Changes

The '''Eastern Orthodox Church''', officially called the '''Orthodox Catholic Church''', and also referred to as the '''[[Orthodox Church]]''' and '''Orthodoxy''', is the second largest [[Christianity|Christian church]] in the world, with an estimated 225–300 million adherents, most of whom live in [[Eastern Europe]], the [[Middle East]], and [[Russia]].<br/>{{cite web |last1=Calivas |first1=Rev. Alciviadis C. |title=The Greek (Eastern) Orthodox Church |publisher=Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of America |year=1983 |url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7061 |accessdate=7 May 2014 |ref=none }}<br/>{{cite web |last1=Fairchild |first1=Mary |title=Christianity:Basics:Eastern Orthodox Church Denomination |publisher=about.com |url=http://christianity.about.com/od/easternorthodoxy/p/orthodoxprofile.htm |accessdate=22 May 2014 |ref=none }}<br/>{{cite web |title=Christianity |work=Major Branches of Religions Ranked by Number of Adherents |publisher=adherents.com |url=http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity |accessdate=22 May 2014 |ref=none }}</ref><ref name=Prot>See [http://www.888c.com/worldChristianDenominations.htm Percentage of Christians in Protestant Denominations (29.5%)].</ref>  

The '''Eastern Orthodox Church''', officially called the '''Orthodox Catholic Church''', and also referred to as the '''[[Orthodox Church]]''' and '''Orthodoxy''', is the second largest [[Christianity|Christian church]] in the world, with an estimated 225–300 million adherents, most of whom live in [[Eastern Europe]], the [[Middle East]], and [[Russia]].<br/>{{cite web |last1=Calivas |first1=Rev. Alciviadis C. |title=The Greek (Eastern) Orthodox Church |publisher=Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of America |year=1983 |url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7061 |accessdate=7 May 2014 |ref=none }}<br/>{{cite web |last1=Fairchild |first1=Mary |title=Christianity:Basics:Eastern Orthodox Church Denomination |publisher=about.com |url=http://christianity.about.com/od/easternorthodoxy/p/orthodoxprofile.htm |accessdate=22 May 2014 |ref=none }}<br/>{{cite web |title=Christianity |work=Major Branches of Religions Ranked by Number of Adherents |publisher=adherents.com |url=http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity |accessdate=22 May 2014 |ref=none }}</ref><ref name=Prot>See [http://www.888c.com/worldChristianDenominations.htm Percentage of Christians in Protestant Denominations (29.5%)].</ref>  

The shorter [[Masoretic Text|Masoretic]] Hebrew book of '''Daniel''' of 12 chapters is ranked by the Jews in that division of the '''[[Tanakh]]''' called the [[Ketuvim]], or Writings.<ref name="d"/> The Book of Daniel has never been ranked among the [[Nevi'im]], or Prophets, by the Jews.

The shorter [[Masoretic Text|Masoretic]] Hebrew book of '''Daniel''' of 12 chapters is ranked by the Jews in that division of the '''[[Tanakh]]''' called the [[Bible#Ketuvim|Ketuvim]], or Writings.<ref name="d"/> The Book of Daniel has never been ranked among the [[Bible#Nevi'im|Nevi'im]], or Prophets, by the Jews.

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.<ref name=Prot/>

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.<ref name=Prot/>

*[[Story of Susanna|"'''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''"]] <ref name=notHebrew/>

*[[Story of Susanna|"'''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''"]] <ref name=notHebrew/>

*[[Bel and the Dragon|"'''The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon''', cut off from the end of Daniel"]]

*[[Bel and the Dragon|"'''The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon''', cut off from the end of Daniel"]]

==Contents==

==Contents==

==Prophecy==

==Prophecy==

'''Statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream'''

'''Statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream''' [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%202:31-47&version=NABRE 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 as

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 as

*pagan Rome (2 legs for 2 empires, western and eastern)

*pagan Rome (2 legs for 2 empires, western and eastern)

*and the feet being Europe after Rome.

*and the feet being Europe after Rome.

This particular view seems to be based on an interpretation of "the prince of the covenant" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-22.htm Daniel 11:22]) as being ''only'' Jesus Christ and no other.

This particular view seems to be based on an interpretation of "the prince of the covenant" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-22.htm Daniel 11:22]) as being ''only'' [[Jesus Christ]] and no other.

