Book of Daniel
The Book of Daniel [Hebrew: דניאל] has 14 chapters and is the book of the Bible that interested Isaac Newton the most. It contains the prophecy of the arrival of the "Son of Man" and other predictions.
The Book of Daniel was originally written in Hebrew, and was part of the books of the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Apostles and the early Christian Church. This book is accepted as inspired and canonical by the Orthodox Church in the Greek Orthodox Bible, and in the books of the Old Testament of the Vulgate, and was included in the canon of inspired scripture by Pope Damasus I and the Synod of Rome (382), and subsequent councils such as the Council of Hippo (393), the Third Council of Carthage (397), and reaffirmed at the Council of Florence of the (briefly reunited) Church of the east and west in 1442. It is included in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. Since the Council of Trent it is dogmatically accepted as inspired and canonical "with all its parts" by the Catholic Church in the Catholic Bible—books of the Bible accepted as divinely inspired by the majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world.
The shorter Masoretic Hebrew book of Daniel of 12 chapters is ranked by the Jews in that division of the Tanakh called the Ketuvim, or Writings. The Book of Daniel has never been ranked among the Nevi'im, or Prophets, by the Jews. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books. The Christian Church has always ranked Daniel among the books of the Major Prophets of the Bible, according to its traditional placement immediately following the Book of Ezekiel in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate Old Testament.
A major portion of the 3rd chapter and the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel were first removed from the Christian Old Testament and placed in the Apocrypha as separate books by Martin Luther in the 16th century. These separated texts are regarded as apocryphal by less than one-third of Christian believers, most of whom have never read them. In printed editions of the King James Bible in the 16th through early 20th centuries these separated texts of the Apocrypha are given the following titles:
- "The Song of the Three Holy Children. Which followeth in the third Chapter of Daniel after this place—fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. That which followeth is not in the Hebrew, to wit, and they walked.... unto these words, Then Nebuchadnezzar... verse 24." (62 verses) 
- "The History of Susanna. Set apart from the Beginning of Daniel, because it is not in the Hebrew, as neither the Narration of Bel and the Dragon" 
- "The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, cut off from the end of Daniel"
Some late 20th century and early 21st century Ecumenical editions of the Bible have restored these to their original places in the Book of Daniel according to their placement by Jerome in the Vulgate Bible.
- 1 Contents
- 2 Prophecy
- 3 Greek and Persian words
- 4 Dispute on Authorship
- 5 Dispute on Canonicity
- 5.1 First objection: The Jews do not include the rabbinical additions to Daniel
- 5.2 Second objection: The rabbinical additions might not have been written in Hebrew
- 5.3 Third objection: The rabbinical additions do not have the "marks" of inspired writing
- 5.4 Fourth objection: Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted the rabbinical additions to Daniel
- 5.5 The consensus of the majority of Christian believers regarding the Book of Daniel
- 5.6 "Judge for yourself"
- 5.7 Apostolic authority
- 6 Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting
- 6.1 The Prophet Daniel
- 6.2 The text
- 6.3 Date of the Book c. 530 B.C. and c. 165 B.C.
- 6.4 Foretold Events after 165 B.C.
- 6.5 Fundamentalist textual analysis
- 7 Historical-critical textual analysis
- 7.1 Content
- 7.2 Form
- 7.3 Author
- 7.4 The persecution crisis
- 7.5 Date
- 7.6 The time-conditioned historical milieu
- 7.7 Qumran manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel
- 7.8 An early date for the book of Daniel is unavoidable
- 8 Message
- 9 Church traditions
- 10 Classic Commentaries on Daniel online
- 10.1 à Lapede Great Commentary on the Bible 1681 Online (Latin)
- 10.2 Matthew Henry Complete Bible Commentary 1706 Online
- 10.3 Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible 1832 Online
- 10.4 Haydock Bible Commentary 1859 Online
- 10.5 Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible 1871 Online
- 10.6 Cyrus I. Scofield|Scofield Reference Bible 1917 Online
- 10.7 New Oxford Annotated Bible 2010 Online
- 10.8 New American Bible, Revised Edition 2010 Online
- 11 References
- 12 Bibliography
- 13 See also
- 14 External links
Three sections constitute the divisions of the Book of Daniel:
- Daniel and the Kings of Babylon (1:1–6:29)
- Daniel’s Visions (7:1–12:13)
- Appendix: Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon (13:1–14:42)
The Masoretic Hebrew Book of Daniel consists of two distinct parts. The first part, consisting of the first six chapters, is chiefly historical; and the second part, consisting of the remaining six chapters, is chiefly prophetical.The historical part of the book treats of the period of the Captivity, written around 530 B.C. Daniel is
"the historian of the Captivity, the writer who alone furnishes any series of events for that dark and dismal period during which the harp of Israel hung on the trees that grew by the Euphrates. His narrative may be said in general to intervene between Kings and Chronicles on the one hand and Ezra on the other, or (more strictly) to fill out the sketch which the author of the Chronicles gives in a single verse in his last chapter: 'And them that had escaped from the sword carried he [i.e., Nebuchadnezzar] away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia'." (2 Chronicles 36:20).
The prophetical part consists of three visions and one lengthened prophetical communication. Some suggest that the second part was written hundreds of years later, perhaps based on an oral tradition, but it was nevertheless certainly written well before Christ.
Septuagint and Vulgate
The Christian Old Testament Book of Daniel in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate consists of two distinct kinds of narrative, historical and prophetic, in three parts.
In the Septuagint, the first part begins with the first chapter narrative of Daniel, a youth, saving Susanna from the death sentence of the two corrupt judges, followed by six chapters of chiefly historical narrative, with the first part of the book thus consisting of the first seven chapters; the second part, consisting of six chapters, primarily relating visions sent to Daniel and interpreted by Gabriel, is chiefly prophetical; and the third part, consisting of one chapter, is chiefly historical.
In the 5th century, the 1st chapter of Daniel in the Septuagint was moved by Jerome and placed in his Vulgate translation near the end of the book as the 13th chapter of Daniel, so that in the Vulgate the first part of Daniel consists of six chapters, the second part six chapters, and the third part two chapters. In accordance with the ancient traditional reading of the text of the Bible in the Christian Church, Jerome elected to leave in the 3rd chapter of Daniel in their traditional place in the text the 62 verses he did not find in any of the Hebrew manuscripts he had available to him; but he noted critically that they are "not in the Hebrew".
The following chapter summaries are from the Douay-Rheims Bible.
Part one, historical narratives:
- (1) Daniel and his companions are taken into the palace of the king of Babylon: they abstain from his meat and wine, and succeed better with pulse and water. Their excellence and wisdom.
- (2) Daniel, by divine revelation, declares the dream of Nabuchodonosor, and the interpretation of it. He is highly honoured by the king.
- (3) Nabuchodonosor sets up a golden statue; which he commands all to adore: the three children for refusing to do it are cast into the fiery furnace; but are not hurt by the flames. Their prayer and canticle of praise. (the 3rd chapter of Daniel is 100 verses)
- (4) Nabuchodonosor's dream, by which the judgments of God are denounced against him for his pride, is interpreted by Daniel, and verified by the event.
- (5) Baltasar's profane banquet: his sentence is denounced by a handwriting on the wall, which Daniel reads and interprets.
- (6) Daniel is promoted by Darius: his enemies procure a law forbidding prayer; for the transgression of this law Daniel is cast into the lions' den: but miraculously delivered.
Part two, prophesies:
- (7) Daniel's vision of the four beasts, signifying four kingdoms: of God sitting on his throne: and of the opposite kingdoms of Christ and Antichrist.
- (8) Daniel's vision of the ram and he goat interpreted by the angel Gabriel.
- (9) Daniel's confession and prayer: Gabriel informs him concerning the seventy weeks to the coming of Christ.
- (10) Daniel having humbled himself by fasting and penance seeth a vision, with which he is much terrified; but he is comforted by an angel.
- (11) The angel declares to Daniel many things to come, with regard to the Persian and Grecian kings: more especially with regard to Antiochus as a figure of Antichrist.
- (12) Michael shall stand up for the people of God: with other things relating to Antichrist, and the end of the world.
Part three, historical narratives:
- (13) The history of Susanna and the two elders. (Septuagint Chapter 1 Prologue; Vulgate Chapter 13)
- (14) The history of Bel, and of the great serpent worshipped by the Babylonians.
Statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream Daniel 2:31-47
The statue of this dream had a head of gold, body and arms of silver, thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay. Daniel interpreted this to be kingdoms, with the head of gold being Neo-Babylon, and other kingdoms not as rich but stronger after. These subsequent kingdoms are often viewed since the 16th century Reformation as
- (starting with the arms of silver) Medo-Persia (2 arms for 2 peoples but still connected by the upper body as 1 nation),
- Alexander the Great's Grecian empire (bronze, or steel ),
- pagan Rome (2 legs for 2 empires, western and eastern)
- and the feet being Europe after Rome.
"The prince of the covenant" (11:22) has also been often interpreted since the 3rd century as Onias III the anointed high priest, "because of the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness" (2 Maccabees 3:1). Onias was treacherously murdered on the secret order of Menelaus by the assassin Andronicus under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (2 Maccabees 4:32-36).
When the "prince of the covenant" is interpreted as Onias the high priest, then the kingdoms foreseen by Daniel are viewed as:
- Ancient Babylon, the head of gold, represented by Nebuchanezzar,
- the Kingdom of the Medes (silver),
- the kingdom of the Persians and Medes (bronze),
- the kingdom of the Greeks, established by Alexander the Great, which was divided (iron, iron and clay, and clay), primarily into the two kingdoms of the Ptolemies in Egypt (in the south) and the Seleucids in Syria (in the north) which fought each other for control of Judea and established alliances by marriage.
This particular view sees the two legs of iron and feet of iron and clay as the mixed rule of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and the toes of clay as the successors of Alexander's generals, whose Hellenistic suppression was finally removed from Judea in the time of Simon the high priest, son of Mattathias. This is the view of the majority of Christian believers.
Four Beasts Daniel 7
Daniel saw 4 beasts. They were a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a different beast.
These prophecies are often viewed as the same as the vision of the statue, with the lion being Neo-Babylon, the bear being Medo-Persia, the leopard being Greece, and the Beast being Rome.
More prevalent is the view since the 3rd century of the lion as the Ancient Kingdom of Babylon with Nebuchadnezzar as its head, the bear as the Kingdom of the Medes, the leopard as the Kingdom of Persia, and the Different Beast as the Kingdom of the Greeks, with Antiochus IV in particular as the little horn speaking great things who was suddenly broken after 2,300 evenings and mornings (8:9-14).
Ram and He-Goat Daniel 8:2-25
These visions are of a Ram, a He-Goat, and a little horn. These are viewed often as Medo-Persia, Greece, and papal Rome "broken".
They are also more prevalently viewed since the 3rd century as Medo-Persia with two horns (both great, but one, Persia, greater than the subordinated other, Media), which was conquered by the He-Goat headed by Alexander (the notable or conspicuous single horn), with Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the little horn, broken "without hand" (by no human hand). 2 Maccabees 9:5 and 9:28
Greek and Persian words
The Book of Daniel contains words having either Greek or Persian origin. This has caused some continuing dispute among historians and theologians in explaining how such words, particularly the Greek ones, ended up in the predominantly Aramaic "Hebrew" Book of Daniel. Some see this as evidence that the extant Masoretic Hebrew text of Daniel in the Palestinian canon of the Jews is an abbreviated version of the longer Hebrew original text (now lost) which underlies the rabbinical Greek translation of Daniel in the Septuagint, which predates the time of Jesus.
Dispute on Authorship
Due to the fact that the Book of Daniel contains prophecies that were fulfilled in the 2nd century B.C., many modernist scholars have asserted that this book was not written by Daniel the 6th century B.C., but by a later person. However, both Scriptural and textual arguments support the traditional view.
- Jesus (Matthew 24:15; 25:31; 26:64) and His apostles (1 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:3) testify that the book was written by "the prophet Daniel," and that it is authoritative.
- The prophet Ezekiel testifies that Daniel was known for his wisdom and righteousness (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3).
- The character and records of the book are also entirely in harmony with the times and circumstances in which the author lived.
- The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, just such as might be expected. Certain portions (Dan. 2:4—7:28) are written in the Chaldee (Aramaic) language, and the portions written in Hebrew are in a style and form having a close affinity with the later books of the Old Testament, especially with that of Ezra. The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Chaldee, passing from the one to the other just as his subject required. This is in strict accordance with the position of the author and of the people for whom his book was written. That Daniel is the writer of this book is also testified to in the book itself (7:1, 28; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1, 2; 12:4, 5).
Additionally, findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating to the 4th century B.C. referred to Daniel as a prophet, which supports the traditional view, as it is unlikely that Daniel would have been accepted as a prophet had the book been written only several years previously rather than several centuries (400 years) previously. However, the Jews never accepted the Book of Daniel among the Nevi'im, the Prophets, but placed it among the Ketuvim, the Writings. See Palestinian canon (A.D. 4th century)
Dispute on Canonicity
The Christian Holy Bible, received in its entirety as inspired and canonical by Orthodox and Catholic Christians, contains texts which are rejected by Protestant Christians as spurious and apocryphal additions of men. In the early Christian church all three "additions to Daniel" are quoted as integral parts of the Book of Daniel by Greek and Latin Fathers, as for example by Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV, 5, 2f) (early 2nd century – c. A.D. 202), Tertullian (De idolatria c. 18) (A.D. 160 – 220), and Cyprian (Ad fortunatum, c. 11) (c. 200 – September 14, 258).
Dr. John Oakes  represents the view of many Christians who reject the rabbinical additions to Daniel as not inspired or reliable "for at least three reasons".
- 1. The Jews, the arbiters of the Old Testament canon do not include them.
- 2. The additions were most likely not even originally in Hebrew or Aramaic.
- 3. The actual content does not have the marks of inspired writing.
A fourth reason given for rejecting deuterocanonical texts is:
- 4. Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted them.
First objection: The Jews do not include the rabbinical additions to Daniel
This presents a problem. The Alexandrian Jews before A.D. the 1st century recognized the Septuagint as the Bible of Israel, accepting the whole of the "Apocrypha" as canonical. Evidence of this ancient B.C. Jewish opinion regarding the "Apocrypha" as canonical scripture is found in the fact that some Jews even today, such as those from Ethiopia, follow the same canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books the Reformers rejected, while they exclude all New Testament writings.
In response to the rise of the Christian sect and the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, Jewish rabbis at the Council of Jamnia (some say there was no such council ) in A.D. 90 discussed rejecting the Septuagint which Christians were using with great effect in favor of selected Hebrew language scriptural texts. Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Jamnia/Javneh/Jabneh. The opinion of a Jewish council rendered after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. If the Jews have been so entrusted with the word of God that they were therefore given the divine authority to also determine the canon of sacred scripture, then the whole New Testament is excluded from the canon of the Holy Bible because it does not meet established rabbinical criteria for what is sacred inspired scripture.
See Logical fallacy of Proof by authority: argumentum ad verecundiam ("appeal to unqualified authority")According to the ordinary reading of the New Testament and the consensus of the majority of Christians from the 1st century to this day, the authority of the kingdom of God had been wholly taken away from the Jews in the 1st century and given to the leaders of the Gentiles and Jews in Christ long before the Council of Jamnia. Stephen the first martyr for Christ testified to the Sanhedrin this fact by the Holy Spirit:
"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:51-53 KJVThe Apostle Paul himself testified that the Jews are no longer the arbiters of Holy Scripture, but instead that Christian leaders are to be accounted as "the stewards of the mysteries of God". See the testimony of the following scriptures of the Bible:
- Matthew 15:13-14
- Matthew 16:18-19
- Matthew 18:17-18
- Matthew 21:43
- Matthew 28:18-20
- Luke 1:32-33
- Luke 10:16
- Luke 22:29-30
- Acts 7:51-53
- Romans 16:17-19
- 1 Corinthians 4:1
- 1 Corinthians 6:2-3
- 2 Corinthians 3:14-16
- 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16
- 1 Timothy 3:14-15
- 1 Timothy 6:20-21
- Hebrews 13:17
- 1 John 4:2-6
- 2 John 9-ll
- Jude 3
"For the apostates may there be no hope unless they return to Your Torah. As for the no§rim and the minim, may they perish immediately. Speedily may they be erased from the Book of Life, and may they not be registered among the righteous. Blessed are You, O Lord, Who subdues the wicked." ( See Psalm 69:28 [Psalm 68:29] )While other specimens of the Palestinian liturgy show slight variation, the no§rim (usually translated “Christians”) and minim are included in the best texts of this benediction. The fact remains that the no§rim were included with apostates and heretics and the wicked in the Genizah documents. The Jews as arbiters of the Old Testament canon have excluded everything Christian.
Second objection: The rabbinical additions might not have been written in Hebrew
Jesus ben Sira c. 150 B.C. observed that "the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language." See Sirach 1:1
The rabbinical school of Johanan ben Zakkai at Jamnia (not a Council ) in A.D. 90 discussed rejecting the Septuagint which Christians were using with great effect in favor of selected Hebrew language scriptural texts, omitting certain books such as Baruch, Judith, Maccabees (1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees), Sirach, and Tobit (some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic ) which were relatively recent Jewish contributions of the 3rd through the 1st centuries before Christ and had become part of Jewish culture. The Jewish rabbis at Jamnia considered 4 adopted criteria (found nowhere in the scriptures) to determine which of the Writings—such as Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Song of Songs—should be retained for the Hebrew canon for Judaism:
- the book should conform to the Torah;
- it was written before the time of Ezra (circa 450 BC);
- it was written in Hebrew;
- and it was composed in Judah or Israel.
Although some books of the Old Testament were discussed in Judea at the Pharisaic Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, the whole of the canon itself was not a topic of consideration and this group in fact had no decision-making power. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia (Beta Israel), follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books.
Third objection: The rabbinical additions do not have the "marks" of inspired writingThis is based on the principle of "private judgment", which is highly subjective, and can be in error. With regard to what texts belong in the Bible it is a certainty that the expertise and judgment of the ancients among the Jews before the time of Christ should not be lightly dismissed.
"We attach great importance to the reading [text] of the Septuagint, because it was translated 280 years before Christ, by men who had every facility for ascertaining the real meaning of the Hebrew text, and their work was honoured by the cordial approbation of the Sanhedrim of Alexandria, at a time when Hebrew learning was at its highest state of perfection in that city."
- —John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. Bible difficulties explained (1860), p. 162 –book in the public domain
The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as the Bible, accepted the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical and as having all the marks of inspired writing, as did the Ethiopian Jews. Jesus and the New Testament writers also quoted from the Septuagint Bible as from authoritative scripture having the marks of inspired writing.
Marcion, around A.D. 140 declared that the entire Old Testament was "obviously" not of God. He dismissed the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, he edited the Gospel of Luke to purify it, and he threw out four of Paul's 14 Epistles as writings contrary to the Gospel. He was condemned as a heretic for his views about the nature of God and salvation.
The Deuterocanonicals were disputed from the 1st century to the 16th century, and include 7 books of the New Testament which many Christians and some individual scholars of those centuries confidently asserted were not authentic, but were clearly perceived by them as spurious writings.
The deuterocanonical (disputed) Old Testament scriptural texts are:
- Greek rabbinical Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
- Wisdom (or Wisdom of Solomon)
- Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (or Sirach or Ecclesiasticus)
- Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)
- Greek rabbinical Additions to Daniel:
- Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
- Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue to Daniel)
- Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue of Daniel)
The deuterocanonical (disputed) New Testament scriptural texts are:
- The Epistle to the Hebrews
- The Epistle of James
- The Second Epistle of Peter
- The Second Epistle of John
- The Third Epistle of John
- The Epistle of Jude
- The Apocalypse of John (also known as the Book of Revelation)
The meaning of the term "deuterocanonical" is therefore not identical with "apocryphal".
