Bible Bombshells: Uncovering Eye-Opening Facts Behind the KJV and Septuagint, Part 1
A late night bible study goes down a rabbit hole.... and a discussion with AI about scribal edits ensues.
I’ve been reading scriptures tonight (Feb 16, 2025, 11:45 PM - part of my Exodus 90 daily Holy Hour discipline), and I’ve stumbled on something I didn’t expect. I have been reading Daniel in the OSB (orthodox study bible), and realized that the LDS KJV omits all of chapter 3:25 -90. I noticed this difference because I taught LDS Sunday school for quite some time, and the OSB has in Daniel 3:25-90 parts that I didn’t recognize as ever having seen before, so I started to compare. This article will give you a sense of how strong my ADHD rabbit hole tendencies are lol, but that also means it’s long, so a TLDR follows.
Important Definitions and Acronyms
This article uses many acronyms to refer to different scriptural texts. Understanding a bit about those texts and how we refer to them will be important background information for this and a following article.
Texts and Acronyms:
KJV (King James Version - 1769 edition) is the version of the bible used by the LDS church. It has been a seminal and enduring force in American Protestantism, shaping theology, worship, and cultural identity from the colonial era through modern times with its distinctive language, literary quality, and deep-rooted tradition. Created in the early 17th century by King James 1st for the Church of England, its Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (See below). The New Testament portion was translated from Greek manuscripts compiled during the Renaissance (called the Textus Receptus). It was created as a primarily Protestant Bible but has also been used by some Catholics. One would think that perhaps there are other or newer Bible versions that would be more accurate and could be used by LDS instead. Still, a quick check shows that the same protestant edits made to the KJV also exist in other Bibles produced by protestant groups in America, like the CBS (Christian Study Bible- including the Ancient Faith edition).
NKJV (New King James Version 1987) - a modern English translation of the KJV that updates the archaic language of the traditional KJV while preserving its underlying textual tradition, serving as a crucial bridge for contemporary biblical textual analysis and study.
LXX (Septuagint) is the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE. It was created to provide a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, enabling Hellenistic Jews (Jews who were culturally Greek - predominantly Diaspora communities in Egypt) to access and maintain their religious traditions in their common language. The Orthodox and Latin Catholic churches still use the LXX. It is vital to biblical textual analysis for offering insights into early Jewish textual traditions and influencing early Christian scriptural interpretation. It is the version of the Old Testament used by early Christians and is centuries older than the MT.
DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) - a collection of ancient Jewish manuscripts found in caves near the Dead Sea, dating from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, and are crucial to biblical textual analysis because they contain some of the earliest known copies of biblical texts, offering insights into the evolution and transmission of the Hebrew Bible.
MT (Masoretic Text) - The authoritative medieval Hebrew version of the Jewish Bible, meticulously compiled and maintained by Jewish scribes (the Masoretes) from the 7th to 10th centuries CE, and it is pivotal to biblical textual analysis because it forms the basis for most modern Protestant translations while reflecting centuries of textual tradition and standardization.
OSB (Orthodox Study Bible) - A standard version of the Bible used by Eastern Orthodox, particularly in English-speaking countries. The OSB uses the Septuagint for the Old Testament and the NKJV (New King James Version) translation of the New Testament.
OT (Old Testament) - The first section of the Christian Bible, the OT is comprised of sacred Hebrew/Jewish scriptures that chronicle the history, laws, prophecies, and religious poetry of the Jewish people before the coming of Christ. This compilation of ancient scriptures documents the world's creation, the Hebrew people's history and laws, and their covenant relationship with God. The OT was primarily written in Hebrew and Aramaic.
NT (New Testament) - The New Testament is the second section of the Christian Bible, comprising writings that recount the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the establishment of the early Christian (Catholic) Church. The NT was primarily written in Koine Greek with some small parts in Aramaic. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the New Testament was not written in Hebrew.
TL;DR Summary/Overview and Context
As it was late at night and I was sitting in bed, I proceeded to ask questions/find answers using Chat-GPT as my preferred search engine (Instead of Google. A discussion about the uses of AI follows below. As a result, this article proceeds as a series of Prompts/Questions from me to the AI, with answers from the AI. To make it easier to read, I’m putting my questions in as section Headings labeled with “Question to the AI:”, after which the AI response follows, formatted in the substack blockquote style. In general, I proceed as follows:
I start with a discussion on the AI used, explain the models I used and then discuss why I used an AI and what the benefits are over the “old” method of pouring over books and diving into internet article via Google.
An investigation into how and why the protestant KJV OT omits Daniel 3:25-90 compared to the Orthodox OSB OT.
I compare the omitted texts and textual variants and talk about differences with the KVJ as a high level look at the translation variations between the Septuagint (LXX), the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), and the Masoretic Text (MT).
Briefly examine reasons why there are variations, specifically variations or omissions created by Jews in the MT and why. Since the LXX was translated hundreds of years earlier than the formation of the MT (Masoretic Text), the LXX was based on earlier versions of the Jewish texts and was the Greek text used by early Christians. Thus, I assume it to be more reliable and authentic from a Christian perspective because it was not subject to scribal anti-Christian tampering.
I also have a look at the “Additions to Daniel” texts that the reformers considered apocryphal, and look at where they may have come from and why they are in our scriptures.
I have the AI look at the significant variants and then focus on edits and omissions that specifically deal with messianic passages that early Christians would have used to support their message.
Can we trust the information ChatGTP is providing to us? Embracing AI for Religious Writing and Research: Why?
I lack formal training in biblical textual analysis, Greek, or Hebrew—and given that it was already late at night (and I was already in bed) —I used ChatGPT-4o to find answers to my questions. For reference, GPT-4o is the current default model for the Chat GTP tool created by OpenAI.
About AI LLM’s and Models
Many AI-powered large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, allow users to select from a variety of different models within the tool. These LLMs are trained on vast amounts of publicly available (and some non-public, copyrighted) data from the internet. This includes both pro-LDS and anti-LDS materials and more neutral perspectives—though all sources inevitably carry some bias. This broad dataset allows AI to present arguments and insights from multiple sides of an issue without being filtered through any single biased source (including myself).
Different models have distinct capabilities and performance. Changing the model is akin to swapping the engine in a car—in this case, altering the “brain” of the AI. Some models are optimized for speed and efficiency, while others require more computational power but provide deeper reasoning. My initial analysis, before compiling this article, was conducted using the GPT-4o model.
The 4o model represents a significant leap forward in language understanding and generation compared to previous iterations. It excels in advanced language comprehension, contextual awareness, creative and analytical generation, multilingual proficiency, problem-solving, and even has multimodal capabilities (processing both text and images). These capabilities are pretty amazing. After my stroke I had an EEG and put one of the images from the EEG into GTO-4-o and it was able to analyze the entire thing and tell me what was going on with as much detail as I needed. It also told me that it saw indications of ADHD and ASD (both true) and what some of the effects would be (also true.) Currently, GPT-4o is the best general-purpose model available from Open-AI (the maker of Chat GTP.)
At first, I had no intention of publishing my conversation with the AI—I was simply curious. However, after reviewing the discussion, I figured I may as well turn it into an article. That’s the thing with being on Substack, you always need to be looking forward to what you are going to write next. Publishing for an audience also has different considerations than personal inquiry and despite the fact that most of the analysis was done with AI, I’ve spent just as much time assembling this article and making it digestible as any other.
My first consideration was what people’s objections and questions would be regarding the efficacy of the information I received. I determined that GPT-4o has a hallucination rate of 1.5%. In AI terms, “hallucination” refers to fabricated or inaccurate information. While 1.5% is significantly lower than the first versions of Chat-GPT (which some estimates of hallucination rate were between 20-30%,) it still means the output may not be 100% reliable, but what is?
Intending to turn this into an article, I wanted to verify the accuracy of the AI-generated responses. However, I do not have the time, attention, or academic expertise to fact-check everything manually. I’m not a trained textual analyst, nor do I hold a Ph.D. in Koine Greek (the Greek of the Septuagint and New Testament) or Hebrew, making it impossible to assess translations against source texts manually.
To check accuracy, I ran the existing conversation through a newer AI model with advanced reasoning abilities, the o3-mini-high model. The “high” name indicates enhanced analytical capabilities, making it particularly well-suited for verifying complex information. This model reportedly has a hallucination rate of just 0.8%1, making it the most precise Chat-GTP model available.
The GPT-o3-mini-high model 2 is an optimized version that enhances reasoning and data analysis. Some users have noted its advantages3 in scientific research, algorithm development, advanced mathematics, and structured data processing. While it is slightly slower than GPT-4o, it provides greater accuracy by engaging in deeper, multi-step reasoning.
Although the hallucination rate difference between the two models is only 0.7%, using o3-mini-high to fact-check GPT-4o’s output would be far easier and much more feasible than attempting to verify manually (I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing the manual activity and trying to pass off the results as accurate or reliable.) I fed the entire conversation into the o3-mini-high model and asked it to check the accuracy of GPT-4o’s responses. It confirmed the original information but provided additional nuance and clarification in certain areas.
As a writer interested in religious and biblical studies, I approach Artificial Intelligence (AI) with curiosity and caution. I understand why some people are skeptical about using AI, particularly given all of the controversy (and misinformation) about it in the news, with Actors, Artists, and Writers up in arms. I have a background in Technology and studied an older type of AI in college, so I was not afraid to jump in and try it. My experience has shown me that AI, especially Large Language Models (LLMs), can be powerful research tools. Below, I’ll explain how AI assists me in gathering information, reasoning through complex questions, and uncovering insights with greater objectivity.