When "the prince of the covenant" (11:22) is interpreted 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), who was treacherously assassinated on the secret order of Menelaus by the assassin Andronicus under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then the kingdoms foreseen by Daniel are viewed as

When "the prince of the covenant" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-22.htm 11:22]) is interpreted as Onias III the anointed high priest, "''because of the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness''" ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%203:1&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 3:1]), who was treacherously murdered on the secret order of Menelaus by the assassin Andronicus under Antiochus IV Epiphanes ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%204:32-36&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 4:32-36]), then the kingdoms foreseen by Daniel are viewed as:

*Ancient Babylon, the head of gold,

*Ancient Babylon, the head of gold, represented by Nebuchanezzar,<ref>See [http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/meru/hd_meru.htm List of Rulers of Mesopotamia] (metmuseum.org)</ref>

*the Kingdom of the Medes (silver),<ref name=Medes>Kingdom of the Medes. See the following articles:

*the Kingdom of the Medes (silver),<ref name=Medes>Kingdom of the Medes. See the following articles:

*[http://www.livius.org/mea-mem/media/media.html Media] (livius.org)

*[http://www.livius.org/mea-mem/media/media.html Media] (livius.org)

*[http://www.ancient.eu/media Ancient History Encyclopedia: Media: definition], by Jan van der Crabben, published on 28 April 2011 (ancient.eu)

*[http://www.ancient.eu/media Ancient History Encyclopedia: Media: definition], by Jan van der Crabben, published on 28 April 2011 (ancient.eu)

*[http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Media TheFreeDictionary by Farlex: Media: definition] (thefreedictionary.com) <br/> The Median tribal warriors are mentioned for the first time in the Assyrian Annals as enemies of Šalmaneser III (858-824).</ref>

*[http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Media TheFreeDictionary by Farlex: Media: definition] (thefreedictionary.com) <br/> The Median tribal warriors are mentioned for the first time in the Assyrian Annals as enemies of Šalmaneser III (858-824).</ref>

*the kingdom of the Persians and Medes (bronze),

*the kingdom of the Persians and Medes (bronze),<ref>See [http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/bib/Persian/Persia.html History of the Kings of Media and Persia] (mcadams.posc.mu.edu)</ref>

*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.

*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 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 [[Hellenism|Hellenistic]] suppression was finally removed from Judea in the time of Simon the high priest, son of Mattathias.<ref>See the following:

This particular view sees the two legs 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 [[Hellenism|Hellenistic]] suppression was finally removed from Judea in the time of Simon the high priest, son of Mattathias.<ref>See the following:

*[http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/2#34002033-1 Daniel 2:33ff: footnotes. NABRE];  

*[http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/2#34002033-1 Daniel 2:33ff: footnotes. NABRE];  

*[http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/11#34011002-1 Daniel 11: footnotes. NABRE]</ref>

*[http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/11#34011002-1 Daniel 11: footnotes. NABRE]</ref>

   

   

'''Four Beasts'''

'''Four Beasts''' [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%207&version=NABRE 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; or the lion as the Ancient Kingdom of Babylon, the bear as the Kingdom of the Medes,<ref name=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).

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; or the lion as the Ancient Kingdom of Babylon, the bear as the Kingdom of the Medes,<ref name=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).

See [[Literalist Bible chronology]]

See [[Literalist Bible chronology]]

   

   

'''Ram and He-Goat'''

'''Ram and He-Goat''' [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:2-45&version=NABRE Daniel 11:2-45]

These visions are of a Ram, a He-Goat, and a little horn. These are viewed often as Medo-Persia, Greece, and papal Rome; or as Medo-Persia with two horns (both great, but one, Persia, greater than the subordinated other, Medea), which was conquered by the He-Goat Alexander (the ''notable'' or ''conspicuous'' single horn), with Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the little horn, broken "''without hand''" by no human hand. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:5&version=RSVCE 2 Maccabees 9:5] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:28&version=RSVCE 9:28]  

These visions are of a Ram, a He-Goat, and a little horn. These are viewed often as Medo-Persia, Greece, and papal Rome; or as Medo-Persia with two horns (both great, but one, Persia, greater than the subordinated other, Medea), 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. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:5&version=RSVCE 2 Maccabees 9:5] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:28&version=RSVCE 9:28]  

