Sources for the Deuterocanon

One explanation for the term "peace" when Wisdom of Solomon complains that the idolators perform sinful acts and call them or the situation "peace", could be that it refers to Jerusalem or Salem in the OT, since "Salem" (Shalom in Hebrew) means peace. Wisdom is complaining especially about the practices of the idolatrous Canaanites and mentions child sacrifice in its complaints. Another explanation could be that it refers to the Pax Romana (Roman peace), but the Romans weren't sacrificing children still anymore in the 1st century.

Melito (c. 165 AD) considers it canonical, and Melito otherwise seems to restrict the OT canon to the rabbis' Tanakh, so his opinion seems to suggest that its Jewish author wrote in the pre-Christian period or at least without accepting Christianity. For him to mistakenly think it was an OT-era scripture, it would likely have been written in the 1st century AD or earlier, since he would have been born around the early 2nd century.

The Muratorian Canon puts it near the list of its canon, which suggests to me that the author of the Muratorian Canon may have considered it to have been written by Christians or in the NT era. However, by including it in its canon, the Muratorian fragment's author implied that he considered it to be from the OT era. Further, the Muratorian fragment doesn't have an OT section otherwise, so its OT canon is lost from the fragment or else the Muratorian canon never included a comprehensive OT canon list.

The fragment includes:
Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; [7] and [the book of] Wisdom, (70) written by the friends [7a] of Solomon in his honour. (71) We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.

Notes:
7b Tregelles suggests that the Latin translator of this document mistook the Greek Philonos "Philo" for philon "friends." Many in ancient times thought that the so-called "Wisdom of Solomon" was really written by Philo of Alexandria. —M.D.M.
 
When I read chapter 15, the ending part was a bit curious for me as to whether it was talking about idol worship or Egyptian worship of animals (like crocodiles and bulls):

Verses 18-19: OSB Translation
The enemies of Your people worship the most hateful animals (or "living creatures"),
For they are worse than all others in stupidity.
Not even as animals are they so beautiful in appearance
That one would desire them,
But they escaped both the praise of God and His blessing.

Verses 1-3 extols dedication to God, and verses 4-17 complain about idolatry and how senseless it is. So when I read verses 18-19, I thought it might be talking about idolatry as well, either because the idols were in the form of animals (like a bull) or else that the idols, being ascribed life by their followers, could be called "animals/living creatures" in a metaphorical sense. This is because the writer complains about the worshipped animals' "stupidity", and an idol is unthinking.

But now I think that out of a contrasting symmetry with verses 1-3, the writer might be complaining about how the Israelites' Egyptian enemies worshiped animals like bulls, crocodiles, cats, and hawks. Sometimes in ancient Jewish writing there was a chiastic form that used symmetry so that the beginning and end of a passage had some common theme that differed from the rest of the text. In this case, a common theme could be worship of real living beings (God and animals), and the difference would be that the middle of the passage dealt with worship of inanimate idols. This is confirmed by the next chapter, where the author writes how the Egyptian enemies were punished by creatures like the animals being worshiped in Chapter 15, referring to the animal plagues in the Exodus.
 
When I listened to Andrey Desnitsky's audio commentary on Wisdom of Solomon, he asserted that the author of the book was alluding to an event not in the OT when the book talked about the fire aimed at the Israelites' enemies. This shows up in Wisdom Chp. 16 that I read today:

Brenton's translation:
16. For the ungodly, that denied to know thee, were scourged by the strength of thine arm: with strange rains, hails, and showers, were they persecuted, that they could not avoid, and through fire were they consumed.
17. For, which is most to be wondered at, the fire had more force in the water, that quencheth all things: for the world fighteth for the righteous.
18. For sometime the flame was mitigated, that it might not burn up the beasts that were sent against the ungodly; but themselves might see and perceive that they were persecuted with the judgment of God.
The chapter continues about this fire.

The Orthodox Study Bible notes that this event is in Exodus 9:22-26, however. This passage says in part (KJV translation):
23. And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt.
24. So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation.
 
