Bel and the Dragon

Two short Daniel tales in the Greek tradition exposing idol cults.

Bel and the Dragon is a pair of short tales in the Greek Daniel tradition in which Daniel exposes the cult of Bel and a living dragon or serpent. They are set in the reign of Cyrus of Persia. Catholic and Orthodox Bibles receive the tales as a Daniel addition. Masoretic Daniel does not. As with Susanna, a printed chapter number such as Daniel 14 is an edition decision. The writing’s identity in this dataset is the Greek addition, kept separate from the Hebrew and Aramaic book so the Tanakh cell and the Catholic cell can differ without confusion.

Catholic/Orthodox Daniel addition; not in Masoretic Daniel.

Date

Set in the reign of Cyrus (6th century BCE)

Confidence

medium

Languages

Greek

Traditional authorship

Received as part of Daniel

Authorship note

Received as part of Daniel in the Greek Old Testament

• B · Codex Vaticanus

  4th century CE · Greek · End of Greek Daniel

  Codex Vaticanus, Vat. gr. 1209, is a fourth-century Greek parchment Bible long held in the Vatican Library. Its designation is B. The Old Testament follows a Septuagint-shaped collection. This dataset links Greek Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach to that Old Testament block, and it notes lacunae elsewhere in the codex, so “present in Vaticanus” is not a claim that every leaf survives. The find spot is not known in the way Sinaiticus’s monastery is known. What the manuscript shows is that these Greek writings were copied inside a fourth-century Christian Bible of the Septuagint type. Catholic reception later names overlapping books as deuterocanonical at Trent. Protestant confessions later deny them equal canonical status. Vaticanus itself is the copy, not those later rulings.

• A · Codex Alexandrinus

  5th century CE · Greek · End of Greek Daniel

  Codex Alexandrinus is a fifth-century Greek parchment Bible, shelfmark Royal MS 1 D V–VIII in the British Library. Its Old Testament is Septuagint-shaped and includes books that later Western lists call deuterocanonical, among them Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Esdras, and 1–4 Maccabees, plus the Prayer of Manasseh among the Odes. The New Testament includes Jude. After the biblical books the codex copies 1 Clement. A fifth-century binding shows what one scriptorium copied. It is not the Council of Trent and not the Westminster Confession.

• mentions

  Hebrew canon / Greek-speaking Jews

  Bel and the Dragon is not a book of the Tanakh. Josephus, near the end of the first century, describes twenty-two Jewish books his people trust and sets later writings in a lower rank. The later rabbinic Bible, counted as twenty-four books, likewise leaves Bel and the Dragon outside Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. Bel and the Dragon are short Jewish tales about Daniel exposing idols. They are not in the Hebrew Daniel. They close the Greek Daniel tradition. Jewish copying or quotation, where it exists, is reception. It is not the same fact as a place in the Hebrew canon, and it is not a Christian council’s decision.

• uses liturgically

  Greek and Latin churches

  Greek-speaking churches met Bel and the Dragon in Septuagint Bibles. Fourth- and fifth-century pandects copy it beside other Old Testament books. Early lists do not all use the same boundary. Athanasius in 367 keeps a shorter Old Testament and still names some of these books as useful to read. Hippo in 393 is reported to have approved a wider list, and Carthage in 397 names several of them among books to be read in church. Vaticanus and Alexandrinus copy the tales at the end of Greek Daniel. Early Christian readers of the Greek book met them there. Those are early Christian acts. Trent, Luther’s Apocrypha, and Westminster are later and stay on the councils list.

• ProtestantRelated literature

  Bel and the Dragon is a Greek addition to Daniel. Most Protestant 66-book canons exclude it; some Reformation Bibles printed it in an Apocrypha section.

• CatholicDeuterocanonical

  Bel and the Dragon is a Greek addition to Daniel. Listed among the Catholic canonical books at Trent (1546).

• OrthodoxCanonical

  Bel and the Dragon is a Greek addition to Daniel. Received in typical Eastern Orthodox Old Testament collections via the Septuagint tradition.