== Greek and Persian words ==

== Greek and Persian words ==

==Dispute on Authorship==

==Dispute on Authorship==

Due to the fact that the book contains prophecies that were fulfilled in the 4th century BC, many [[modernist]] scholars have asserted that this book was not written by Daniel the 6th century BC, but by a later person.  However, both Scriptural and textual arguments support the traditional view.<ref name="d"/>  

Due to the fact that the book contains prophecies that were fulfilled in the 4th 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.<ref name="d"/>  

# 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.<ref>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]</ref><ref name="d"/><p></p>

# 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.<ref>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]</ref><ref name="d"/><p></p>

# The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, just such as might be expected.<ref name="d"/> Certain portions (Dan. 2:4; 7) 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.<ref name="d"/> The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Chaldee, passing from the one to the other just as his subject required.<ref name="d"/> This is in strict accordance with the position of the author and of the people for whom his book was written.<ref name="d"/> 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).<ref name="d"/>

# The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, just such as might be expected.<ref name="d"/> Certain portions (Dan. 2:4; 7) 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.<ref name="d"/> The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Chaldee, passing from the one to the other just as his subject required.<ref name="d"/> This is in strict accordance with the position of the author and of the people for whom his book was written.<ref name="d"/> 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).<ref name="d"/>

Additionally, findings in the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] dating to the 2nd century BC 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 several years previously rather than several centuries previously.<ref>[http://www.harvardhouse.com/Daniel_date-written.htm When was Daniel Written? Evidence Supporting 6th Century BCE Authorship Date After Removing Naturalist Bias]</ref>

Additionally, findings in the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] dating to the 2nd 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.<ref>[http://www.harvardhouse.com/Daniel_date-written.htm When was Daniel Written? Evidence Supporting 6th Century BCE Authorship Date After Removing Naturalist Bias]</ref> However, the Jews never accepted the Book of Daniel among the Nevi'im, the Prophets, but placed it among the [[Bible#The Old Testament|Ketuvim, the Writings]]. See [[Biblical Canon#Palestinian canon (A.D. 4th century)|Palestinian canon (A.D. 4th century)]]

==Dispute on canonicity==

==Dispute on Canonicity==

Dr. John Oakes <ref>See [http://evidenceforchristianity.org/about/ About Dr. Oakes.] PhD in chemical physics.</ref> represents the view of many Christians who reject the rabbinical additions to Daniel as not inspired or reliable "for at least three reasons".

Dr. John Oakes <ref>See [http://evidenceforchristianity.org/about/ About Dr. Oakes.] PhD in chemical physics.</ref> represents the view of many Christians who reject the rabbinical additions to Daniel as not inspired or reliable "for at least three reasons".

:3. The actual content does not have the marks of inspired writing.

:3. The actual content does not have the marks of inspired writing.

===First objection: The Jews did not accept them===

===First objection: The Jews do not include the rabbinical additions to Daniel===

 

This presents a problem. If the Jews have been so entrusted with the word of God that they had therefore been given the divine authority to 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.

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: <blockquote>"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."</blockquote> The Apostle Paul himself testified that the Jews are no longer the arbiters of 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:

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2john%201:9-11&version=KJV 2 John 9-ll]

===Second objection: They were not written in Hebrew===

===Second objection: The rabbinical additions might not have been written in Hebrew===

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 <ref>[https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/00-introduction/text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf 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)</ref>) 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 [[Book of Baruch|Baruch]], [[Judith]], [[Maccabees]], [[Book of Sirach|Sirach]], and [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]] (some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic <ref name=notHebrew/><ref name=HebrewAramaic>"some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic". Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|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 accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon, but 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 certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See

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 <ref>[https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/00-introduction/text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf 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)</ref>) 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 [[Book of Baruch|Baruch]], [[Judith]], [[Maccabees]], [[Book of Sirach|Sirach]], and [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]] (some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic <ref name=notHebrew/><ref name=HebrewAramaic>"some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic". Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|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 accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon, but 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 certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See

:it was written in Hebrew;  

:it was written in Hebrew;  

:and it was composed in Judah or Israel.<ref>[http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html The Canon of the Old Testament]<br/>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canon.html The Old Testament Canon, by Peter Reed] (biblicalstudies.org.uk)</ref>

:and it was composed in Judah or Israel.<ref>[http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html The Canon of the Old Testament]<br/>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canon.html The Old Testament Canon, by Peter Reed] (biblicalstudies.org.uk)</ref>

Although some books of the Old Testament were discussed in Judea at the Pharisaic Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, the canon itself was not a topic of consideration and this group in fact had no decision-making power.