In 1539 Martin Luther declared that four of the New Testament deuterocanonicals are clearly hostile to the Gospel because they do not have "the marks of inspired scripture" and do not clearly "preach Christ": Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation—he held that they were not on the same level as the pure scriptures. He found several books of the Bible to be clearly lacking the "marks of inspired writing".
- "The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." 
- "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness."
- "Of very little worth is the Book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch might be." 
- "...the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical." "If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place. I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of the apostle." 
- "John records but few of the works of Christ, but a great deal of his preaching, whereas the other three evangelists record many of His works, but few of His words. It follows that the gospel of John is unique in loveliness, and of a truth the principal gospel, far, far superior to the other three, and St. Paul and St. Peter are far in advance of the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke." 
Luther complained about the Book of Revelation:
- "to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character... Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it." 
Luther admitted adding the word 'alone' to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition:
- "If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone'), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom." 
Luther complained that people who did not know the original languages were quoting and interpreting the plain meaning of scripture wrongly. He said:
- "to expound Scripture, to interpret it rightly and to fight against those people who quote wrongly ... cannot be done without knowledge of the languages."  (See Proof text, Sola scriptura and Hermeneutics.)
In 1546 at the Council of Trent the bishops of the Catholic Church dogmatically "added" the Deuterocanonicals, the 7 disputed New Testament books along with the 7 disputed books and parts of 2 other books of the Old Testament "with all their parts", to the canon of the Bible. The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church had definitively found all 73 books of the Catholic Bible to be "certainly" inspired scripture, given by God himself, and preserved and retained by the Church as sacred scripture since the 1st century. Writers who point out that the Apocrypha were added to the Bible by the Catholic Church do not include the fact that the disputed New Testament books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation were also added to the Bible by the Catholic Church at the same time.
"Now the Lord's power was so mighty upon me, and so strong in me, that I could not hold, but was made to cry out and say, "Oh! no; it is not the scriptures;" and told them it was the Holy Spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth the scriptures, whereby opinions, religions, and judgments were to be tried; for it led into all Truth, and so gave the knowledge of all Truth." —from the Journal of George Fox.
"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."Some individuals, who have used this suggested test as a form of certain discernment, have experienced a kind of negative affirmation in the form of an intuitive insight or feeling that indicates, "Yes, these things are not so", and so they reject the books added by Mormons. But others have interpreted the affirmative feeling experienced in response to the prayer as meaning instead, "Yes, these things are so".
Every person who approaches Bible study, usually to learn about the historical events it relates, is heavily influenced by the hermeneutical theory, or interpretive understandings, he or she brings to the text, consciously or unconsciously. According to Dr. J. Philip Hyatt, very little of the Bible relates history for its own sake, or for the purposes that a modern historian would adopt. It is, therefore, history of a special order, designed not simply to inform the reader, but to awaken in the reader a response to what the Lord of history has done.
"The more conservative theologians who employ the historical-critical method believe that the Scriptures are 'more than the writings of mortal men'..." —(Siegbert W. Becker, "The Historical-Critical Method of Bible Interpretation", page 4. bold-face emphasis added.)They have found that the Scriptures are unique among world literature, and that the Bible is of a wholly different order from the pagan mythologies of the nations.
The highly educated scholars who have elected to participate in the Jesus Seminar are fully persuaded from reading all of the varied translations and early extant manuscripts of the Gospels, and from discussions with other Biblical scholars, that it is "obviously evident" to them, and a "virtual certainty", that almost none of the words and teachings attributed to Jesus are authentic, but are instead fabrications by unknown individuals in the Christian Church who were promoting their own slanted theological points of view. In striking contrast to these, other highly educated scholars are firmly convinced by their own studies and reading of the Bible, and by discussions with other Biblical scholars, that the entire canon of the Orthodox Bible including the Anagignoskomena is authentic and inspired. (See Greek Old Testament canon (A.D. 1st century).)
Those who have adopted the views of Liberal Christianity tend to see religious knowledge emerging from research and the use of reason as superior to Biblical revelation. Thus the liberal idea of religion as a personal relationship with God is one which is not necessarily bound to a Biblical doctrinal basis. This stands in contrast to the doctrine of salvation resulting from faith in the Biblically substantiated gospel of grace, and in conformity with orthodox theological beliefs. They see the controversy over canonicity of any part of the Bible as pointless and somewhat irrelevant. Reading the texts of scripture does not indicate to them personally that one part is superior to another, or that any of it is inspired by God, although many of them acknowledge that some of it tends to be "inspiring" as a classic of world literature.
- See the text of the 1989 lecture given by Dr. N.T.Wright "How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?" 
- See the video talk I Don't Recognize Your "Authority" - YouTube —"I have only your word for this. I have no obligation to believe you. What authority do you have to tell me these books are the word of God? I just don't recognize your authority." (See Heresy)
- See also Cafeteria Christianity. First you actually remove, or simply dismiss, as invalid and unreliable, the texts of the Bible supporting the position you dispute, and then you say, "It's not in the Bible." Sola Scriptura. Proof text. Then you insist, "That's not in my Bible!"
It is evident from the facts cited above that those portions of the Book of Daniel called The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Story of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of Jewish rejection, apparent lack of evidence of an original Hebrew text, and subjective assessment of content according to what seems to the reader to be marks of inspired writing.
Fourth objection: Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted the rabbinical additions to Daniel
Jesus and the New Testament writers also never quoted from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs (Song of Solomon). This does not mean they are not inspired.
There are a number of places where there appears to be a similarity of thought, and sometimes of the actual words used, between New Testament passages and verses in the Apocrypha.
The majority of quotations of the Old Testament are not from the Masoretic Hebrew version in the Tanakh, but are according to the Septuagint version of the Bible (LXX) which contains the books and texts which have been rejected as Apocrypha and are in the Greek Bible of the early Church. The entire New Testament was written in Greek, addressed to the people, and to individual Christians (such as Philemon, Timothy and Titus), and there appears to be no evidence that the assemblies of worshiping Christians in the ancient early Church read the Old Testament in Hebrew but substantial evidence instead that they read them in the language of the people, from the Septuagint. The Vetus Latina  (Old Latin) and Vulgate versions of the Old Testament of the Bible read in Christian worship services contained all of the books of the Septuagint.
The consensus of the majority of Christian believers regarding the Book of Daniel
Liberalist scholars who reject the authority of the Bible and abuse the legitimate tools of Historical-critical method insist that each book and text of the Bible should be divorced from the whole, taken out of context, and analyzed separately and independently to determine its particular reliability and authenticity, for comparison to other parts of the Bible also taken as individual and separate writings. The books are often represented as having no common theme or apparent unity of purpose. These are set in opposition to each other for comparison, emphasizing what appears as contradictions and discrepancies, which appears to invalidate their message and their authority as parts of the revealed word of God. This tactic dismisses the unity of the mind of the primary Author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit himself, and makes a lie of the promise of Jesus that the Spirit of the Father would lead us into all truth forever.
Many highly educated and imminently qualified radical liberalist scholars appear to have set themselves up as judges of the Bible, determining for themselves and for others which parts are to be considered good or bad, reliable or unreliable, genuine or spurious, inspired or uninspired. See Romans 16:17-19 and James 4:11-12. However, these do not represent the majority view. See Logical fallacy of Circular reasoning.
In contrast to these are those other equally highly educated and imminently qualified conservative Biblical scholars who accept the authority of the Bible and use rightly and objectively the legitimate tools of Historical-critical method, who analyze the scriptures individually and also within the context of the whole, and have found instead a unity which seems to them to affirm the authenticity and canonicity of each text traditionally included in the Bible.
When read within the whole context of the Bible, and as the received and preserved sacred heritage of the whole Christian Church, the portions rejected as Apocrypha read instead to most Christians as inspired Holy Scripture and as legitimate parts of the whole Bible. The majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world who have carefully heard and read and compared these texts believe that the complete Book of Daniel "with all its parts" is obviously canonical and inspired by God, and that those portions of the Book of Daniel which have been rejected as Apocrypha are actually canonical scriptures of the Holy Bible inspired by God. Less than one-third of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world believe they are apocryphal. This is the logical fallacy of Proof by numbers, but only if a corollary assumption is made that the majority of Christians are not being guided by the Holy Spirit, which is also a logical fallacy called "No true Scotsman": for example, "No true Christian would believe these books are inspired after reading them."
Liberal Christians normally disregard the claim of special inspiration of the whole Book of Daniel itself in either form, 12 chapters or 14 chapters, yet believe, for the most part, that it still "has something to say" to them.
"Judge for yourself"
The appeal to readers to "read for themselves" to see if the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel "seem to them" to be inspired is an example of the logical fallacy of "Appeal to personal interest", which appeals to the individual reader's sense of personal integrity and self-reliance, and erroneously implies that the personal judgment of the reader can be relied upon as infallibly correct. It dismisses all possibility of an informed and authentic external authority established and preserved by God that can truly be trusted as more reliable than personal judgment. It sets the reader apart from and above the whole of the Christian community, and it makes the individual reader the final arbiter and judge of the books of the Bible. This is a seductive appeal to individual pride and vanity. Proverbs 3:5 Isaiah 5:21 Sirach 3:24 Jude 19
Eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text, saying that it means what it does not mean (reader-response Biblical interpretation). Eisegesis is severely condemned according to many literalist readings of the text of the Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Revelation 
- "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." KJV —Deuteronomy 4:2
- "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." KJV —Revelation 22:18-19 
Churches in Apostolic succession see in their doctrine and practice a sure and biblical means of receiving and perpetuating the Faith from one generation to another. Apostolic Succession requires a "tactile," person to person, conferring of authority from the Apostles onward. The practice originated in the late first century (Acts 13:2-3; 2 Timothy 1:6-7). It requires the most heightened responsibility in the giving and receiving. It is believed that the grace of the Holy Spirit is transmitted by the laying on of hands at the time of ordination, but not all Christians have the gift of discernment or of leadership "are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?". Romans 13:1 Hebrews 13:17 2 Timothy 1:14 2 Peter 1:19, also Jude 3 and 17-19. See also 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 and 28-30
Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting
The Book of Daniel takes its name not from the author, who is actually unknown, but from its principal character, who in 606 B.C. the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1-5) was among the first Jews deported to Babylon with King Jehoiakim, where he lived at least until 538 B.C., and perhaps later. The unknown author/compiler completed it about 4 years later in 534 B.C.. It was sealed and kept hidden and secret for about 370 years until 165 B.C., when the book was unsealed, opened, and its contents were made known to the people of Israel. The first chapters are chiefly historical, and the remainder prophetical. It is a collection of third person narratives about the prophet joined to first person narratives written by the prophet himself. The "time of the end" is the 16 decades immediately preceding the birth of the Messiah, the first coming of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. Daniel 12:4, Daniel 12:9. Daniel clearly speaks about the future bodily resurrection of many of the dead (but not all) Daniel 12:2. See Matthew 27:52 and 53.
The Prophet Daniel
Almost all that is known about the Prophet Daniel is from the Book of Daniel.
He was a member of the tribe of Judah (1:6), and of noble, perhaps royal, descent (1:3 ) In his youth, about fourteen years old, he was carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor, together with three other youths of equal rank named Ananiah, Mishael and Azariah, in the third/fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (606/605 B.C.). There, Daniel and Ananiah, Mishael and Azariah were entrusted to the care of Ashpenez, the king's chief eunuch, to be educated in the language and learning of the "Chaldeans", the professors of divination, magic, and astrology in Babylon (1:3-4). Jewish tradition has inferred from this passage that Daniel and his companions were made eunuchs; but this cannot be proved; the chief of the eunuchs was charged only with training these Jewish youths, among others, to prepare them to enter the king's service (1:5). Daniel was given the new name of Belteshazzar/Baltassar (Babylonian Balâtsu-usur, "Bel protect his life"), and Ananiah, Mishael, and Azariah similarly were given the new names of Shadrach/Sidrach, Meshach/Misach, and Abednego/Abdenago. Daniel/Belteshazzar in agreement with them, asked for and obtained permission to not use the special food and wines from the royal table provided for all those in training, but to be limited to a vegetable diet and water only. After 10 days they appeared better fed and healthier than the other youths. The program was originally designed so that at the end of three years (1:5) Daniel and his three companions would appear before the king. In a compact summary statement of their whole career under Nebuchadnezzar the book says the king found that they excelled all the others who had been educated with them, and he promoted them to a place in his court. Whenever the prince tested them, they proved superior to "all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom" (1:7-20). The narrative portions that follow in the book relate more specific details of their wisdom which prompted the king's opinion.
Even before the third year of training—in the twelfth year of King Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor, in the second year of his reign over King Zedekiah of Judah (2:1)—Daniel had already manifested his gift of wisdom. After the failure of all the other wise men to describe and interpret the king's dream and he had sentenced all the wise men to death, Daniel and his three companions prayed, and then he told Arioch, the king's captain of the guard, that he could show the king the interpretation of the dream. Arioch quickly brought him before Nebuchadnezzar, and he described and interpreted the king's dream of a colossal statue made of gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay, which, when struck by a stone shaped without hands, was broken into pieces and blown away, and the stone grew into a mountain that filled the whole earth. The king was satisfied; the wise men were saved, and Daniel in Babylon, as Joseph of old in Egypt, rose into high favor with him. Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor bestowed on him numerous gifts, and in addition made him ruler of "the whole province of Babylon" and chief governor of "all the wise men". At Daniel's request, his three friends also received important promotions (chapter 2).
Further evidence of his wisdom was another dream of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor which he alone was able to interpret, the dream of a mighty tree. The king heard the command given to cut it down, and that "seven times" should "pass over" its stump, which had been left standing. Daniel explained that this portended that in punishment of his pride the monarch would for a while lose his throne, be deprived of his reason, imagine himself an ox (bo-anthropy ), and live in the open fields, but be again restored to his power, finally convinced of the supreme might and goodness of the Most High. The Prophet exhorted the king to forestall such punishment by atoning for his sins with deeds of mercy (works ); but he did not listen to the word of God taught by the Prophet, and Daniel's prediction was fulfilled to the letter (chapter 4).
After the death of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor (561 B.C.), the book simply intimates in Daniel, 5:11 and following, that he lost his high position at the court and lived long in retirement. But afterward, at the scene of revelry in Belshazzar/Baltasar's palace, on the eve of Cyrus's conquest of Babylon (538 B.C.), while Baltasar (Hebrew Belsh’aççar, corresponding to Babylonian Balâtsu-usur, "Bel protect the king") and his lords feasted, impiously drinking their wine from precious vessels which had been taken from the Temple at Jerusalem, there appeared the fingers of a man writing on the wall: "Mane, Thecel, Phares". None of the king's wise men was able to interpret these mysterious words, which Daniel, who at length had been summoned, translated and explained. For his reward Belshazzar, the second in the kingdom (Nabonidus was first in rank), made Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom Daniel 5:29. That night Cyrus the Persian entered Babylon without resistance, Belshazzar was killed (probably assassinated), and Darius the Mede (whom some believe was Cyrus' second in command) was given the kingdom. The prophet, now at least eighty years of age, retained his exalted position under Darius the Mede, possibly to be identified with Darius I Hystaspes (485 B.C.) though some disagree. When Darius thought of setting Daniel over all the kingdom (6:4), Daniel's fellow-ministers of state, fearing such an elevation, sought his ruin by convicting him of disloyalty to the Crown. They secured from the king a decree forbidding anyone to ask any petition of either god or man, except the monarch, for thirty days, under penalty of being cast into the lions' den. Daniel nevertheless prayed, three times a day, at his open window, towards Jerusalem. They reported this to the king, and coerced him into applying the threatened punishment for violation of the decree. Daniel was thrown into the den, and it was sealed. The next morning he was still alive and unharmed. When Darius saw Daniel's miraculous preservation in the lions' den, he commanded that the conspirators with their wives and children be immediately thrown into the den, and they were attacked and crushed before they reached the bottom. He published a decree that all in his realm should honour and revere the God of Daniel, proclaiming that He is "the living and eternal God". Daniel continued to prosper through the rest of the reign of Darius, and in that of his successor, Cyrus the Persian (chapter 6). As a mere youth (14? 17?) when he first arrived in Babylon, he had first manifested an extraordinary gift of divine wisdom and authority in convicting of perjury out of their own mouths the two judges among the exiles who were plotting the death of Susanna. In his advanced old age (100+?) Daniel is no less acute in his wisdom in demonstrating how the priests of Bel were deceiving and defrauding the king and the fact that the idol does not eat all the food offered to it. The king destroys the priests and consigns the idol to Daniel, who destroys it. Daniel also manifests brilliant wisdom in his insistence on worshiping only the living God and destroying "without sword or club" a large living "dragon" worshiped as a living god by the Babylonians, by feeding the greedy animal cakes made of an indigestible blend of tar, fat and hair, which caused an extreme bowel blockage and a herniated abdominal rupture, which burst, killing it, and thus demonstrating that it was no god. The outraged Babylonian ministers of state accuse the king of becoming a Jew and coerce him, with threats of assassination of him and all his family, into condemning Daniel to 7 days in the lion's den with no food or water. On the sixth day an angel from God transports Daniel's fellow prophet Habakkuk from Judea to the den with bread and stew in a bowl for Daniel which revives him and Habakkuk is immediately returned to Judea. When the king on the 7th day finds Daniel alive, he praises the Lord God of Daniel, pulls him out, and throws those who attempted to destroy him into the den where they were immediately devoured.
These are the only facts which may be gathered for a biography of the Prophet Daniel from the narrative portions of the book (1–6, 13–14). Few other facts can be drawn from the second, distinctly apocalyptic, portion of the book (7–12), written in the first-person by Daniel himself. The visions there represent him chiefly as a seer favored with divine communications about the future punishment of the Gentile powers and the ultimate setting up of the Messianic Kingdom. These revelations are given (out of chronological sequence) in the reigns of Darius, Belshazzar/Baltasar, and Cyrus, and are explained to him by the Angel Gabriel in increasingly clearer disclosures of what is to happen in "the time of the end". In the deuterocanonical appendix to the book (13–14), Daniel reappears in the same general character as in the first part of the work (1–6). Chapter 13 (originally the first chapter of Daniel in the Septuagint) sets him forth as an inspired youth whose superior wisdom puts to shame and secures the punishment of the false accusers of the chaste Susanna. The concluding chapter (14) represents Daniel as a fearless and most successful champion of the true and living God, telling the history of the destruction of two Babylonian idols, Bel and the dragon.
Outside of the Book of Daniel, the Bible has few references to the prophet of that name. Ezechiel (14:14) speaks of Daniel, together with Noah and Job, as a pattern of righteousness and, in chapter 28:3, as the representative of perfect wisdom. The writer of the First Book of Maccabees (2:60) refers to his deliverance out of the mouth of the lions, and St. Matthew (24:15) to "the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet". 1st century Jewish tradition had been attempting to complete the meagre account of Daniel's life as supplied by the Sacred Scriptures. The tradition of the Jews, accepted by many Fathers of the Church, states that he was made a eunuch in Babylon. Other Jewish traditions later included in the Talmud represent him as refusing divine honors proffered to him by Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor; they explain that the reason why he was not forced with his three friends to worship that prince's statue in the plain of Dura (Daniel 3), was that he had been sent away by the king, who wanted to spare Daniel's life, for he knew full well that the prophet would never agree to commit such an act of idolatry; they also give many fanciful details, as for instance concerning what happened to Daniel while he was in the lions' den. Others try to account for what they assume to be a fact, that Yahweh's devout prophet apparently did not return to God's land and city after the decree of restoration issued by Cyrus; while others again assert that he actually went back to Judea and died there. Although Daniel's name is not mentioned in the Koran, legends concerning his life and place of burial are found in Arabic literature, all equally incredible and conflicting. During the Middle Ages a widespread and persistent tradition held that Daniel was buried at Susa, the modern Shuster, in the Persian province of Khuzistan. In the account of his visit to Susa in A.D. 1165, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela narrates that Daniel's tomb was shown him in the façade of one of the synagogues of that city; and it is shown there to this day.