I finished reading Wisdom of Solomon in the sources that I was using. It ends in a nice way in Chapter 19 (NRSV):

For in everything, O Lord, you have exalted and glorified your people,
and you have not neglected to help them at all times and in all places.

The OSB (Chp. 19, v. 22)
For in everything, O Lord, You have exalted and glorified Your people,
And have not neglected to be present with them in every time and place.
 
The Book of Tobit can be found in the DSS here:
It says in part:
Cave 4 has revealed remains of four Aramaic (4Q196-9) and one Hebrew (4Q200) manuscripts, of which two scrolls, the papyrus Tob a (196) and the leather Tob b (197), have yielded copious extracts. They all basically represent the Semitic original from which the longer Greek recension, attested by the fourth-century CE Codex Sinaiticus, and the Old Latin version were made.
- I read the 1st chapter in the DSS, Douay Rheims Bible, RUSV, Church Slavonic, and Orth. Study Bible.
- I read the 1st chapter in the Sinaiticus version (Preview version): https://books.google.com/books?id=NCYgEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
- I read the 1st chapter in the SInaiticus G2 and Vaticanus G1 versions in the NETS translation.

The NETS translation has both G1 (Vaticanus) and G2 (Sinaiticus) versions. It suggests that the G2 version (longer version of Tobit in Greek) is more original, based on the Qumran discoveries. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/19-tobit-nets.pdf
The introduction notes that older English translations like in the RSV and KJV used the G1 version, and newer translations like NRSV used the G2 version.

I found the Old Latin version online in Latin, but not an English translation of it.

The Douay Rheims version tends to be a close translation of Jerome's Vulgate. ( http://www.drbo.org/chapter/17001.htm )
 
For Chapters 3-4 of Tobit, I read the DSS, OSB, G2, G1, Douay Rheims, Russian Synodal, and Church Slavonic versions.

In the end of Chapter 4, Tobit tells his son Tobias, "I will inform you that I placed ten talents of Silver in trust with Gabaelos son of Gabri at Rhaga in Media." Thus he sends Tobias on a journey to Gabaelos son of Gabri for the silver. The archangel Raphael joins Tobias on the journey. The name Gabaelos son of Gabri feels to me an allusion to another archangel, Gabriel, who shows up in the Book of Daniel.
 
I read the same sources for Chapter 5. There are two curious moments in it. One is that the story says that Tobias' dog went with him on his journey, and it's a curious detail as to whether the author gave it any special meaning. In Judaism, "dogs" seem to me to be a reference metaphorically to gentiles or to bad gentiles. The second moment is that Tobit asks Raphael what is name, family, and tribe are. Raphael answers that he is Azariah, the son of Hananiah the Great, Tobit's relative. Tobit replies that he knew Hananiah from going to make offerings at Jerusalem when the rest of his own tribe failed to worship at Jerusalem. This is a curious exchange, because it raises the issue of what is the relationship between the real person Azariah and the angel Raphael.
-- Is Raphel impersonating a real person, Azariah, who has a real life elsewhere?
-- Was Azariah's father Hananiah actually an angel whom Tobit knew when traveling to Jerusalem but mistakenly thought to be a normal man? That is, were Azariah and Hananiah actually both literal angels who held themselves out as men?
-- Is Raphael making up a name for himself (Azariah means God's help) and claiming to be the son of Hananiah the Great?
-- Is Raphael the angel entering into the body of the real, literal man Azariah and guiding Tobias, so that in effect Tobit and Tobias deal with both Azariah and to Raphael?
 
I finished Tobit in the Douay, DSS, NETS (G2 and G1), OSB, Russian Synodal, and Church, Slavonic versions.

