How did Daniel 13 and 14 become Canon?

I noticed that Daniel 13 and 14 are not in the protestant versions of the bible. From what I learned online that Daniel 13 and 14 were added and were considered canon by the Early Church Fathers except for Jerome. I also learned there were no original Hebrew versions of those books. Can anyone tell me any history of how those books came to be or any facts about those books? Giving Citations or any links may be helpful.

1 Like

Since protestants believe in “the Word Alone” I would think they would be very suspicious of those who took those chapters out of the Bible, as if men could be more correct than the original Bible.

If I believed in “the Word Alone” wouldn’t I seek to have the Bible used for 2020 years (Jesus used those chapters in Daniel) rather than a modified 500 year old re-definition of biblical books and chapters by people changing the bible to suit their own desired theologies rather than what “the Word Alone” gave them.

1 Like

Could you give references, please? They’re not on any list that I’ve seen, such as this one from Fr. Felix Just’s website:
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Quotations-OT-NT.htm

1 Like

You might have to reserch the Council of Rome (382) under Pope Damasus I.

Sure they are; they’re just in the section marked “Apocrypha”…! (Sometimes, they’re listed under “Susanna” and “Bel and the Dragon”.)

1 Like

The Catholic Bible - accepted as THE Bible by Christianity for Many Centuries

  • ultimately has had books removed by some …

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. My understanding is we have Daniel 13 and 14 since then.

I sent you a private message about this.

Protestants believe that the version of the Septuagint that Jesus & His disciples used did not include the Deuterocanon. But that is another story.

Apart from Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, there is a third excerpt from Daniel that Protestant Bibles place in the Apocrypha. They title it The Song of the Three Young Men. It’s part of Daniel 3 in Catholic Bibles.

I suspect it may not even be possible to trace the history of the OT canon in such a detailed manner as you are proposing here. The early lists, such as the one approved at Pope Damasus’ Council of Rome, for instance, simply name the books without describing their contents. So when we see the entry “Daniel, one book,” that’s it, that’s all there is to know about it. Bear in mind that the books of the Bible weren’t even broken up into chapters until around 1190, eight centuries after the Council of Rome. Even if Jerome and the others had wanted to include some information about the contents of each of the books on their list, there was no easy way for them to do that. They might have given a stichometry – the number of manuscript lines – but that would be pretty much the limit.

My over-simplified understanding is that those sections of Daniel were included in the known Greek manuscripts but not in the known Hebrew manuscripts. The Church long accepted them as canon, but the Protestants were doubtful given no known Hebrew manuscripts and so they removed them. Interestingly, Hebrew manuscripts and fragments in Hebrew of these sections were found in the 20th century. However, whether or not they were ever found in Hebrew doesn’t top the judgment of the Church.

1 Like

The Jewish historian Josephus states Daniel wrote “several” (Antiquties 10.11.7) books. So the Church is correct in accepting books in the Canon.

Do you know any website or any link that supports that there were Hebrew Manuscripts and Fragments of those sections? I am interested in seeing those things.

Can I get a link to get that info? Its okay if you chose not to.

I will take a look, but from memory it’s related to the discovery of the manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

1 Like

You can have a look here, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich. Daniel runs from p. 482 to p. 501.

It looks to me as though there is nothing here from the Deuterocanonical or “Apocryphal” chapters, though I may have missed something.

1 Like

I think you’re right. I wasn’t finding results online, it appears my memory was a little off. At least we found fragments of Tobit and large portions of Sirach at Qumran.

What I originally wrote about it being included in the Greek but was not available in the existing Hebrew was true. It was what was found at Qumran I appear to have been mistaken on.

The preface to my Catholic edition of the NRSV confirms this, but it seems to say that Hebrew still does appear to have been the original compositional language of these additions to Daniel, the prose (not poetry) in Baruch, and Judith, too, though at the time this was published it doesn’t seem any manuscripts were found. It also notes 1 Maccabees was originally Hebrew, 2 Maccabees Greek, and the Wisdom of Solomon Greek.
My apologies.

2 Likes

The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition

Best source is the primary source!

1 Like

I’m not quite sure what to make of that. It says “New Updated Edition” but it’s the William Whiston translation, first published in 1737. Nothing wrong with Whiston’s skill as a translator, but it wasn’t until the 1880s that Benedict Niese published what is now accepted as the standard Greek text of Josephus’ works.

And Psalm 151

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.