Understanding AI and LLMs
Before diving into the benefits of using Chat-GPT or an AI to do this research, let me clarify what I mean by AI and LLMs. Large Language Models (LLMs) are AI trained on vast amounts of text. In simple terms, an LLM is like a very well-read assistant with a photographic memory that never forgets, can understand questions posed in natural conversational English, and generates human-like responses. These models have learned from diverse sources – books, articles, historical documents, and more – to predict and form coherent answers. When I ask an LLM a question about a biblical passage or historical context, it uses its broad training to provide relevant information. Essentially, the AI acts as a research partner with a vast library of knowledge.
Unlike traditional computer programs that follow strict rules, modern AI can use logic to reason through problems. For example, the AI can compare different interpretations, summarize arguments, and point out logical connections instead of just fetching a specific verse or commentary. This ability to analyze and synthesize information makes it less like a search engine and more like a collaborator. Recent AI models don’t just parrot facts – they can actually “think” through questions by breaking down problems step by step and adjusting their approach if needed. Knowing this, I used AI to augment my research process and understanding, not to replace it. You’ll see me interject or provide my conclusions and thoughts throughout this article and the next.
Isn’t AI bad? Research Benefits
Because many reading this may not be well versed in modern AI and may be skeptical or even hostile to AI and its uses, I’d like to present what I see as some of the benefits of using this kind of tool (which is becoming ubiquitous and will soon be impossible to avoid.)
The noise you may have heard about AI coming from Journalists, Artists, and Writers are objections to having the LLM AI’s trained on publicly available news, art, and literature. First, news organizations and art/photography websites, chronically underfunded and facing declining revenues, want to be compensated for the work they may have paid for that has been used to train the AIs. Secondly, there is fear that AIs will replace the need for journalists, writers, and artists as they improve. People fear losing their jobs or income from freelance work (both valid concerns). AI can already produce fantastic works of art, but thus far, it’s not very good at creating art that follows your directions nor producing engaging, interesting, and readable literature. That will improve in time. AI could also be used for nefarious purposes (Fraud, blackmail, disinformation, media manipulation, etc.), so research is underway to create tools to combat this. Not like our media hasn’t been manipulated all along anyway, but now computers can do it faster and more effectively and spotting the fraud is getting very difficult.
Natural Language Understanding: An AI can understand the nature of my inquiries and anticipate my wants and needs, which I can communicate in plain English. In contrast, Google or other search engines generally don’t understand the questions you may be asking them. Instead, search engines do sophisticated pattern matching on the text you enter into the search bar. There is a massive difference between the two, which is why OpenAI has released its own AI-based search engine and Google is racing to mature and integrate its own AI into its search engine product. The AI industry is hot right now; billions are being invested, the rate of progress is lightning fast, and it’s only going to accelerate.
Access to Diverse Sources: AI can quickly gather and structure information from many sources. Instead of manually combing through countless books and articles, I can ask the AI, and it will find relevant information from different perspectives and scholars. I’m less likely to miss important data because it wasn’t on my bookshelf or was buried on page 2 (or deeper) of a Google search result where I would never find it.
Efficient Reasoning and Analysis: Recent AI assistants can reason through complex data or conflicting viewpoints and provide nuanced answers quickly, often accomplishing in seconds or minutes what it would take an educated person hours or days to accomplish. I can also ask the AI to summarize interpretations and look for nuances and bias. It speeds up the analysis process because it can handle multiple tasks simultaneously (like comparing texts or checking cross-references). It is important to note that AI doesn’t just give shallow answers; it can break down problems logically. Modern reasoning-enabled AI systems actually “think” through problems by analyzing them step by step and self-correcting mistakes or asking clarifying questions, which is incredibly helpful when grappling with complex subject matter.
Reduced Bias: One concern we might have is that because an AI may have been trained on biased information, it may inject bias into its answers. However, I’ve found that, in general, a well-trained AI helps reduce personal bias by providing nuance or correcting erroneous assumptions. It presents information from many viewpoints, forcing one to weigh evidence more fairly. By drawing on data from many voices (different theologians, historians, cultures, etc.), the AI offers a composite view that isn’t driven by a single ideology or agenda. In practice, I get a broader, more balanced understanding of a topic. Of course, I still have to use my judgment, but the AI serves as a check against my preconceived notions or implicit biases.
Deeper Context and New Insights: Because an AI can process so much information, it often uncovers context I am likely to miss. For example, if I’m looking at a Bible verse, the AI might remind me of the historical context, linguistic nuances, or related passages elsewhere in scripture or ancient literature. This has occasionally led to new insights. In one research study on biblical interpretation, scholars found that AI has the potential to significantly enhance biblical hermeneutics by generating new insight and providing rich contextual analysis. I’ve seen this firsthand: AI has pointed out links between texts and interpretations I hadn’t noticed before, enriching my understanding.
Addressing Concerns and Ensuring Balance
I know that using AI in religious research may sound unsettling. Interpreting scripture is, after all, a profoundly spiritual endeavor. I do not hand over the role of interpreting meaning to a machine. Instead, AI is used to augment research and make it more efficient. Instead of spending hours pouring over books, making notes, and using Google to chase down online information and then correlating it together and weaving it into a narrative, AI can do almost all of that quickly and efficiently while understanding the language and complexities of my specific requests in a fraction of the time it would take for me to do it manually. When I make a request, the AI can understand the intentions and needs of my requests and act accordingly, whereas Google can only search for specific words or strings of words. Nobody would have an issue with me manually hunting through books and using Google; this is just an automated and vastly more intelligent way to do that. If the AI provides information or an interpretation, I can always cross-check it with trusted sources (like the Bible, commentaries, or books). AI often points in fruitful directions, but I must discern the truth and draw conclusions on my own, and you’ll see me doing that in the article with asides, commentary, and sometimes snarky comments.
It’s essential to handle AI’s suggestions critically. AI can sometimes make mistakes or present every perspective, including those I know to be less credible. Sometimes, I don’t want an AI to follow a particular line of inquiry or consider specific facts that I know are not relevant or that I believe are suspect. Fortunately, I can ask the AI to do that, and it will follow my guidance. AI also usually cites its sources or at least enables me to find the origin of the information it provides. This transparency is crucial to verify facts and ensure that the insights I’m getting are legitimate.
A Valuable Tool for Deeper Understanding
In my experience, embracing AI technology doesn’t mean compromising rigor or reverence for the subject matter. On the contrary, it allows me to approach issues from multiple perspectives with greater context. The AI’s ability to widen my research scope, provide logical analysis, and deliver balanced, evidence-based insights makes the work of researching and assembling these articles faster and more thorough.
Ultimately, using AI (like LLMs) is about enhancing human effort, not replacing it. I still rely on prayer, reflection, and discipline in my study of scripture, but now I have additional tools that can sift through massive amounts of data, highlight connections, and even suggest interpretations I might not have considered, all in a matter of seconds. For any anyone working with extensive historical and textual data, this capability is incredibly empowering.
I hope this helps demystify AI's role in producing this article. Rather than seeing it as a threat, I see it as a tool that, when used wisely, can lead to more informed, thoughtful, and unbiased explorations of religious topics. My experience shows we don’t have to choose between tradition and technology. With a balanced approach, we can have the best of both: the rich, reflective interpretation from human scholars and the expansive, data-driven support from AI.
<end preamble>
The Beginning of the Rabbit Hole, noticing that the LDS KJV is missing many verses in Daniel.
OK, deep breath. Now that we’ve gotten past the preamble, let’s get on with the meat of the article. The information presented in this short section did not use AI; I noticed this and did the manual work to check against the KJV.
I mentioned at the beginning that I had been reading my scriptures and stumbled on something I didn’t expect. I was reading Daniel in the OSB (orthodox study bible) and came across large sections of the text I had never seen before. Quickly comparing to the LDS KJV, I realized that the LDS KJV omits all of chapter 3:25 -90.
The LDS KJV goes to verse 23 in the narrative, similar to the OSB, but then omits the range mentioned above and picks back up in the KJV at verse 24, which in our bible (OSB) is verse 91.
The omitted verses appear to be liturgical-style texts and songs sung by Shadrach, Mishac, and Abednego while in the fiery furnace. i.e., they are singing liturgical-type songs in the fiery furnace. I recall one of my parish priests saying that the bible of the early church contained part of the church’s prayers and liturgical worship. I had expected this to be only in the New Testament (NT), but I was now reading something in the OSB that appeared to be stylistically liturgical. I haven’t been Orthodox that long, and I haven’t attended an Orthodox Seminary, so I could be mistaken in identifying it as appearing liturgical.
Our verse 91 says “now Nebuchadnezzar heard their singing and marveled and rose up in haste and said to his nobles, “did we not cast three men into the fire?” the KJV used in the LDS church has as its verse
24, “Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire”
In the KJV, there is no reason given for why the King is astonished. In the OSB, he’s astonished because he hears them singing. Makes sense to me. If I’d just thrown a bunch of people in a pit of fire to be burned alive, the last thing I’d expect is to hear them singing.
The KJV also omits a good explanation of why/how those standing near the furnace were killed by it (other than implying that it was exceedingly hot and that perhaps they weren’t being cautious.) The OSB verses 46-48 explain the statement in KJV Daniel 3:22.