One curious part that sticks out is the book's ending about Ahikar's conflict with his relative Nadab.
In Chapter 1 (Revised Standard Version), Tobit relates how his nephew Ahikar by Tobit's brother Anael became cupbearer:
21. But not fifty[g] days passed before two of Sennach′erib’s[h] sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat. Then Esarhad′don,[i] his son, reigned in his place; and he appointed Ahi′kar, the son of my brother An′ael, over all the accounts of his kingdom and over the entire administration.
22. Ahi′kar interceded for me, and I returned to Nin′eveh. Now Ahi′kar was cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts, for Esarhad′don[j] had appointed him second to himself.[k] He was my nephew.

NOTES:
G. Other authorities read fifty-five
H. Tobit 1:21 Gk his
I. Tobit 1:21 Gk Sacherdonus
J. Tobit 1:22 Gk Sacherdonus
K. Tobit 1:22 Or a second time

At the end of Chapter 11, Tobit's son Tobias returns home with his new wife, and their family has a celebration for them:
17. ...So there was rejoicing among all his brethren in Nin′eveh.
18. Ahi′kar and his nephew Nadab[a] came,
19. and Tobi′as’ marriage was celebrated for seven days with great festivity.

NOTES:
A. Tobit 11:18 Other authorities read Nasbas

In Chapter 14, as a very old man, Tobit's son Tobias gives his own sons moral instruction:
10. ...See, my son, what Nadab[b] did to Ahi′kar who had reared him, how he brought him from light into darkness, and with what he repaid him. But Ahi′kar was saved, and the other received repayment as he himself went down into the darkness. Ahi′kar[c] gave alms and escaped the deathtrap which Nadab[d] had set for him; but Nadab[e] fell into the trap and perished.
11. So now, my children, consider what almsgiving accomplishes and how righteousness delivers.”

NOTES:

B. Tobit 14:10 Other authorities read Aman
C. Tobit 14:10 Other authorities read Manasses
D. Tobit 14:10 Gk he
E. Tobit 14:10 Other authorities read Aman
However, nowhere does the Book of Tobit recount Ahikar's conflict with Nadab.

The NETS translation of Tobit made me think that this Nadab might be different than the person who came to Tobias' wedding. In the RSV, Ahikar is Tobit's nephew and he came to the wedding with Nadab, Ahikar's own nephew. It's only natural to conclude from Chapter 11 and 14 that Ahikar brought up Nadab and that they had a conflict later on.

The NETS translation for Chapter 11 ends:
18. And Achikar and Nabad his nephews came rejoicing to Tobis.
The NETS translation in Chapter 11 calls "Achikar" and "Nabad" Tobit's "nephews" and then in Chapter 14, it refers to the conflict of "Achikaros" with "Nadab."

The RSV's story makes a bit more sense in the context of Tobit. Tobit's story complains about the falling away of the northern kingdom's Israelites and how Tobit was practically alone in continuing to sacrifice at Jerusalem. The story could be implying that whereas Tobit remained loyal to Jerusalem, lost favor in Nineveh over burying the Israelite dead, and raised his own son well, his relative Ahikar might not have continued sacrificing at Jerusalem, became an Assyrian royal cupbearer, and might not have raised his son well.

In the middle of Chapter 5 (NETS version), the angel Raphael tells Tobit that he (Raphael) is the son of Hananias the Great, one of Tobit's relatives. Tobit responds that he (Tobit) used to go with "Hananias" and "Nathan," Semelias the Great's sons, to sacrifice in Jerusalem when the rest of the northern Israelites stopped doing so. Perhaps Hananias and Nathan, the brothers who continued their sacrifice indirectly in a literary way to Achikar son of "Anael" (RSV) / "Hanael" (NETS) and Ahikar's nephew Nadab. This is because Hananias means Hanan + Yah in Hebrew, whereas Hanael means Hana + El, and Yah and El mean Jehovah and God. The Book of Tobit seems to use name associations in multiple places, like Tobit and his son Tobias, along with the city of Rages and Raguel. The angel's name is Raphael, and he gets money from Gabael, perhaps an allusion to a second famous archangel, Gabriel. Tobit's mother is Hanna, and Sarra's mother is Edna. Even the Median ruler in Chapter 14 who conquers Nineveh is named Achiacharos, likely an allusion to the cupbearer Ahikar in Chapter 1.
 
