Susanna and Bel and the Dragon are sometimes printed as Daniel 13 and Daniel 14, which naturally raises a serious question: do they belong to the inspired Book of Daniel? I want to examine that question carefully. We need to understand the stories, but we also need to see why a useful religious writing is not automatically Scripture.
The Real Question Is Authority
The central issue is not whether Susanna or Bel and the Dragon contains a true moral lesson. The issue is whether God gave either writing as part of His authoritative Word. A sermon may explain the truth faithfully without becoming Scripture. A historical account may preserve useful information without being inspired. In the same way, an old religious story may agree with biblical morality and still remain outside the canon.
I think this is an important boundary that we should not overlook, because it protects the ground on which Christian doctrine rests. A story may rightly condemn lust or expose idolatry. It may also praise real courage. Those themes can be true, but our approval of them cannot make a text God-breathed.
I receive the Old Testament according to the Hebrew Masoretic Text, including the Aramaic portions preserved in books such as Daniel. The Septuagint can be useful for historical study, but it cannot overrule the Hebrew and Aramaic text as the governing Old Testament base. Susanna and Bel and the Dragon are not part of Daniel in that preserved Hebrew and Aramaic tradition. For that reason, they cannot serve as Scripture for doctrine, correction, or final authority.
What Susanna and Bel and the Dragon Teach
Susanna is a courtroom story about a righteous woman falsely accused by two corrupt elders. They desire her and threaten her. When she refuses their wickedness, they accuse her, and the community is ready to condemn her. Daniel intervenes by separating the accusers and questioning them one at a time. Their answers contradict each other, Susanna is vindicated, and the false witnesses receive judgment.
The moral direction is easy to see. The elders abuse their position and bear false witness because Susanna refuses their sexual demands. The story condemns their wickedness while honoring Susanna’s chastity and courage. Her vindication is presented as just and good. Scripture teaches these truths elsewhere. The law of Moses condemns adultery and false witness. It also condemns justice that has been twisted by wicked leaders. Proverbs warns against wicked men and shows the value of wisdom in judgment.
Yet agreement with biblical ethics does not establish inspiration. Susanna reads like a moral tale attached to Daniel’s reputation. It does not share the prophetic structure of canonical Daniel or move into visions about the rise and fall of kingdoms. Nor does it give a covenant promise or Messianic prophecy. Its lesson may be serious, but that does not place the writing beside Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Daniel 9, or Daniel 12 as part of the same inspired prophetic book.
Bel and the Dragon contains several episodes connected with Daniel in Babylon. In the story about Bel, Daniel exposes priests who secretly consume food left as an offering to an idol. In the dragon episode, he destroys a creature that the people revere and exposes the foolishness of worshiping it. The account later includes another scene resembling the lions’ den in which Daniel is preserved.
Here too, the broad lesson fits truths already found in Scripture. Idols are false, religious fraud deserves exposure, and God’s servant should remain courageous before rulers. Isaiah mocks idols that cannot speak or save. Elijah confronts false worship on Mount Carmel. Daniel 6 shows the true God preserving Daniel in the lions’ den. Bel and the Dragon borrows Daniel’s setting and uses a story to rebuke idolatry.
Similarity is not authority, however. Canonical Daniel already reveals God’s rule over idolatrous empires and His care for faithful servants in exile. It speaks about Gentile kingdoms, the coming Messiah, and the final resurrection. Bel and the Dragon does not add inspired prophecy to that witness. It should not be treated as Daniel 14 in the sense of continuing the Daniel that God inspired.
Canonical Daniel Has a Different Character
The Book of Daniel is much more than a collection of wise stories about a brave Jewish exile. It is a prophetic book that shows God ruling over kingdoms and revealing things to come. Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. He receives visions about beasts and kingdoms. Daniel 9 gives a prophetic timetable connected to Messiah, while Daniel 12 speaks of resurrection and final deliverance.
This prophetic character is central to the book. Daniel reveals the God who rules over Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the final kingdom realities developed elsewhere in Scripture. Jesus Himself points to Daniel’s prophecy of the abomination of desolation while teaching about future events:
Therefore when you see the “abomination of desolation,” spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand).
Jesus names Daniel as a prophet. He does not quote Susanna or Bel and the Dragon as Danielic prophecy, and the apostles do not build doctrine from either story. The New Testament’s use of Daniel centers on the inspired prophetic book rather than additions that later became associated with it in Greek tradition.
The difference between inspired revelation and later additions should guide our reading. Canonical Daniel gives revelation from God. The additions may echo themes found in Daniel, but they do not possess the same prophetic authority. We can recognize their moral content without placing them beside the Word that God breathed out.
The Hebrew and Aramaic Text and the Canon
The most direct textual issue is that these additions are absent from the Hebrew Masoretic Text and from the preserved Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel tradition. Daniel itself contains both Hebrew and Aramaic sections. Susanna and Bel and the Dragon are Greek additions rather than parts of that canonical text.
That fact does not forbid historical study. It identifies where authority lies. Paul says the Jewish people were entrusted with God’s Old Testament revelation:
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.
