One is from the beginning, one from the midst, one from the end of the Greek Daniel; the first by St. Matthew reporting Pilate; the second by a writer not certainly identified; the third by St. Luke reporting St. Paul. These may be merely accidental resemblances, but their occurrence in this way is curious, and worthy of consideration.
As to the position of these pieces, whether in or out of the canon, it is probable, speaking generally, that those who used the Hebrew Bible, or versions uninfluenced by the LXX, disregarded them as not being part of Holy Scripture; and that those who used the LXX, or its versions, accepted them, either with or without hesitation. Under the chapters entitled "Early Christian Literature" it will be seen that those were by no means wanting who appear to attribute in practical use canonical authority to each fragment; and at least what Otto Stähelin says of Clement of Alexandria, that he "nicht geringer schätzte," may be held true of nearly all the Fathers who name them (Clem. Alex, und LXX, Nürnberg, 1901, p. 74). It is, however, surprising that this divergence of use, in so important a matter as the extent of the canon, did not give rise to a more general controversy. What discussion there was on this question lay chiefly between a few scholarly individuals, who treated the matter as of private and personal, almost as much as of public, interest.
Even if it were admitted that these works were not in the Hebrew canon, the question is still not absolutely settled. For it might be contended, without at all asserting that the Hebrew canon was erroneous or deficient in its time, that these and other apocryphal works were reserved in the providence of God for the Christian Church to deal with as she thought fit. Nor is it clear that her powers as to them, when deciding for canonicity or no, were of necessity more restricted than her powers as to the N.T. books on the same question. What Tertullian says with regard to 'Enoch' might be extended to other books, "Scio scripturam Enoch... non recipi a quibusdam quia nec in armarium Judaicum admittitur... a vobis quidem nihil omnino rejiciendum est quod pertinent ad nos" (De cult. fæm. I. 13).
The title 'Daniel,' it should be observed, in lists of Scripture books, often covers these additions; as for example in Origen's list, as preserved by Eusebius, H.E. vi. 25. For we know that Origen (Ep. ad Afric.) defended these additions, and so almost certainly intended this title to include them. So also with Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem'(see Sus. 'Canonicity,' p. 160). Probably it is on this account that Loisy (O.T. Canon, Paris, 1890, p. 97) says that Athanasius received "certainement les fragments de Daniel, sur la foi des Septante, comme le font Origène et tous les Pères grecs."
Ecclesiastical practice, as well as their distribution amongst the canonical books of both Greek and Latin Bibles, told, as time went on, more and more in favour of their inclusion.
But they were not officially recognized as on a level in all respects with Holy Scripture, even by the Roman Church, till the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1546), when they were all placed on an equality with, in fact treated as portions of, the book of Daniel. Probably the phrase "libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus" was introduced into the decree with special reference to these additions and those to Esther. This decree, making them "sacred and canonical," was carried, according to Loisy (p. 201), by 44 placets to 3 non-placets and 5 doubtful.[[1]] Dr. Streane, however, says (Age of the Maccabees, 1898, p. 102) it was passed by "a small majority." Even writers so late as Nicholas de Lyra (†1340) and Denys the Carthusian (†1471) speak of these additions as true, but not parts of Holy Scripture (Loisy, p. 223, quoting Corn. à Lap. on Dan. xiii. 3). And they were of the Roman obedience.
[1] He refers to Theiner, Acta ... concil. Trident, i. 77.
Bleek (Introd. to O.T. II. 336, Eng. tr.) says that the seventh decree of the Council of Florence (1439), making mention of apocryphal books as canonical, which no one was acquainted with before the Tridentine Council, is very probably not genuine. Denys the Carthusian, it will be observed, was subsequent to the supposed Florentine decree, and seemingly ignorant of its existence.
The same writer states (pp. 336, 339) that while Karlstadt classed some of the Apocrypha as "hagiographa extra canonem," he called these supplements to Daniel, with the Prayer of Manasses, and others as "plane apocryphos." He also represents Luther as prettily styling these pieces corn-flowers plucked up, because not in the Hebrew, yet placed in a separate garden or bed, because much that is good is found in them. They are thus detached in his version, as in ours, from Daniel, and placed among the apocryphal books. Calvin, however, in his Lectures on Daniel entirely ignores these additions. His English translator barely mentions them in his preface (Edinb. 1852, p. xlix.).
Far more contemptuous than Luther's estimate of these productions is that of Professor (now Bishop) Ryle in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible (1894), where he writes: "The character of these stories is trifling and childish."