The Prayer of Manasseh is in Chapter 7 of the Didascalia, a 3rd century Syriac writing, much of it about Church order.

Judith Newman gives the Didascalia's text of the Prayer of Manasseh on page 7 of her essay, "Three Contexts for Reading Manasseh's Prayer in the Didascalia":

She writes in her introduction:
Most who encounter the Prayer of Manasseh do so in the context of one of the critical editions of the Bible in the apocrypha or deuterocanonical section, in which the prayer appears by itself or in worship as a canticle. Yet there is no unambiguous evidence for the Jewish liturgical use of the prayer independent of its context, and the two contexts in which we find it, in the early church orders and in a list of Odes appended to the book of Psalms in three manuscripts of the Greek Bible, are suggestive of two different uses.
The Didascalia is one of the "early Church orders" that she refers to above.

She wrote that she basically took her translation of the Didascalia's version of the Prayer from:
Arthur Voobus, The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac I (CSCO 401/402; Leuven: Peeters: 1979)

In her translation, the Prayer of Manasseh begins:
1. O Lord Almighty, God of our ancestors, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of their righteous offspring;
2. you who made heaven and earth with all their order;
3. who shackled the sea by your word of command, who closed the abyss and sealed it with your terrifying and glorious name;
4. at whom all shudder, and tremble before your power,
5. for the magnificence of your glory cannot be endured, and the wrath of your threat to sinners is intolerable;
6. yet immeasurable and unfathomable is your promised mercy,
7. for you are the Lord Most High, of great compassion, patient, and merciful, and relenting at human evil.
O Lord, according to your great kindness you have promised repentance and forgiveness to those who have sinned against you, and in the multitude of your mercies you have constituted repentance for sinners, for salvation.
She notes that besides the Didascalia, the Prayer of Manasseh also shows up in Greek the second sentence of verse 7 in the Didascalia, beginning "O Lord, according to your great kindness..." does not appear in the Prayer of Manasseh in the earliest Greek Biblical manuscripts' "Odes" section.

Margaret Gibson's 1903 translation of the Didascalia is here:
I read the Prayer of Manasseh on pages 38-39. It begins:
1. Lord God of my fathers! God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and of their righteous seed,
2. who hast made the heavens with all their array,
3. who hast chained the sea and established it by the command of Thy word, who hast bound the abyss and hast sealed it by Thine awful and glorious name;
4. Thou before whose power everything trembles and shakes
5. because of the unbearable greatness of the splendour of Thy glory, and no man can bear to stand before the anger of Thy wrath against sinners;
6. whose mercies are infinite and measureless
7. for Thou art a Lord who is longsuffering and merciful and very gracious, and Thou regrettest the evils of the sons of man;
Thou, Lord, according to the kindness of Thy goodness, hast promised forgiveness to those who repent of their sins, and in the greatness of Thy mercies Thou hast appointed repentance for the salvation of sinners.

I read the DSS version of the Prayer of Manasseh. It is quite different than the LXX version, and is found on page 375 in The Dead Sea Scrolls [Complete English Translation]:

In the OSB, verse 7 says just:
"For You are the Lord Most High, and are tenderhearted, patient, very merciful, and who repent toward the evils of man."
It doesn't have the Didascalia's second sentence saying, "Thou, Lord, according to the kindness of Thy goodness..."

Verse 7 in the NRSV does have that second sentence, and begins it with, "
O Lord, according to your great goodness
you have promised repentance and forgiveness..."
It has a footnote noting that some authorities lack this sentence.

The NETS translation is here, and doesn't have the second sentence in Verse 7:

The Prayer of Manasseh in the Russian Synodal Version is here:

It does have the second sentence in verse 7, translating it as:
Ты, Господи, по множеству Твоей благости, обещал покаяние и отпущение согрешившим Тебе, и множеством щедрот Твоих определил покаяние грешникам во спасение.

