Dalia. “Bel and the Dragon: The Relationship between Theodotion and the Old Greek.” In From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir. Edited by Cana Werman, 125–147. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Argues that the Old Greek and Theodotion represent two independent versions of the narratives.

    Find this resource:

  • Trotter, Jonathan R. “Another Stage in the Redactional History of the Bel Story (Dan 14:1–22): The Evidence of Polemic against Foreign Priests and the Focus on Daniel in the Old Greek.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013): 481–496.

    DOI: 10.1163/15700631-12340390Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Traces the development of the Old Greek and Theodotion versions of Bel and the Dragon, which Trotter contends are translations of a different Semitic Vorlage. In their current preserved form, both of these exhibit expansions and textual corruptions that occurred during the process of transmission.

    Find this resource:

Original Language and Composition

It is possible that these stories may be as old as the other Daniel stories, and many commentators have sought to identify Near Eastern elements in them. In general, the king of these two episodes is presented in rather positive terms, which may suggest these stem from a period prior to the reign of Antiochus IV. It has been further suggested in Gruen 1998 (pp. 168–170) that a Ptolemaic Egyptian setting is perhaps more likely, since this could better account for the presence of a Jewish priest in the king’s court. The original language of this Addition is most often assumed to be Semitic—both Hebrew and Aramaic have been suggested. In his publication of the Aramaic Chronicles of Jerahmeel, Gaster 1899 claimed this text represented the original version of these two episodes, a theory that has been taken up more recently in Koch 1987 (Vol. 2, pp. 154–192). This argument, however, has not won wide scholarly support; see Collins 1993 (pp. 410–411).

  • Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Addresses five points of divergence between the Aramaic Chronicles of Jerahmeel and the Greek versions of these stories, concluding that the Aramaic text most probably is neither dependent on the Greek versions nor representative of the Vorlage of the Greek (nor Syriac) versions.

    Find this resource:

  • Gaster, Moses. The Chronicles of Jerahmeel. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1899.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The initial publication of the Aramaic Chronicles of Jerahmeel, which Gaster claimed to be the Aramaic original for the story of Daniel and the dragon.

    Find this resource:

  • Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Gruen explores a variety of sources that evidence the various reshapings, expansions, and excerpting of Jewish texts that took place in the Hellenistic period. He further identifies several biblical stories (including Bel and the Dragon) full of irony and humor, and which suggest Judaism and Hellenism were not incompatible.

    Find this resource:

  • Koch, Klaus. Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch: Entstehung und Textgeschichte. I: Forschungsstand, Programm, Polyglottensynopse; II: Exegetische Erläuterungen. 2 vols. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 38.1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Koch argues in support of the theory of Gaster that the Chronicles represented the original composition for the second half of the Greek version of Bel and the Dragon (i.e., Daniel and the dragon).

    Find this resource:

back to top

Article

Up

Down