The author of chapters 1:1–7:1 (according to their numbering in the Vulgate Bible) is unknown, based on the third person style of the narratives. He may have been a disciple of the Prophet to whom Daniel entrusted the sealed book of the prophesies. Chapters 7:2–12:13 are presented as first-person narratives written by Daniel himself. The whole has been collected and joined together and preserved as one book.
Theories abound about the date of writing but most of these entangle themselves in the liberalist scholarly dating of the book of Daniel well into the 2nd Century B.C. rather than its stated dating as being from the hand of Daniel himself, c. 534 B.C..
Scholars with a liberal bias do not acknowledge the supernatural foreknowledge of any written prophecy, presumptively dating each book as having been written after the prophecy was fulfilled. Conservative responses to these pointed dating theories take Proverbs 26:4 above Proverbs 26:5 in the case of such outspoken one-sided opinions  In Hill and Waltons Survey of the Old Testament: Introduction to the book of Daniel (and throughout their whole survey) excessive weight is given to those "scholars" who support the latest possible speculative dating of Bible books. When extensive argument is given to refute their dating and critical treatment of the Bible it seems to lend them more credence than they are due. Many modern scholars have a preconceived notion of a bible that evolved from the creative imagination of man. As evolution of a species requires the fabrication of millions of years of evolution, so the premise of evolution of a bible requires that the scholars similarly manufacture hundreds of years of pagan folklore and legend as being prior to, and the foundation of, the written Biblical record. In support of their opinions they stretch out dates and propose compounded multiple authorship. This is the fallacy of manufacturing facts from a theory. The proposed conclusions constructed from such abuse of legitimate historical-critical dating methods by some "modern scholars" on any manuscript can be treated as suspect, as subjective and as having little substantive credibility, based on the long, documented history, by peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies, of evidential findings of slanted scholarship by many researchers. (See Historical-critical method: "illegitimate historical-critical findings") It is entirely reasonable and quite logical that the Book of Daniel was composed and written during the captivity and during the reign of Darius and Cyrus of Persia, and that no cheating trick was used to make it look ancient. The major contention among scholars is not when the Book of Daniel was written, even if it was written the day Daniel got out of the lions den. The problem with the account for the scholar is its authenticity, and/or its authority: was it written by Daniel, was it written by one in the know, and was it written by one in the control of God? The continuous collective witness of the whole Christian church and the majority of well-educated and highly trained Christian scholars since the 1st century is that it is wholly authentic, written by Daniel, and by one in the know, and under the control and inspiration of God.
Critics of the Book of Daniel who base their datings of the time of writing on extant 2nd century B.C. hand-copied manuscripts almost entirely ignore the fact that after Daniel wrote it, the book was sealed and kept hidden "until the time of the end". Daniel 12:4 and 12:9 This is why no textual manuscript evidence for the book predates the 2nd century B.C.. We know about the book and its inspired content only because it had finally been unsealed. Immediately, handwritten manuscript copies were made and distributed to be read to the assemblies of the people beginning the 2nd century B.C. as proof that all that had happened had been prophesied. (A parallel example is found in Isaiah 44:24–45:7.) The Book of Daniel is an extreme historical example of handwritten posthumous publication.
The text called Song of the Three Holy Children is a segment of a larger component called The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Holy Children which, although part of the Septuagint text, is considered by Protestants as belonging among the uninspired Apocrypha rather than as a fully canonical part of Holy Scripture, and so it appears in the separate Apocrypha section in most English-language versions of the Bible. When included within the larger text of Daniel, it appears in the third chapter between verses 23 and 24, with the complete third chapter of Daniel numbering 100 verses.
The Song itself is a hymn of thanksgiving to God for deliverance from the fiery furnace into which the three young men, Ananias, Azarias and Misael (also known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) had been cast by the Persian king Nebuchadnezzar. They were cast into the furnace for refusing to worship a golden idol that Nebuchadnezzar had created. However, "an Angel of the Lord" (King James Version; Douay-Rheims "the Angel of the Lord") entered the furnace and protected the three young men. In liturgical celebration, this event is seen to presage the Resurrection of Christ, supporting its inclusion in the canon.
The Abingdon Bible Handbook (ISBN 0687001692) suggests that the Prayer and Song was based on an earlier composition and was added to the existing text of Daniel sometime in the second or first century B.C. This is by no means certain. It is certain that manuscript copies of the whole Book of Daniel in Greek translation can be traced to earlier texts of that time period no longer extant.
The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as their Bible, accepted the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical. In the early Christian church all three texts which Jerome and the 16th century Reformation rejected as "additions" to Daniel are quoted as integral parts of Daniel by Greek and Latin Fathers: as, for example, by Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV, 5, 2f); Tertullian (De idolatria c. 18); Cyprian (Ad fortunatum, c. 11).
There is the strongest evidence respecting the genuineness and authenticity of the book, both internal and external. We have the testimony of Christ himself, Matthew 24:15; of St. John and St. Paul, who have copied his prophecies; of the Jewish synagogue and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical but have never ranked it among the Prophets; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish tannaim and amoraim, which frequently cite his authority in the Talmud. As to the internal evidence, the style, language, and manner of writing perfectly agree with the historical period represented from the era of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon into the reigns of Cyrus and Darius of Persia; and especially, Daniel is proved to have been a prophet by the exact fulfilment of his predictions. This book, like that of Ezra, is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee, the prevailing language of the Babylonians, and was translated in its entirety for the Jews of the Diaspora into Greek, the prevailing language of the entire Levant and middle east from the 2nd century B.C. through the 1st century of Christianity.
Date of the Book c. 530 B.C. and c. 165 B.C.
The date the book of Daniel was written is controversial. For conservative Christians, the earliest date is about 530 B.C.. For liberal scholars (Naturalists), the latest data is about 165 B.C..
Foretold Events after 165 B.C.
Using 165 B.C. as the date of authorship, any prophecy before that date is considered to be writing after the fact about past events. However, events foretold to occur after 165 B.C. are truly prophetic. Objective evidence to confirm each event is all that is required.
Daniel’s prophecy recorded in chapter 9 has frequently been called the Prophecy of the 70 weeks. The Hebrew word for "weeks" means a period of 7-years (see Strong's Concordance Number 7620). The 70 weeks is a multiplication of 70 times 7 years, equaling 490 years. During this period, at various stages, specific human events are expected, relating to the Jewish people, to Jerusalem, and to the coming Messiah. Christians logically accept this prophecy of an everlasting kingdom as being fulfilled by Jesus.
Conservative Christian scholars do not accept the proposed 165 B.C. as the date when the Book of Daniel was written. Verification of the individual prophecies in the 70 weeks period as corresponding to historical events does offer an explanation of why conservative scholars hold to the position that Daniel was authored as early as 530 B.C.. Although modern scholars (Naturalist) may not agree with the conservative dating, evidence exists to support the traditional conservative Christian view. The 165 B.C. date proposed by most Biblical scholars can be used to substantiate the conservative view that the Book of Daniel is genuine prophesy.
What does the 70-weeks prophecy foretell?
The prophecy including future events is based on a prayer made by Daniel. He prays for the Jewish people, their sin, and he begs that God will permit them to return from Babylon to Jerusalem. Daniel's precedent for his petition is another Jewish prophet, Jeremiah (29:10-12), who had already foretold that the Jewish people would return to Jerusalem (Daniel 9:2-3). Daniel only asks when the Jewish people will be allowed to return to Jerusalem.
The Archangel Gabriel brings an answer to Daniel from God, giving Daniel a prophecy that foretells the future of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. And according to Christian reading of the scripture, Gabriel's message links the Jewish people and their return to the coming of the Messiah (anointed one). And as Daniel was not alive during the ministry of Jesus, the description of Jesus' life and ministry as foreshadowed in the prophesy given to Daniel establishes and vindicates the claim that the book contains genuinely accurate prophesy of the future.
Most Christians accept that the prophetic events of Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks fit Jesus’ life and ministry, generally understanding the 70-weeks prophecy to be a literal foretelling of the Messiah. Three primary reasons are usually presented as to why Christians take the view that Jesus literally fulfilled this prophecy, though some disagree.
First and foremost, according to this view, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah (an anointed one) would be killed at Jerusalem.
Second, according to this view, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah (an anointed one) had to appear at Jerusalem before its destruction. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, which fits Jesus’ lifetime.
Third, many Christians take the view that Daniel 11:20-22 is a summary of the gospel story, based on the interpretation that the purpose of the Messiah’s death is foretold in the 70-weeks prophecy as described by verses 31-35 which mirrors the basic teachings of the New Testament. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold Daniel 12:1-3.
Christians have seen in the person of Daniel himself a foreshadowing of the career of the Messiah confronting the powers of the world with the truth of God. The ultimately futile plotting against him by magicians, enchanters and political ministers of state and their casting of the condemned prophet into the den of lions and his coming out alive is a foreshadowing of Jesus' passion, death and resurrection, and the destruction of the idol and the dragon is a foreshadowing of Jesus' exposure and destruction of false religion and his defeat of the dragon "the ancient serpent, the Devil".
Moreover, the stone (Greek λίθος lithos) which shattered the image and grew into a mountain that filled the whole earth (2:34-45) foreshadowed the little stone (Greek Πέτρος Petros, Peter, Aramaic Κηφᾶς Kephas/Cephas) "cut from a mountain (Christ)" which grew into the Christian Church which has overcome and caused to vanish every remnant of all the pagan kingdoms that ever existed whose rulers officially and publicly worshiped idols and pagan gods, and today is represented in every nation on earth and is the world's largest religion, the kingdom of Christ "which shall never be destroyed". Clearly, this is prophesy fulfilled long afterward. Compare Isaiah 2:2-3 and Revelation 21:22-26
The Historical View
Most historians, and the majority of both Christian believers and non-Christians who know history, immediately recognize in their ordinary reading of Daniel chapter 11 exact historical parallels to the books of First and Second Maccabees and to ancient and modern secular histories covering the period of 333 B.C. through 164 B.C. in Judea. This particular historical-grammatical analysis (one among several, and not the only one) is the "Historical View".
11:2 "Three kings of Persia". There were more than three Persian kings between Cyrus king of Persia and the dissolution of the kingdom.
- Many scholars say the fourth king is Xerxes I (486–465 B.C.), who campaigned against Greece. After Cyrus I came Cambyses I (Kambiz), then Cyrus II the Great and the beginning of the Achaemenid Empire, 559–530 B.C. The vision begins with Daniel 10:1 "the third year of Cyrus king of Persia" 557/6 B.C. and continues into chapter 11, where Gabriel tells him that after the current king of Persia (whom Daniel identified as Cyrus) "three more kings shall arise", the first to reign after Cyrus the Great was Cambyses/Kambiz II, 530–522 B.C., the second, Darius I the Great, 522–486 B.C., the third, Xerxes I (Khashyar), 486–465 B.C., and "a fourth", Artaxerxes I, 465–425 B.C., after whom "a mighty king shall stand up", (not Xerxes II, 425–424 B.C. who reigned 45 days, or his brother Sogdianus, neither of whom was "mighty", but) Darius II Ochus, 423–404 B.C.. The 20 years of Darius's reign were notable primarily for ruthless suppression of a series of revolts within his empire. However, his kingdom was not broken and divided into four "toward the four winds of heaven" in accordance with the words of the angel Gabriel (11:4). The text in Daniel 11:2-4, according to his word "three more kings, and a fourth", sets the historical time of this particular revelation to the prophet (11–12), at the earliest, in 423 B.C., during the reign of Darius II, 423–404 B.C., 183 years after the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (606 B.C.) when Daniel as a young man was taken captive to Babylon, which makes him about 200 years old (and there are other Bible persons who were much older). The three kings "yet to stand up" after Darius II were Artaxerxes II, 404–359 B.C., Artaxerxes III, 359–339 B.C., then Arses, 338–336 B.C., and finally "the fourth" Darius III, 336–330 B.C., who was defeated by Alexander the Great, "a mighty king" who stood up "after" the fourth, who dissolved the Persian Empire, who ruled with great dominion and did according to his will, and whose own empire upon his death was broken and divided among his four generals "toward the four winds of heaven", exactly according to the words of the angel Gabriel. See Daniel 11:2-4
11:5–45 describes the dynastic histories of the Ptolemies in Egypt (the king of the south) and the Seleucids in Syria (the king of the north), the two divisions of the Hellenistic empire (v. 6) corresponding to the two legs of iron in Daniel 2:33, 40. Verses 10–20 describe the struggle between the two kingdoms for the control of Palestine; the Seleucids were eventually victorious.
11:6 c. 250 B.C. The marriage of Antiochus II Theos and Berenice of Egypt, which ended in tragedy.
11:11 217 B.C.. The battle of Raphia. Egypt defeated Syria.
11:13 200 B.C.. The battle of Paneas. Syria defeated Egypt. Judea then came under Syrian rule.
11:17 197 B.C.. Antiochus III, the Great, betrothed his daughter to Ptolemy Epiphanes.
11:18 190 B.C.. Battle of Magnesia. The Roman general Scipio defeated Antiochus.
11:30 "Kittim": originally this word generally referred to Cypriots or other westerners, and sometimes to the Greeks (1 Maccabees 1:1). Here it refers historically to the Romans, who forced Antiochus to withdraw during his second campaign against Egypt. 2 Maccabees 5:1-4
11:40–45 The events described in these concluding verses, correspond to the history of the Maccabean period. The death of Antiochus parallels the ruin of Gog in Ezekiel 38–39. Antiochus actually died in Persia.
11:40-43 167 B.C.. The second invasion of Egypt by Antiochus, and his departure to the east to gain needed treasure as funding for his armies (2 Maccabees 5:1; 1 Maccabees 3:25-37; 6:12). The forces under the Maccabees routed the Syrian troops, recaptured Jerusalem, purified and rededicated the Temple, and brought to an end the Syrian persecution.
11:45 163 B.C.. The death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the mountains of Persia, between the Caspian Sea and Mount Zion, "between the seas", the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean Sea (2 Maccabees 9:5-28; 1 Maccabees 6:8-9, 14-16). He had departed from Ecbatana (see map) and was driving furiously toward Jerusalem when he was struck down. See Zagros Mountains. 1 Maccabees 6:1-16; 2 Maccabees 9:1-28; Daniel 7:26; 11:44-45; 12:11.
Antiochus died the thousand two hundred and ninetieth day from the time that the continual burnt offering was taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate was set up. Daniel 12:11. A swift messenger set out, and brought the news to Jerusalem 45 days later (a journey of 800 miles, average 17.77 miles per day). "Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." (The 1,290th day + 45 days = the 1,335th day.)
The prophecies of the latter part of the book extend from the days of Daniel to the general resurrection. Where Daniel says "many" (12:2-3) most Christians read "all" (Revelation 20:12-15). The Assyrian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman empires, or the Babylonian, the Medan, the Persian and the Grecian empires (the "little horn" as Antiochus IV) are described under appropriate imagery. According to most Christian readings of Daniel the precise time of Christ's coming is told; the rise and the fall of antichrist, and the duration of his power, are accurately determined; the victory of Christ over his enemies, and the universal prevalence of his religion are clearly pointed out. The book is filled with the most exalted sentiments of piety and devout gratitude (3:22-92). Its style is simple, clear, and concise, and many of the prophecies are delivered in language so plain and circumstantial, that some radical scholars have asserted that they were written after the events they described had taken place, since it is obvious to them that no one can accurately predict the future (the fallacy of exclusion, also called "cherry picking" ). Sir Isaac Newton regards Daniel as the most distinct and plain of all the prophets, and most easy to be understood; and therefore considers that in things relating to the last times, he is to be regarded as the key to the other prophets.
Fundamentalist textual analysis
Fundamentalist Protestant Christian believers consistently maintain that God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be considered an approved text. They said no to the pre-Christian Jewish rabbinical additions to Daniel translated into Greek in the Septuagint Bible of the Alexandrian Jews. Many fundamentalists agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one were to ask their opinion, these texts to do not appear to them to be inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?...,Ecclesiastes,?... But they did not accept 2 Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc. into their canon. They admit that they accept by faith that God influenced the final canon of the OT as selected by the consensus of the Jews after the time of Christ, which may not be a very useful instrument to "one who does not have faith" (a variation of the logical fallacy of No true Scotsman "whoever cannot see this lacks faith."). The Masoretic Text (from A.D. the 8th century) does not include these texts. The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not include them either, although they admit it is true that when Jerome translated the OT he was "forced" (against his will, they add) to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The Masoretic text is clear on this. But what is to be included in the LXX is not, on the face of the available extant manuscript evidence, clear to them. It is useful to compare what Jerome himself wrote.In his reply to Rufinus, Jerome affirmed that he was in fact being consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include:
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us.
Some who oppose the fundamentalist view say that anything which was translated B.C. into Greek, which fundamentalists claim "eventually made it" into the Vulgate, is, by definition, part of the LXX. But fundamentalist Christians do not agree at all, pointing out that this is proof by definition, or assertion, which is not a good form of proof; but their disagreement with this point is itself an example of the self-sealing fallacy which excludes as invalid the evidence presented—the fact that texts are included in the Septuagint is not regarded as admissible evidence, but is held to be wholly irrelevant (the fallacy of exclusion, also called "cherry picking" ). Fundamentalist scholars insist that the parts of the Greek/Jewish literature which are to be accepted are those parts of the Greek Bible (and therefore the parts of the LXX) which were accepted by the Jews, for example, at the Council of Jamnia, after the establishment of the Christian Church, and not the whole of the Septuagint (LXX) Old Testament of the Greek Bible accepted and read by Greek-speaking Jews in Palestine and throughout the diaspora at the time of Christ and by Christians in their worship services (Hebrew was not used in Christian readings to the congregation). There is no absolutely clear cut list or canon that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of A.D. the first centuries among the Palestinian Jews is that Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon, etc. are not inspired. Fundamentalists point out that neither Jesus nor the NT writers ever quoted even a single time from Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, but that they did quote extensively from "virtually every OT book" in the Jewish and Protestant canon. They insist that the only exception is a possible quote or at least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude. Yet the books quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers do not include Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and Song of Songs (Song of Solomon). This does not mean they are not inspired scripture.
Fundamentalists consistently affirm that there is ample evidence to justify the omission of the deuterocanonical OT writings from the Christian Bible despite the adoption of them by the Roman Catholic Church. Their position is that despite the "misjudgment" of those who made versions of the Old Testament and included the deuterocanonical books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite what they see as the "error" made by the students of these versions who obviously began to interpret these "apocryphal" books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the deuterocanonical books are seen by them as "clearly not on the plane of the Holy Scriptures". They maintain that their examination of the content of the book Bel and the Dragon (Daniel chapter 14) and the examination of the external evidences surrounding that chapter (book) boldly justifies to them the exclusion of this work from the collection of texts which have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. They point out that this "apocryphal book" was considered by some as an addition to the book of Daniel and that it was not included after the time of Christ in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures by the rabbinical Jewish school at Jamnia and the Masoretic scholars among the Jews. The writing itself does not appear to fundamentalist Protestants to have the authoritative style of Daniel. According to their reading, the accounts in the text appear to contradict details accredited to Daniel himself (written in the third person); and they see that the third person style of narrating a prophet's transport across time and space all makes the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, and non-inspired of God.
