They are not found in Hebrew.
They are not found in Hebrew.
[I] We find none of these written in Hebrew letters. In his introduction to Daniel, Jerome writes: “Among the Hebrews, Daniel does not have the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, the fables of Bel and the Dragon. Because they have been spread throughout the world, we have appended these with an obelus [H] placed before them that sets them apart. We have done this so that we may not appear to the unlearned to have cut out a large part of the volume.” Those plays on words [paronomasia]—from 
[“mastic tree”], 
[“he will cut,” Dan. 13:54-55], and from 
[“evergreen oak”], 
[“he will saw,” Dan. 13:58-59]—argue clearly that the story of Susanna was written in Greek. This argument against the canonical authority of that story is used by Jerome in his preface to Daniel.
Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 9) makes the exception: [1] “Jerome was explaining the opinion of the Jews rather than his own,” and cites as witness Apol. 2. contra Rufinum. We respond. Jerome’s words clearly bear witness to the opposite. He says, “We have appended these with an obelus placed before them that sets them apart.” Bellarmine himself (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 10, resp. ad postremam object.) acknowledges: “Jerome is not speaking only about the canon of the Jews but also of his own opinion when he removes Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Books of Maccabees from the canon.” But now the nature of these additions is the same as for the apocryphal books he listed.
(2) “They are called fables, that is, stories, for sometimes the word ‘fable’ is used in this way. Luke 24[:15]: ‘It happened while they were telling fables.’ “We respond. This is an insolent misuse of a word that has no place in the argument of Jerome: “I have placed an obelus before these apocryphal writings because they contain fables.” Even the opposition itself is incompatible with this explanation. He calls the narrative about Susanna “a story.” In so doing he does not remove all trustworthiness from it, as far as the truth of the occurrence is concerned. Yet he calls the readings from Bel and the Dragon “fables,” that is, fictitious stories. But if the word “fable” can be used for “story,” why does he criticize Luther (op. cit., c. 5) for saying that the Book of Job was “the theme of a fable”?
(3) “Origen (Epistle ad Jul. Afric.) satisfied the argument drawn from a play on words (namely, that Daniel did not say ‘oak tree’ or ‘mastic tree’ or anything else unknown to us). Nevertheless, according to the propriety of the Hebrew or Chaldaic language that he himself was using, a word for cutting may correspond to this. You see, the Hebrews have many words that signify dividing or cutting. Furthermore, the Greek interpreter did not translate word-for-word but sense-for-sense in order to preserve the allusion. He took other similar trees to which the allusion to a word for cutting might correspond in Greek.” We respond. Although we do not deny that Origen wrote about this to Julius Africanus, yet what he wrote is unknown. Indeed, the booklet that was recently published in 1551 about this matter has not yet gained sufficiently distinguished credibility. This is certain, however, that there nowhere exists a Hebrew or Chaldaic copy of these additions. But if they ought to have been listed among the canonical writings, divine providence would not have allowed the original text to have been lost. One cannot affirm with certainty, however, that a Hebrew copy of this supplement ever existed in reality, nor can Bellarmine bring from the Hebrew language any name for a tree that creates a play on words with the word for cutting. Therefore it remains fixed and firm that that Greek play on words makes the authority of this writing suspect. In the truly canonical books, the Holy Spirit protects historical truth and does not change it because of sweet plays on words.