Septuagint - Daniel (Chisianus Version‪)‬

The Old Greek translation was the version originally in the Septuagint, however, the authenticity and accuracy of any and all versions of the Book of Daniel have always been in doubt. The Codex Chisianus (also known as the Chigi Manuscript 88) is accepted as being the closest to the Old Greek translation. It claims to be a copy of the Christian scholar Origen of Alexandria's recension from circa 240 AD, and as the Syriac translation of Origen's recension from 616 and 617 AD, the Syro-Hexaplar Codex, is virtually identical, they are both accepted as Origen's work. Origen rejected both the shorter version of Daniel found in the Hebrew and Aramaic translation that the Jews of his day were using, as well as Theodotion's translation, which was largely based on the Hebrew and Aramaic text, and claimed the Old Greek translation was the closest to the original text of Daniel.

In 1931, a damaged papyrus from the 3rd-century AD was found, now known as Papyrus 967, which contains a Greek translation of Daniel that is similar to the Codex Chisianus and Syro-Hexaplar Codex's version of Daniel, but does not seem to be Origen's work, supporting his recension as being the 'Old Greek' version. While the content of the Codex Chisianus, Syro-Hexaplar Codex, and Papyrus 967 are essentially the same, Papyrus 967 deviates from the others by having Daniel's visions found in chapters 7 and 8 earlier in the book, before Masoretic chapter 5, likely moved due to confusion over the identities of the two kings named Belshazzar. This translation follows the oldest documented chapter structure of Daniel, starting with the chapter of Susanna, and incorporating the Old Greek versions of Masoretic chapters 7 and 8 earlier in the book, as found in Papyrus 967.

Overall, Daniel may be one of the most abused of the ancient authors, as several authors appear to have added to or redacted his work during the Persian Era. The surviving copies of Daniel are such a mess that they are generally dismissed as a work of fiction by most secular historians that research them, as they do not correspond to any version of Babylonian, Median, and Persian history, although being set in the Neo-Babylonian and Early Persian Eras. Ironically, the early sections of the Book of Daniel could only have been written in the Neo-Babylonian and early Persian eras, as the redactions that took place to the earlier sections of text only make sense in the political reality of the Early-Persian Empire.