Fundamentalist Christian scholars see the "questionable" authorship, the date of writing, the language and preservation by the Jews as clearly indicating to them that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself had no access to or at least no regard for the book (the 14th chapter of Daniel) now called Bel and the Dragon, even if rabbinical Greek copies before the time of Christ included that chapter of Daniel as an integral part of the book. They maintain that the simple evidences in this work which fundamentalists present clearly justify to them "the conclusion that was made 2400 years ago", that Bel and the Dragon is not Holy Scripture, but "an account of events in Daniel's life, made by those outside the inner circle of God"; yet it was included and preserved as an integral part of the Greek Bible of the early Christian Church from the 1st century to the present (the fallacy of exclusion, also called "cherry picking" ). If the decision of the Jews regarding Daniel was made "2400 years ago" in 400 B.C. the book would of necessity have been unsealed and openly disclosed for that decision to have been made, making the "time of the end" around the time of Ezra and Malachi, during the reign of Darius II, 423–404 B.C. about 130 years after Daniel.
Fundamentalists acknowledge without hesitation that the chosen prophets who recorded God's word, did so with the authority and supernatural protection of God. This supernatural protection followed their written words as supernatural preservation for the truths that God intended us to have in the 21st century. Orthodox and Catholic scholars heartily agree with this, and point to their preservation in the Septuagint and Vulgate as authoritative Holy Scripture. For fundamentalists this authority and preservation are clearly missing from the account of Bel and the Dragon.
The dragon killed by Daniel is sometimes taken as proof that the story is a fabulous fabrication belonging in the category of fairy tale so that it cannot possibly be taken seriously as sacred scripture inspired by the God of truth who cannot lie. St. Peter taught that "we have not followed cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16 KJV). The argument that the dragon in Daniel 14 must therefore have been an idol of a serpent is contested by R.H. Charles in his introduction to Bel and the Dragon. Such an argument is entirely without any correspondence here since it is plain from the text that the creature is a living creature, and that it is not just a large serpent. These clear distinctions are brought into additional controversy by those "scholars" who believe that any dragon-type creature would have been extinct millions of years before this writing. Such presuppositions supported by an evolutionary theory often cloud simple facts and hide them from the "scholar's" view. There is ample evidence that dragon-like creatures (today given the name dinosaur, meaning "terrible lizard") were prevalent in the Babylonian era (for example, the sirrush depicted on the famous Ishtar Gate of Babylon).
Fundamentalists have pointed out that although scholars often say we know more now than ever before about the transmittal of the Bible, this is not necessarily true. The scholars and scribes of A.D. the 1st through the 3rd century knew far more than most modern scholars are willing to allow, since they were closer in time than to the origin of the writings than we. After the turn of the century Biblical scholars have been seen as transparently influenced by the philosophy of evolution, to where they consider these ancient early scholars as ignorant cave men, and themselves as highly evolved intellectuals. There is still an a priori reluctance in modern scholarship to acknowledge that these were holy men of God writing as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God, and not careless editors collecting and evolving and editing writings that over thousands of years developed into a book now called a Bible. The 19th century German Biblical scholars originated this overdeveloped and prejudiced theory which has been embraced by radical liberalist scholars over the past 150 years.
In the view of fundamentalist Biblical scholars the accounts in Daniel 13 and 14 emphasize the "craftiness" of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. They acknowledge that this in itself is permissible, since it often occurs in other accounts of canonical Bible characters. Their concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and that it appears to them to contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, and as certainly not authored by Daniel, although they admit that it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in the third person. The story has as its theme what appears to them to be the "craftiness" of Daniel to expose false idol worship, a "crafty" intelligence which others see instead as a manifest expression of the gift of invincible divine wisdom. Fundamentalists point out that there is no need here to reject these events as fable or fiction, that indeed it is very likely that many instances of Daniel's wisdom, wit and ability were not recorded by Daniel himself, but were told and retold outside the palaces of the Babylonian kingdom and likely recorded in writing. However the passing on of what they regard as his "less miraculous, more crafty" daily existence was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. They assume from a lack of manuscript evidence that the shorter extant Aramaic-Hebrew text of Daniel (containing some Greek and Persian words) is the original form of the book and maintain that "if the Jewish scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing", then they certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding their decision. This is simply argument from silence.
Again, fundamentalist Christians insist that it is not necessary to dismiss these accounts as false, only to recognize that they lack the authority of first person accounts (as do the first several chapters), and therefore may be stories that were passed on without Godly inspiration or preservation of truth and detail. Chapters 1 through 6 and verse 1 of chapter 7 also lack the authority of first person accounts, and fundamentalists do not on this same basis conclude that these texts were passed on without Godly inspiration or preservation of truth and detail. They maintain that indeed every part of the account of Bel is conceivable and believable, but that the account of the dragon is only conceivable and believable up to the point of the lion's den account. They say that given the credibility of these accounts, their one drawback is the perceived lack of authority with which they present and support some revelation from God, and of God, saying that they fit better into a category of story that was passed outside the palaces emphasizing the craftiness of Daniel. They do not seem to them to present revelation from God, as preserved by God, to record His sovereign dealings with his prophet Daniel. Thus according to this view there is not any internal evidence that Bel and the Dragon should have been included at the end of the writings of Daniel, even if they were part of the Septuagint Old Testament of the Christian Greek Bible. As far as the internal evidences are concerned, according to fundamentalist Christians the Jewish scribes who left them out of the Jewish canon were certainly justified, and the Christian leaders which retained them in the Septuagint and preserved them as canonical were not justified.
Lion's Den Contradictions
The account of the lion's den in Daniel 14 is examined by fundamentalists as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6, although it is presented in the book as a separate and much later event. Inclusion of this detail first causes these accounts to be seen by fundamentalist scholars as stories passed on outside the palace walls. They point out that either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate, but that both cannot fit together into the same account, and that the idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So they conclude that one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. They emphasize that Jewish scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. Fundamentalist Christian scholars find here no evidence to override such a decision, but instead that a brief examination "in fact" supports the Jews' suspicions toward the Bel and the Dragon account, and they contrast some of the differences in these accounts. In the fundamentalist view, within Bel and the Dragon the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful fairy tale, as a fable, rather than as an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habakkuk's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.
The miraculous transport of the Prophet Habakkuk to the lions den with a "sack lunch" for Daniel is for them so beyond belief  that some of them contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story" and that it is a "far more fanciful thing" than found elsewhere in the scriptures. Of course, this overlooks the fact that Daniel had been without food and water for six days, and such a consolation, brought so miraculously by his fellow Prophet from Judea, would be an overwhelming consolation and encouragement, and an additional proof of God's power and providential care. They maintain that there are no other similar accounts of such a transport of one prophet to assist or encourage another in any other Old Testament scripture. Thus the miraculous "zapping" of one person across time or space is not lightly regarded here. But on this basis every account of a miraculous occurrence having no similar parallel account elsewhere in the Old Testament would also be disqualified. However, they acknowledge that just being different from anything found elsewhere in the scriptures does not warrant its exclusion, else they would eliminate the translation of Elijah (2 Kings 2), the snatching away of Enoch (Genesis 5:24) or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture. So they emphasize that the downfall of the credibility of the transport of Habakkuk is what they see as its "total lack of authority, necessity, and significance". However, see Acts 8:26-40 where Philip was suddenly transported more than 40 miles from where he had baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and was suddenly found at Azotus.
Examination of the book Bel and the Dragon reveals to fundamentalist scholars and commentators that this writing "does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man", dismissing the fact that Daniel's exercise of "craftiness" in defeating pagan superstition is an expression of divine wisdom. The writing "even contradicts the Daniel-given account of the lion's den", and the miraculous transport of Habakkuk to the den's mouth "is not in the first person nor authoritative", and is thus "fanciful" and "more a presentation of legend than a historical event". They state that the Book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. Catholic and Orthodox Bible scholars agree. But fundamentalists insist that to include such a narration as Bel and the Dragon at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be "certain folly", folly that was "avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity". This examination of the internal evidences of Bel and the Dragon reveals to them little credibility for overriding what they see as the initial Jewish decision to "hide" this section from the temple books they considered as Holy Scripture and classify this chapter of Daniel as an apocryphal book, even while Jewish scribes included it in their translation of the Holy Scriptures into Greek. It is notable that, in saying the accounts in the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel were "hidden" from the temple books, fundamentalist scholars apparently acknowledge or implicitly assume an original larger written text that included them and was edited to remove them.
Fundamentalists also look at external evidences for the rejection of Bel and the Dragon as Holy Scripture. The external evidences against this chapter include its language, its authenticity, assurance of its author, and date of writing, and manuscript evidence that would include evidence of how it was treated by early collectors of the scriptures. These evidences primarily give indications of how it was treated by those closest to the author who wrote the accounts, and its earliest acceptance or rejection. They honestly acknowledge that the problem of looking at these external evidences is generally a subjective evaluation. Some of these evidences, however subjective, appear to them to clearly support the Jewish suspicions that this writing has been subjected to ever since the scriptures of the captivity period were first collected and considered holy, similar to the suspicions cast on the books of Esther, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.
The Language of the Manuscripts
Regarding all of the portions they call additions to Daniel, a consistent fundamentalist argument against their being considered Scripture is found in the language of the manuscripts. The shorter more abbreviated Daniel written in both Hebrew and Aramaic and containing Greek and Persian words is distinct from the fuller Greek translation including the parts that are not found in either Hebrew or Aramaic and thus appear as clearly separate entities. The original language of the rabbinical additions has been in dispute. There are no extant Hebrew or Aramaic "versions" of these texts. Only Greek "versions" have been found in modern times. Although it has been strongly attested by eminent scholars in the Catholic Church that the original book was Hebrew, fundamentalists assert that Catholic scholars attest to this largely because it supports their doctrine that the apocryphal books are Scripture, rather than for any manuscript reasons. They point out that in fact "some word plays in the Greek make it very unlikely that the additions to Daniel were translated from Hebrew". However, against this, in Susanna, for example, there are a goodly number of Hebraisms, rather more than one would expect had the writer composed in Hellenistic Greek. R.H. Charles contends that the additions were "written originally almost certainly in Hebrew"  but fundamentalists say this is a subjective view with little evidence, and that should an argument be proven for a Hebrew original, it still stands clear to them that the text for Bel and the Dragon was not preserved in the Temple with the book of Daniel as were the Holy Scriptures, and that this fanciful account was not considered scripture by the 5th century B.C. Hebrew scribes. Regardless of whether it was originally written in Hebrew or not, the lack of any extant Hebrew manuscript of Bel and the Dragon is for fundamentalist Christians a strong indication that it never was regarded by the Jews as scripture, even if it was an integral part of the Old Testament of the Greek Bible revered and preserved by the early Christian Church in the 1st through 5th centuries.
When Jesus himself declares that Daniel is a prophet, he quotes the word spoken through Daniel of the "abomination of desolation", Matthew 24:15. Compare Daniel 8:13. The word, ἐρημώσεως eremosis, in Septuagint Daniel 8:13, is quoted exactly by Jesus, ἐρημώσεως eremosis, in Greek Matthew 24:15. The Lord Jesus does not use the word, שמם shâmêm, in Hebrew Daniel. Compare Septuagint Daniel 8 scroll down to verse 13:
- 13 καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἁγίου λαλοῦντος, καὶ εἶπεν εἷς ἅγιος τῷ φελμουνὶ τῷ λαλοῦντι· ἕως πότε ἡ ὅρασις στήσεται, ἡ θυσία ἡ ἀρθεῖσα καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐρημώσεως ἡ δοθεῖσα, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ἡ δύναμις συμπατηθήσεται; (Septuagint)
- 8:13 And I heard one saint speaking, and a saint said to a certain one speaking, How long shall the vision continue, [even] the removal of the sacrifice, and the bringing in of the sin of desolation; and [how long] shall the sanctuary and host be trampled? (Brenton translation)
Regardless of whether it was originally written in Hebrew or not, the fact that the Septuagint Greek text was regarded by the Greek-speaking Jews as scripture and was the main source of Old Testament quotations for Jesus and the NT writers, as can be seen from the extant Greek manuscripts, and the fact that Jesus cited the Greek version of Daniel, is for Catholic and Orthodox Christians a strong indication that it was always regarded by the early 1st century Christians as scripture, including Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, and was an integral part of the Old Testament of the Greek Bible revered and preserved as inspired sacred scripture by the early Christian Church in the 1st through the 5th centuries.
While these texts in Daniel were among the deuterocanonicals disputed by some Christians and independent Christian scholars, there is no record of discussion or controversy against any person or group seeking to add them to the scriptures, but only discussions of and by those Christians who sought to have them excluded from the canon of inspired Old Testament writings.
Treatment in Ancient Versions
It is clear that Origen, the Alexandrine 2nd century biblical scholar (A.D. c. 185-254 ) made a distinct separation between the protocanonical books of the OT and the deuterocanonical books, however he does defend the Septuagint rabbinical additions to Daniel, specifically Susanna. In this written document of defense he infers that these additions were kept out because of embarrassment of the scholars (elders) who determined which books were to be canonical. Origen's defense is seen by fundamentalists as clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. Fundamentalists say the ecclesial process of canonization is greatly exaggerated and misused by scholars who are bent on defaming the Bible, that these scholars make as though it were a council that convened, debated and voted about whether a book was acceptable, discarding some and including others, and that it is unthinkable that the Holy Spirit was guiding them into truth. But they assert instead that in actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD. They assume without question that the shorter version of the Book of Daniel is the original composition and not a later abbreviated form of a longer text written originally by Daniel, which he sealed and turned over to the scribes for preservation, but now lost, whose full message and contents after it was unsealed were originally copied in Aramaic, and have been divinely preserved in Greek translation by devout rabbinical scholars before the time of Christ, and transmitted in the Septuagint Old Testament text of the Greek Bible preserved and revered by Christians from the 1st century to the present day, which the Jews rejected.
In the Latin Vulgate, a translation of the Septuagint text of Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children is retained in chapter 3 of Daniel, a translation of the Story of Susanna was placed after chapter 12, and a translation of the Septuagint text of Bel and the Dragon is positioned as chapter 14. The books of the Latin Vulgate Old Testament follow the general order of the canon in the Septuagint.
External Evidence Summary
Although some manuscript versions of the Old Testament clearly treated the apocryphal books on a parallel plane with Holy Scripture, and were carefully preserved and retained in the Old Testament as handed down from the time of the apostles, it is clear to fundamentalists that their predecessors did not treat them as on the same level. They see the external evidences apparent around Bel and the Dragon as clearly, yet subjectively, pointing to a conclusion that "this work was not highly regarded by those who were close to the prophets and scribes of the exile". The questions and suspicions about its authorship, date and original language indicate to them that those who wanted Bel included with the book of Daniel were acting more on other motivations than on the evidences on hand. They conclude that this error was swallowed by a whole universal (Catholic) church including all of its trained Biblical scholars who were experts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but they firmly maintain that evidence to support this addition to the book of Daniel is just not there.
There is at present no evidence that this debate will end soon, but will continue. See 2 Timothy 2:11-15.
Historical-critical textual analysis
The following section is presented almost entirely from the point of view of historical-critical scholarship, and is drawn from professional textual analyses of the available extant manuscripts, the testimony of the historical witnesses, linguistic considerations and the clues discerned within the structure, idioms, semantics, and syntax of the content of the Book of Daniel. These are the findings of literary critics and textual historians.
The Book of Daniel may be divided into two parts: chapters 1–6, recounting the earlier events of Daniel's life; chapters 7–12, containing his prophecies; and an appendix containing the Prologue of his youth and the events of his last years under Darius. In the Septuagint the two parts are: 1–7, recounting the Prologue of his youth and the earlier events of Daniel's life; and chapters 8–13, containing his prophecies, and the events of his last years under Darius. "While the first part proves that it is impossible for the world-empire to belong to the heathen forever, the second part shows that Israel is destined to found this world empire through the son of man, who has long since existed in heaven" (J. Böhmer, "Reich Gottes und Menschensohnim Buche Daniel," 1899, p. 60).
The rabbinically added episodes of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, found today only in the Greek version, are edifying short stories with a didactic purpose (chapters 13–14). The Greek version also includes a prayer and a hymn of praise, numbered in The New American Bible, Revised Edition NABRE and the Greek Bible as 3:24–90, between 3:23 and 3:24 in the shorter "Hebrew" (Aramaic) text.
The book is a mixture of history and prophecy. The wonders related have a peculiar and striking character, designed to show the people of God that, amid their degradation, the Lord's hand is not so shortened that it cannot save; also to exhibit to their enemies that there is an essential difference between יהוה LORD and idols, between the people of God and the world. This is seen in those passages which highlight the contrasts:
- Daniel 1:20
- Daniel 3:46-50
- Daniel 4:2-8
- Daniel 5:29-30
- Daniel 6:23-25
- Daniel 7:24-27
- Daniel 13:60-62
- Daniel 14:18-27
- Daniel 14:40-42
There is evident delight in portraying the pagan oppressor of Israel as being compelled by the evidence before him to praise Daniel's God:
Historical critics suggest that the book does not belong strictly to the prophetic writings but is rather an early specimen of a distinctive type of literature called "apocalyptic". Apocalyptic literature first appeared about 200 B.C. and flourished among Jews and Christians down to the Middle Ages, especially in times of persecution. The genre has its roots in the older teaching of the prophets, who often pointed ahead to the consummation of history, the Day of the Lord. Both prophet and apocalyptist testify to one Lord of history, who will repeatedly and also ultimately vindicate his chosen people. Apocalyptic also has roots in the wisdom tradition. Daniel's gift of discerning wisdom is from God alone. By contrast the pagan wisdom of the gentiles (represented by the Babylonian "magicians and enchanters") is worthy of ridicule (see especially chapters 2 and 5), whereas God reveals hidden things to his faithful servants that cannot be known by reason alone.
Chapters 7–12 present a series of visions promising deliverance and glory to the Jews in the days to come. The great nations of the ancient world have risen in vain against the Lord; his kingdom shall overthrow existing powers and last forever; in the end the dead will be raised for reward or punishment. Under this apocalyptic imagery some of the best elements of prophetic and sapiential teaching are synthesized: insistence on right conduct (works), divine control over events, certainty that the kingdom of God will ultimately triumph and humanity will attain the fullness of the destiny intended for it at the beginning of creation. The arrival of the kingdom is a central theme of the Christian Gospel. Jesus is identified as the human figure ("Son of Man") who appears in Daniel’s vision in chapter 7 (John 9:35-38). The message in both parts of the first twelve chapters (1–6 and 7–12) is that history unfolds under the sovereign rule of God, who never abandons those who trust in him and will finally deliver and re-establish them. Chapters 2 and 7 are read as presenting the same teaching in different symbolic forms; 2:31 also describes the dream of the king himself as a "vision", as Pharaoh's dream in the Book of Genesis was a vision Genesis 41:8.
In its form historical criticism sees the book as showing striking differences, for while 2:4–7:28 is written in Aramaic, the immediately preceding and following portions are written in Hebrew. It is not easy to discover the reason for this peculiarity; it suggests to them, however, that the "Chaldeans" in this book are the Arameans or Syrians. A similar instance occurs in the Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Joh. Meyer), where the author gradually lapses into Aramaic in talking of personages of the Babylonian exile, but on page 117 returns to Hebrew. Critical analysis suggests that the author of Daniel may have meant to introduce the "Chaldeans" in their own language, and then inadvertently continued in the language that was familiar to him (Driver, "Daniel", page xxii ) J. Böhmer page 150  maintains that the Aramaic portion was so written because its contents concerned all peoples; Prince and others suggest that the whole book was written originally in Hebrew, and translated into Aramaic; and that a part of the Hebrew book was lost, and replaced by the Aramaic translation. But this does not include the fact that the Aramaic portion begins with the speech of the "Chaldeans." Other scholars think that the whole book was originally written in Aramaic, while the beginning and end were translated into Hebrew so that the book might be incorporated into the canon. But if Hebrew form was necessary for its inclusion in the canon, it would have been necessary to translate the whole into Hebrew, unless the censor was satisfied with looking only at the first part and the last part of the scroll (which implies a deception). In any case the linguistic diversity in parts of this book is no reason for assuming two sources for it, as Meinhold does in his Commentary (page 262); for the Aramaic Book of Daniel could not have begun with 2:4.