Because God entrusted His oracles to Israel, the Hebrew and Aramaic canon has a weight that later Greek additions do not. The Septuagint preserves ancient translation history and helps us see how some Greek-speaking communities transmitted Jewish writings. It may be studied and compared, but its wider collection cannot redefine the canon God gave.
Jesus summarized the Old Testament Scriptures as the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms:
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
Luke 24:44 does not settle every detail about the canon by itself, but it shows the categories of Scripture that Jesus received and fulfilled. When He refers to Daniel, He speaks of Daniel the prophet and points to the abomination of desolation. He never appeals to Susanna, Bel, or the dragon as prophetic revelation.
Silence by itself is not always decisive. Some canonical Old Testament books are not directly quoted in the New Testament. In this case, however, the silence stands alongside the stronger textual evidence. These additions are absent from the Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel that I receive as the Old Testament base. Both lines of evidence point to the same conclusion: these writings should not be treated as inspired Daniel.
Moral Value and the Boundary of Scripture
It is easy to ask the wrong question here. Someone may read Susanna and wonder why a story that teaches justice should be rejected. Another person may read Bel and the Dragon and ask why a story that mocks idols should not be received. The answer is that moral agreement is not the test of inspiration.
Many uninspired writings say true things. A hymn can teach sound doctrine, and a sermon can explain Scripture well. A historical account can preserve an important detail. None of these becomes the Word of God. Inspiration is God’s act, not a status that readers confer on a useful text.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Paul is speaking about Scripture, not every religious text that happens to be helpful. Scripture is God-breathed and therefore serves as the church’s authority in doctrine and correction. Susanna and Bel and the Dragon may overlap with biblical teaching, but they do not carry that God-breathed authority.
Peter describes true prophecy in similar terms. It did not begin in the will of man. God moved holy men to speak:
For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Canonical Daniel bears this prophetic character. The additions do not show the same standing. Their presence in Greek tradition is a reason to handle the Septuagint carefully, not a reason to enlarge Daniel. The Septuagint helps us examine ancient translation choices and understand how many Greek-speaking Jews and later Christians encountered Old Testament writings. Historical usefulness does not make it the final authority over the Hebrew and Aramaic text.
If a Greek manuscript tradition contains material that is absent from the Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel, we should recognize the limits of that tradition. A translation or collection can preserve valuable material and still include works that do not belong to the canon. This is why Old Testament language study should use the Hebrew Masoretic Text as its base, with the Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible included. A Greek comparison may help, but it cannot add inspired chapters to Daniel.
God warned Israel not to add to what He commanded:
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
That command belongs first to its covenant setting in Deuteronomy, but its warning is still sobering. God’s people must not give human additions divine authority. This does not forbid Christians from reading dictionaries, commentaries, histories, or ancient literature. Those sources can inform us and may correct our assumptions about history, but they remain under Scripture and cannot establish doctrine with God’s authority.
The church does not create the canon according to its own preferences or feelings. God’s people receive the Scriptures He gave. These writings bear divine authority and come to us through Israel’s covenant responsibility to preserve God’s oracles. They also agree with the prophetic and apostolic witness and carry the character of God-breathed Scripture. The additions fail at the clearest point: they are not part of the preserved Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel received as Scripture.
Keeping this boundary clear protects Christian doctrine. Other apocryphal or deuterocanonical writings have been used to support practices that canonical Scripture does not establish. If we move the boundary because one story feels edifying, it becomes harder to guard the church elsewhere. I do not say that out of contempt for ancient literature. I say it because I love the Word God actually gave.
How Christians Should Treat These Writings
Christians do not need to panic when Susanna or Bel and the Dragon appears in an old Bible, a Catholic edition, an Orthodox collection, or a discussion of the Septuagint. The proper response is discernment. If there is a reason to read them, read them as ancient religious literature associated with Daniel in some traditions. Do not read them as inspired chapters of Daniel.
Keeping ancient religious literature separate from inspired Scripture lets us speak honestly about what is in these stories. Susanna condemns false testimony and praises integrity. Bel and the Dragon mocks idolatry and exposes religious fraud. At the same time, neither writing belongs to the Old Testament canon received through the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures. We can acknowledge their moral content without granting them divine authority.
The boundary should be especially clear in teaching and preaching. A pastor may mention these additions while explaining the Apocrypha or the history of textual traditions. He should not preach them as Scripture, build doctrine on them, or present them as chapters God added to Daniel. The church is fed by the Word of God, not by every ancient writing that uses religious themes.
Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.
Our confidence rests in God’s settled Word. We do not need to enlarge Scripture in order to protect truth. We need to receive what God gave and study it faithfully. This same concern is behind the question of which Bible translation to trust. It also affects how we approach Daniel’s inspired prophecies, including the 70 weeks of Daniel, and how we understand the Word of the Lord in the Old Testament.
My Final Thoughts
After considering both stories, I do not believe Susanna or Bel and the Dragon should be treated as inspired Scripture. They may preserve moral lessons, but they are Greek additions rather than parts of the Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel. Moral value cannot create divine inspiration. Canonical Daniel stands as prophetic Scripture, and Jesus Himself names Daniel as a prophet. We can read ancient literature honestly without giving it authority God did not give it. Our doctrine and our confidence must rest on His settled Word.