22 Therefore because the king’s commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. - KJV
46 Now the king’s servants who cast them in did not cease to stoke the furnace with naphtha, pitch, coarse fiber, and brushwood. (Note that the OSB provides and uses the Hebrew names for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.)
47 The flame shot forty-nine cubits above the furnace,
4 8 and it broke out and burned those it found around the furnace of the Chaldeans.
49 But the Angel of the Lord went down into the furnace to join Azariah and his companions, and shook off the fiery flame of the furnace.
50 He made the inside of the furnace to be as though a dew-laden breeze were blowing through it, so the fire did not touch them at all, or cause them pain, or trouble them.
Nelson, Thomas. The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today's World (pp. 1244-1245).
My initial thoughts after finding these discrepancies were that:
If the KJV is this badly hacked up here, I wonder where else it’s also been severely mutilated. Admittedly it did not inspire confidence. Then I was struck by the thought of "lost 'plain and precious ‘ things.” (Which is something we look at in the next article.) Thank you Mormon programming!
However, contrary to Joseph Smith's (JS) assertions about the bible being corrupted by scribes over centuries of imperfect translation efforts, this omission itself is clearly not a translation problem.
Clearly, someone has deliberately cut out parts of the text and altered the verses around the missing parts in a poor attempt to hide the fact that pieces have been removed.
Who is brazen enough to do such a thing? I had my suspicions. This seemed to me to be a particular type of fuckery that requires a certain degree of brazen self righteousness. My Spidey senses immediately pointed towards the Protestant reformers. This is the kind of thing I’d expect from Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, but strangely not Joseph Smith (It’s not his style.)
Joseph Smith (JS) did not edit the KJV and publish a KJV for the LDS Church to use. This is not congruent with J.S’s style or way of working. If JS had done this editing himself, he would have done it and proclaimed it a new book of miraculously revealed or inspired scripture with a new name to identify it as something to do with the restoration or his vaunted prophetic gifts (he was a humble dude after all.) He certainly wouldn’t have kept the name the King James Version on it.
Ultimately Joseph Smith did engage in an effort to alter the Bible. We know the result as the “Joseph Smith Translation” (JST) also known in the LDS church as The Inspired Version of the Bible. I’m also not aware of any large-scale efforts on the part of the LDS church to modify the OT (Old Testament) texts outside of the JST (which, surprisingly, the modern mainstream LDS church does not use other than some verse selections in the footnotes and appendices of the LDS published scriptures).
So, because this was already close to midnight, and I didn’t feel like getting out of bed to dig in and research on my computer, I pulled over my phone and iPad and asked Chat-GTP about it. The rest of this article is my follow-up on the ChatGTP discussion (pretty much cut and paste, with some interjections in italics or []).
Turns out my suspicions about reformation chicanery are at least partly correct, at least according to Chat-GTP.
In order to help you read this, I’m going to use the LDS2Orthodox logo and the text “Question to the AI:” before the question I asked the AI. I will use the substack blockquote style for the responses.
Substack Blockquote style.
Please See the next section as an example.
My thoughts are also recorded after the AI provided response in normal style text.
Question to the AI: Why is daniel 3:26-90 missing from the KJV bible?
Response: Daniel 3:26-90 is missing from the King James Version (KJV) because it is part of the Additions to Daniel (we discuss this in detail below) which are found in the Greek Septuagint (translated between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC)4 and the Latin Vulgate but not in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. These additions include the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Holy Children, which occur in Daniel 3 between verses 23 and 24 in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.
Reasons for the Omission in the KJV:
1. Textual Tradition – The translators of the KJV primarily relied on the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. The Masoretic Text, compiled by Jewish scribes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD, does not include these additions.
2. Protestant Reformation Influence – During the Reformation, Protestant scholars emphasized returning to the Hebrew texts rather than relying on the Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate. Martin Luther and other Reformers rejected the Apocrypha, considering these sections non-canonical.
(an Aside) The Protestant reformers, particularly figures like Martin Luther, believed that returning to the original Hebrew texts of the Old Testament would yield a purer, more authentic understanding of scripture. Also, they were intent on jettisoning anything associated with the Catholic Church and knew that there were textual differences between the Septuagint and Hebrew texts.
The reformers suspected these differences might have been what led the Catholic church into error. Fair enough, but the fact is that the Septuagint is hundreds of years older than the Masoretic text and was used extensively by Christians, including the Apostles. We know now what the reformers probably didn’t know, that the Jews altered their texts and translations in attempt to refute/combat a fast-growing Christian religion that used the original texts to support their assertions about Jesus Christ. Thus, you could argue that the Septuagint is more reliable and authentic for Christians in preserving the actual meanings and truths of the ancient prophets than the Masoretic text, which has evidence of scribal editing for polemic purposes.
Classification as Apocrypha – The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children were included in the Septuagint (LXX) but were later classified as Apocrypha by Protestants. The KJV translators originally included the Apocrypha in a separate section, but later Protestant editions omitted it entirely.
Canonical Status
Catholic and Orthodox Bibles recognize these passages as inspired scripture and include them.
Protestant Bibles: Exclude them, considering them non-canonical.
Note that the original KJV (produced in 1611): Included the missing parts in the Apocrypha section, but they were later removed from most Protestant editions.
I was curious about the comment about “Additions to Daniel” so I asked about it. This led down an interesting rabbit hole that I was not yet aware of and didn’t expect.
Question to the AI: were the Additions to Daniel in the Greek Septuagint additions that were in the original texts that the septuagint was translated from, or were they added separately later on, maybe by early Christians?
The consensus among scholars is that these additions were not present in the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated. Instead, they appear only in the Greek versions of Daniel—most notably in the Septuagint and the later Theodotion version—and are generally thought to have been composed during the Hellenistic period. In other words, they were not later “Christian” insertions but were part of the Greek tradition circulating among Hellenistic Jews, even though later Jewish canonization (and subsequently most Protestant Bibles) excluded them.
This view is supported by the fact that no Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts contain these additions, and they’re absent from the Masoretic Text. Although early Christians accepted the Greek version (including the additions) as authoritative, the additions themselves seem to have been a product of the Greek-speaking Jewish milieu rather than later Christian interpolation.
Scholars generally place the composition of these stories in the Second Temple period (c. 2nd–1st century BC). They may have been written in Greek as part of the original Septuagint translation process or as later expansions reflecting Jewish moral and devotional traditions. In fact, the Septuagint “Old Greek” version of Daniel (circa 100 BC) already included all additions . This implies the stories were composed no later than the early 1st century BC, around the time Daniel was translated into Greek . Some experts, like Bruce Metzger, suggest a composition in the 2nd or 1st century BC, meaning they originated not long after the Book of Daniel itself was completed (Daniel was likely written ca. 165 BC). The authors are anonymous Hellenistic Jewish writers, and each story was probably circulated independently before being incorporated into Daniel.
Was I was too hasty to judge the Reformers? Were their reasons justified? Let’s dig into this a bit and see. For this next question I used the o3-mini-high model directly and turned on a feature called “Deep Research” It took a several minutes to return an answer but when it did it was comprehensive, providing a lot more background and context on these Additions to Daniel.
Question to the AI: what is the likely source of and reasons for incorporating the Additions to Daniel? How can Orthodox and Catholics know that they are reliable and authentic?
The Additions to Daniel: Origins, Canonical Status, and Theological Significance
Composition and Origins in the Greek Septuagint
The Three Additions: The Book of Daniel contains three extra sections found in the ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint) but absent from the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic Text . These are commonly known as:
• The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Holy Children – inserted in Daniel 3 between verses 23 and 24 (LXX numbering Daniel 3:24–90) . This includes a penitential prayer by Azariah (Abednego) and a hymn of praise by the three youths in the fiery furnace. (These were what I noticed as new that I had not seen before in the OSB.)
• Susanna and the Elders – presented as a prologue (Daniel 13) in Greek Daniel . It tells how Daniel saved a righteous Jewish woman, Susanna, from false accusations by exposing the lies of two elders.
• Bel and the Dragon – given as an epilogue (Daniel 14) in Greek . It relates Daniel’s clever refutation of idol worship, first by proving the idol “Bel” is a fraud and then slaying a supposed divine “dragon.”
Protestants consider these additions are deuterocanonical (or “apocryphal” in Protestant terminology) portions of Daniel, included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles but omitted in most Protestant Old Testaments.
Date and Authorship: Scholars generally place the composition of these stories in the Second Temple period (c. 2nd–1st century BC). They may have been written in Greek as part of the original Septuagint translation process or as later expansions reflecting Jewish moral and devotional traditions. In fact, the Septuagint “Old Greek” version of Daniel (circa 100 BC) already included all three additions. This implies the stories were composed no later than the early 1st century BC, around the time Daniel was translated into Greek . Some experts, like Bruce Metzger, suggest a composition in the 2nd or 1st century BC , meaning they originated not long after the Book of Daniel itself was completed (Daniel was likely written ca. 165 BC). The authors are anonymous Hellenistic Jewish writers, and each story was probably circulated independently before being incorporated into Daniel.