• EthiopianCanonical

  Bel and the Dragon is a Greek addition to Daniel. Present in the broader Ethiopian Orthodox biblical collection.

• TanakhNot applicable

  Not part of the Jewish Tanakh.

• LXXCanonical

  Bel and the Dragon is a Greek addition to Daniel. Transmitted in the Greek Old Testament corpus.

• Early ChristianDisputed

  Bel and the Dragon is a Greek addition to Daniel. Used in some late-antique church lists (for example Carthage 397) while other writers preferred the Hebrew list.

• Second TempleRelated literature

  Bel and the Dragon is a Greek addition to Daniel. Jewish work circulating beside a later closed rabbinic canon.

• 1534 CE · Reformation · Wittenberg

  Luther Bible prints a separate Apocrypha

  Luther’s 1534 German Bible printed selected Old Testament books in a separate Apocrypha section and said they were useful to read but not equal to Holy Scripture.

  Martin Luther’s complete German Bible, printed at Wittenberg in 1534, gathered selected Old Testament writings into a section titled Apocrypha. The preface to that section says the books are useful and good to read, and that they are not held equal to Holy Scripture.

  Tobit is one book this dataset ties to that preface. The reception note says Luther printed Tobit in the Apocrypha section and ranked it below Holy Scripture. The 1534 edition is a decision about order and rank inside one vernacular Bible. The writings were already being copied and read: Tobit, for example, is already named on the Carthage list of 397.

  Catholic, Orthodox, and Ethiopian collections continued to receive their own overlapping sets. The Westminster Confession of 1646/1647 later states the sixty-six-book canon in English Reformed form and says the Apocrypha are not part of the canon of Scripture. Luther’s printing and Westminster’s confession are two dated steps on this tab.

  Why it matters. This is placement and ranking, not a claim that Luther uniquely invented the books or erased them from every Bible on earth.

  Follow-up questions

  What did Luther’s 1534 preface say about these books?

  They are useful and good to read, and they are not held equal to Holy Scripture. The reception note for Tobit uses that same preface: Tobit is printed in the Apocrypha section and ranked below Holy Scripture.

  Did these books first appear in the 1534 Bible?

  The 1534 Bible places and ranks writings already in circulation. In this dataset Tobit is already named among the books to be read in church at Carthage in 397, and Trent later lists Tobit among the Catholic canonical books.

  Which later entry states the Protestant sixty-six as a confession?

  The Westminster Confession of 1646/1647, also on this tab. It names the sixty-six books and says the books commonly called Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture.

  Source: Luther’s 1534 Bible printed selected Old Testament books in a separate Apocrypha section, calling them useful to read but not equal to Holy Scripture.

• 8 April 1546 · Council · Trent

  Council of Trent, Session IV

  Trent listed the Catholic canonical books, including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate.

  On 8 April 1546, Session IV of the Council of Trent published its decree on the canonical Scriptures. The decree lists the books the Catholic Church receives as canonical, including the deuterocanonical writings already received in the Latin Vulgate. In this dataset, Tobit is one book tied directly to that decree.

  Trent answers sixteenth-century disputes about which books count as Scripture. Luther’s 1534 Bible had already printed selected Old Testament books in a separate Apocrypha section and ranked them below Holy Scripture. Trent’s list is the Catholic definition of canonical status for the books it names.

  The decree dates that ruling. Composition dates and manuscripts for each writing stay on the writing’s own page. Trent describes the church’s canonical list in 1546, and it leaves the earlier existence of those books to the other evidence on this site.

  Why it matters. Defines the modern Catholic canon in response to Reformation disputes. It does not describe a single ancient moment when those books first existed.

  Follow-up questions

  What did Trent’s Session IV decide?

  On 8 April 1546 it listed the books the Catholic Church receives as canonical, including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate. In this dataset Tobit is one of the books attached to that decree.

  What dispute is the decree answering?