Although some books of the Old Testament were discussed in Judea at the Pharisaic Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, the canon itself was not a topic of consideration and this group in fact had no decision-making power.<ref>[http://www.academia.edu/6811953/The_Jewish_Council_of_Jamnia_and_Its_Impact_on_the_Old_Testament_Canon_and_New_Testament_Studies 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''.<br/>Jack P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean By Jabneh?" The Journal of Bible and Religion XXXII, no. 2 (April 1964): 125-132<br/>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?] (catholicdefense.blogspot.com)<br/>[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/711-academies-in-palestine Jewish Encyclopedia. Academies in Palestine] (jewishencyclopedia.com)</ref>

Historically, Jewish scholars since the 2nd century have considered the canon closed since the time of Malachi, and have not included the books of the Protestant Apocrypha, which were written subsequent to his time.<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/the-bible-canon-of.html BibleStudyTools.com. Bible, Canon of]</ref> At the same time they simultaneously excluded as condemned and false the writings of the "heretics" (the ''minim'', including Christians, called nozrim, no§rim, "Nazarenes"), and cursed Christians in a synagogue service "benediction" against them and others. Palestinian texts of the Eighteen Benedictions from the Cairo Genizah <ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/treasures-in-the-wall The New Yorker: Page-Turner. March 1, 2013 Treasures in the Wall, by Emily Greenhouse] (newyorker.com)<br/>[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Genizah.html Jewish Virtual Library: Modern Jewish History: The Cairo Genizah, by Alden Oreck]</ref> present a text of the benediction which identifies the minim:<blockquote>"''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.''"</blockquote>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.<ref>[http://lawrenceschiffman.com/?s=the+benediction+against+the+minim Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman: The Benediction Against the Minim] (lawrenceschiffman.com)<br/>[http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/curse.html DEFENDING  THE  BRIDE. THE  CURSE  AGAINST  CHRISTIANS  AT  JAMNIA  ABOUT  90 AD] (defendingthebride.com)<br/>[http://www.academia.edu/6811953/The_Jewish_Council_of_Jamnia_and_Its_Impact_on_the_Old_Testament_Canon_and_New_Testament_Studies 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)</ref>

Historically, Jewish scholars since the 2nd–5th centuries (the [[Talmud]]) have considered the canon closed since the time of Malachi, and have not included the books and texts listed in the Protestant Apocrypha, which were written subsequent to his time.<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/the-bible-canon-of.html BibleStudyTools.com. Bible, Canon of]</ref> At the same time they simultaneously excluded as condemned and false the writings of the "heretics" (the ''minim'', including Christians, called nozrim, no§rim, "Nazarenes"), and cursed Christians in a synagogue service "benediction" against them and others. Palestinian texts of the Eighteen Benedictions from the Cairo Genizah <ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/treasures-in-the-wall The New Yorker: Page-Turner. March 1, 2013 Treasures in the Wall, by Emily Greenhouse] (newyorker.com)<br/>[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Genizah.html Jewish Virtual Library: Modern Jewish History: The Cairo Genizah, by Alden Oreck]</ref> present a text of the benediction which identifies the minim:<blockquote>"''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.''"</blockquote>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.<ref>[http://lawrenceschiffman.com/?s=the+benediction+against+the+minim Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman: The Benediction Against the Minim] (lawrenceschiffman.com)<br/>[http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/curse.html DEFENDING  THE  BRIDE. THE  CURSE  AGAINST  CHRISTIANS  AT  JAMNIA  ABOUT  90 AD] (defendingthebride.com)<br/></ref>

===Third objection: They do not have the "marks" of inspired writing===

===Third objection: The rabbinical additions do not have the "marks" of inspired writing===

This is the principle of "private judgment", which is highly subjective, and can be in error.<ref>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html Private Judgment [British Critic, July 1841]] (newmanreader.org)</ref> 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.<blockquote>"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."

This is the principle of "private judgment", which is highly subjective, and can be in error.<ref>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html Private Judgment [British Critic, July 1841]] (newmanreader.org)</ref> 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.<blockquote>"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."