Original Language: It remains debated whether these tales were first written in Hebrew/Aramaic or in Greek. No ancient Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the additions have survived, pointing many scholars to a Greek origin. Indeed, internal evidence supports Greek composition at least for Susanna: the story’s outcome hinges on Daniel’s use of pun-based cross-examination, which works in Greek (between Greek words for “mastic tree” and “to saw,” etc.) but would not be obvious in Hebrew. Such linguistic wordplay led some to conclude Susanna “never existed in Hebrew or Aramaic” form. On the other hand, the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three contain numerous Hebraic idioms and Semitic parallelism. Their Semitic style is “disproportionately high” enough that a number of scholars suspect a lost Hebrew or Aramaic original for those sections. (Lost plain and precious things?) In summary, it’s possible the hymn and prayer (Daniel 3 addition) were translated from a Semitic source, whereas Susanna and Bel and the Dragon more likely originated as Greek-language compositions (or were so thoroughly adapted into Greek that the Greek text took on a life of its own). Regardless of original language, all three additions are extant only in Greek (plus later translations from the Greek into Latin, Syriac, etc.), and they were transmitted as part of the Greek Daniel from ancient times.
Integration into Daniel: These pieces were likely added by Jewish scribes as a way to enhance the narrative and theological scope of Daniel’s story. They provide didactic and devotional expansions: a liturgical-style prayer and hymn inserted into the furnace episode, and two extra court tales showcasing Daniel’s piety and wisdom (Susanna emphasizing God’s justice and chastity; Bel and the Dragon emphasizing fidelity to the one true God). Such expansions are similar to how the Greek Additions to Esther supplied prayers and details absent in the Hebrew Esther. It is possible the Daniel additions began as independent legends about Daniel circulating in Jewish communities and were later appended to the Greek Bible for edification. Notably, in the Septuagint manuscript tradition Susanna was placed at the very beginning of Daniel (as a kind of prologue), while Bel and the Dragon came at the end. This ordering (Susanna ch. 13, Bel ch. 14 in the Latin/Greek tradition) differs from the chronological order of events, a fact recognized by early commentators. For example, in the early 3rd century St. Hippolytus of Rome, in his Commentary on Daniel, noted that “what is narrated here [in the story of Susanna] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book”, explaining that biblical writers sometimes present events out of sequence . Nevertheless, Hippolytus exhorted believers to “give heed, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in sin… knowing that God is the Savior of them that call upon Him” – and he urges his readers to “imitate Susannah”. This shows the story’s moral authority was fully accepted despite its late insertion.
In summary, these additions were composed by pious Jews during the Second Temple era and became part of the Septuagint Daniel, enriching the original book with extra prayers and stories. They were never part of the Jewish Tanakh’s Hebrew-Aramaic text, as ancient and medieval Hebrew manuscripts of Daniel consistently lack them. Instead, their preservation and transmission occurred through the Greek-speaking Jewish and Christian tradition.
Early Jewish and Christian Reception
Jewish Usage: By the time of Jesus and the early Church, the Hebrew canon used in Judea consisted of Daniel’s 12 chapters without these additions. After the destruction of the Temple (70 AD), Jewish authorities increasingly standardized their scriptures, and texts not attested in Hebrew (like these additions) were excluded. Later rabbinic lists do not include Susanna, Bel, or the Song of the Three. However, evidence suggests that during the Second Temple period these tales were part of the wider Jewish storytelling tradition. Modern scholars acknowledge that “the stories in the Hebrew Bible about Daniel (chapters 1–6) are only a portion of the tales that were circulating about Daniel in Second Temple times”. In other words, faithful Jews told additional Daniel stories – such as Susanna – even though these were ultimately left out of the Masoretic canon.
The fact that the Septuagint (a Jewish translation begun c. 3rd century BC) contains these chapters means Greek-speaking Jews, especially in the Diaspora (e.g. Alexandria), read and valued them as part of their Scriptures. There is no evidence of a separate “canon” for Hellenistic Jews distinct from their Scriptures – the LXX was simply their version of the Bible. Thus, at least some Jews before and during the time of Christ would have regarded the Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon as edifying sacred literature, even if Palestinian Judaism later drew a line at texts not in Hebrew. Early Christians later accused Jewish leaders of deliberately suppressing certain passages: Origen (3rd c.) remarked that the story of Susanna was absent in the Hebrew text because it was “hidden” by the Jews in some fashion . This claim echoes Justin Martyr (2nd c.), who charged that Jewish scribes had “removed” some prophecies from Scripture (Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho 71–73) . While these accusations likely reflect polemics more than history, they show that Christians believed the Septuagint’s content (including these additions) represented an older, fuller form of the Scriptures and that any omission in Jewish Bibles was a post-Christ development.
Early Christian Acceptance: The additions to Daniel were read and used as Scripture by the early Church, which from the start adopted the Septuagint as its Old Testament. There is abundant patristic evidence of this:
• New Testament Period: No direct quotations of Susanna, Bel, or the Song appear in the New Testament. However, the New Testament’s use of the Septuagint broadly legitimized the LXX’s content. The early Christians’ Bible was the Greek Bible – thus they encountered Daniel with these extra sections. Indirectly, the Epistle to the Hebrews alludes to Daniel’s deliverance from lions (Heb 11:33) and fiery furnace (11:34), though these references come from Daniel’s core chapters.
• 2nd Century Fathers: By the late 2nd century, church fathers are explicitly quoting the additions. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD) treats Susanna as part of the prophetic book of Daniel. In Against Heresies 4.26.3, while expounding Scripture, he quotes the rebuke delivered to one of Susanna’s accusers: “O thou seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee and lust hath perverted thy heart” . Irenaeus introduces this as words “to be found in Daniel the prophet”, showing he considered Susanna (Daniel 13) fully authoritative . He elsewhere also alludes to Bel and the Dragon. Likewise, the Muratorian Fragment (late 2nd century) appears to reference the story of Susanna as “the tale of Susanna” among Old Testament writings (though the text is fragmentary).
• 3rd Century Fathers: Early 3rd-century figures continued this acceptance. As noted, Hippolytus (c. 204 AD) commented on Susanna as Scripture . Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 AD) alludes to Bel and the Dragon in his Stromata (1.21) . Tertullian (c. 210 AD), writing in Latin North Africa, also references Daniel’s destruction of the idol in Bel as a historical example: he warns Christians against idolatry by recalling “Daniel… when he was required to worship the idol Bel… asserted the honor of God, and broke the idol” (paraphrasing Dan. 14) . St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD) explicitly quotes Daniel 14:5 (from Bel and the Dragon) in Letter 55, saying: “Daniel… in asserting the honor of his God, cried out, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created heaven and earth’” . Here Cyprian treats that line, which comes only from the Greek chapter, as Scripture to encourage steadfast faith. Meanwhile in Rome, catacomb art from the 3rd–4th centuries depicts scenes from Susanna’s story (e.g. Susanna and the Elders), indicating how popular and scriptural that story was to early Christians as a symbol of virtue and God’s deliverance.
Despite this widespread use, there were some early doubts raised about these sections – usually on the grounds that they lacked a Hebrew original. The most notable challenge came from Julius Africanus (a Christian writer, c. 240 AD), who wrote a letter to Origen arguing that Susanna might be a mere fictional tale and not part of the authentic Book of Daniel. Africanus pointed to the punning wordplay in the story and its absence from the Jewish Bible as reasons to question its canonicity.
Origen’s response was a robust defense of Susanna and the other additions. In his Letter to Africanus, Origen admonished that one should not lightly dismiss scriptures long used in the Church. He notes that the account of Susanna “was commonly read in the early Church” and he censured ‘wicked presbyters’ who did not recognize its authenticity . Origen acknowledges the Jews did not have it in their text, but famously argues that Christians are not bound to Jewish decisions: “When we notice such things [omissions in the Hebrew texts], are we to forthwith reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them…? God’s providence has ministered these scriptures to the edification of all the Churches of Christ” . He even invokes Deuteronomy, saying, “Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set,” insisting the Church should not remove what it has long held as sacred. Origen thus appeals to the Tradition of the Church and the spiritual fruits of these texts as proof of their legitimacy. Notably, Origen included Susanna, Bel, and the Song of the Three in his massive Hexapla (a 6-column comparison of scriptural texts). In the Hexapla, he placed critical symbols marking that these Greek passages had no Hebrew counterpart – but he still treated them as part of Daniel, comparing the Old Greek and Theodotion versions side by side . This meticulous treatment shows Origen considered them “divine Scripture,” even if he was aware of their unique status.
Latin Church Fathers: In the West, the additions were also generally accepted, though one towering figure – St. Jerome – initially echoed the Hebrew-only view. Jerome, in his Preface to Daniel (c. 392 AD), famously labeled Susanna, Bel, and the Song of the Three as “not found in the Hebrew” and thus “apocryphal,” calling Susanna a “certain fable” that the Jews did not include. Jerome’s private scholarly opinion was that only the Hebrew canon was authoritative. However, Jerome still incorporated these sections into his Latin Vulgate translation, albeit with a note of doubt. Church authorities and other Latin fathers like St. Augustine vehemently disagreed with Jerome’s minimalism. Over time, Jerome deferred to the Church’s usage: he later wrote, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?”, noting that he related the objections Jews made about Susanna, the Song of the Three, and Bel and the Dragon only to refute an opponent, and anyone attacking him for that proved himself a “foolish sycophant” . In Against Rufinus (401 AD), Jerome actually defended his inclusion of these passages, arguing that the Church had decided to include them despite Jewish objections . This reversal (at least rhetorically) by Jerome is telling: by the early 5th century, the consensus of the Western Church was solidly in favor of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, and even Jerome conceded to that authority.
