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 [[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.

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. 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 [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|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.<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/> 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:<ref>''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.</ref>

 

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:<ref>''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.</ref>

*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children|"'''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) <ref name=notHebrew>"not in the Hebrew"<br/>—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. <br/>—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.<br/>—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.<br/>See the following:

*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children|"'''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) <ref name=notHebrew>"not in the Hebrew"<br/>—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. <br/>—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.<br/>—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.<br/>See the following:

*[[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"]]

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.

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.<ref>See [[Essay: How to choose a Bible#Parallel Bibles: English translations in parallel columns|Parallel Bibles: English translations in parallel columns]]</ref>

==Contents==

==Contents==

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

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

A fourth reason given for rejecting [[deuterocanonical]] texts is:

A fourth reason given for rejecting [[Deuterocanonicals|deuterocanonical]] texts is:

:4. Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted them.

:4. Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted them.

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2022:29-30&version=KJV Luke 22:29-30]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2022:29-30&version=KJV Luke 22:29-30]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%207:51-53&version=KJV Acts 7:51-53]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%207:51-53&version=KJV Acts 7:51-53]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%204:1&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 4:1]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%204:1&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 4:1]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%206:2-3&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 6:2-3]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%206:2-3&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 6:2-3]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1john%204:2-6&version=KJV 1 John 4:2-6]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1john%204:2-6&version=KJV 1 John 4:2-6]

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

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

===Second objection: The rabbinical additions might not have been 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 and accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon, but 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

*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]

*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]

*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf BACKGROUND AND HISTORY TO THE APOCRYPHA, By David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)

*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf BACKGROUND AND HISTORY TO THE APOCRYPHA, By David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)

: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.<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>

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.<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–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>

Historically, Jewish scholars since A.D. the 2nd–5th centuries (the [[Talmud]]ists and the [[Masoretic Text|Masoretes]]) 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: The rabbinical additions do not have the "marks" of inspired writing===

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

It is evident 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.

It is evident 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.

===Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted the Apocrypha===

===Fourth objection: Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted the rabbinical additions to Daniel===

The majority of quotations of the Old Testament are according to the Septuagint version of the Bible (LXX) which contains the books and texts rejected as Apocrypha, and not from the Masoretic Hebrew version in the Tanakh.<ref>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]</ref>

Jesus and the New Testament writers also never quoted from ''Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes,'' and ''Song of Songs'' (''Song of Solomon'').<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm A list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers.]</ref> This does not mean they are not inspired.

Jesus and the New Testament writers also never quoted from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs (Song of Solomon).<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm A list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers.]</ref> This does not mean they are not inspired.

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 rejected as Apocrypha.<ref>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]</ref>

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

There are a number of places where there appears to be a similarity of thought and sometimes of the words used between New Testament passages and verses in the Apocrypha.<ref>[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_ntreferences.asp Church Society: For Bible, Church and Nation. Issues | The Apocrypha | New Testament References — New Testament similarities to the Apocrypha] (churchsociety.org)</ref>

[[Liberal bias|Liberalist]] scholars who reject the authority of the Bible and abuse the legitimate tools of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#Radical critical scholars: abuse of critical methods|Historical-critical method]] insist that each part of it should be divorced from the whole, taken out of context, and analyzed separately and independently to determine its particular reliability and authenticity, in comparison to other parts also taken as individual and separate writings, which often are 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, apparently invalidating their message. 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.<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?john%2014:15-17&version=NABRE John 14:15-17;] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?john%2014:24&version=NABRE John 14:24;] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?john%2016:13&version=NABRE John 16:13;]</ref> Many of them 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 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%204:11-12&version=NABRE James 4:11-12]. However, these do not represent the majority view.

===The consensus of the majority of Christian believers regarding the Book of Daniel===

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/>  

 

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 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.<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/>  

Liberal Christians normally disregard entirely 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.

Liberal Christians normally disregard entirely 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.

==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==

==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==

This book takes its name not from the author, who is actually unknown, but from its hero, who was allegedly among the first Jews deported to Babylon, where he lived at least until 538 B.C. The first six chapters are chiefly historical, and the remainder prophetical. It was completed about 534 B.C..  

The Book of Daniel takes its name not from the author, who is actually unknown, but from its hero, who was allegedly among the first Jews deported to Babylon, where he lived at least until 538 B.C. The first six chapters are chiefly historical, and the remainder prophetical. The unknown author completed it about 534 B.C..  

 