The Church Slavonic is here:

It translates the second sentence of verse 7 as:
Ты́, Го́споди, по мно́жеству бла́гости твоея́ обѣща́лъ еси́ покая́нiе - и оставле́нiе согрѣши́вшымъ тебѣ́, и мно́жествомъ щедро́тъ твои́хъ опредѣли́лъ еси́ покая́нiе грѣ́шникомъ во спасе́нiе.
 
The Dead Sea Scrolls include the Book of Baruch. It's in Greek there, and the part in the DSS is the books last section called the "Epistle of Jeremiah."

The NETS Preface comments:
...it is held almost unanimously among scholars that the first section (1.1-3.8) was originally written in Hebrew. This conclusion is based on the kind of Greek that is apparent in the text and the fact that some phrases are unclear without recourse to a Hebrew retroversion.

------------------------------------------------------

In Greek, Baruch 1 opens with:
1. ΚΑΙ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι τοῦ βιβλίου, οὓς ἔγραψε Βαροὺχ υἱὸς Νηρίου, υἱοῦ Μαασαίου, υἱοῦ Σεδεκίου, υἱοῦ ᾿Ασαδίου, υἱοῦ Χελκίου, ἐν Βαβυλῶνι,
And these [are] the words of the book, that wrote Baruch son of Nerias, son of Maasaias, son of Zedekias, son of Hasadias, son of Khelkias, in Babylon,

2. ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ πέμπτῳ, ἐν ἑβδόμῃ τοῦ μηνός, ἐν τῷ καιρῷ, ᾧ ἔλαβον οἱ Χαλδαῖοι τὴν ῾Ιερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἐνέπρησαν αὐτὴν ἐν πυρί.
In the fifth year, in the seventh of the month, in the time the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and burnt it in fire.

3. καὶ ἀνέγνω Βαροὺχ τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου ἐν ὠσὶν ᾿Ιεχονίου, υἱοῦ ᾿Ιωακεὶμ βασιλέως ᾿Ιούδα καὶ ἐν ὠσὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν ἐρχομένων πρὸς τὴν βίβλον

And Baruch read the words of this book in the ears of Jechonias, son of Joakeim, King of Judah, and in the ears of all the people of coming for the book

4. καὶ ἐν ὠσὶ τῶν δυνατῶν καὶ υἱῶν τῶν βασιλέων καὶ ἐν ὠσὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἐν ὠσὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου, πάντων τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν Βαβυλῶνι ἐπὶ ποταμοῦ Σούδ.
And in the ears of the mighty/nobles and sons of the kings and in ears of the "presbyters"/elders and in the ears of all the people, from small to great, all the dwellers/dwelling in Babylon by river Soud.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The OSB has:
1. Now these are the words of the book written by Baruch, the son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah, the son of Zedekiah, the son of Hasadiah, the son of Hilkiah, while in Babylon,
2. in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month, at the time the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and burned it with fire.
3. And Baruch read the words of this book to Jechoniah the son of Joachim, king of Judah, and to all the people who came to hear the book:
4. ["and"] to the nobles and the sons of the kings, ["and"] to the elders and all the people from small to great, and to everyone dwelling in Babylon by the river Sud.
In Greek, it says that Baruch read in the people's hearing/ears, whereas the OSB says that he read to the people who came to hear the book.
Verse 4 should start with "and".

The NETS is pretty good here. It has:
1. And these are the words of the book which Barouch son of Nerias son of Maasaias son of Sedekias son of Hasadias son of Chelkias wrote in Babylon,
2. in the fifth year, on the seventh of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans took Ierousalem and set it on fire.
3. And Barouch read the words of this book in the ears of Iechonias son of Ioakim, king of Iouda, and in the ears of all the people, those who came to the book,
4. and in the ears of the mighty and the sons of the kings and in the ears of the elders and in the ears of all the people, from small to great, all who lived in Babylon by the river Soud.