Other Latin fathers supported the additions without hesitation. St. Cyprian, as mentioned, used Bel and the Dragon. St. Ambrose of Milan (4th c.) retold Susanna’s story in his writings to extol chastity and divine justice. St. Augustine (late 4th–early 5th c.) frequently quoted the deuterocanonical books alongside the rest of Scripture, and took part in councils that affirmed them. In North Africa, the acceptance of these texts was so strong that the Synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) – both of which Augustine was influential in – formally listed the canonical books including those “outside the Hebrew canon.” They listed “Daniel” as a canonical book, understanding that Daniel in the Christian Bible included the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three, and Bel and the Dragon. Thus, by the end of the 4th century, both Greek East and Latin West commonly recognized these additions as part of the Book of Daniel and read them in church.
Textual Transmission and Manuscript Evidence
Greek Manuscripts: The transmission history highlights an important fact: the Greek tradition consistently preserved the Additions to Daniel. There were actually two ancient Greek versions of Daniel: the original Septuagint (Old Greek) version and a slightly later Theodotion version (a Greek revision from the 2nd century AD). Both versions contain Susanna, the Prayer and Song, and Bel and the Dragon . In fact, Theodotion’s version of Daniel became so popular in the early Church that it “replaced the original Septuagint version in all but two manuscripts of the Septuagint itself” . (Early Christians, including Origen, found Theodotion’s Greek translation of Daniel closer to the Hebrew and thus more intelligible, so most surviving LXX codices use Theodotion’s text for Daniel.) Even so, Papyrus 967 (3rd century AD) preserves portions of the Old Greek Daniel, including the Susanna story , and confirms that the OG also had the additions. A Syriac translation of the LXX (the Syro-Hexaplar) and one medieval Greek manuscript (Codex Chisianus 88) likewise transmit the Old Greek Susanna . Meanwhile, the great uncial codices of the Bible—Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus (4th–5th centuries)—all include the full longer Book of Daniel (chapters 13 and 14) in Greek, essentially based on Theodotion’s version. This wealth of manuscript evidence demonstrates an unbroken chain: the Christian copies of Scripture always contained these sections, even if marked or footnoted in some cases. No ancient Christian manuscript of Daniel omits the additions entirely; omission only became common in Reformation-era Bible printings.
Hebrew/Aramaic Evidence: To date, no early Hebrew manuscripts of Susanna or Bel have been found. The Dead Sea Scrolls include several fragments of the Book of Daniel (in Aramaic and Hebrew), but none include any of the extra material — as expected, since the DSS reflect the Palestinian Hebrew text. It appears the additions were unknown in Hebrew form to the Qumran community (though interestingly Qumran did preserve other apocrypha like Tobit in Aramaic and Hebrew). If Hebrew originals of these stories ever existed, they did not survive or have not yet been discovered.
Latin and Other Versions: The Old Latin (Vetus Latina) translations (2nd–3rd c.) were made from the Septuagint, so they contained the additions as well. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (late 4th c.) included these chapters but with a note that they were not in the Hebrew. In the standard Vulgate layout, Susanna (Daniel 13) and Bel and Dragon (Daniel 14) are placed at the end of Daniel; the Prayer of Azariah and Song are inserted in chapter 3. After some early hesitation, the Vulgate tradition firmly kept these passages, and the medieval Latin Church read them as integral parts of Daniel. Similarly, Syriac Peshitta (the primary Bible of the Syriac churches) initially followed the Hebrew canon for the Old Testament, but later Syriac Bibles incorporated the deuterocanonical books in separate collections or from the Hexaplar text – meaning Syriac Christians did come to know these Daniel stories as well. Other Eastern versions (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Slavonic) included them via translations from Greek. Particularly in the Church of Ethiopia, where the canon is broader, these additions have always been accepted and were even given independent titles (e.g., “Susanna” as a standalone book in some Ethiopian lists).
In summary, all major Christian manuscript traditions attest the presence of the Additions to Daniel. The only ancient tradition that excludes them is the Jewish Masoretic Text (and those Christian traditions, like Protestants, that later chose to follow the Masoretic canon). From a manuscript standpoint, the longevity and ubiquity of these passages in Christian copies bolster their claim to authenticity within the Greek Daniel. They are not late medieval interpolations, but genuine parts of the LXX Daniel as used by early Christians.
Role in Early Church Tradition and Liturgy
Liturgical Use: One strong indicator of the sacred status of these texts is their early and enduring use in Christian liturgy.
I was right! They are liturgical!
The Song of the Three Holy Children (the hymn of the three youths in the furnace, Daniel 3:52-90 Greek) – also called the Benedicite after its opening refrain “Bless the Lord, all works of the Lord” – became a cherished canticle in Christian worship. In many traditions it is regularly sung or recited in public prayer. For example, in the Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Hours, the Benedicite is included as a canticle on certain occasions (historically it was used at Lauds/Morning Prayer on Sundays and Feast days, and in the current Liturgy of the Hours it appears in the Office of Readings or as an alternate canticle during Lent) . The Catholic Easter Vigil liturgy often includes Daniel 3:52-90 as one of the Old Testament readings or responsorial canticles, celebrating the theme of deliverance. Likewise, the Prayer of Azariah (Daniel 3:26-45 Greek) is sometimes read or referenced in penitential services, as it is a model of contrition and trust in God’s mercy.
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the hymn of the Three Youths is regularly chanted in the Matins service on festal days. Particularly at the Paschal Vigil (Holy Saturday), Orthodox congregations sing or read the Song of the Three in its entirety as part of the fifteen Old Testament prophetic readings. Portions of the hymn (“Praise Him and exalt Him above all forever”) also appear in the Canon of Matins for various feasts, and its imagery is echoed throughout Orthodox hymnography. This longstanding liturgical incorporation shows the text’s devotional importance.
The story of Susanna has also influenced Christian art and moral teaching. In late antiquity, Susanna was regarded as a symbol of the Church or of the virtuous soul attacked by evil but vindicated by God. Early Lectionaries (scripture reading schedules) of some churches did include Susanna’s story for certain days – for instance, the Catholic lectionary today assigns Susanna (Daniel 13) as the Old Testament reading for a Lenten weekday Mass (Monday of the 5th Week of Lent), emphasizing repentance and justice. The Orthodox lectionary typically reads from Daniel during Great Lent, and while it focuses on canonical chapters 1–12, the spirit of Susanna’s story permeates Orthodox teaching on purity and justice.
Patristic Commentary and Teaching: Church Fathers frequently leveraged these additions for preaching and teaching: Susanna was upheld as an example of chastity and trust in God (used in treatises on virtue to encourage especially women and all believers to remain steadfast against corruption). The Prayer of Azariah’s themes of repentance were cited in theological discussions about divine justice and mercy. Bel and the Dragon’s stark demonstration against idolatry was extremely useful in the patristic era when Christians were surrounded by pagan cults – preachers like St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom referred to Daniel’s smashing of idols as a model of zeal for God. In short, these texts “have been incorporated into various liturgical traditions” and their “hymn’s call to creation to praise God” has inspired many hymns and prayers in both East and West . This pervasive liturgical and artistic use underscores that the early Church did not regard them as secondary; rather, they were woven into the worship and spiritual life of Christians, a strong testament to their perceived value and authority.
Canonical Status and Integration into the Bible
By the end of the 4th century, the additions to Daniel were largely “canonized” in practice – accepted and used as Scripture by Christian communities. However, questions lingered in some scholarly circles (as seen with Jerome), so the Church eventually clarified their status through councils and official decrees:
• Local Councils (4th–5th Century): The Church in North Africa was at the forefront of enumerating the canon. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Third Council of Carthage (AD 397) each issued a list of canonical Scriptures to be read in church. These lists explicitly included the deuterocanonical books. In the surviving canon of Carthage, it declares that “nothing except the canonical Scriptures be read in church” and then names the Old Testament books, including “Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees,” etc. . By listing Daniel without caveat, the council implicitly accepted the whole of Daniel as received in the Septuagint – i.e. with Susanna, the Song, and Bel and the Dragon. This same canon was ratified in Carthage again in 419 and was influential for the entire Latin Church. Around the same time (AD 405), Pope Innocent I sent a letter to Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, likewise listing the Old Testament books recognized by Rome; that list matches the Carthage canon (including the longer Daniel) . Thus, by the early 5th century the Catholic Church had officially affirmed these additions as part of the biblical canon (they were later called “deuterocanonical” to indicate their disputed but eventually affirmed status ).
• Eastern Church Attitude: In the Greek East, there wasn’t an early ecumenical council to define the Old Testament canon. The general approach of Eastern Fathers was to use the Septuagint Scriptures in worship, sometimes distinguishing books in categories (for example, St. Athanasius in his 39th Festal Letter (AD 367) listed the books of the Hebrew canon as “canonical” but mentioned others like Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon as books “appointed by the Fathers to be read,” placing them in a secondary yet honored rank). Athanasius did not explicitly single out the Daniel additions, likely because he regarded “Daniel” as one complete book in his list. Some Greek Fathers (like Athanasius and St. John Damascene in the 8th century) counted 22 books in the Old Testament to mirror the Hebrew alphabet, which meant they technically omitted or placed the deuterocanon in an appendix. Yet, importantly, even those who enumerated a shorter canon still permitted and commended the use of the other books in the Church. They were often termed “ecclesiastical books” or “readable books” (Anagignoskomena) – meaning they could be read in church services for edification . The additions to Daniel squarely fell into that category at minimum. In practice, the Greek Bible manuscripts always contained them, and churches read them especially during feast days. There is no evidence of an Eastern church ever purging these sections from their Scriptures.