  Reformation arguments about which books count as Scripture. The Luther Bible of 1534 had already printed selected books in a separate Apocrypha section and said they were useful to read but not equal to Holy Scripture.

  Does Session IV tell me when Tobit was written?

  The decree dates a Catholic canonical ruling in 1546. Tobit’s composition, language, and manuscripts are earlier evidence, kept on Tobit’s own Canon page rather than inside the conciliar date.

  Source: Council of Trent, Session IV (8 April 1546), lists the Catholic canonical books including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate.

• 1611 CE · Bible edition · London

  King James Bible of 1611 includes an Apocrypha section

  The 1611 Authorized Version printed an Apocrypha section between the Old and New Testaments, including Tobit and 2 Esdras among others.

  The 1611 Authorized Version, printed in London, placed an Apocrypha section between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The curated source names Tobit and 2 Esdras among the writings in that section.

  Printing a section inside the volume is an edition fact: contents and order in one London Bible. Canonical rank is a different kind of claim. About thirty-five years later, the Westminster Confession says the books commonly called Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture. Many later Protestant printings leave the section out. The 1611 volume still contains it.

  Read the 1611 entry beside Luther’s 1534 Apocrypha section and beside Westminster. One prints the books in a separate section, one ranks them below Holy Scripture in German, and one refuses them a place in the Reformed canon. Edition placement and confessional status stay side by side on this tab.

  Why it matters. Edition placement is not the same as later Anglican or Reformed confessional statements that deny those books equal canonical status.

  Follow-up questions

  What is the Apocrypha section in the 1611 Bible?

  A printed block between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The source names Tobit and 2 Esdras among the writings included there, and it treats that placement as an edition fact.

  Does including those books give them the same status as the sixty-six?

  The 1611 fact on this page is edition placement. Equal canonical status is a separate claim. The Westminster Confession later says the Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture.

  Why do many later King James Bibles omit that section?

  Later Protestant printing followed confessional statements such as Westminster, which refuse those books a place in the canon. The 1611 volume itself still prints the Apocrypha between the Testaments.

  Source: The 1611 King James Bible printed an Apocrypha section between the Old and New Testaments. That placement is an edition fact, not a claim that those books were canonical for every later Anglican confession.

• Shared tradition · Greek Daniel ↔ Greek Daniel

  High confidence — strong primary or manuscript support.

  Susanna and Bel and the Dragon are both additions to Greek Daniel. They are different stories copied in the same Greek book tradition.

1. 1534 CE — Luther Bible prints a separate Apocrypha
2. 8 April 1546 — Council of Trent, Session IV
3. 1611 CE — King James Bible of 1611 includes an Apocrypha section

• Westminster Confession I.2–3 names the 66-book Protestant canon and says the books commonly called Apocrypha are not of divine inspiration and are not part of the canon of Scripture.
• Council of Trent, Session IV (8 April 1546), lists the Catholic canonical books including the deuterocanonical writings received in the Vulgate.
• Brenton’s public-domain Septuagint translation includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, the Additions, and Maccabees as part of the Greek Old Testament corpus.
• The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church publishes an 81-book list that includes 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Meqabyan books.
• Josephus, Against Apion 1.8, speaks of 22 Jewish books and distinguishes later writings as not equally trusted.
• The 397 Carthage list includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1–2 Maccabees among the books to be read in church, alongside the widely received Protestant 66.
• Codex Vaticanus is a fourth-century Greek Bible whose Old Testament contents follow a Septuagint-shaped collection, with some lacunae.
• Codex Alexandrinus is a fifth-century Greek Bible. It includes a Septuagint-shaped Old Testament, the New Testament, and 1 Clement.
• Luther’s 1534 Bible printed selected Old Testament books in a separate Apocrypha section, calling them useful to read but not equal to Holy Scripture.
• The 1611 King James Bible printed an Apocrypha section between the Old and New Testaments. That placement is an edition fact, not a claim that those books were canonical for every later Anglican confession.