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 [[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 Old Testament scriptural texts are:

The deuterocanonical (disputed) Old Testament scriptural texts are:

*[[Book of Tobit|Tobit]]

*[[Book of Tobit|Tobit]]

*[[Book of Judith|Judith]]

*[[Book of Judith|Judith]]

*[[1 Maccabees]]

*[[1 Maccabees]]

*[[2 Maccabees]]

*[[2 Maccabees]]

The deuterocanonical New Testament scriptural texts are:

The deuterocanonical (disputed) New Testament scriptural texts are:

*[[Hebrews|The Epistle to the Hebrews]]

*[[Hebrews|The Epistle to the Hebrews]]

*[[James|The Epistle of James]]

*[[James|The Epistle of James]]

:"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." <ref>Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.</ref>

:"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." <ref>Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.</ref>

:

:

In 1546 at the [[Council of Trent]] the bishops of the Catholic Church [[dogma]]tically "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. Writers who point out that the Apocrypha were added to the Bible by the Catholic Church do not include the fact that the disputed books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation were ''added'' to the Bible by the Catholic Church at the same time.

In 1546 at the [[Council of Trent]] the bishops of the Catholic Church [[dogma]]tically "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. 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 ''added'' to the Bible by the Catholic Church at the same time.

:

:

The [[Religious Society of Friends|Friends (Quakers)]] do not define any writing as canonical but what each person, "led by the spirit and light of Christ", has determined to be scripture or recognizes as inspired.<ref>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html Private Judgment [British Critic, July 1841]] (newmanreader.org)</ref><blockquote>"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]].<ref>[http://www.qis.net/~daruma/foxbible.html GEORGE FOX'S TEACHING ON THE PLACE OF SCRIPTURE] (qis.net)</ref></blockquote>

The [[Religious Society of Friends|Friends (Quakers)]] do not define any writing as canonical but what each person, "led by the spirit and light of Christ", has determined to be scripture or recognizes as inspired.<ref>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html Private Judgment [British Critic, July 1841]] (newmanreader.org)</ref><blockquote>"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]].<ref>[http://www.qis.net/~daruma/foxbible.html GEORGE FOX'S TEACHING ON THE PLACE OF SCRIPTURE] (qis.net)</ref></blockquote>

===The consensus of the majority of Christian believers===

===The consensus of the majority of Christian believers===

When read within the whole context of the Bible, and as the received sacred heritage of the whole Christian Church, the portions rejected as Apocrypha read instead as inspired Holy Scripture and as parts of the Bible. The majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world believe that the complete Book of Daniel "with all its parts" is 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.<ref name=largest/> Less than one-third of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world believe they are apocryphal.<ref name=Prot/>

 

When read within the whole context of the Bible, and as the received sacred heritage of the whole Christian Church, the portions rejected as Apocrypha read instead as inspired Holy Scripture and as parts of the whole Bible. The majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world who have heard and read 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.<ref name=largest/> Less than one-third of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world believe they are apocryphal.<ref name=Prot/>  

 

==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==

==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==

Such, in substance, are the facts which may be gathered for a biography of the Prophet Daniel from the narrative portion of his book (i-vi). Hardly any other facts are contributed to this biography from the second, and more distinctly apocalyptic, portion of the same work (vii-xii). The visions therein described represent him chiefly as a seer favoured with Divine communications respecting the future punishment of the Gentile powers and the ultimate setting up of the Messianic Kingdom. These mysterious revelations are referred to the reigns of Darius, Baltasar, and Cyrus, and as they are explained to him by the Angel Gabriel from an ever clearer disclosure of what is to happen in "the time of the end". In the deuterocanonical appendix to his book (xiii-xiv), Daniel reappears in the same general character as in the first part of his work (i-vi). Chapter xiii 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 (xiv), which tells the history of the destruction of Bel and the dragon, represents Daniel as a fearless and most successful champion of the true and living God. Outside of the Book of Daniel, Holy Writ has but few references to the prophet of that name. Ezechiel (xiv, 14) speaks of Daniel, together with Noah and Job, as a pattern of righteousness and, in chapter xxviii, 3, as the representative of perfect wisdom. The writer of the First Book fo the Machabees (ii, 60) refers to his deliverance out of the mouth of the lions, and St. Matthew (xxiv, 15) to "the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet". As might well be expected, Jewish tradition had been busy with completing the meagre account of Daniel's life as supplied by the Sacred Scriptures. Allusion has already been made to the tradition of the Jews, accepted by many Fathers of the Church, which states that he was made a eunuch in Babylon. Other Jewish traditions represent him as refusing divine honours proffered to him by Nabuchodonosor; they explain the reason why he was not forced with his three friends to worship that prince's statue in the plain of Dura (Daniel 3), 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 give many fanciful details, as for instance concerning what happened to Daniel in the lions' den. Others endeavour to account for what they assume to be a fact, viz. that Yahweh's devout prophet did not return to God's land and city after the decree of restoration issued by Cyrus; while others again affirm that he actually went back to Judea and died there. Hardly less incredible and conflicting legends concerning Daniel's life and place of burial are met with in Arabic literature, although his name is not mentioned in the Koran. During the Middle Ages there was a widespread and persistent tradition 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 the present day.