• Medieval to Reformation Era: Through the medieval era, both East and West consistently included the deuterocanonical sections in their Bible copies and lectionaries. It wasn’t until the 16th century, with the Protestant Reformation, that the status of these books became a hot dispute again. Reformers like Martin Luther chose to exclude the deuterocanon from the Old Testament (placing those books in an Apocrypha appendix or dropping them), aligning with the Jewish Tanakh. Consequently, Protestant Bibles omitted Susanna, Bel, and the Prayer of Azariah/Song of Three from Daniel, as these were “parts of two others” removed from the Old Testament .
• Catholic Response – Council of Trent (1546): The Catholic Church responded decisively. At the Council of Trent, Session IV (April 1546), the Church dogmatically defined the canon of Scripture. The decree named all the traditional books and chapters, specifically including the books and parts that Protestants had cut out. The longer version of Daniel was confirmed: the council fathers explicitly listed “Daniel” among the canonical books with its deuterocanonical portions. In fact, when Trent said it accepts the books of the Old Testament “entire with all their parts” as they have been used in the Church, that certainly encompassed the Additions to Daniel . One contemporary noted, “When the Council of Trent made the canon of Scripture co-extensive with the Vulgate, [Susanna, the Song, and Bel] were of course included in the decree.” . After Trent, the question of their canonicity was closed for the Catholic Church: those who “do not accept as sacred and canonical” these books/parts were anathematized .
• Eastern Orthodox Confirmation: The Orthodox churches, witnessing both the Protestant rejection of these books and the Catholic dogmatization at Trent, eventually provided their own formal affirmation. The landmark was the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 (also called the Council of Bethlehem, under Patriarch Dositheus). In its decree (Confession of Dositheus, Decree/Question III), the Orthodox Church stated clearly which books are Scripture. It explicitly enumerated the deuterocanonical works that some (like the Calvinists) had been calling “Apocrypha.” The Synod said: “Following the rule of the Catholic Church [i.e. the universal Church], we call Sacred Scripture all those books… adding thereto those which [Calvinist-influenced critics] have called Apocrypha; to wit, The Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, The History of the Dragon, The History of Susanna, The Maccabees, and The Wisdom of Sirach. For we judge these also to be, with the other, genuine parts of Scripture.” The council further declared that the Church by ancient tradition has handed down these books as Scripture, and even if not everyone everywhere always agreed on them, “nevertheless these also have been counted with the rest of Scripture by many of the most ancient Fathers and by Synods; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.” . This authoritative statement from the highest levels of Orthodoxy leaves no doubt that for the Orthodox, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Song of the Three (often called “History of the Dragon” and “History of Susanna” in older terminology) are fully part of the Bible. In Orthodox Bibles today, Daniel includes these chapters (the Russian and Greek Old Testaments based on the Septuagint list 49 chapters of Ezekiel, 14 of Daniel, etc., indicating inclusion of deuterocanon). Some Orthodox editions also place the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three as a standalone item in the book of Odes, but generally they appear within Daniel 3. Importantly, the Synod of Jerusalem grounded the acceptance of these books in the continuous tradition of the Church: it argued that the same Church which recognized the four Gospels and the prophets also delivered these additions to us, and “the denial of these is the rejection of those”, i.e., rejecting the deuterocanonical books undermines the authority of the whole canon handed down by the Church . This reflects the Orthodox view that the canon is determined by the Church’s reception, not by later Jewish or rationalist criteria.
Thus, both Catholic and Orthodox communions eventually gave formal canonical status to the Additions to Daniel. The Catholic Church counts them among the “deuterocanonical books” of the Old Testament, meaning they are fully Scripture (inspired and authoritative) though they had a period of dispute. The Orthodox Church simply considers them part of the Old Testament as received in the Septuagint, sometimes calling them “Anaginoskomena” (books to be read in church). In both traditions, they are included in every official list of Scripture from the post-Reformation era onward, and they appear in lectionaries, catechisms, and official Bible printings.
Theological and Canonical Arguments for Reliability
Orthodox Perspective: The Orthodox Church’s confidence in these texts rests on the principle of Holy Tradition. The Orthodox regard the Septuagint itself as a providential product of the Jewish Church (as evidenced in the legend of the 70 translators) and believe the Holy Spirit guided the early Church in receiving the LXX books as Scripture. They point out that the Greek Old Testament was the Bible of the Apostles and the Fathers , the version from which the New Testament authors often quoted. Therefore, those books and sections found in the LXX and used by the early Church carry inherent authority. Origen’s argument (quoted earlier) encapsulates this: it is unthinkable for Orthodoxy to discard scriptures that “the copies in use in our Churches” have always contained, since doing so would imply the Church had been in error from the beginning . Instead, Orthodoxy trusts that God “in His providence” arranged for these writings to “edify all the Churches of Christ”, and thus they belong. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) made a theological argument that the Church’s collective witness over centuries is the arbiter of the canon. It noted that ancient custom and the universal Church delivered Susanna, Bel, and the others to us as Scripture, and explicitly said rejecting them would amount to rejecting the authority of those who handed down the Gospels and other Scriptures . In other words, the same Church guided by the Spirit to discern the New Testament canon also affirmed these Old Testament portions – it is a single package of Tradition.
From an Orthodox theological standpoint, the content of these additions is fully in harmony with the rest of the Bible, which reinforces their reliability. For example, the Prayer of Azariah is a penitential prayer much like Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 or the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah, demonstrating orthodox theology of repentance, covenant, and mercy. The Song of the Three is a beautiful doxology that echoes the Psalms in calling all creation to praise God, aligning with the cosmic praise seen in Orthodox worship. Susanna’s story upholds morality and God’s Law: Daniel’s examination of the elders is actually based on the Law of Moses (exposing false witnesses as in Deuteronomy 19:18–19), showing continuity with Torah values . It also highlights God’s providence in raising up a prophet to defend the innocent – a theme very compatible with biblical narratives. Bel and the Dragon starkly proclaims monotheism and the futility of idols, which is a core prophetic message (paralleling passages like Isaiah 44 or the story of Elijah vs. Baal). Nothing in these chapters contradicts the Orthodox faith; rather, they enrich it with further examples of God’s power and faithful ones. The Orthodox Church also sees in Susanna a typology: many fathers interpreted Susanna as a figure of the persecuted Church (the Bride falsely accused by the world) and Daniel as a figure of Christ (the righteous judge who exposes lies and vindicates truth). Such allegorical readings gave the story a Christ-centered significance, increasing its theological weight in Orthodox teaching.
Moreover, the heavy liturgical use of the Song of the Three (Benedicite) in Orthodoxy is itself seen as an argument for its inspiration: it has served as a canticle of praise on the lips of the Church for centuries, something unlikely if it were not truly edifying and Spirit-inspired. The Orthodox often say lex orandi, lex credendi – the law of prayer is the law of belief. Since these texts form part of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Church, they reflect the lex credendi (rule of faith) and thus are reliable conveyors of God’s truth. In Orthodox services, hymns on the Feast of The Three Youths (Dec 17 in some calendars) or during Easter remind the faithful of these narratives, integrating them into the Church’s living memory of salvation history.
Catholic Perspective: The Catholic Church similarly grounds the reliability of these additions in the authority of the Church and the continuity of Tradition. Catholic apologists often point out that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, these sections of Daniel “had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history” . Fathers of the Church, including those from the West (where the Pope’s authority is recognized), routinely used them. For instance, St. Irenaeus, a bishop and early Church Father, not only quoted Susanna but referred to it seamlessly alongside other Scriptures . St. Cyprian, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine – all these Latin Fathers cite or allude to Daniel’s extra chapters in support of doctrine or exhortation . This patristic consensus is a key Catholic argument: the Fathers quoted the deuterocanonical books “in the same way as the protocanonical ones”, showing they held them in equal esteem . For example, Augustine in The City of God and other writings uses the story of Susanna to illustrate God’s judgment and mercy, and he accepted Bel and the Dragon as a genuine account of Daniel’s life (Augustine even muses about the chronology of Bel and the Dragon in relation to Cyrus’s reign). Augustine was a leading voice at the Council of Carthage which affirmed the full canon , and he argued that the Septuagint should be trusted as Scripture since the Apostles themselves used it.
From a magisterial standpoint, Catholicism holds that the Church (through councils like Hippo, Carthage, Florence, Trent) infallibly discerned the canon under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Thus, the inclusion of these passages is guaranteed by the Church’s teaching authority. The Decree of Trent settled any lingering doubts by declaring these parts of Daniel to be just as canonical and inspired as any other book . Therefore, Catholics maintain that these additions are reliable and sacred because the Holy Spirit would not allow the Church to err in accepting spurious texts as Scripture. Trent’s decree implies a theological affirmation: God’s providence ensured these texts were preserved in the Church’s Bible for the edification of the faithful, and they contain nothing contrary to faith or morals – on the contrary, they support and illustrate Catholic beliefs. For instance, while Susanna’s story doesn’t define any unique doctrine, it reinforces the virtue of chastity and the notion of divine justice (God hears the cry of the innocent). The Prayer of Azariah emphasizes *repentance, sacrifice of contrite heart, and God’s mercy without Temple sacrifices, which resonates deeply with Christian theology of God accepting a “sacrifice of praise” (Heb 13:15) and contrition (Psalm 51). The Song of the Three is a litany of creation’s praise, aligning with the Catholic understanding that all creation ultimately gives glory to God (as seen also in Psalms and Canticles). Catholic liturgy mirrors this with the frequent use of the Benedicite in the Liturgy of the Hours , signifying the Church’s trust in the text’s spiritual value.