The KJV has:
1. And these are the words of the book, which Baruch the son of Nerias, the son of Maasias, the son of Sedecias, the son of Asadias, the son of Chelcias, wrote in Babylon,
2. In the fifth year, and in the seventh day of the month, what time as the Chaldeans took Jerusalem, and burnt it with fire.
3. And Baruch did read the words of this book in the hearing of Jechonias the son of Joachim king of Juda, and in the ears of all the people that came to hear the book,
4. And in the hearing of the nobles, and of the king's sons, and in the hearing of the elders, and of all the people, from the lowest unto the highest, even of all them that dwelt at Babylon by the river Sud.
Probably "book, which..." should better be written as "book that..." "Asadias" should better be translated as "Hasadias," although modern Greek wouldn't have an "H" in front there.

Brenton's LXX translation is the same as the KJV:
1. And these are the words of the book, which Baruch the son of Nerias, the son of Maasias, the son of Sedecias, the son of Asadias, the son of Chelcias, wrote in Babylon,
2. In the fifth year, and in the seventh day of the month, what time as the Chaldeans took Jerusalem, and burnt it with fire.
3. And Baruch did read the words of this book in the hearing of Jechonias the son of Joachim king of Juda, and in the ears of all the people that came to hear the book,
4. And in the hearing of the nobles, and of the king's sons, and in the hearing of the elders, and of all the people, from the lowest unto the highest, even of all them that dwelt at Babylon by the river Sud.

The NRSV has:
1 [And] These are the words of the book that Baruch son of Neriah son of Mahseiah son of Zedekiah son of Hasadiah son of Hilkiah wrote in Babylon,
2. in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and burned it with fire.
3. [And] Baruch read the words of this book to Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and to all the people who came to hear the book
4. and to the nobles and the princes and to the elders and to all the people, small and great, all who lived in Babylon by the River Sud.
 
I read Baruch 1-2 in the NETS, NRSV, Brenton LXX, Synodal, and Church Slavonic versions.
The KJV and Brenton LXX are the same translation for Baruch.
 
"The Dead Sea Scrolls [English Translation]" says that Fragment 7Q2 in Cave 7 has the Epistle of Jeremiah, verses 43-44 in Greek, and that the fragment is dated to 100 BC. We already have the text in Greek in the LXX, and the "Dead Sea Scrolls English Translation" book doesn't provide the text in English.
 
I read the OSB, NRSV, Brenton, Synodal, NETS, and Church Slavonic versions for Baruch 1-6, including the Epistle of Jeremiah.
 
Verse 17 in the Epistle of Jeremiah comes off as a bit tricky in some translations:

17. καὶ ὥσπερ τινὶ ἠδικηκότι βασιλέα περιπεφραγμέναι εἰσὶν αἱ αὐλαί, ὡς ἐπὶ θανάτῳ ἀπηγμένῳ, τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν ὀχυροῦσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς θυρώμασί τε καὶ κλείθροις καὶ μοχλοῖς, ὅπως ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν μὴ συληθῶσι.

Some translations impressed me as meaning that those who offend the king are shut in courtyards, as if awaiting death. But other translations (like the Russian Synodal one) impressed me as meaning that the courtyards are shut against those who offended the king.

The context is that the author compares shutting the courtyards with priests shutting the doorways of temples so that robbers don't plunder the temples. This could serve as an analogy between temple robbers and people who offend a king. The point for the part about the offenders being under sentence of death is curious, but later the author mentions how the idols can't punish people, so there is an analogy for that part too.

However, the opening clause in the Russian Synodal translation gives me the impression that the offender's residence's entrances are guarded, as if he's awaiting death. In that case, the author would be humorously comparing an idol locked in against robbers to a person who is locked in and under sentence of death. This would make sense in the context of how the author makes fun of idols elsewhere in the Epistle, like where he comparing the idols to a dead body or a scarecrow.