Such, in substance, are the facts which may be gathered for a biography of the Prophet Daniel from the narrative portion of his book (i-vi). Hardly any other facts are contributed to this biography from the second, and more distinctly apocalyptic, portion of the same work (vii-xii). The visions therein described represent him chiefly as a seer favoured with Divine communications respecting the future punishment of the Gentile powers and the ultimate setting up of the Messianic Kingdom. These mysterious revelations are referred to the reigns of Darius, Baltasar, and Cyrus, and as they are explained to him by the Angel Gabriel from an ever clearer disclosure of what is to happen in "the time of the end". In the deuterocanonical appendix to his book (xiii-xiv), Daniel reappears in the same general character as in the first part of his work (i-vi). Chapter xiii 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 (xiv), which tells the history of the destruction of Bel and the dragon, represents Daniel as a fearless and most successful champion of the true and living God. Outside of the Book of Daniel, Holy Writ has but few references to the prophet of that name. Ezechiel (xiv, 14) speaks of Daniel, together with Noah and Job, as a pattern of righteousness and, in chapter xxviii, 3, as the representative of perfect wisdom. The writer of the First Book fo the Machabees (ii, 60) refers to his deliverance out of the mouth of the lions, and St. Matthew (xxiv, 15) to "the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet". As might well be expected, Jewish tradition had been busy with completing the meagre account of Daniel's life as supplied by the Sacred Scriptures. Allusion has already been made to the tradition of the Jews, accepted by many Fathers of the Church, which states that he was made a eunuch in Babylon. Other Jewish traditions represent him as refusing divine honours proffered to him by Nabuchodonosor; they explain the reason why he was not forced with his three friends to worship that prince's statue in the plain of Dura (Daniel 3), 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 give many fanciful details, as for instance concerning what happened to Daniel in the lions' den. Others endeavour to account for what they assume to be a fact, viz. that Yahweh's devout prophet did not return to God's land and city after the decree of restoration issued by Cyrus; while others again affirm that he actually went back to Judea and died there. Hardly less incredible and conflicting legends concerning Daniel's life and place of burial are met with in Arabic literature, although his name is not mentioned in the Koran. During the Middle Ages there was a widespread and persistent tradition 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 the present day.

The Author and Date.

The author of Bel and the Dragon is not known, not even speculated, and the date of the writing is indeterminable. Theories abound about the date of writing but most of these entangle themselves in the heretical dating of the book of Daniel into the 2nd Century B.C. rather than its obvious dating from the hand of Daniel in the 534 B.C.. There is much ado about how the scholarly infidels date Bible books. They do not acknowledge the supernatural future telling of prophecy, therefore they presumptuously date each book after the prophecy was fulfilled, therefore they are justly titled infidel. There is much ado about giving conservative answer to these pointed dating theories. I don't much hold to dwelling on rebuttals to infidels, taking Proverbs 26:4 above Proverbs 26:5 in the case of such outspoken infidelity<ref>PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.</ref> In Hill and Waltons Survey of the Old Testament Introduction to the book of Daniel (and throughout their whole survey) there is this horribly excessive treatment of the 'scholars' who support bogus dating of Bible books.<ref>Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament Pg. 349</ref> When extensive argument is given to refute the infidels fictitious dating and critical treatment of the Bible it seems to lend them more credence than they are due.<ref>The bogus dating that is rampant in the work of 'modern scholars has its roots in their preconceived notion of a bible that evolved from man. As evolution of a species requires the fabrication of millions of years of evolution, so the evolution of a bible requires that the scholars manufacture hundreds of years of folk lore and legend prior to the written record being made. Thus the suitable title of infidel for all those who stretch out dates and compound authorship.</ref> Let it only be said here that the dating methods used by 'modern scholars' on any manuscript are to be treated as suspect, subjective and with little credence. It is quite logical that the book was written during the captivity, and that no cheating trick was made to make it look ancient. The major contention is not when it was written. It is not of major concern even if it was written the day Daniel got out of the lions den. The problem with the account is its authenticity, was it written by Daniel, and/or its authority, was it written by one in the know, and in the control of God.