Also, the political history forming the background of the first six chapters is absent in 7–12. Historical critics suggest that the author may have thought his initial task was to first recount without a break the historical facts of Daniel's life, and that his second more important task was to record the revelations imparted to Daniel which were unconnected with his interaction with other people. In the first chapters Daniel is introduced in the third person, while in others he appears as the speaker. This is perhaps because the second part of the book is concerned only with the presentation of Daniel's relevatory experiences excluding all objective relations with the court and with the people, with the possible exception of the manifestation of the man clothed in linen which only Daniel saw, when great trembling fell on those about him and they fled (10:7). Such transitions of person narrative are found in other books (for example, Hosea 1 and 3). Therefore, the change of third- to first-person narrative does not necessarily affect the unity of the book. Barton finds a contradiction between 1:1, 5, 18, and 2:1; for Nebuchadnezzar is designated as "king" in 1:1, and, according to 1:5, 18, Daniel and his friends were to be prepared three years prior to appearing before the king, while in 2:1 it is stated that this happened as early as the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. But there is no unnatural prolepsis (anticipatory introduction) on first mentioning "King" Nebuchadnezzar, who subsequently did become king, in giving him the title by which he was commonly known at the time of writing. Barton also finds a contradiction between the words "And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus" (1:21) and the words "In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a thing was revealed unto Daniel" (10:1). But according to Barton, 1:21 does not mean that Daniel lived "even unto the first year of Cyrus," but that Daniel survived even the fall of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom and that of his successor. The other contradictions mentioned by Barton are discussed by Eduard König in "Theologisches Litteraturblatt," 1898, columns 539 and following. Barton's conclusion that nine different and complete episodes follow the first chapter is therefore untenable. The book, however, may have included originally only 1–7, an assumption that would explain the following three observations: the dropping of the Aramaic; the formula "Hitherto is the end of the matter" (7:28); and the juxtaposition of two materially identical narratives as found in 7 and 8. But this critique indicates that historical-critics may have difficulty accepting the principle set forth by Joseph in Genesis 41:32 "the doubling means that the thing is fixed by God", and that similarity of multiple narratives does not necessarily mean identity of event but more likely that it happened more than once (see Mark 8:19-20). Historical critics suggest that as events unfolded themselves, independent amplifications of the prophecy in the form of separately composed pamphlets, pointing even more clearly to the day of liberation, may have been added and incorporated into the book.
Genesis of the Book of Daniel: The hero and traditional author of the book which bears his name.
Historical-critical analysts point out that stories undoubtedly existed of a person by the name of Daniel, who was known to Ezekiel as a wise man (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3). Tradition then ascribed to this wise man all the traits which Israel could attribute to its heroes. He was exalted as the pattern of piety and faithfulness; and it may also have been said that he interpreted dreams, read cryptograms, and foreshadowed the beginning of the Messianic kingdom. They propose that his name may have played the same rôle in literature as that of Solomon or Enoch. As one anonymous author ascribed his book, "Koheleth" (Ecclesiastes), to Solomon, so another likewise may have ascribed his book to Daniel. Historical critics acknowledge that it would probably be unjust to say that the origin of his prophecies was creative invention. They may have been suggested by the author's enthusiastic study of the past history of God's people, then utilized to unlock the future. They see this as evident from 9:2, where the author says that he had pondered the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years, and the earlier prophecy provided the basis for a new prophecy. The author according to this reading is seen as merely a disciple of the Prophets, one who reproduced the prophecies of his masters, and suggests to them why it is not included in the section Nebiim in the Palestinian canon. However, this speculative reading does not suggest why the book is included among the Major Prophets in the Septuagint.
The name Daniel (Hebrew דניאל dnyal or dnal; Septuagint Δανιὴλ Daniél), means "God is my judge", the name also of two other persons in the Old Testament [see 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 3:1; 1 Esdras (Ezra) 8:2, and 2 Esdras (Nehemiah) 10:6]. It is thus seen as a fitting appellation for the unknown writer of the Book of Daniel, in which God's judgments are repeatedly pronounced on Gentile powers.
W. Sibley Towner (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696) writes that Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In its current form (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), he says the book must have been given its final form at some time in 167–164 B.C. Towner says this is based on two assumptions: first, that the authors lived near the end of the historical events characterizing Daniel 7–12; and second, that "prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray". Hence, the references to the Temple's desecration and the "abomination that makes desolate" in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events previously known to the author. He insists that the best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The "inaccurate" description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests to him that "the author did not know" of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C.. However, because Towner, as many others, implicitly assumes that the "sea" must be the Mediterranean, he does not advert to the fact that this text 11:45 accurately designated with divine foreknowledge the geographical location of Antiochus' death in Persia as between Mount Zion and the Caspian Sea and "between the seas" of the Mediterranean Sea and the Caspian Sea (the translations vary). Dr. Towner suggests that the roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chapters 1–6 may in fact date to an earlier time, but that the entire work was probably given its final shape in 164 B.C..
Louis F. Hartman (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, page 448) asserts that Jews and Christians, "having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing", until relatively recent years have "erroneously" considered Daniel to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. As chapters 7–12 are written in the first person, he says it was natural for them to assume that Daniel in chapters 1–6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. However, he insists that few modern biblical scholars would now seriously defend such an opinion. Hartman says the arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. The late Hebrew used in Daniel could hardly have written by an author living in the 6th century, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri dating from the end of the 5th century. He points out that the theological outlook of the author, with "his interest in angelology", "his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision", and especially "his belief in the resurrection of the dead", points inescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. Hartman says the author's historical perspective, "often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty", is characteristic of the Hellenistic age. Finally, the author's detailed description matching the details of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35), in contrast to his "merely general reference" to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165. Hartman says (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 460) that Daniel 14:1-22 is another folk tale of the "Daniel Cycle", a little Jewish "detective story" satire on the crudities of idolatry, although actually it is a caricature of pagan worship. He points out that the offering of food and drink in sacrifice to pagan gods "did not differ substantially from similar offerings made to Yahweh in the Temple". In both cases, a certain amount of the sacrificial offerings went quite legitimately to the priests and their families. However, the Jews of the last pre-Christian centuries were so convinced of the folly of idolatry (see Wisdom 13:1–15:17) that this "unfair ridicule of pagan worship" is understandable. (Compare the human sacrificial practices of infanticide/abortion in Wisdom 12:2-7.) Hartman says the second story in Daniel 14:23-42 is another short story in the "Daniel Cycle", basically a variant of Daniel 6 (the lions' den). Here pagan worship is again satired by Daniel's "blowing up" of the Babylonians' divine serpent (this is Hartman's ridicule of Daniel's inducing in the beast a serious bowel blockage and hemorrhage with rupture to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it was no god). He says that although this was once an independent story, in its present form it has been edited to follow the preceding tale (see verse 28); and he acknowledges that in all the Greek manuscripts, the two stories do appear together, and the LXX of the Jews even prefixes to the former tale the note, "From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi." However, neither Hartman nor fundamentalist Christians believe that this explicit pre-Christian rabbinical testimony/certification of authenticity in the LXX constitutes authentic inspired scriptural sanction of the book as being a genuine part of the Book of Daniel. This is the fallacy of exclusion, also called "cherry picking".
J. Alberto Soggin (Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 408) observes that the first difficulties in the historical classification of the book begin with the deportation of Daniel and his companions, because historians do not in fact know anything of a deportation which took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, in 607 B.C.. Allowing for its possibly basic historicity, he says the event might be connected with the conquest of Syria and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar II after the battle of Carchemish in 605–4 and his victory over Egypt. Soggin sees King Jehoiakim as taking this occasion to move out of the sphere of Egyptian influence and into that of Babylon (he refers his reader to 2 Chronicles 36:5, but his reference is of itself uninformative, vague, does not illustrate his point, and is of itself not complete, a pervasive general characteristic of modern liberal scholarship—see the fuller reference 2 Chronicles 36:1-7, and compare this usage to the far more explicit 2 Kings 23:31–24:7 which apparently was his intended reference). Complex problems of foreign policy followed, to which Soggin alludes in his discussion of Jeremiah. He points out that until recently this notation in the text of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 36:5 again?)was considered spurious, since there was no external historical point of comparison, but discoveries during the 1950s of various unedited fragments of the Babylonian Chronicle have, for historical-critical scholars, unexpectedly made sense of both this passage and 2 Kings 24:1ff. But even admitting the substantial historicity of the events narrated, Soggin emphasizes that there remains the problem of chronology. He finds other elements no less perplexing: in 5:11 Belshazzar is implicitly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar and in 7:1 he appears as king of Babylon. However, according to historical records he was neither one nor the other, but the son of Nabonidus, one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors who came to the throne as the result of a plot. (The only other possibility, according to Soggin, is that "son of..." is intended in a generic sense, as "descendant of...", a usage which is attested in Akkadian.) Alternatively, Soggin says the statement that Belshazzar was king may simply be imprecise wording: towards 553 B.C. he was resident in Babylon as a kind of lieutenant-general for the king during his numerous absences, and could therefore have been called king, at least by the people. Again, in 5:31 a certain Darius the Mede appears, who is considered by many readers to be king of Persia after the fall of Babylon. In 9:1 "Darius" appears as son of Xerxes, whereas in 6:29 Cyrus succeeds a "Darius". Soggin affirms that, if we are to be precise, the question arises regarding why Daniel is at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen, "always assuming that we take the term 'Mede' seriously". Soggin says this question has never been answered. He says we must therefore accept that Media in the Book of Daniel is in reality Persia. He does not appear to entertain the real possibility that Cyrus assigned to his own lieutenant and chief commander Darius the whole province of Babylon to govern as a subordinate ruler, and that the Babylonian empire fell when Darius "received" the kingdom. Conservative scholars can point out that he obviously "received the kingdom" from Cyrus (Aramaic קְבַל qĕbal "received"), that Darius is not called "king of the Medes", and therefore Daniel was not "at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen"—compare multiple versions of 5:31. But the genealogy of the kings of Persia is well known: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I Hystaspes, Xerxes. Soggin asks, if the Darius mentioned here was Darius I Hystaspes from the last quarter of the sixth century, king of Persia 521–486 B.C., how old would Daniel be? He says these are features which were already pointed out by the anti-Christian polemicist Celsus at the end of A.D. the second century. It is evident that they do not believe a prophet of God could live to the age of around 105 (about 17 years old, a "child/youth without blemish" (1:4) in the third year of Jehoiakim 607 B.C. and living to 519 B.C. the first year of Darius I Hystaspes: 607 – 519 = 88 years + 17 = 105 years old).
James King West (Introduction to the Old Testament, pages 417–418) writes that the same persecutions which provoked the Maccabean uprising also stimulated the development of a new literary and theological form within Jewish circles, known as "apocalypse". The name itself (Greek ἀποκάλυψις apokalypsis) means "revelation" or "unveiling" ("dis-closure", "'dis-close"), in reference to the revealed truths which these writings purport to convey. West states that the book of Daniel, from this period, is the only true apocalypse in the old Testament, though he acknowledges some portions of other books share close affinities with its style (Isaiah 24–27; Ezekiel 38–39; Zechariah 1:7–6:8; Joel 2:1-11; 4:1-21). He notes that between the second century B.C. and the end of A.D. the first century, other books of this genre, both Jewish and Christian, became popular, the Revelation of John in the New Testament being one of its best-known representatives. West says the characteristic theology of the apocalypse form is an eschatological (end time) dualism which presents the present age of world history as about to give way to God's final age—a climactic intervention by God himself for judgment and deliverance. The marked literary form of apocalyptic message is couched in visions, bizarre imagery, cryptic numbers, and angelic interpreters. Authorship is generally pseudonymous, the works being consigned to some authoritative figure of the distant past, such as Enoch, Moses, Daniel, or Ezra. This makes them technically "pseudepigrapha". West (Introduction to the Old Testament, pages 458–459) says Daniel 14:1-22 is a satire on pagan divinities in the vein of Isaiah 44:9-20 and the Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6). King Cyrus of Babylon asks Daniel why he does not worship Cyrus' idol, "Bel", and Daniel denies the king's claim that Bel eats the food offered to him daily. When Bel's priests are challenged to prove it, they allow the king to place the food in the temple and seal the door. In the meantime Daniel has his servants sift ashes over the floor. The next day Daniel and the king find the food gone but the floor is covered with footprints. Discovering the secret doors by which he had been deceived, Cyrus is enraged and orders the execution of the priests and their families, while Daniel is permitted to destroy the temple and the idol. West writes that in the companion story (Daniel 14:23-42) the same motive of lampooning pagan deities is apparent, but that the issue is approached from the opposite angle. The fact that Bel is nothing more than a man-made statue is easily demonstrated by its inability to eat, but the dragon is obviously a living creature and does eat. Therefore, to prove that the dragon too is no god, Daniel must show that merely being big and alive and able to eat is not sufficient evidence to establish divinity. He offers to perform the apparently impossible feat of slaying the dragon "without sword or club" (14:26). The king's acceptance of Daniel's challenge is a tacit admission of the premise that if Daniel succeeds the dragon is no god. Having concocted some cakes of pitch, fat, and hair, "he feeds them to the witless beast which promptly explodes". James King West here uses the language of ridicule to make the account sound comical and absurd. In fact the text says here that Daniel fed the cakes to the dragon, "the dragon ate them, and burst open". It did not "explode". This liberalist technique is a form of the Straw man fallacy.
Daniel J. Harrington (Invitation to the Apocrypha, page 118) says the addition to Daniel of the second story in 14:23-42 is a combination of three episodes:
- Daniel and the dragon (verses 23-28),
- Daniel in the lions' den (verses 29-32, 40-42), and
- Habakkuk's "magical" journey (verses 33-39).
Harrington sees the three episodes as loosely joined in a literary plot that vindicates Daniel and the God whom he worships, and as linked to the Story of Bel by verse 28 ("he has destroyed Bel, and killed the dragon"). Harrington evidently sees miraculous acts of divine intervention as "magic" instead of objectively real provident acts of God which He has done through his angels and prophets. Again, this is the language of ridicule.
David A. deSilva (Introducing the Apocrypha, pages 239–240) writes that while the author remains anonymous, some scholars have ventured to posit a very specific time and circumstance of composition. He cites Davies (1913: 656), for example, who suggests the book is a composition in a time of serious religious persecution, as under Antiochus VII Sidetes (ruler of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire, from 138 to 129 B.C). DeSilva claims that the assertion that "the general character of this tract" suggests authorship during a time of bitter persecution is without foundation, "arising no doubt from the unwarranted reading of the actions against Daniel in the second part of the story as a reflection of the author's own time". He says, moreover, that the picture of Antiochus VII painted by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 13.236–248) does not support the claim that he was an enemy of the Jewish religion per se. Although Antiochus VII retaliated against Simon's anti-Seleucid actions by invading Judea and even besieging Jerusalem, and although he pressed the siege so hard that many died of famine, deSilva says he showed himself quite favorably disposed toward Jewish piety, allowing a truce for the week of the Pentecost celebration at John Hyrcanus's request and even providing bulls for sacrifices, winning himself the epithet 'Antiochus the Pious.' This display of reverence toward Jewish piety led to a resolution of the dispute shortly thereafter. Thus, according to deSilva, the composition of Bel and the Dragon was inspired not by persecution but by the perennial problem of living as a monolatrous minority culture (monolatry—worship of one God) in an idol-worshipping world. He says the attack on both idolatry and zoolatry (worship of animals) makes Egypt the place where the stories would be most on target with regard to the religious alternatives encountered by God-fearing Jews (he cites the "Egyptian Jewish texts" Wisdom 11:15-16; 15:18-19; Letter of Aristeas 138) (Roth 1975: 43), who could profit from some reinforcement of the unique truth of their own religious heritage despite the lavish expenditures and apparent devotion of their neighbors toward their gods. He points out that the main obstacle to this proposed provenance of the book is the fact that no known Egyptian Jewish text was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew (Collins 1993: 419 ). Thus, deSilva concludes that, while this provenance is not impossible, since not all Egyptian Jews need to be supposed to have forgotten their ancestral language, it is more likely that the story originates in Palestine and that idolatry and zoolatry simply are attacked as two well-known forms of Gentile impiety. Others also concur with this view suggesting that perhaps the Hebrew text originated in Palestine about 146 B.C. or later.
Jay G. Williams (Understanding the Old Testament, page 316) asserts that when the author of Daniel himself attempted to predict the future specifically, he, on the whole, proved to be incorrect. Williams emphasizes that "Antiochus did not die as the author of Daniel said nor did his Seleucid kingdom come to a sudden end". The world still awaits the full manifestation of God's righteous rule upon earth. Still, Williams concedes the author was right about one thing: Antiochus did not destroy Israel. On the contrary, the Maccabees (he characterizes them as the "little help" mentioned in 11:34) even led the people to "a few moments of glory" before the Roman armies put an end to their semi-independent nation. Williams dismisses more than eighty years of Jewish autonomy under the Hasmoneans as a "few moments". He says that "perhaps our author was wrong in attempting to predict so precisely what was to occur, for the course of history is never easily determined in advance, even by a visionary prophet". Williams says that the author, however, knew that what his people actually needed was not "general platitudes" but a specific hope to which to cling, and that he provided this hope even at the risk of being wrong. But Williams assumes against Jewish cultural tradition that the Jews of the time had no sense of historical and political destiny, and that the warning of Moses against false prophets in the Book of Deuteronomy had no meaning for them Deuteronomy 18:22. (Jesus himself declared that Daniel is a prophet and he cites the words spoken through him of the "abomination of desolation" in the Book of Daniel, Matthew 24:15, compare Daniel 8:13. The word, ἐρημώσεως eremosis in Septuagint Daniel, is quoted exactly by Jesus, ἐρημώσεως eremosis in Greek Matthew. The Lord does not use the word שמם shâmêm from the Hebrew Daniel.) Williams says, furthermore, that the author's central, motivating thesis is one which faithful men can hardly reject. He concludes that essentially the book of Daniel is an affirmation of the faith that the God of Israel has dominion over the world and that in the end he will save his people, and teaches that the faithful man must live expectantly, with the hope that the Kingdom of God is indeed at hand.
Robert Doran (Harper's Bible Commentary, page 868) writes that the narrative of Bel and the Dragon has been nicely welded together into a single plot. He observes that the LXX and Theodotion use different connectives, but in both versions the narrative coheres. The major actors remain the same throughout—Daniel, the king, and the Babylonians. Both Bel and the snake are characterized as objects that the Babylonians worship (verses 3, 23). After the snake is destroyed, "all those from the region" (LXX verse 23; Theodotion: "the Babylonians") came together against Daniel to complain that the king had become a Jew, had overthrown Bel, and had killed the snake. Doran says the story of the threat to Daniel's life is thus strongly connected with the preceding narrative. The king's first confession of Bel's greatness (verse 18) and his final confession of Daniel's God (verse 41) use almost exactly the same formulas, even though LXX and Theodotion offer minor differences. Doran points out that this repetition is highly significant and helps unite the narrative. The LXX further connects the two episodes by the phrase "in that place" in verse 23, but also by developing the motif of eating. This motif dominates the Bel episode (verses 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 21). In the snake episode the king claims, "You cannot say he is bronze. Look, he lives and eats and drinks." Daniel then destroys the snake by offering it fatal food (verse 23). Doran says that the connection is made in the Theodotionic version through the notion of life: Daniel worships the living God (verse 5), while Bel is not a living God (verse 6); the king asserts that Daniel cannot say that the snake is not a living God (verse 24), but Daniel insists that it is his God who lives (verse 25). The links between all the episodes in both versions are seen by Doran as so pervasive that he insists the narrative must be seen to be a whole. He acknowledges that such stories, "of course", could theoretically have existed independently, but he points out the indisputable fact that there is no evidence that they did.