G.T. Emery's interlinear translation runs:
18. Καὶ ὥσπερ τινὶ ἠδικηκότι βασιλέα περιπεφραγμέναι εἰσὶν αἱ αὐλαὶ ὡς ἐπὶ θανάτῳ
And just as anyone having offended king shut all around are the courtyards as upon to death
ἀπηγμένῳ, τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν ὀχυροῦσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς θυρώμασίν τε καὶ κλείθροις καὶ
being committed, the temples of the make fast the priests doorways both also bars and
μοχλοῖς, ὅπως ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν μὴ συληθῶσι.
bolts, in such a way by of the robbers not they may not be plundered.

Emery numbers this as verse 18. because he counts the opening prologue ("A copy of letter which sent Jeremiah unto the being taken captive...") as verse 1.

The NETS has:
And just as the courtyards are fortified all around against anyone who has wronged the king as though sentenced to death, the priests secure their houses with doorways and bolts and bars, lest they be stripped by robbers.
The OSB has:
As courtyards are fenced all around against someone who offends a king, and thus is awaiting the death penalty, so the priests also fortify the temples of their gods with doors, bars, and bolts, lest they be plundered by robbers.
The NRSV has:
And just as the gates are shut on every side against anyone who has offended a king, as though under sentence of death, so the priests make their temples secure with doors and locks and bars in order that they may not be plundered by robbers.
The KJV and Brenton have:
And as the doors are made sure on every side upon him that offendeth the king, as being committed to suffer death: even so the priests make fast their temples with doors, with locks, and bars, lest their gods be spoiled with robbers.
The Russian Synodal has:
И как у нанесшего оскорбление царю заграждаются входы в жилье, когда он отводится на смерть, так капища их охраняют жрецы их дверями и замками и засовами, чтобы они не были ограблены разбойниками;

My translation:
And as a person who offends a king gets entrances in a/his residence guarded against him, when he is lead to death, so priests guard their temples with their doors and locks and bars, so that they weren't plundered by robbers;
 
Last edited:
The Greek language texts of both the Old Greek version and Theodotion's version are here:

The websites above begin Susanna in the Old Greek Version with what is the end of verse 6. ("καὶ ἤρχοντο κρίσεις ἐξ ἄλλων πόλεων πρὸς αὐτούς")

The NETS translation of Susanna is here in both the Old Greek and Theodotion versions:

The Scriptural Research Institute has a preview of its translation of the "Old Greek" version of Daniel in Google Books:

An interlinear translation of Susanna is here, with both the Old Greek version (O) and Theodotion's version. The interlinear translation uses the designation (496-495 B.C.) for Theodotion's version:
 
I read the Old Greek version in the NETS for Susanna's story, and the first three pages in the Scriptural Research Institute version. The two translations have differences.

Verse 35 of the Old Greek version has:
ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῆς ἐπεποίθει ἐπὶ κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἀνακύψασα ἔκλαυσεν ἐν ἑαυτῇ λέγουσα

35a. Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ αἰώνιος ὁ εἰδὼς τὰ πάντα πρὶν γενέσεως αὐτῶν, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι οὐκ ἐποίησα ἃ πονηρεύονται οἱ ἄνομοι οὗτοι ἐπ᾽ ἐμοί. καὶ εἰσήκουσε κύριος τῆς δεήσεως αὐτῆς.

The NETS gives:
35. But her heart trusted in the Lord, her God, and when she lifted her head, she wept, saying to herself, “O Lord,
everlasting God, you who know all things before their beginning, you know that I have not done what these men are maliciously alleging against me.” And the Lord heeded her supplication.

The Scripture Research Institute gives:
But she trusted with her heart in Lord her god, and rose and called up before them, saying, "Lord the God of ages, who knew everything before your creation. You know that I did not create this terrible thing, and they were lawless against me. Lord, hear my supplication!