The author of Bel and the Dragon is not known, not even speculated, and the date of the writing is indeterminable. Theories abound about the date of writing but most of these entangle themselves in the heretical dating of the book of Daniel into the 2nd Century B.C. rather than its obvious dating from the hand of Daniel in the 534 B.C.. There is much ado about how the scholarly infidels date Bible books. They do not acknowledge the supernatural future telling of prophecy, therefore they presumptuously date each book after the prophecy was fulfilled, therefore they are justly titled infidel. There is much ado about giving conservative answer to these pointed dating theories. I don't much hold to dwelling on rebuttals to infidels, taking Proverbs 26:4 above Proverbs 26:5 in the case of such outspoken infidelity<ref>PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.</ref> In Hill and Waltons Survey of the Old Testament Introduction to the book of Daniel (and throughout their whole survey) there is this horribly excessive treatment of the 'scholars' who support bogus dating of Bible books.<ref>Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament Pg. 349</ref> When extensive argument is given to refute the infidels fictitious dating and critical treatment of the Bible it seems to lend them more credence than they are due.<ref>The bogus dating that is rampant in the work of 'modern scholars has its roots in their preconceived notion of a bible that evolved from man. As evolution of a species requires the fabrication of millions of years of evolution, so the evolution of a bible requires that the scholars manufacture hundreds of years of folk lore and legend prior to the written record being made. Thus the suitable title of infidel for all those who stretch out dates and compound authorship.</ref> Let it only be said here that the dating methods used by 'modern scholars' on any manuscript are to be treated as suspect, subjective and with little credence. It is quite logical that the book was written during the captivity, and that no cheating trick was made to make it look ancient. The major contention is not when it was written. It is not of major concern even if it was written the day Daniel got out of the lions den. The problem with the account is its authenticity, was it written by Daniel, and/or its authority, was it written by one in the know, and in the control 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". [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-4.htm Daniel 12:4] and [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-9.htm 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 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2044:24-45:7&version=KJV Isaiah 44:24-45:7].) The Book of Daniel is an extreme historical example of handwritten ''posthumous publication''.

With respect to the genuineness and authenticity of the book, there is the strongest evidence, 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 church and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish Targets and Talmuds, which frequently cite his authority. As to the internal evidence, the style, the language, the manner of writing, perfectly agree with the age; and especially, he 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.

With respect to the genuineness and authenticity of the book, there is the strongest evidence, 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 church and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish Targets and Talmuds, which frequently cite his authority. As to the internal evidence, the style, the language, the manner of writing, perfectly agree with the age; and especially, he 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 translated 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.

Bibliography:

Bibliography:

J. D. Prince, Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1899;

Behrmann, Handkommentar zum Buche Daniel, 1894.

Driver, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: Daniel, 1900;

Bullock, C. Hassell, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books, Pg. 279.

Behrmann, Handkommentar zum Buche Daniel, 1894;

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".

Marti, Kurzer Handkommentar zum Buche Daniel, 1901.

Charlesworth, James H., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Volume 2, Introduction, Pg. xxv.

Bullock, C. Hassell, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books,

Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church.

Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 1983,

Ham, Snelling, Wieland, The Answers Book, Nov 91, Master Books El Cajon Ca.

Charlesworth, James H., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Volume 2

Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament Pg. 349.

Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church,

Marti, Kurzer Handkommentar zum Buche Daniel, 1901.

 

 

Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament Pg. 349

Origen, Ad Africanum For an ET of Ad Africanum cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.

Origen, Ad Africanum For an ET of Ad Africanum cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.

1 Charles, R.H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament , Introduction pg. vii

J. D. Prince, Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1899.

 

 

4 Bullock, C. Hassell, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books, Pg. 279

 

 

 

 

 

7 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"

 

 

 

 

 

 

==External links==

==External links==