The persecution crisis
According to current historical-critical liberal opinion, the book of Daniel originated in its present form in the crisis precipitated by Antiochus Epiphanes, between 168/167—165/164 B.C.. To conservative historical-critical scholars it seems very difficult to perceive that one single desert community (Qumran) should have preserved such a significant number of Daniel manuscripts if this book had really been produced at so late a date. They say the evidence of a large number of manuscripts in this community can be much better explained if one accepts an earlier origin of Daniel than the one proposed by the Maccabean hypothesis of liberalist historical-critical scholarship, which dates it to no earlier than the second century B.C..
Historical-critical analysis considers all of the textual evidence for inferring the date of the writing of the book. Many historical-critical researchers find that many portions of the extant text could not have been composed or written by one of the exiles contemporary with the second king of the Babylonian empire and his immediate successors. This is proved even by the form of that king's name as given in the book. His Assyrian name was "Nabu-kudurriuẓur" (Friedrich Delitzsch, "Assyrische Lesestücke", 1900, p. 192), which the Hebrews at first pronounced "Nebu-kadr-eẓẓar" (Jeremiah 21:2 and following [26 times]; Ezekiel 26:7, 29:18 and following, 30:10). The middle "r" was then dissimilated from the final "r," giving "Nebu-kadn-eẓẓar," a form which is found in Jeremiah only in 27:6–29:3, but which is the usual form in all later writings (2 Kings 24:1 and following; 2 Chronicles 36:6 and following; Ezra 1:7; Esther 2:6; Daniel 1:18 and following; Soferim 14:7; Seder 'Olam R. 24 et seq.; and Septuagint, Ναβουχοδονόσορ Nabuchodonosor).
The time-conditioned historical milieu
Historical critics observe that the Book of Daniel was not written immediately after the Exile. Some of them say the post-exilic prophets do not appear to know this book, for, as they read them, the four horns, to which Israel's enemies are compared in Zechariah 1:21, read as having a local meaning, representing the four points of the compass, and do not appear to them to refer to the successive kingdoms, as in Daniel 2:29 and following. The same is the case with the four chariots in Zechariah 6:1 and following. They apparently see the imagery set forth in these books as symbolic literary constructions by the authors and not as faithful descriptions of actual visions which they witnessed. These literary critics say these passages are not exactly parallel with the predictions in Daniel, but it is also stated in Haggai 2:6-9 and following, that within "a little while" the Messianic time will come. And even Ben Sira says expressly (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 49:15) that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph, "a statement he could not have made had he known the Book of Daniel", since Daniel is there in the book of Daniel drawn as a man who, like Joseph, rose to be prime minister by virtue of his ability to interpret dreams. However, this critical observation omits the fact that Ben Sira in the same chapter which praises Joseph (49) also omits Jeremiah and the Twelve (the Minor Prophets). In Sirach 44–50, the chapters of praise of famous men, Ben Sira speaks (in the following order) of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, David, Joshua son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the Judges, Samuel, Nathan, David again, Solomon, Elijah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezekiel, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Joseph, Shem and Seth, and Adam, and of Simon the high priest son of Onias, and even of himself, Jesus the son of Sirach, son of Eleazar, of Jerusalem. Ben Sira does not mention the Twelve (the Minor Prophets, Hosea through Malachi); he does not mention Jeremiah; and he does not mention Daniel. The fact that he does not mention them is no evidence that Ben Sira c. 150 B.C. "could not have known" the books of the Prophets Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. The fact that he does not mention Daniel, "a statement he could not have made had he known the Book of Daniel", is no evidence. The Book of Daniel was unsealed in 164 B.C..
Many historical-critical researchers maintain that this work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal. The persecution was occasioned by Antiochus’ efforts to unify his kingdom, in face of the rising power of Rome, by continuing the hellenization begun by Alexander the Great; Antiochus tried to force Jews to adopt Greek ways, including religious practices. Severe penalties, including death, were exacted against those who refused (see, for example, 1 Maccabees 1:41–63). The stories in Daniel appear to historical critics to bristle with historical problems and to have the character of historical novels rather than factual records.
They assure us that what is more important than the question of historicity, and closer to the intention of the author, is the fact that persecuted Jews of the second century B.C. would quickly see the application of these stories to their own plight. Nor would a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors have written the stories of the Book of Daniel in the form in which they exist, since they appear to historical-critical scholars to contain many details that can not be harmonized with the data furnished in other historical sources, which they assume are far more accurate and truthful than the scriptures. The first verse, for instance, appears to them to contradict other passages of the Old Testament in saying that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and besieged it. For the verb means here, as elsewhere, "come," "arrive," and cannot be equivalent to "break up"; this is also apparently proved by the context of 1:1. But Jeremiah announced the coming of the Chaldeans only in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a year that is expressly designated, in Jeremiah 25:1, 46:2, as the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar. The date, "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" (Daniel 1:1), is seen as probably derived from 2 Kings 24:1 and following, where it is said that Jehoiakim, after having been subject to Nebuchadnezzar three years, turned and rebelled, and was attacked by predatory bands of the Chaldeans and their vassals. As no date is given for the beginning of this period of three years, critical scholars suggest that it might be supposed that the period began with the accession of Jehoiakim. The supposition being made, it could be said that the Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar would naturally be their leader. But these statements in Daniel 1:1 are seen by them as erroneously drawn from 2 Kings 24:1 and following, and as contradicting those found in Jeremiah 25:1, 9, and 46:2. Such discrepancies are not unparalleled in the Old Testament (compare Eduard König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," pages 172 and following). Nor can Nebuchadnezzar's madness (Daniel 4:12 and following) during seven years be taken literally by many of them. Belshazzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, is mentioned again (5:11, 13, 18, 22) in a way which historical critics say compels the inference that he really was such. This is tentatively explained on the ground that during the long period of oral tradition "it is possible" that the unimportant kings of Babylon "might easily have been forgotten", and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar. The same thing occurred in Baruch 1:11, and Sennacherib is mentioned as the son of Enemessar (Shalmaneser) in Tobit 1:15, with Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) being passed over. It is also well known that the period 516-331 B.C., of which only a few events are recorded, was contracted to thirty-four years in computing the time elapsed since the Creation in one Jewish chronology (Seder 'Olam R. 30).
This assertion that the Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes appears to them to be supported by the following data:
- The kingdom which is symbolized by the he goat (8:5 and following) is expressly named as the "kingdom of Yawan [Javan]"—that is, the Grecian kingdom (8:21) the great horn being its first king, Alexander the Great (definitely stated in Seder 'Olam R. 30), the little horn being Antiochus Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.). This kingdom was to persecute the host of the saints "unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings" (8:14, R.V.); that is, "half-days," or 1,150 days; and Epiphanes did, in fact, profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem for about that length of time, from Kislew 15, 168, to Kislew 25,165 (1 Maccabees 1:57, 4:52). The little horn described in Daniel 8:9-12, 23-25 has the same general characteristics as the little horn in 7:8, 20; hence the same ruler is designated in both passages. The well-known passage 9:23-27 also points to the same period.
Historical-critical scholars emphasize that the first and imperative rule in interpreting it is to begin the period of the seventy times seven units (A.V. "seventy weeks") with the first period of seven (9:25), and to let the second period, the "sixty-two times seven units," follow this; for if this second period (the sixty-two weeks) is reckoned as beginning again from the very beginning, the third period, the "one week," must be carried back in the same way. Furthermore, the context appears to them to demand that the origin of the prediction concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem be sought in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and the parallel passage in Jeremiah 29:10. They propose that the "anointed," the "prince," mentioned after the first seven times seven units, "must be Cyrus" (not Onias), who is called the "anointed of the Lord" in Isaiah 45:1 also. He is seen as having concluded the first seven weeks of years by issuing the decree of liberation, and the time that elapsed between the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem (586) and the year 538 was just about forty-nine years (7 × 7 = 49). They concede the fact that the duration of the sixty-two times seven units (434 years) does not correspond with the time 538–171 (367 years), a difference of 67 years; "but the chronological knowledge of that age was not very exact". The Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Meyer, page 104) computed the Persian rule to have lasted fifty-two years. This is all the more evident as the last period of seven units must include the seven years 171–165 B.C. (see "Rev. Et. Juives," xix. 202 et seq.). This week of years began with the murder of an anointed one (compare Leviticus 4:3 and following on the anointing of the priest)—namely, the legitimate high priest Onias III—and it was in the second half of this week of years that the Temple of the Lord was desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in place of the Lord's altar for burnt offering (see 1 Maccabees 1:54).
Qumran manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel
The Qumran findings significantly curtailed the great freedom many liberalist scholars took in questioning the faithfulness of the Hebrew text and in amending, changing, and adjusting the Hebrew text before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.
Many scholars have regarded the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel as of no greater authority than other ancient translations such as the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the version attributed to Theodotion. Among the reasons they have given is that the Septuagint treatment of Daniel appears as less literal, less closely related to the MT, than the treatment given to the rest of the Old Testament. This fact has led some to assume that the MT of Daniel is of relatively little value.
Moreover, the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel, available in only two ancient manuscripts, is said by them to be periphrastic [use of many words] and expansionistic, containing considerably more material than the MT, aside from such deuterocanonical additions as the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, and the Song of the Three Young Men (Moore 1977).
Theta, the translation of Theodotion, an Ephesian (A.D. ca. 180) was the official Greek translation of Daniel used in ancient times. His translation, which has antecedents (Schmitt 1966), has "the distinction of having supplanted the current version of the book of Daniel" (Jellicoe 1968:84). In addition, around A.D. 400 Jerome ventured the opinion that the Septuagint "differs widely from the original [Hebrew], and is rightly rejected."
Of the two ancient Greek versions of Daniel we have, only the one by Theodotion has a close affinity with the MT. These considerations, along with some others, have persuaded leading modern scholars to have little confidence in the MT. Professor Klaus Koch supports the hypothesis that there is no available authoritative, original text for the book of Daniel. While we do have a Hebrew/Aramaic text and two Greek versions, Professor Koch suggests that none of these three is original, and that an original text is to be reconstructed with the best tools available (Koch et al. 1980:22, 23; Koch 1986:16–21). This is also essentially the view of L. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella, who point out that there are "no iron rules or golden rules" in this process of textual reconstruction (Hartman and Di Lella 1978:75). These and other scholars assume that the book of Daniel in its entirety was written originally in the Aramaic language and that the Hebrew parts of the book are translations from Aramaic into Hebrew. Other scholars, however, oppose this hypothesis.
This clearly presents a complex picture. The Daniel materials newly published from Qumran appear to throw important new light on the issue of the original text of Daniel. Historical critics say this because there is great harmony between the MT and the Cave 4 finds of the book of Daniel. Thus it no longer seems permissible to dismiss the Hebrew-Aramaic text of the book as unreliable.
We need to note the following:
1. The variants of the eight Dead Sea scroll Daniel manuscripts, for the most part, are very close to each other.
2. None of the manuscript fragments presents any significant abbreviation and no lengthy expansion. "The text of Daniel in these [Cave 4] Daniel scrolls conforms closely to later Masoretic tradition; there are to be found, however, some rare variants which side with the Alexandrian Greek [Septuagint] against the MT and Theodotion" (Cross 1956:86). (boldface emphasis added)
3. The Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna that are in all the Greek manuscripts are not contained in these manuscript fragments.
4. As it was previously in 1QDana, the change from Hebrew into Aramaic is preserved for Daniel 2:4b in 4QDana. Thus two different manuscripts give evidence to this change in language. The change from Aramaic into Hebrew in Daniel 8:1 is clearly manifested in both 4QDana and 4QDanb, just as in the MT.
Despite the "few insignificant variants" that agree with the Septuagint, and based on the overwhelming conformity of these Qumran Daniel manuscripts with each other and with the MT, it is evident to the majority of Historical-critical scholars that "the MT is the well-preserved key text for the Hebrew/Aramaic version of the book of Daniel". An eclectic approach, using the Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Greek, and other versions as if they were all on the same level without giving priority to the Hebrew text is no longer seen by them to be supportable, "if it ever was previously". The Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text of the book of Daniel now has stronger support than at any other time in the history of the interpretation of the book of Daniel.
The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and the Protocanonical Book of Daniel
In 1955 when Professor D. Barthélemy published the first fragmentary Daniel manuscripts from Cave 1 of Qumran, 1QDana and 1QDanb, he put forth the opinion that "certain indications permit the thought that Daniel had perhaps not yet been considered at Qumran as a canonical book" (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:250). This idea perpetuated itself for years afterward among more liberal scholars who were in the majority. However, in 1964 F.F. Bruce stated that the book of Daniel "may well have enjoyed canonical status among them [the Qumran sectaries]" (Bruce 1964:57). John Goldingay stated in his 1989 Daniel commentary, written before the newest publications of the Qumran Daniel manuscripts were accessible, "There are no real grounds for suggesting that the form of the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel indicates that the book was not regarded as canonical there, though neither for affirming that it was [regarded as canonical] (Goldingay 1989:xxvii)." This is an example of tautological reasoning. "There is no proof that it is, and no proof that it is not." It proves nothing and contributes nothing. It is similar to the fallacy of contradiction.
Historical-critical scholars believe these doubts and uncertainties about the canonicity of Daniel among the Qumran people can now be laid aside for good. They have been based largely on the "roughly square proportions of the columns of 1QDana and because Pap6QDan is written on papyrus" (Ulrich 1987:19). But professor Ulrich now says that from Cave 4 scholars now have "overriding evidence" on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or "canonical", including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms, etc., that however one uses the category of what is later explicitly termed "canonical" in relation to Qumran, the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).
The so-called 4QFlorilegium, a fragment that employs the quotation formula "which written in the book of Daniel the prophet", also supports canonicity. Such a formula is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran. It is similar also to Matthew 24:15, where Jesus refers to "Daniel the prophet."
Conservative Bible scholars emphasize that it is reasonable to ask how Daniel could have become so quickly canonical if it had just been produced about 150 B.C. a mere half century before Daniel was already accepted as canonical at Qumran at about 100 B.C.? While scholars do not know exactly how long it took for books to become accepted as canonical, they allow that it may be surmised that, to the degree that Daniel was reckoned by the dedicated sectaries as among the canonical books, it therefore had a longer existence than the mere five decades suggested by the Maccabean dating hypothesis. Both the evidential canonical status the book was accorded and the fact that Daniel was considered a "prophet" speak for the antiquity of the book of Daniel. An existence of a mere five decades between the production of a Biblical book in its final form and canonization does not seem reasonable.The obvious canonical acceptance of the book of Daniel at Qumran therefore suggests an earlier origin of the book than the second century B.C.. Based on the evidence available at the time in 1969 regarding the Qumran Daniel texts, Roland K. Harrison had already concluded that the second century dating of the book of Daniel was
"absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumran, partly because there are no indications whatever that the sectaries compiled any of the Biblical manuscripts recovered from the site, and partly because there would, in the latter event, have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect" (Harrison 1969:1127).And soon afterward, he stated that based on the Qumran manuscripts, "there can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product" (Harrison 1979:862). The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.
Physical evidence supporting the 165 B.C. date comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eight copies of Daniel were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The oldest copy has been scientifically dated to 125 B.C. using carbon dating techniques. And since it is a copy, the original was written long before 125 B.C.
Four trustworthy methods have been used to show that the Dead Sea Scrolls are credible and to unerringly date when they were written.
- 1. Carbon dating techniques using two independent systems that agree. These are the AMS Laboratory at the University of Arizona and the ETH laboratory in Zurich, Switzerland. [AMS means Accelerator Mass Spectrometry]
- 2. The carbon dating techniques were verified to be accurate based on dating three scrolls with known dates (the known written dates are from the post Dead Sea Scrolls era of Bar Kokhba, dated A.D. April 16, 128, A.D. Sept 11, 130, and A.D. 135).
- 3. The style of the text used by scribes to copy the scrolls (size, appearance and shape of the letters, and their spacing) permits Paleographers to date when the scrolls were copied. Carbon dating techniques agreed with the paleographic dates.
- 4. Silver coins found at the Dead Sea Scrolls Community were minted between 136 B.C. to 9 B.C..
Carbon Dating Techniques from Two Systems Agree
The University of Arizona used advanced methods to carbon date various Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, researchers concluded at the 95% confidence level that the Habakkuk scroll was a copy written between 150 B.C. to 5 B.C.. Other Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts analyzed by the University of Arizona agree with the dating done at a lab in Zurich, Switzerland.
Before doing any tests, the University of Arizona lab was given a scroll piece that had previously been dated by the Zurich lab. The University of Arizona lab arrived at the same date as the Zurich lab without knowing the date achieved at the Zurich lab. So independent verification corroborates the age of the scrolls.
In support of the carbon dating done by independent labs, the Israel Antiquities Authority stated in a news release that "Some of the papyrus samples bear exact written dates within the text itself. These dates match those determined by the carbon-14 measurements. The reliability of paleography as a dating method is thus confirmed.
Dates from Coins at the Dead Sea Scrolls site
More than 550 silver coins were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The coins were used to date when people lived at the site. The silver coins were minted between 136 B.C. to 9 B.C..
Hebrew and Aramaic textual finds
Two articles of vital interest on the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the book of Daniel were published in the 1980's, from among the Dead Sea scroll textual finds made originally in 1952 in Cave 4 at Qumran. The publication by Professor Eugene Ulrich, "Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran" (1989), gives Biblical scholars full insight into these pivotal textual finds, and follows the one published two years earlier on other parts of these finds (Ulrich 1987).
A major role has been played by Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) in pushing for publication in a number of articles over the past few years, especially in 1989 and 1990 (Shanks 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1989d, 1990). There have been charges of a scandal because there are about "400 separate unpublished texts arranged on 1,200 different [photographic] plates" which have been hidden for some 40 years away from the scrutiny of the scholars. Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR, says that "a reasonable guess is that 100 of these [unpublished texts] are Biblical texts on 200 plates" (1989c:20).
The charges regarding the non-publication of these Dead Sea scroll texts were taken up in the summer of 1989 by the public press. For example, the New York Times in a July 9, 1989, editorial, "The Vanity of Scholars", complained that "the scrolls were discovered in 1947, but many that are in fragments remain unpublished. More than 40 years later a coterie of dawdling scholars is still spinning out the work while the world waits and the precious pieces lapse into dust."
Various encouraging developments have taken place since the summer of 1991, and scholars says they can look forward to a speedy publication of the remaining scroll fragments and texts.
Professor Frank M. Cross of Harvard University first voiced the significance of the Daniel fragments of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1958 when he published The Ancient Library of Qumran, a comprehensive survey of the scrolls. In the 1961 second edition of the book, Professor Cross refers to the fragments of the Daniel scrolls: "One copy of Daniel is inscribed in the script of the late second century B.C.; in some ways it is more striking than that of the oldest manuscripts from Qumran" (43).
From a scholarly point of view this was said to be very welcome news, for many scholars on various grounds have long considered the text of Daniel suspect. The question then became: How much of the book of Daniel is on this scroll, and precisely what sections are preserved and how does it compare with the rest of the Hebrew text of the book of Daniel?
More than 35 years after its discovery and more than 25 years after Cross made his "astounding declaration", this text and others from Cave 4 on the book of Daniel, were finally published, in November 1989. Only a few scraps of fragments from Cave 4, which contain only "five tiny fragments, all from the prayer in chapter 9 but none with more than one complete word" (Ulrich 1989:3), remain to be published (the fragments of the scroll designated 4QDane).