Canonically, Catholicism also notes that when the Bible was translated into Latin (the Vulgate), the Church insisted on retaining these sections despite Jerome’s hesitations, showing that Church Tradition was given priority over one scholar’s opinion. Later, at the Council of Florence (1442), which attempted to unite East and West, the Catholics listed the books of the Bible including the “fourteen chapters of Daniel” (implicitly including Susanna and Bel), reinforcing their status just a century before Trent. This demonstrates a continuous authoritative stance.
Another point often raised in Catholic defenses is that even the Jewish canon was not definitively closed in Jesus’ time – meaning Jesus and the Apostles did not leave a list of approved books, and different Jewish groups had slightly different Scriptures (e.g., Sadducees vs Pharisees vs Hellenistic Jews). The early Church, under the Spirit’s guidance, inherited the broader Alexandrian Jewish canon (the Septuagint), which included these additions. Catholic teaching holds that it is the Church, not post-Christian rabbinical decisions, that has the right to decide the canon of Scripture, since the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Thus, the inclusion of the Daniel additions by the Church carries divine authority. The Catechism of the Catholic Church today quotes from the Song of the Three (Dan 3:57-88) as Scripture, and treats the moral lessons of Susanna as part of the biblical moral teachings on purity and justice.
Reliability and Authenticity: Both Orthodox and Catholic arguments also address the historical authenticity of these stories. Admittedly, even within the Church, some (like Africanus or Jerome) wondered if Susanna or Bel were just edifying fiction. The mainstream patristic view, however, treated them as historical narratives about Daniel. Fathers like Hippolytus and Chrysostom read Susanna as an actual incident in Daniel’s life (with Hippolytus simply noting it happened later chronologically) . No doctrinal issue is at stake if they were historical or not, but generally the Church has seen no reason to doubt their truth. Archaeologically, we have no direct corroboration for Susanna or Bel outside the Bible – but that is true of many biblical narratives. The early Church’s willingness to canonize them implies a belief that they are true and inspired accounts, whether recorded by Daniel or appended by later inspired authors. Theologically, even if one considered them a type of midrash or parable woven around Daniel’s figure, their inclusion in Scripture means they convey God’s truth reliably. The Church Fathers often allowed that biblical authors could rearrange material or use figurative stories for teaching; what mattered was the divine message. In the case of Daniel’s additions, the message of God’s faithfulness, the power of prayer, the call to virtue, and the impotence of idols are all thoroughly orthodox and biblical.
In terms of consistency, these additions do not conflict with the rest of Daniel or Scripture. In fact, they complement the canonical chapters: for example, Daniel 1–6 (the court tales) show Daniel and friends as faithful under trials – Susanna and Bel provide two more such tales reinforcing that theme. Daniel’s portrayal in Susanna (as a wise, just teenager filled with God’s Spirit) is consistent with his character in Daniel 1–2. The Prayer of Azariah fills a narrative “gap” – it answers what the three youths might have been saying or praying while in the furnace, thus enhancing the drama and theological depth of Daniel 3 (much as later Jewish midrash would imagine dialogues in biblical stories). Early Christians likely valued this prayer for its penitential theology, seeing in it a foreshadowing of Christian understanding that suffering can be redemptive and that a contrite heart is the true sacrifice (Dan 3:39-40).
From both Orthodox and Catholic vantage points, another practical argument for these texts’ reliability is their fruitfulness in the life of the Church. A tree is known by its fruits; these scriptures have borne good fruit – inspiring holiness, art, and worship – which is a sign of God’s hand. The story of Susanna, for instance, has been cited in Church teachings on justice (God as defender of the innocent) and used to encourage believers that God sees hidden faithfulness. It was even used in the early Church to uphold the dignity of those falsely accused – a very concrete pastoral application. The hymn of the Three has taught generations how to praise God in all circumstances. Such positive spiritual impact is unlikely from a spurious or false text, from the Church’s perspective.
In conclusion, both the Orthodox and Catholic traditions firmly uphold the Additions to Daniel as inspired, authoritative, and reliable parts of the Bible. The Orthodox emphasize the seamless continuity of these writings within the Septuagint and the Church’s unbroken Tradition endorsing them, underscored by patristic use and the formal decree of the 1672 Synod (which declared that the ancient Fathers and Councils “counted and reckoned” these among Scripture) . The Catholics likewise point to the Fathers, the liturgy, and the conciliar decrees (Carthage, Trent) that have consistently included these chapters, thereby invoking the Church’s infallible authority as warrant for their trustworthiness . Historically, any doubts (from a minority of voices) were resolved by deference to the Church’s collective judgment and the evident harmony of these texts with the rest of divine revelation.
Conclusion
The Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon have a fascinating trajectory: born in the late Jewish milieu of the Second Temple era, likely in the Greek-speaking context, they found a home in the Septuagint and thereby in the Christian Bible. Though not preserved in the Jewish Masoretic canon, they were cherished by Hellenistic Jews and overwhelmingly embraced by the early Christians who saw in them the same Holy Spirit at work as in other Scriptures. Over centuries, the Church integrated these additions fully into the Old Testament canon used for teaching, worship, and doctrine. Key Fathers of both East and West quoted them as Scripture (from Irenaeus and Origen to Cyprian and Augustine) , and early synods affirmed their place in the Bible. When challenges arose – whether from Jewish critics, early Christian skeptics, or later Reformers – the Catholic and Orthodox Churches responded by affirming their authenticity and authority, often appealing to the unbroken tradition of use and the decisions of councils guided by the Holy Spirit .
Textually, the evidence of ancient manuscripts and versions corroborates that these chapters were integral to Daniel in Christian usage since at least the 2nd century, and likely as early as the initial Greek translation around 100 BC . No significant Christian community before the Reformation rejected them; on the contrary, they were read in churches everywhere from Rome to Constantinople. The theological content of the additions reinforces core biblical truths – repentance, faith under trial, God’s deliverance, condemnation of idolatry – and thus the Church found them profitable “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (cf. 2 Tim 3:16).
From an Orthodox viewpoint, the Septuagint (with these additions) is part of the “Bible of the Church”, sanctified by its use by Christ’s apostles and the continuous liturgical life of the Body of Christ . The Orthodox Church today continues to read and chant these passages, considering them holy and inspired. The 1672 Synod’s pronouncement encapsulates their stance: “ancient custom… and the Catholic Church hath undoubtedly delivered these also [Susanna, Bel, etc.] as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those [other Scriptures]” . The Catholic Church, for its part, upholds them with equal conviction, pointing to 1500 years of uninterrupted acceptance and the authoritative definition at Trent. Catholic theologians and apologists often cite the patristic consensus and the Church’s canon promulgations to defend the reliability of these texts against any who would dismiss them as later fabrications. As one modern Catholic source summarizes: “Protestants removed… parts of two [books], Daniel and Esther, even though these had been regarded as canonical from the beginning of Church history” . In Catholic understanding, it is untenable that God would allow the entire Church to universally embrace these writings for millennia if they were not truly part of His written Word.
In light of their ancient origin, early and continuous use in Judaism’s Hellenistic diaspora and especially in Christianity, as well as their official sanction by the historic churches, the Additions to Daniel carry substantial historical, canonical, and theological credibility. The Church Fathers saw in them the same “treasure hid in the Scriptures” – Christ and His truth – that they found in the rest of the Bible . Therefore, both the Orthodox and Catholic traditions confidently read these chapters as reliable Scripture, worthy of doctrine and devotion. They stand as a testimony to the broader canonical heritage of the early Church, reminding us that God’s revelation was transmitted not only in Hebrew but also through the Greek Scriptures that nourished the first Christians. In the eyes of these apostolic traditions, the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon are an integral part of the story of God’s people, vindicated by the authoritative voices of saints, councils, and the lived faith of the community throughout the ages.
Sources:
Emil Schürer et al., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. III.2, pp. 722–730.
James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism, p. 133.
Bruce M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (1977), pp. 95–113.
David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha (2002), pp. 223–228.
Origen, Epistle to Africanus (ANF 4:386ff) .
Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 1.3; Letter to Africanus 5–9 .
Julius Africanus, Letter to Origen (Ante-Nicene Fathers 6).
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.26.3 and 4.5.2.
St. Cyprian, Epistle 55:5 .
Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel (fragments) .
St. Jerome, Preface to Daniel (in Vulgate); Against Rufinus 2.33 .
Third Council of Carthage (AD 397), Canon 47 .
Synod of Jerusalem (AD 1672), Decree/Question III .
Catholic Answers, “What the Early Church Believed: The Old Testament Canon” .
Catholic Encyclopedia and Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church on Canon.
TheTorah.com, Malka Simkovich, “The Tale of Susanna: A Story about Daniel”.
BibleHub Topical, “Song of the Three Children – Liturgical Use” .
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 53 .
Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 2, “Daniel, Additions to”.