One issue is whether in the beginning of the verse, Susanna prays aloud or silently. It says in Greek, "ἐν ἑαυτῇ λέγουσα".
The interlinear version comes off as jumbled:
the-one then-also a-heart of-it it-was-suring-upon upon unto-Authority-belonged unto-the-one unto-a-Deity of-it, and having-leaned-up it-sob-belonged in unto-itself forthing,
This seems to suggest that the NETS version is right because the interlinear text above ends with the phrase "unto itself", ie. She prayed unto herself.

Another issue is whether the verse ends by saying God heard her prayer or if it means she asked God to hear her prayer. The Greek has: "καὶ εἰσήκουσε Κύριος τῆς δεήσεως αὐτῆς."
The interlinear has:
"And it-heard-into, Authority-belonged, of-the-one of-a-binding of-it."

It seems that the NETS translation is better here, because it starts with the word "And" in this last sentence (Kai...), and says "her supplication," not "my supplication". "My" in Greek is Mou, and that's not in the Greek text here. Instead, the Greek has autis, meaning her.
 
Last edited:
I read Theodotion's version in the NETS, NRSV, Brenton's LXX translation, Synodal, and Church Slavonic for Susanna's story.
 
According to Wikipedia's article on the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children:
At the end of the 19th century, M. Gaster identified what appears to be an Aramaic original of the song and another, Bel and Draco, also missing from the canonical book of Daniel. The Aramaic text is part of a collection of ancient Jewish texts compiled by a rabbi of about 14th century, and it is known under the name of The Chronicles of Jerahmeel.
The Chronicles of Jerahmeel also has the story of Susannah in Chapter 65, which you can read here:
When I read this version, I noticed that the two plants that the elders name as the ones where they saw her are the terebinth and the trellis of the vine.

The Jewish Encyclopedia is noncommittal about the originality of medieval Aramaic versions of the Deuterocanonical sections of Daniel:
Aramaic forms of the legends do, in fact, exist. Raymund Martini (1250), in his "Pugio Fidei" (at the end of the book), cites from a Midrash on Genesis a part of what is contained in the Greek text. His accuracy has been called in question, but Neubauer (in his "Tobit") gives, from a manuscript in the Bodleian Library (the Midrash Rabba de Rabba) a Syriac text with which that of Martini is identical, and a parallel extract from the Bereshit Rabbati.
...
The Jerahmeel Aramaic text is nearer to Theodotion than to the Septuagint; though it sometimes accords with the latter or with the I atin against other forms, and sometimes differs from all others. But in the present state of knowledge it seems better to reserve opinion as to its antiquity. Gaster thinks it is the text after which Theodotion's version was revised, and Marshall regards it as ancient. The occurrence of the stories in the Midrash makes it probable that there was an Aramaic original; but it is not clear that this is preserved in the texts cited. The fact that the Jerahmeel text agrees here and there with some one of the ancient versions does not prove its originality; for in the course of centuries various readings may have crept into it from sources unknown; thus it has, in common with "Yosippon," the statement that Daniel put iron combs into the cakes that he gave the Dragon—a natural embellishment of the story. It is possible that some divergent readings in the two Greek recensions may be explained as the result of the misunderstanding or misreading of Aramaic terms.

Chapters 72 to 73 of the Chronicle of Jerahmeel tell the story of Bel and the Dragon.

Thomas Hieke writes:
This Aramaic version was not written by Jerahmeel, but it is a fragment from an earlier source. Gaster was convinced that he had found the Aramaic original of Dan 3:26-90. However, the Aramaic represents a form of middle-Aramaic (corresponding to the Targumim of Onkelos and Jonathan). Koch tries to show in a detailed verse-by-verse analysis that the Jerahmeel-Fragment (Ar) represents an overgrown stage of the Aramaic original that was later adapted to the Aramaic of the Targumim...

To be clear, Middle Aramaic is considered to have begun around the 3rd century AD.
 
Back
Top