Cross was assigned the fragments of the Daniel scrolls from Cave 4 for publication (Cross 1956:86) as long ago as 1951 (Benoit 1956:76). He was a member of the original group of editors of the Dead Sea scrolls appointed in 1953 (Shanks 1989c:18). But some time ago Cross entrusted to Eugene Ulrich of the University of Notre Dame, a former student of his, the Daniel materials from Cave 4 (Shanks 1989a:57). In 1987 Ulrich published the materials from one scroll of Cave 4, 4QDana. He has subsequently published the materials of the two other major scrolls, 4QDanb and 4QDanc.
D. Barthélemy in 1955 published two scroll fragments: 1QDana and 1QDanb (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:150–52). These contain parts of 22 verses from Daniel 1–3, that is, Daniel 1:10–17; 2:2–6 (1QDana) and 3:22–30 (1QDanb).
Maurice Baillet in 1962 published a papyrus fragment from Cave 6, containing possibly parts of Daniel 8:16, 17, 21, 22; and clearly 10:8–16; 11:33–36, 38 (Baillet and Milik 1962:114, 115; pl. 23).
The book of Daniel from Qumran from Cave 4 is the most extensively preserved scroll of the book: 4QDana, which contains large portions of Daniel. Preserved are parts of Daniel 1:16–20; 2:9–11, 19–49; 3:1, 2; 4:29, 30; 5:5–7, 12–14, 16–19; 7:5–7, 25–28; 8:1–5; 10:16–20; 11:13–16. Scroll 4QDanb contains Daniel 5:10–12, 14–16, 19–22; 6:8–22, 27–29; 7:1–6, 11(?), 26–28; 8:1–8, 13–16; and 4QDanc has Daniel 10:5–9, 11–16, 21; 11:1, 2, 13–17, 25–29 (Ulrich 1987:18). This means that scholars have at their disposal from the Dead Sea scrolls parts of all chapters, except Daniel 9 and 12. The unpublished 4QDane is certainly expected to have a few words of various parts of Daniel 9. There is also an overlap of a number of passages in Daniel 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Reference to Daniel 12 is made in 4QFlorilegium, which is an anthology of midrashic materials [rabbinical commentaries] on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1, 2.
No fewer than eight manuscripts of Daniel have been identified among the materials discovered in three of the 11 caves of Qumran. The significance of this fact is appreciated by comparing it with the manuscript finds of other Biblical books from the same caves.
In 1992 a very recent listing appeared of published materials from the Dead Sea scrolls in 1977. The listing mentions 13 fragments of scrolls from the Psalms; nine from Exodus; eight from Deuteronomy; five from Leviticus; four each from Genesis and Isaiah (Fitzmyer 1977:11–39); and no fewer than eight scrolls representing Daniel. Although scholars have no sure knowledge yet of the total scrolls that have been preserved from the Bible at Qumran, it is evident from this comparison that the book of Daniel was a favorite book among the Qumran covenantors.
John C. Trever gave dates, published in 1955, for the Daniel scrolls as from the Herodian period for 1QDana and the late Herodian period for 1QDanb (1964-1966:323–36). In other words, he proposed that these manuscripts could come from about A.D. 60 or earlier (Hartman and Di Lella 1978:72).
This date is still very significant because the Masoretic text (MT) from which our Bibles are translated comes from a major manuscript that is dated to A.D. 1008 (Wurthwein 1979:35). In other words, for the first time in history scholars are able to compare the Hebrew and Aramaic of the book of Daniel with manuscripts of the same book about 1,000 years older. Based on a careful study of the variants and relationships with the MT, a comparison between the MT and the earlier manuscripts contained in 1QDana, 1QDanb, and 6QDan, reveals that "the Daniel fragments from Caves 1 and 6 reveal, on the whole, that the later Masoretic text is preserved in a good, hardly changed form. They are thus a valuable witness to the great faithfulness with which the sacred text has been transmitted" (Mertens 1971:31). In other words, these textual witnesses demonstrate that the MT was faithfully preserved and confirm that the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel is reliable. (And what is true of the faithful copying of the MT is true of the faithful and devout transmission of the preChristian Septuagint Greek Old Testament text from before the time of Jesus.)
Along with the dates of the earlier publications, the date for the three Daniel manuscripts published by 1989 is also of great importance. Some of the recently published scrolls on Daniel are even older than the previously published ones. The date of 4QDana is assigned to about 60 B.C. and 4QDanb to about A.D. 60 (Ulrich 1987:17). The oldest manuscript of Daniel by far is 4QDanc, which Cross dated in 1961 to the "late second century B.C." (Cross 1961:43). Scholars who support a date for the writing of the book of Daniel in the Maccabean crisis at about the middle of the second century B.C. will be able to say that 4QDanc is "only a half century later than the composition of the book of Daniel" (Ulrich 1987:17). For supporters of this dating this means that the manuscript evidence for Daniel is as close to the autograph as the Rylands Papyrus is to the Gospel of John. "It is thus, for the Hebrew Bible, comparable to the Rylands manuscript of the Johannine Gospel for the New Testament" (Ulrich 1989:3). This comparison means that the papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, published in 1935, Rylands 457, dated in the first half of A.D. the second century, effectively refuted claims of scholars who had attempted to date the Gospel of John to the latter part of A.D. the second century. The Rylands papyrus was within 25 to 50 years of the writing of the Gospel of John.
New issues are being raised for those supporting the late historical-critical date of the book of Daniel. Conservative scholars and researchers are asking: is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book, since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph? They point out that supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. "To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed" (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable when all the available evidence is objectively considered.
The book contains traditional stories (chapters 1–6), which tell of the trials and triumphs of the wise Daniel and his three companions. The moral is that people of faith can resist temptation and conquer adversity. The message in both parts of the first twelve chapters (i.e., chaps. 1–6 and chaps. 7–12) is that history unrolls under the watchful eye of God, who does not abandon those who trust in him and will finally deliver and re-establish them. Gentile rulers are able to see the truth of the religion of Israel and are able to acknowledge the true God. Magicians and enchanters have not the true wisdom (a lesson applicable to New Age teachings). In the chapter of the fiery furnace, with the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children of Israel, the holiness of God and His power are praised and manifested and the whole of the created order of existence is summoned to worship the Creator. In the chapter of Susanna the false accusers who abused their authority to destroy the righteous innocent are put to death, and virtue triumphs. In the chapter of Bel and the Dragon the folly of superstitious worship, the deceitfulness of false religions, and the superiority of the true God is presented in contrast. Key passages in the book express in summary form the whole of the message:
- Daniel 1:20 God's prophets and wise men are ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters.
- Daniel 2:44 The God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed.
- Daniel 2:47 Our God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries.
- Daniel 3:17 God is able to deliver from destroyers those who serve him.
- Daniel 3:40 There is no shame for those who trust in God.
- Daniel 4:35 No one can stay God's hand (resist him) or say to him "what are you doing?"
- Daniel 5:20 Rulers who deal arrogantly are deposed and their glory is taken from them.
- Daniel 6:26 The kingdom of the living God shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end of time.
- Daniel 7:27 God's kingdom and all dominions and kingdoms under heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High as an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey them.
- Daniel 8:25 The cunning deceiver and destroyer who rises up against the Prince of princes shall be broken by no human power.
- Daniel 9:4 God keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments. (see John 14:21 and 1 John 3:22)
- Daniel 10:19 Those greatly beloved of God need not fear, but must be strong and of good courage.
- Daniel 11:44 and 45 What is to come is already known, and (any)one who seeks with great fury to exterminate and utterly destroy many shall come to his end with none to help him (or her).
- Daniel 12:2 There will be a physical resurrection of the dead, and they shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
- Daniel 12:10 The wicked have no understanding; but those who are wise shall understand. (see Revelation 22:11)
- Daniel 13:22-23 and Daniel 13:60 The righteous choose to not sin in the sight of the Lord, and God saves those who hope in him.
- Daniel 14:5 God's people do not revere man-made idols, but the living God, who created heaven and earth and has dominion over all flesh.
- Daniel 14:41 There is no other God than the God of Daniel. (see 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Isaiah 45:22)
The Roman martyrology assigns Daniel's feast as a holy prophet to 21 July, and apparently treats Babylon as his burial-place.
The Prayer of the Three Holy Children is a component of the biblical Book of Daniel. In Orthodox Christian worship, the prayer is the basis of the seventh and eighth biblical canticles sung at Orthros. Although the text of the canticles is generally not read in contemporary practice, the hymns sung as part of the canon reference the theme of the Three Holy Children. At Vespers of Holy Saturday, the text of the prayer is heard as part of one of the fifteen Old Testament readings prescribed for that day. In Byzantine practice, the closing refrains to each verse "bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever" are chanted elaborately. The Roman Catholic Church considers this text to be part of the deuterocanonical collection which was defined at the Council of Trent in 1546 as "sacred" and "canonical." The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England includes the text as the canticle Benedicite omnia Opera.
Classic Commentaries on Daniel online
à Lapede Great Commentary on the Bible 1681 Online (Latin)
The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide (8 vols.) by Cornelius à Lapide • John Hodges, John Grant 1887–1908
Cornelius à Lapide wrote commentaries on all the books of the Canon of Scripture (including the Deuterocanon), with the exception only of the Book of Job and the Psalms. The complete series, with Job and the Psalms added by other hands, appeared at Antwerp, 1681, 1714; at Venice, 1717, 1740, 1798; at Cologne, 1732; at Turin, 1838; at Lyons, 1839-42, 1865 and 1866; at Malta, 1843-46; at Naples, 1854; at Lyons and Paris, 1855 and 1856; at Milan, 1857; at Paris, 1859-63. The best-mentioned edition has been enriched by Crampon and Péronne with annotations from more recent interpreters. All these commentaries are on a very large scale. They explain not only the literal, but also the allegorical, tropological, and anagogical sense of the sacred text, and furnish a large number of quotations from the Fathers and the later interpreters of Holy Writ during the Middle Ages.
See Guide to Cornelius à Lapide’s Great Commentary, by Dr Taylor Marshall (guide with links to entire à Lapede Commentary)
Cornelius à Lapide’s Great Commentary, Volume 13 (Daniel & Hosea to Amos). Tomo XIII Commentarius In Danielum Prophetum. pdf
("Caput Decimum Tertium, Caput Decimum Quartum" is chapter 13, chapter 14.)
Matthew Henry Complete Bible Commentary 1706 Online
Matthew Henry Complete Bible Commentary. Daniel chapters 1 through 12.
Originally written in 1706, Matthew Henry's six volume Complete Commentary provides an exhaustive look at every verse in the Protestant Bible.
Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible 1832 Online
Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible. Daniel chapters 1 through 12.
Adam Clarke (1760 or 1762 - 1832) was a British Methodist theologian and Biblical scholar. He is chiefly remembered for writing a commentary on the Bible which took him 40 years to complete and which was a primary Methodist theological resource for two centuries.
Contained in 6 volumes, consisting of nearly 1,000 pages each, it was considered the most comprehensive commentary on the Bible ever prepared by one man. His commentary, particularly that on Revelation, identified the Catholic Church with the antichrist and bordered on antisemitic.
Haydock Bible Commentary 1859 Online
A Catholic Bible commentary compiled by the late Rev. Fr. George Leo Haydock, following the Douay-Rheims Bible.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible 1871 Online
The one volume Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible was prepared by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown and published in 1871.
Cyrus I. Scofield|Scofield Reference Bible 1917 Online
Scofield Reference Bible. Daniel chapters 1 through 12.
The Scofield Reference Bible is a widely circulated study Bible edited and annotated by the American Bible student Cyrus I. Scofield, which popularized dispensationalism at the beginning of the 20th century. Published by Oxford University Press and containing the entire text of the traditional, Protestant King James Version, it first appeared in 1909 and was revised by the author in 1917.
New Oxford Annotated Bible 2010 Online
New Oxford Annotated Bible pdf. (Daniel is page 1260)
New American Bible, Revised Edition 2010 Online
- The Theta, or Version of Theodotion, Greek version of Daniel with all its parts including chapters 3 and 13 and 14 appears to be a revision of the Septuagint text, with the help of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, now lost. Catholic scholars in general and several Protestants (Eichhorn, Einleit., in das Altes Testament, IV, 24 f; Einleit. in die apok. Schriften, 419; Vatke; Delitzsch, De Habacuci, 50; Zockler, Bissell, Ball, Rothstein, etc.) hold that Hebrew was the original language of Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. See the following:
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: S: Song of the Three Children
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: S: Susanna, the History of (T. Witton Davies)
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: B: Bel and the Dragon (T. Witton Davies)
See also (page 572) Professor Eugene Ulrich, 1989, Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran
- Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible
Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon, by Dr Taylor Marshall
BlogSpot. Beggars All: Reformation & Apologetics. Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture (Part One) (beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com) See also (Part Two) Both offer clear explanations and clarifications by one Protestant apologist of the rationale for the firm Protestant position that the decision by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome in 382 on the canon of the books of the Bible is invalid (includes discussions).
- Saturday, October 26, 2013. The Council of Florence on the Pope, the Church and the Bible
Catholic Encyclopedia (1915) Canon of the Old Testament "During the deliberations of the Council [of Trent] there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod" [of Florence]."
Christian Classics Ethereal Library. History of the Church, Vol. 6: § 18. The Council of Ferrara-Florence. 1438–1445.
Canons of the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) (Basel/Ferrara/Florence/Rome)
- The Catholic Church is the world's largest Christian body comprised of several distinct "Rites". The Catholic Church (Latin Rite) is the largest religious body in the United States, with over 60 million adherents (4 times as large as the second largest church, the Orthodox).
“The Global Catholic Population,” © 2011, Pew Research Center.
The Largest Catholic Communities
The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church, and also referred to as the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy, is the second largest Christian church in the world, with an estimated 225–300 million adherents, most of whom live in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Russia.
The Greek (Eastern) Orthodox Church. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of America (1983). Retrieved on 7 May 2014.
Christianity:Basics:Eastern Orthodox Church Denomination. about.com. Retrieved on 22 May 2014.
Christianity. Major Branches of Religions Ranked by Number of Adherents. adherents.com. Retrieved on 22 May 2014.
- See Percentage of Christians in Protestant Denominations (29.5%).
- Easton's Bible Dictionary, article on Daniel originally published in 1897.
- Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147. Source cited in:
- Defending the Bride: The Books of the Bible, by John Hellmann: —Jews (defendingthebride.com)
- Defending the Deuterocanonicals, James Akin (ewtn.com)
- See also (Beta Yisrael) A Historical Analysis by Rabbi S.B. Levy 2002 (blackjews.org) "Their Torah, written in the Geez language on parchment, contained all the books of the Old Testament and some from the Apocrypha, but none of the New Testament and no references to Jesus at all."
- See video on the canon, including the canon of the Ethiopian Jews : —The Septuagint (youtube.com)
- A. D. 1611 King James Version and Revised Version of A. D. 1881 arranged in parallel columns, O. A. Browning & Co., Toledo, Ohio, Potter, Chase & Co., Kansas City, MO, J. H. Buckmaster, Toledo, Ohio, 1881.
- "not in the Hebrew"
—A major portion of the canonical Book of Daniel—which is accepted as inspired and canonical in the Protestant Bible—is also not in the Hebrew, but in Aramaic: Daniel 2:4–7:28.
—Major portions of the canonical Book of Ezra—which are accepted as inspired and canonical in the Protestant Bible—are also not in the Hebrew, but in Aramaic: Ezra 4:7–6:18; 7:12-26.
—Other minor portions of the Old Testament—which are accepted as inspired and canonical in the Protestant Bible—were penned in Aramaic, not Hebrew: Jeremiah 10:11; and two words in Genesis 31:47.
See the following:
- Biblica: Transforming lives through God's Word. In what language was the Bible first written? (biblica.com)
- Why is Daniel chapter 2:4–7:28 written in Aramaic? (hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions)
- Christian Courier : Languages of the Bible (christiancourier.com)
- Languages of the Bible (bible.gen.nz)
- See Parallel Bibles: English translations in parallel columns
- Some modern commentators have substituted "steel" for bronze and iron. Daniel: A Christian Interpretation, by James E. Smith, Ph.D. Lulu.com, 2008. 420 pages. 5: God of Revelation, page 99, footnote 117: a citation of David Flusser, "The Four Empires in the Fourth Sybyl and in the Book of Daniel", IOS, 2 (1972): 162–71 "gold, silver, steel, mixed iron".
See Daniel 2:33 multiple translations.
- See List of Rulers of Mesopotamia (metmuseum.org)
- Kingdom of the Medes. See the following articles:
- Media (livius.org)
- Median Empire (crystalinks.com)
- Media and Medes (newadvent.org)
- History of the Medes (Magi and Enchanters of Old) (taroscopes.com)
- Ancient History Encyclopedia: Media: definition, by Jan van der Crabben, published on 28 April 2011 (ancient.eu)
- TheFreeDictionary by Farlex: Media: definition (thefreedictionary.com)
The Median tribal warriors are mentioned for the first time in the Assyrian Annals as enemies of Šalmaneser III (858-824).
- See History of the Kings of Media and Persia (mcadams.posc.mu.edu)
- See the following:
- L. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella point out that there are "no iron rules or golden rules" in the process of textual reconstruction (Hartman and Di Lella 1978:75). These and other scholars assume that the book of Daniel in its entirety was written originally in the Aramaic language and that the Hebrew parts of the book are translations from Aramaic into Hebrew.
- Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament
- When was Daniel Written? Evidence Supporting 6th Century BCE Authorship Date After Removing Naturalist Bias
- See About Dr. Oakes. PhD in chemical physics.
- Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spring 1976) 319-348. Copyright © 1976 by Westminster Theological Seminary. THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON, by Robert C. Newman (faculty.gordon.edu)
- BibleStudyTools.com. Bible, Canon of
- The New Yorker: Page-Turner. March 1, 2013 Treasures in the Wall, by Emily Greenhouse (newyorker.com)
Jewish Virtual Library: Modern Jewish History: The Cairo Genizah, by Alden Oreck
- Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman: The Benediction Against the Minim (lawrenceschiffman.com)
Defending the Bride. The Curse Against Christians at Jamnia about 90 AD (defendingthebride.com)
- "some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic". Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of Tobit, ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus), Epistle of Jeremiah in the caves at Qumran near the Dead Sea, the "Dead Sea Scrolls", demonstrate that a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of a text included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures in the Septuagint and accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for its inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon. Additional factors also included consideration of evidence of content which supported Christian doctrine. Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 most certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See—
- Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone
- Background and History to the Apocrypha, by David Phillips Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)
- The Origin of the Apocrypha
- The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, by Edwin Cone Bissell. Scribner, 1890. 680 pages, page 208ff, citing evidence that the "additions to Esther" were also translated from the Hebrew. (Google eBook)
- The Canon of the Old Testament
The Old Testament Canon, by Peter Reed (biblicalstudies.org.uk)
- The Jewish “Council” of Jamnia and Its Impact on the Old Testament Canon and New Testament Studies, Tim Gordon October 20, 2007 —(academia.edu/6811953) —at the page site (which looks empty) scroll down to see the text.
Jack P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean By Jabneh?" The Journal of Bible and Religion XXXII, no. 2 (April 1964): 125-132
Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible? (catholicdefense.blogspot.com)
Jewish Encyclopedia. Academies in Palestine (jewishencyclopedia.com)
- Ethiopian Jews—Beta Israel. The rise of Beta Israel dates back to the reign of King Solomon in the late Tenth Century B.C..
—See Blackpast.org: Beta Israel(blackpast.org)
- See the essay Private Judgment [British Critic, July 1841] (newmanreader.org)
- Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament. Jesus and the New Testament writers never quote Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs (Song of Solomon). See A list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers.
