They were not written by a prophet.
They were not written by a prophet.
§ 225. [II] These additions do not have a prophetic author. To be sure, they are called “the additions of Daniel,” but a comparison shows that the name “Daniel” cannot be taken to mean the famous prophet whose canonical prophecy is extant. The true Daniel was thrown into the lions’ den because he invoked the true God of Israel from the open windows of his room (Dan. 6:11). This fictitious Daniel, however, was thrown down into the lions’ den for overturning Bel and killing the dragon (14:30). The true Daniel spent only one night in the lions’ den (Dan. 6:19). This fictitious Daniel, however, is said to have spent six days in the lions’ den (14:30). The true Daniel was sent into the lions’ den under King Darius (Dan. 6:1); the fictitious one, under King Cyrus (13:65).
Bellarmine makes the judgment: “It is not improbable that this Daniel who freed Susanna, destroyed Bel, killed the dragon, and was in the lions’ den for six days is not the same as the one about whom the canonical Book of Daniel treats. The latter was of the tribe of Judah; the former, however, is said in the Septuagint translation to have been of the tribe of Levi.” We respond. From where, then, will one be able to prove that this later Daniel was a prophet and that his book is prophetic, if he was not the same Daniel as the former, to whom Christ in the New Testament appeals (Matt. 24:15)? Where in the accounts of the later Daniel is there mention of the former Daniel?
But Bellarmine (resp. ad 2. object.) discusses why those stories about the fictitious Daniel are added in the codex of the Bible: “The story of Susanna is deservedly placed at the beginning of the book by the Greeks because it happened long before the time of Daniel, who was still a boy.” But if this is not the same Daniel, why is his story placed into the genuine Daniel?
Gretserus objects: “Those parts are correctly placed in Daniel even if some other Daniel may have composed them. Both because of the theme and because of the similarity of the name, they are placed nowhere more correctly than in the Book of Daniel, just as many psalms hold a place in the Book of Psalms correctly, though not David but others wrote them and sang them to God.” We respond. The nature of the situation is completely disparate. Concerning the psalms, there is no doubt that they belong to the canon. There is, however, the greatest doubt about those additions. All the psalms are connected because in Hebrew David does not call it the “Psalter of David,” but he uses the general title 
, “Book of Praises.” Thus nothing at all prevents psalms—even of other authors—from being placed in it (to say nothing of the fact that some people ascribe all the psalms to David, as we mentioned earlier, § 141). But the Book of Daniel into which the particles were inserted or added carries with it the certain name of that prophet Daniel. Therefore the account of another, diverse Daniel is connected to it unjustly. It is not apparent what that similarity of theme may be, unless perhaps one may wish to offer the throwing into the lions’ den. However, we already have shown earlier what a difference—in fact, what a contrariety—there is between the two accounts. Finally, because of the likeness of their names, this addition ought rather to have been kept separate from the prophet Daniel, to avoid confusion.