The three additions to Daniel, a study — Text and Context

Textual Evidence for a Semitic Original

Daubney’s analysis repeatedly weighs whether the Greek versions of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon derive from a Hebrew or Aramaic original. He points to specific phrases that “looks like” a Semitic construction, such as the Greek καθὼς ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτης ἡμέρς, which he compares to the Hebrew כִּתְמוׄל שִׁלְשֹׁם (as in Genesis 31:5). He also notes that the use of συγγενέσθδι in a bad sense (verses 11, 39) versus συγενεῖς innocently (verses 30, 63) suggests a translation from a language where different roots were employed. In verse 56, he observes that the epithet “μικρά” (small) applied to the elder’s desire seems “inappropriate” and may reflect a mistranslation of a Semitic word meaning “unclean” (as in Joshua 22:19). These observations are typical of Daubney’s method: he does not assert certainty but builds a cumulative case for translation.

The Two Greek Versions Compared

Throughout the excerpts, Daubney contrasts the Septuagint (Ο´) and Theodotion (Θ) versions of the additions. He notes that in verse 36 of Susanna, the genitive absolute appears only in Theodotion, which he calls “Greek in character,” while the Septuagint lacks it. In verse 53, both versions quote exactly from the LXX of Leviticus 23:7, which Daubney suggests “may be thought to tell slightly in favour of a Greek original.” Yet he immediately counters that the phraseology in Theodotion has “a distinctly Hebraistic look, much more so than in Ο´.” He also flags a possible animus against Israel in verse 57, which if genuine “would point to a Babylonian, and therefore Semitic, original,” since such enmity was less strong in Alexandria. These comparisons show Daubney weighing each textual feature as evidence for provenance, without forcing a conclusion.

Religious and Homiletic Value

Daubney frames the additions as “most interesting memorials of the spirit of their time” and “replete with valuable moral lessons.” He explicitly connects his study to the Sixth Article of Religion, which commends the Apocrypha for “example of life and instruction of manners.” In his concluding chapters, he aims to draw out these lessons for “homiletic and other purposes.” This dual focus—philological analysis and religious application—shapes the entire work. The author’s own position as a clergyman (Vicar of Harlington, Rector of Leasingham) is evident in his concern for practical use, yet he maintains a scholarly tone, repeatedly emphasizing that the evidence is provisional and that further study is needed.

Daubney’s study is best approached as a working hypothesis rather than a definitive statement. He is transparent about the limits of his evidence, and his detailed comparisons of Greek and Semitic constructions reward careful reading. Readers interested in the textual history of the Apocrypha will find a model of cautious, evidence-based inquiry, even if some linguistic arguments now appear dated. The work remains valuable for its compilation of sources and its clear articulation of the problems surrounding these three additions.

Those old Greek editions whisper to one another across the shelves, I think. The careful study of Daniel's additions—its patient sorting of tongues and verses—recalls how Stories of the Prophets (Before the Exile) — Reading Companion gathers those earlier voices with the same gentle reverence. Each volume keeps company with the other, faithfully preserving what time might otherwise scatter.