- Marcion of Sinope (84 - c.160 A.D.). See Theopedia: Marcionism and Theopedia: Marcion
See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Marcionites (newadvent.org)
- See the Canon of Marcion
- Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books' of the New Testament (bible-researcher.com/antilegomena)
Luther And "New Testament Apocrypha", A. Wikgren, in R. H. Fischer's A Tribute To Arthur Vööbus: Studies In Early Christian Literature, 1977, pp. 379-390. © University of Chicago Press
- The Table Talk of Martin Luther (1599), By Martin Luther, translated Alexander Chalmers, editor William Hazlitt. Bell & Daldy, 1872. 390 pages ISBN 0486443590 ISBN 978-0486443591.
The Truth About Martin Luther (jesus-is-savior.com)
- 'The Facts About Luther, O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.
- 'Preface to the New Testament,' ed. Dillenberger, p. 19.
- 'Pagan Servitude of the Church,' ed. Dillenberger, p. 352.
- 'Preface to Romans,' ed. Dillenberger, pp. 18-19.
- Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp. 169-170, 'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 203.
- Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.
- Luther Speaks, ed. H. P. Ehrenberg, page 72, cited in "Luther's Principles of Biblical Interpretation" A. Skevington Wood [1916â€"1993], Ph.D., F.R. Hist.S. (VII.) (biblicalstudies.org.uk)
- George Fox's Teaching on the Place of Scripture (qis.net)
- Original Book of Mormon Text, page 575 (originalbookofmormonrestored.com)
- John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. Bible difficulties explained (1860), p. 162 –book in the public domain
- "Bible hermeneutics", Steve Bond, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, pp. 203–207.
- St. John's Abbey: The Bible’s message is both ‘divine’ and ‘human’. Friday, January 17th, 2014, Benedictine Father Michael Kwatera, a monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, MN. A discussion of the meaning of historical-critical methodology.
- The Bible as Literature: The Bible ~ A Literary Work and an Artistic Presentation of Human Experience
- N.T.Wright. "How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?" (The Laing Lecture 1989, and the Griffith Thomas Lecture 1989. Originally published in Vox Evangelica, 1991, 21, 7–32. N.T. Wright.
- A list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers.
- Church Society: For Bible, Church and Nation. Issues | The Apocrypha | New Testament References — New Testament similarities to the Apocrypha (churchsociety.org)
- Vetus Latina - Resources for the study of the Old Latin Bible
- John 14:15-17; John 14:24; John 16:13;
- See four articles
- What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis? —gotquestions.org
- Eisegesis vs. Exegesis —thechristianwatershed.com
- How to separate exegesis from eisegesis in this example? —hermeneutics.stackexchange.com
- Dictionary: eisegesis. Brief informal definition and discussion of eisegesis: —citing a classic example of Mormon eisegesis on 1 Cor. 8:5 (KJV) —carm.org
- See Literalist commentaries on Revelation 22:18 and Literalist commentaries on Deuteronomy 4:2 (biblehub.com).
- see also Deuteronomy 5:32; Deuteronomy 17:11 and Deuteronomy 17:20; Deuteronomy 27:26
- The Samaritan Pentateuch text has Mount Gerizim as the place to build the Temple of the LORD. Because the text of Deuteronomy 17:20 says "You shall not add to the word which I command you..." the Samaritans do not accept the rest of the books of the Bible as the inspired word of God, but according to their letterist reading of this text see them as the false additions of men. Their community has remained small (withered) according to the words of Jesus John 15:6.
- Many conservative Christians see "the words of the prophesy of this book" as referring not solely to the Book of Revelation alone but to the whole canon of the books of the Bible as the one book of the words of prophesy spoken by the Holy Spirit, God. On the basis of this interpretation, and after formulating a Reformation-defined canon of 66 books, the Protestant Reformers accused the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of having added books to the Bible in the 4th century, and Catholic and Orthodox leaders accused Protestants of taking away whole books and parts of other books from the Bible of the Apostles and the Ancient Christian Church. In response to the controversy, in the Catholic Council of Trent, the Catholic Church declared an end to all debate in the Church regarding the canonical status of particular books of Scripture, by dogmatically listing the canon of the Bible "as read in the Church". See Apocrypha and Apocrypha Books - King James Bible Online.
- see also Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 10, chapter 10, § 1 (186-189).
- Boanthropy is a type of insanity or psychological disorder in which a human being believes himself to be a Bovine (a cow and/or an ox).
"boanthropy" (bō·an′thrə·pē) noun [<NL <Gk. boanthrōpos <bous bull, ox + anthrōpos man]
What Does That Mean? English Dictionary. B. boanthropy.
Charles Talbut Onions (ed) The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary On Historical Principles Vol.1 Oxford University Press 1933 page 195
- "deeds of mercy/works"—Compare Daniel 4:27, Ezekiel 18:21, Tobit 12:9a, 1 John 3:17-22, James 2:14-26 and Matthew 25:31-46. The Book of Tobit is rejected as obviously apocryphal in part because of the text: "For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin". This counsel, the same counsel the Prophet Daniel gave to the king, is condemned as false Catholic doctrine by Protestant teaching, yet the book of Daniel 1–12, which includes chapter 4, is fully accepted by Protestant Christians as the inspired word of God in the Protestant Bible, along with the books of Ezekiel and James, 1 John and Matthew. Jesus himself in Matthew teaches the absolute necessity of good works. See
- For a parallel to this, see Abydenus' account (second century B.C.) quoted in Eusebius Præp. Evang. IX, xl.
Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 6)
- Mausoleum of St. Daniel in Samarkand
- Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." This is held to be a better counsel than Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. See also 1 Peter 3:15
- Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament page 349.
- See TheFreeDicionary: idioms: protest too much (thefreedictionary.com), Urban Dictionary: "thou doth protest too much", wiktionary: the lady doth protest too much (wiktionary.org)
- Documented evidence of a long history of biased scholarly research findings—see the following:
- Approaching history: Bias (umass.edu)
- Biases in the Interpretation and use of Research Results—Robert J. MacCoun. Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-7320, firstname.lastname@example.org—
"The first prototype is fraud-intentional, conscious efforts to fabricate, conceal, or distort evidence, for whatever reason-material gain, enhancing one's professional reputation, protecting one's theories, or influencing a political debate. There is a growing literature on such cases (see Fuchs & Westervelt, 1996; Woodward & Goodstein, 1996), though we still lack good estimates of their prevalence. At a macro level, they are often explicable from sociological, economic, or historical perspectives (Cole, 1992; Zuckerman, 1988). At a micro level, they are sometimes explicable in terms of individual psychopathology. These cases are extremely serious..."
- John 1:43b —" Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος. "
interlinear —" Simon Σίμων the son of Jona ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ : thou shalt be called Cephas σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς , which is by interpretation ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται , A stone Πέτρος. " KJV
- "Historical View". See
- Daniel 11 and Other Schools of Prophetic Interpretation
- visual presentation Bible Prophesy and Real History: Daniel 11–12, Tim Schaaf (youtube.com)
- See for example The New American Bible, Revised Edition (2010) 11:2-4 footnotes.
- Darius II Ochus (nndb.com)
- Iran in the Bible: Rulers and Dynasties of Persia (Iran) - History of Persia (farsinet.com)
- Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scripture. The Books of the Prophet Daniel: an Exegetical and Doctrinal Commentary, by Otto Zockler, Editors John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, Translated by James Strong. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007. 274 pages. page 244 ISBN 1556354088, 9781556354083.
- 163 B.C.. Antiochus the king died "in the 149th year" (163 B.C.) in the mountains somewhere between mount Zion "the glorious holy mountain" (Psalms 48:1-2; Psalms 50:2 and "the [Caspian] sea" in Persia. The Zagros Mountains (Zagros Folded Zone) between the Caspian Sea and Babylon is where Antiochus IV Epiphanes died according to 1 Macc. 6 and 2 Macc. 9, and Daniel 11:45. "between the sea and the glorious holy mountain...he shall come to his end with none to help him."—"...among the mountains in a strange land." (See Map: Zagros Folded Zone: Zagros Mountains) A majority of Biblical scholars maintain that Daniel wrongly prophesied that Antiochus would die in Palestine. Daniel's prophesy of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes "among the mountains in a strange land" (2 Maccabees 9:28; Daniel 11:44-45) is controverted. Daniel 11:45 does not specify which "sea". Some students of the Bible [source: "Daniel", S. Miller, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary] identify Antiochus literally with Daniel 11:21-44, which accords with the description of his policies and actions in 1 and 2 Maccabees. 1 Maccabees 6:1-16 and 2 Maccabees 9:1-16, 28 shows that Antiochus died travelling on the great east-west highway (the Silk Road) running through Persia, northeast of Judea and Mount Zion and southwest of the southern shores of the Caspian Sea, in the mountainous Zagros region of Persia between Ecbatana and Babylon. It is evident that he did not die in Palestine between Mount Zion and the Mediterranean Sea. Traditionally, "the sea" and "the great sea" in the Bible is the Mediterranean (Joshua 1:4; Joshua 9:1; Joshua 15:12 and Joshua 15:47; Joshua 23:4; Isaiah 11:11; Jeremiah 25:19-22; Ezekiel 47:19; Daniel 7:2-3; compare Joel 2:20 "eastern sea" and "western sea", and Micah 7:12 "from sea to sea"). This is the understanding of a majority of Old Testament Biblical scholars such as Choon-Leong Seow (C. L. Seow) [Daniel, 2003, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, ISBN 978-0-664-25675-3], and John J. Collins, Peter W. Flint, and others [The Book of Daniel: Volume 1 Composition and Reception, 2000, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-11675-7] who hold that Daniel 11:45 refers to the mountains of Judea between Mount Zion and the Mediterranean Sea, or more specifically to Mount Zion, and conclude that the prophesy that Antiochus would die in Palestine "is totally inaccurate" since he died in Persia. Bible translations of this passage differ: some have Antiochus pitching his pavilion "between the seas", others have it "on the glorious holy mountain", while others more literally have it "between the glorious holy mountain and the sea" (see variant translations at Daniel 11:45). The conclusion of most Old Testament scholars is that the account in Daniel 11 is completely accurate through verse 44, but wrong in verse 45, and therefore it must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem. But this scholarly reading of "the sea" as the Mediterranean, and those translations having Antiochus' pavilion "on/in the glorious holy mountain (Zion)" in Palestine, are simply dismissed as wrong by a literalist plain reading of the Biblical text (context) as it relates to the death of Antiochus among the mountains of Persia "in a strange land" between the Caspian Sea and Mount Zion. —Sources:
"Mediterranean Sea", Philip Lee, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, pp. 1097–1098.
"Daniel, book of", Stephen R. Miller, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, pp. 386–388.
"Antiochus", Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, pp. 76–77.
New American Bible, Daniel 11:5-45 and footnote; 1 Maccabees 6:1 and footnote; 2 Maccabees 9:1-28 and footnote.
- Logical Fallacies: cherry picking (logicallyfallacious.com)
- See the following:
- Apology to Rufinus: Book I, Book II, Book III (newadvent.org)
- The Apology of Rufinus (tertullian.org)
- Christian Classics Ethereal Library: Tyrannius Rufinus, Roman priest, writer and theologian (ccel.org)
- Rufinus of Aquileia on the Canon (bible-researcher.com)
- Against Rufinus, 11:33 [A.D. 402] boldface emphasis added.
- Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon page 653.
- Ham, Snelling, Wieland, The Answers Book, pages 21–39.
See also articles regarding the possible existence of the sirrush the Babylonian dragon.
- Beginning in the 19th century Heinrich Julius Holtzmann together with other German scholars, abusing the literary tools of historical-critical methods in opposition to Christian tradition, declared on their authority as German scholars that Mark's gospel was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. This theory is called "Marcan priority", and it was aggressively spread as part of Bismarck's anti-Catholic Kulturkampf policy.
- Kulturkampf and the Gospel, by John Beaumont
- Church in History. The ChurchinHistory Information Centre. BISMARCK AND THE FOUR GOSPELS 1870 - 1914, by William R. Farmer (University of Dallas) Editor of A NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY. The theory that Mark's Gospel was published before Matthew's is widely held in German and English speaking countries. This article shows how this theory, with little supporting evidence, came to be spread as part of Bismarck's anti-Catholic 'Kulturkampf' policy. BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM. THE FOUR GOSPELS. 1992 (churchinhistory.org)
- "so beyond belief" —See John 6:60 and commentaries.
- Charles, R.H., APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with introductions and critical explanatory notes to the several books, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon, page 655.
- These Greek word plays show up in Susanna rather than in Bel and the Dragon, but the argument follows for all the additions to Daniel, Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Page 655 Footnote #3
- Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefore before A.D. 231, the eminent biblical scholar Origen (A.D. c. 185-254) wrote an exposition of Psalm 1 in which he included 'a catalogue of the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament'. He comments that 'there are twenty-two canonical books as the Hebrews tradition them, the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet'. He proceeds to give the titles in Greek, followed by a transliteration of the Hebrew names:" This, however, is evidence only of the usage of the Jews after the time of Christ, and after the beginning of the 3rd century. Origen did not here list the Holy Scriptures of the Christian Bible.
- Origen, Ad Africanum 9: The Hebrew copies lack the Septuagint readings because the elders "hid from the knowledge of the people" passages that might bring discredit on them, e.g. The story of Susanna. Some of the passages "have been preserved in their non-canonical writings". For an ET of Ad Africanum cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.
- Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house,... and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.
- Seder Olam Zutta (Hebrew: סדר עולם זוטא) is an anonymous chronicle from 804 CE, called "Zuṭa" (= "smaller," or "younger") to distinguish it from the older Seder 'Olam Rabbah.
- "Cambridge Bible for Schools".
- J. D. Prince, Ph.D, Columbia University.
- Marti, in his Commentary, 1901, page ix. Das Buch Daniel erklärt von D. Karl Marti, ord. Professor der Theologie an der Universität Bern; in the "Kurzer Handcommentar zum Alten Testament", herausg. v. D. Karl Marti. Lieferung 12.
- Meinhold, J. Beiträge zur Erklärung des Buches Daniels. Heft I: Dan. 2–6. Leipzig, Dorffling u. Franke 1888.
- For other opinions on the composite character of the Book of Daniel, see Eduard König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," p. 384; Von Gall, "Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel," 1895; G. A. Barton, "The Composition of the Book of Daniel," in "Journal of Biblical Literature" 1898, pp. 62-86.
- KJV says he "took" the kingdom. Strong's number 6902 קְבַל qĕbal
- "about 17 years old". Daniel 1:4 "children" Strong's number 3206 ילד yeled : The King James Version of Genesis 21:14 and Daniel 1:4 translates ילד yeled as "child". According to Strong's Concordance of the Bible Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament (Strong's number 3206) this word also means "young man", a lad.
- "apocalypse". Ancient Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apocálypsis, from ἀπό apo (from, remove) and καλύπτω kalupto (cover, concealment) meaning "un-covering".
- Davies, Witton. 1913. "Bel and the Dragon", in APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. I, Oxford, 1913. pages 652–664. online archive link (archive.org)
- —Robert Henry Charles (R. H. Charles), ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).
- John J. Collins, Yale Divinity School
- It is certain from this that the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint text of Daniel was not produced after these extant Daniel scrolls but predated them.
- see Atheism and Mass Murder and Terrorism; also Maximilien de Robespierre and Holocaust and Pol Pot.
- see Mammon and Atheist cults and New age movement
- Cornelius a Lapide and Catholic Hebrew studies after Trent. An Essay Presented at the Renaissance Society of American Annual Meeting, March 27, 2014. New York, NY.
- Preface to the Revised New American Bible Old Testament (bible.com)
Behrmann, Handkommentar zum Buche Daniel, 1894.
Bullock, C. Hassell, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books, Pg. 279.
Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 657 contends that vr. 33-39 is "certainly introduced by an editor ab extra".
Charlesworth, James H., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Volume 2, Introduction, Pg. xxv.
Driver, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: Daniel, 1900.
Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church.
Ham, Snelling, Wieland, The Answers Book, Nov 91, Master Books El Cajon Ca.
Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament Pg. 349.
Marti, Kurzer Handkommentar zum Buche Daniel, 1901.
Origen, Ad Africanum For an ET of Ad Africanum cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.
J. D. Prince, Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1899.
The Book of Daniel
- Introduction to the Book of Daniel (usccb.org)
- Jewish Encyclopedia. Daniel, book of
- Early Jewish Writings. Daniel (earlyjewishwritings.com)
- Catholic Encyclopedia. Daniel (newadvent.org)
- Topical Bible: Book of Daniel (biblehub.com)
- Jerome's Commentary on Daniel
- Wisconsin Lutheran. Fourth Century Christianity. Jerome – Commentary on Daniel (fourthcentury.com) This commentary was largely aimed at the criticisms of Porphyry, who took the Book of Daniel as relating to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
- Associates for Biblical Research. New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls Technical - Jul 31, 2012 - by Gerhard Hasel PhD (biblearchaeology.org)
- The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel, by F. F. Bruce, Manchester the earliest Greek manuscripts of Daniel have the apocrypha A.D. 140 —Instruction and Interpretation: Studies in Hebrew Language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis : Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Louvain, 1976, from 30 August to 2 September, Hendrik Antonie Brongers. Brill Archive, 1977. 129 pages.
- Time-Stamp for the Book of Daniel. Worst Case view of the Book of Daniel. Evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. When was the book of Daniel written? (harvardhouse.com)
- A Letter to Origen from Africanus About the History of Susanna. (forerunner.com) Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160 – c. 240) was a Christian traveller and historian of A.D. the late 2nd and early 3rd century
- Catholic Encyclopedia. Letter to Africanus (newadvent.org) Origen Adamantius (Ὠριγένης Ἀδαμάντιος, Ōrigénēs Adamántios; 184/185 – 253/254) was a scholar and early Christian theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. He was a prolific writer in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, philosophical theology, preaching, and spirituality.
- OrthodoxWiki. Prayer of the Three Holy Children (orthodoxwiki.org)
- Evidence for Christianity. Are the additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah, Suzannah, Bel and Dragon) inspired and reliable? Posted on March 18, 2013 by John Oakes PhD (evidenceforchristianity.org)
- How then do you explain the LXX & MT versions of Daniel & the story of Bel & the Dragon? Posted on March 6, 2008 by John Oakes PhD (evidenceforchristianity.org)
- Early Jewish Writings. Bel and the Dragon (earlyjewishwritings.com)
- The Apocrypha Book 'Bel and the Dragon' Justifiably not Considered Scripture. By Edward G. Rice 13 Sep 1998. Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the course Old Testament Introduction #208 Video Studies Program (based on fall semester 94), Professor Charles E. McLain, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (gsbaptistchurch.com)
- Davies, Witton. 1913. "Bel and the Dragon", in APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. I, Oxford, 1913. online archive link (archive.org)
Old Testament Canon
- Codex Vaticanus (orthodoxwiki.org)
- THE CODEX SINAITICUS, T. S. PATTIE. 1977 pdf (bl.uk/eblj)
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Canon of the Old Testament (discusses differences in the canon)
- Jerome on the Canon translation of Jerome's Prologus Galeatus to 1 Kings (bible-researcher.com)
- Edmon Gallagher on Jerome's Prologus and the Council of Hippo regarding the Canon (oxfordpatristics.blogspot.com).
See also Jerome's Prologus Galeatus and the Old Testament Canon of North Africa, Studia Patristica 69: 2013
- The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation. William Webster (christiantruth.com)
- Defending the Deuterocanonicals, by James Akin (ewtn.com)
- Luther Had His Chance (orthodoxinfo.com)
- Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals. A Response to 11 ‘reasons’ that the Deuterocanonicals Should be Thrown Out of the Bible, By Matt1618. Introduction (matt1618.freeyellow.com)
- A list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers.
- Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined, and The Apocrypha: "Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!" (bible.ca)
- CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible, by Ryan Turner (carm.org)
- Reasoning From the Scriptures with Ron Rhodes Critique of Chapter 2, Does the Apocrypha Belong in the Bible?, by Matt1618
- Background and History to the Apocrypha, By David Phillips Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (churchsociety.org)