I have written elsewhere on the (in)significance of the codex for determining the boundaries of an ancient’s canon of Scripture. Probably, historical anachronism has occurred, and we have foisted the significance of our modern, printed Bible on to the ancient codex. So what is the value of the MSS for such studies? They do help in determining a wide range of contents of religious literature as well as provide context for the various orders of books, neither of these aiding in determining a canon.
Though the MSS probably did not help the ancients concretize the canon, they do visualize for us what an ancient scribe or church father meant or conceptualized by the title of a certain book. This may not be a big deal for New Testament studies, but for the Greek Old Testament, we need to take this point to heart. The contents of books such as Jeremiah, 1-2 Esdras, Esther, and Daniel are not very straightforward. Let’s use “Daniel” as a test case by touring some select MS images of the book to see whether our vision of the contents improves. As is well-known, the book of Daniel in Greek was transmitted in quite a different form from the Protestant Bible, taking the form of Susanna-Daniel-Bel and the Dragon in most of the early MSS. We will consider briefly Daniel in Codex Vaticanus (IV), Codex Marchalianus (VI), and Codex Syro-hexaplaris (VIII/IX).
Vaticanus![]() |
| Page 1206; Susanna under the title “Daniel” |
![]() |
Page 1209; Daniel begins at top of left column
with no new title or break |
![]() |
Page 1232; Bel and the Dragon begins on bottom left
with no new title or break |
In the fourth century, this Christian scribe and probably his exemplar reveals one title of the book, “Daniel,” which is integrated with two other works. This text shows that the third century Origen-Africanus correspondence over this matter was not widely known or heeded, but that is another story.
Marchalianus![]() |
Page 761; Susanna under the title of Daniel
according to Theodotion |
On the left is p. 768 and it contains the end of Susanna with almost half the page left blank. Daniel begins at the top of p. 769, which is pictured on the right. Clearly, this shows slightly less integration of Susanna with Daniel than we saw in the fourth-century Vaticanus.
![]() |
| Page 827; No division between end of Daniel and Bel and Dragon |
Syro-hexapla![]() |
| The Prophet of Daniel according to the version of the Seventy |
![]() |
| End of Daniel; Beginning of Susanna |
In this MS (a Syriac translation of a Greek MS), Susanna is clearly separated from Daniel. It has a new title and a space with a decorative border.
![]() |
| End of Susanna; beginning of Bel |
![]() |
| End of Bel; beginning of Dragon |
Bel and the Dragon are set off as independent compositions as well by separate titles and spaces.
Conclusion
Almost all of the early references to “Daniel” are to Sus-Dan-Bel and the Dragon. That conclusion is not immediately obvious from canon lists or quotations from the book of Daniel (only Origen-Africanus and Jerome clarify the issue in late Antiquity). However, the early MSS clarify that “Daniel” had other works included with it. It is not until later that Greek scribes began to distinguish these works. Codex Venetus (VIII) clearly separates Daniel from Susanna-Bel and the Dragon, though the latter works are still entitled Daniel. The Syriac Peshitta (7a1; Ambrosianus) also demarcates these works from around 600 AD. The Syro-hexapla is interesting because it is from the Version of the Seventy but it clearly has a different set of paratextual features than the earlier Greek MSS. Therefore, the conceptual is enhanced by the material but not on the level of concretizing a canon. Rather, the MSS further contextualize the conceptual by giving concrete visuals of the actual contents of books that are listed and quoted as canon or authoritative scripture.