Hmmmm…. ok while all of this is interesting, it created for me the feeling that the KJV, from the perspective of preserving Christian traditions and understandings of scripture, is inherently incomplete and unreliable. Also makes me sad that modern Jews may have had texts that point toward Christ removed from their scriptures… and on that note, let’s see what the AI has to say about this?
Question to the AI: Did those compiling the masoretic text remove parts of it that christians viewed as supporting the christian claim? If so, which parts?
Response: Yes, there is evidence that the compilers of the Masoretic Text (MT) modified certain passages that early Christians used to support their claims about Jesus as the Messiah. This textual standardization, which took place between the 1st and 10th centuries AD, likely reflected Jewish efforts to solidify a version of the Hebrew Bible that was distinct from the one used by Christians, who often relied on the Septuagint (LXX).Key Passages Where the Masoretic Text Differed from Earlier Versions
Psalm 22:16
Septuagint (LXX) & Dead Sea Scrolls: “They pierced my hands and my feet” (ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας μου).
Masoretic Text: “Like a lion are my hands and my feet” (כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי).
Significance: The phrase “they pierced” (karu, כָּרוּ) is present in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, which supports Christian interpretation as a prophecy of crucifixion. The Masoretic scribes changed it to “like a lion” (ka’ari, כָּאֲרִי), which makes little grammatical sense but removes the messianic implication.
Isaiah 7:14
Septuagint (LXX): “Behold, a virgin (παρθένος) shall conceive and bear a son…”
Masoretic Text: “Behold, a young woman (עַלְמָה, almah) shall conceive…”
Significance: The Greek word parthenos specifically means “virgin,” while almah can mean “young woman” but often implies virginity. The LXX translation was widely cited by Christians (e.g., Matthew 1:23) to support the virgin birth of Christ, leading some scholars to believe that later Jewish scribes modified the Hebrew to weaken the Christian interpretation.
Genesis 5 & the Genealogies
Septuagint & Samaritan Torah: The ages of the patriarchs before the Flood add up to a longer chronology (by about 1,500 years).
Masoretic Text: The ages were reduced.
Significance: Some scholars suggest that the shorter MT chronology was adopted to undermine calculations that early Christians used to link biblical events to Jesus.
Zechariah 12:10
Septuagint (LXX) & Dead Sea Scrolls: “…they will look upon Me, whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him…”
Masoretic Text: “…they will look upon the one whom they have pierced…”
Significance: The LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that God Himself is pierced, a potential reference to the suffering of Christ. The MT removes the reference to “Me” (God) and makes it more ambiguous.
Deuteronomy 32:43
Septuagint & Dead Sea Scrolls: “Rejoice, O heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him…”
Masoretic Text: “Rejoice, O nations, with His people…”
Significance: The missing reference to angels worshiping God is present in the Septuagint and quoted in Hebrews 1:6, implying that Jesus is the divine figure being worshiped.
(Another Aside) Additional Context
Post-Temple Judaism (after 70 AD) – After the destruction of the Second Temple, Rabbinic Judaism sought to create a unified Hebrew text distinct from the Christian-used Septuagint.
Theological Motivation – The early Christian movement relied heavily on the Septuagint to argue that Jesus was the Messiah. In response, Jewish scribes may have subtly altered certain passages to reduce Christological interpretations.
Scribal Standardization – The Masoretic scribes aimed to create a singular, authoritative text, which sometimes meant modifying older readings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX.
Conclusion
While the Masoretic Text remains the standard Hebrew Bible in Judaism, it appears to reflect theological and editorial choices made in reaction to Christianity. The older textual traditions—such as the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls—suggest that some Messianic prophecies were clearer in earlier versions but were later adjusted in the Masoretic tradition.
AI-3o-Fact-Check: After asking GTP-3o-mini-high to fact-check and run an assessment on the initial output, this is what the 3o-mini-high model had to say
Assessment
This is an Accurate listing of known textual variants. It is true that these differences exist.
The claim that these passages were changed specifically to counter Christian usage is a commonly held theory but is not universally accepted as the sole reason.
No direct factual error—just note that the motivation is debated, though these are legitimate variants.
Concluding Thoughts
The history and transmission of sacred texts is complex. I’m sure that I’m just scratching the tip of the iceberg, but it makes me suspect that that there is not a simple or reliable approach that leads to a utopian “pure” and “uncorrupted” version of the Bible as the Reformers believed. The Masoretic Text may very well have been altered to remove parts important to Christians and the Septuagint might possibly have additions that were non-canonical from the Jewish perspective, but which Jews and Christians at the time of Christ likely viewed as important, valuable and reliable.
Without turning this into some kind of truth crusade (and repeating the reformers actions) my guess is that at the end of the day, it’s probably sufficient to say that the scriptures as the Church has assembled and canonized, through councils confirmed by the holy spirit, led by learned spiritual fathers and Saints, is sufficient and reliable enough for us all. If the OSB contains the same scriptures used by the apostles, that have produced the Saints of the church (who also had a hand in their canonization and transmission to us today), then perhaps that’s the best indication of the authenticity and reliability of the Word of God that we can hope for.
I certainly agree with the sentiment that ”it is the Church, not post-Christian rabbinical decisions, (or rebellious reformers that believe they know better), that has the right to decide the canon of Scripture, since the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth.”
I’ll take the traditions and decisions of the Church, Apostles, and Patristic fathers over the decisions of a few men who, no matter how well intentioned, thought they knew better about what people needed to have in the Scriptures for their Salvation or Theosis. Never again shall I waste time on the KJV or any protestant bible.
o3-mini-high
Reasoning Process: o3-mini improves upon o1 by introducing deeper internal deliberation (simulated reasoning), allowing it to more reliably handle complex, multi-step tasks.
Performance Metrics: Benchmarks show that o3-mini-high outperforms o1 in coding (higher competitive ratings and fewer errors), mathematics (higher test scores on advanced exams), and scientific reasoning (slightly higher scores on domain-specific benchmarks).
Speed and Cost: The o3-mini series is both faster and more cost-efficient, with significant improvements in latency and a token cost reduction that makes it viable for widespread use.
User Experience: By offering different reasoning levels (low, medium, high), o3-mini provides flexibility—allowing users to choose a balance between speed and accuracy that best suits their application, something that was less configurable in the o1 models.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTPro/comments/1ifxwwq/comment/man5sct/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
what year was the septuagint translated? The Septuagint (LXX) was translated between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, during the Hellenistic period, under the rule of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt. The translation process likely began around 250 BC in Alexandria and continued over several decades.
Key Details:
• Commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 283–246 BC) – According to the Letter of Aristeas (a later Jewish-Greek text), Ptolemy II requested a Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah (Pentateuch) for the Library of Alexandria.
• Completed in Stages – The Pentateuch (Genesis–Deuteronomy) was translated first, followed by other books over the next century or two.
• Language & Audience – Written in Koine Greek, the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean at the time, to serve the large Jewish diaspora in Egypt who no longer spoke Hebrew fluently.
The Septuagint was widely used by early Christians and was the Old Testament of the early Church. However, it contained additional books and passages (such as the Prayer of Azariah in Daniel 3), which later Jewish and Protestant traditions rejected.
Would you like more details on how the Septuagint influenced early Christianity and biblical canon formation?
what is the difference between the masoretic text and the torah?
The Masoretic Text (MT) and the Torah are related but distinct in important ways, particularly in their scope, transmission, and textual differences.
1. Scope and Content
• The Torah (תּוֹרָה) refers specifically to the first five books of the Bible—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy—also called the Pentateuch.
• The Masoretic Text (MT) refers to the authoritative Hebrew text of the entire Old Testament (Tanakh), including the Torah, the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim).
2. Textual Tradition
• The Torah exists in multiple textual traditions:
• The Masoretic Torah (used in Judaism today)
• The Samaritan Torah (used by Samaritans)
• The Septuagint (LXX) Torah (the Greek translation)
• The Dead Sea Scrolls Torah (ancient manuscript evidence)
• The Masoretic Text was finalized by Jewish scribes called the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. It preserves the Hebrew consonantal text but also adds vowel markings, cantillation notes, and scribal corrections.
3. Differences Between the Torah (as in the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls) and the Masoretic Text
• Chronological and Numerical Differences – The MT often has different numbers in genealogies compared to the Septuagint and Samaritan Torah.
• Missing or Altered Passages – Some passages in the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls versions of the Torah are longer or different from the MT. (Hmm… I wonder why?)
• Theological Adjustments – The MT sometimes shows anti-Samaritan or anti-Christian tendencies, likely due to later scribal standardization. (Oh, that’s why.) The -o3-mini-high model provided this additional information: Saying the MT “sometimes shows anti-Samaritan or anti-Christian tendencies” is more interpretive than proven fact—there are textual variants that happen to remove or alter readings Christians favor, but whether that was a conscious anti-Christian move is debated.
4. Why the Masoretic Text Became the Standard
• After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Rabbinic Judaism sought to standardize the biblical text.
• Jewish scholars (like those at Yavneh) rejected competing textual traditions (such as the Greek Septuagint or Samaritan Torah).
• The Masoretes (6th–10th centuries AD) carefully preserved and vocalized the Hebrew text, ensuring a single authoritative version.
Summary:
• The Torah is the first five books of Moses and exists in multiple textual traditions.
• The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Rabbinic Jewish version of the entire Hebrew Bible, including the Torah.
• The MT differs from older Torah traditions (Septuagint, Samaritan, Dead Sea Scrolls) in some wording, chronology, and theological emphasis.