Nearly all that is known concerning the Prophet Daniel is derived from the book ascribed to him. He belonged to the tribe of Juda (i, 6), and was of noble, or perhaps of royal, descent (i, 3; cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. X, ch. x, § 1). When still a youth, probably about fourteen years of age, he was carried captive to Babylon by Nabuchodonosor in the fourth year of the reign of Joakim (605 B.C.). There, with three other youths of equal rank named Ananias, Misael and Azarias, he was entrusted to the care of Asphenez, the master of the king's eunuchs, and was educated in the language and learning of the "Chaldeans", whereby are meant the professors of divination, magic, and astrology in Babylon (i, 3, 4). From this passage Jewish tradition has inferred that Daniel and his companions were made eunuchs; but this does not necessarily follow; the master of the eunuchs simply trained these Jewish youths, among others, with a view to their entering the king's service (i, 5). Daniel now received the new name of Baltassar (Babyl. Balâtsu-usur, "Bel protect his life"), and, in agreement with Ananias, Misael, and Azarias, who received similarly the new names of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, respectively, asked and obtained permission not to use the special food from the royal table provided for those under training, and to be limited to vegetable diet. At the end of three years Daniel and his three companions appeared before the king, who found that they excelled all the others who had been educated with them, and thereupon promoted them to a place in his court. Henceforth, whenever the prince tested them, they proved superior to "all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom" (i, 7-20). Soon afterwards—either in the second or in the twelfth year of Nabuchodonosor's reign—Daniel gave a signal proof of his marvellous wisdom. On the failure of all the other wise men, he repeated and interpreted, to the monarch's satisfaction, the king's dream of a colossal statue which was made up of various materials, and which, on being struck by a stone, was broken into pieces, while the stone grew into a mountain and filled the whole earth. On this account, Daniel in Babylon, as Joseph of old in Egypt, rose into high favour with the prince, who not only bestowed on him numerous gifts, but also made him ruler of "the whole province of Babylon" and chief governor of "all the wise men". At Daniel's request, too, his three friends received important promotions (ii). The next opportunity afforded Daniel to give proof of his wisdom was another dream of Nabuchodonosor which, once more, he alone was able to interpret. The dream was of a mighty tree concerning which the king heard the command given that it should be cut down, and that "seven times" should "pass over" its stump, which had been left standing. This, explained Daniel, portended that in punishment of his pride the monarch would for a while lose his throne, be bereft of his reason, imagining himself an ox, 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. With holy freedom, although in vain, the Prophet exhorted the king to forestall such punishment by atoning for his sins by deeds of mercy; and Daniel's prediction was fulfilled to the letter (iv). For a parallel to this, see Abydenus' account (second century B.C.) quoted in Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX, xl).

Nearly all that is known concerning the Prophet Daniel is derived from the book ascribed to him. He belonged to the tribe of Juda (i, 6), and was of noble, or perhaps of royal, descent (i, 3; cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. X, ch. x, § 1). When still a youth, probably about fourteen years of age, he was carried captive to Babylon by Nabuchodonosor in the fourth year of the reign of Joakim (605 B.C.). There, with three other youths of equal rank named Ananias, Misael and Azarias, he was entrusted to the care of Asphenez, the master of the king's eunuchs, and was educated in the language and learning of the "Chaldeans", whereby are meant the professors of divination, magic, and astrology in Babylon (i, 3, 4). From this passage Jewish tradition has inferred that Daniel and his companions were made eunuchs; but this does not necessarily follow; the master of the eunuchs simply trained these Jewish youths, among others, with a view to their entering the king's service (i, 5). Daniel now received the new name of Baltassar (Babyl. Balâtsu-usur, "Bel protect his life"), and, in agreement with Ananias, Misael, and Azarias, who received similarly the new names of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, respectively, asked and obtained permission not to use the special food from the royal table provided for those under training, and to be limited to vegetable diet. At the end of three years Daniel and his three companions appeared before the king, who found that they excelled all the others who had been educated with them, and thereupon promoted them to a place in his court. Henceforth, whenever the prince tested them, they proved superior to "all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom" (i, 7-20). Soon afterwards—either in the second or in the twelfth year of Nabuchodonosor's reign—Daniel gave a signal proof of his marvellous wisdom. On the failure of all the other wise men, he repeated and interpreted, to the monarch's satisfaction, the king's dream of a colossal statue which was made up of various materials, and which, on being struck by a stone, was broken into pieces, while the stone grew into a mountain and filled the whole earth. On this account, Daniel in Babylon, as Joseph of old in Egypt, rose into high favour with the prince, who not only bestowed on him numerous gifts, but also made him ruler of "the whole province of Babylon" and chief governor of "all the wise men". At Daniel's request, too, his three friends received important promotions (ii). The next opportunity afforded Daniel to give proof of his wisdom was another dream of Nabuchodonosor which, once more, he alone was able to interpret. The dream was of a mighty tree concerning which the king heard the command given that it should be cut down, and that "seven times" should "pass over" its stump, which had been left standing. This, explained Daniel, portended that in punishment of his pride the monarch would for a while lose his throne, be bereft of his reason, imagining himself an ox, 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. With holy freedom, although in vain, the Prophet exhorted the king to forestall such punishment by atoning for his sins by deeds of mercy; and Daniel's prediction was fulfilled to the letter (iv). For a parallel to this, see Abydenus' account (second century B.C.) quoted in Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX, xl).

Nothing is expressly said as to what became of Daniel upon the death of Nabuchodonosor (561 B.C.); it is simply intimated in Daniel, v, 11 sqq., that he lost his high office at the court and lived long in retirement. The incident which brought him to public notice again was the scene of revelry in Baltasar's palace, on the eve of Cyrus's conquest of Babylon (538 B.C.). While Baltasar (Heb. Belsh’aççar, corresponding to the Babyl. 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". These mysterious words, which none of the king's wise men was able to interpret, were explained by Daniel, who at length had been summoned, and who for his reward became one of the three chief ministers in the kingdom. The prophet, now at least eighty years of age, remained in that exalted position under Darius the Mede, a prince possibly to be identified with Darius Hystaspes (485 B.C.). Darius, moreover, thought of setting him over all the kingdom (vi, 4), when Daniel's fellow-officers, fearing such an elevation, sought to compass his ruin by convicting him of disloyalty to the Crown. They secured from the king a decree forbidding anyone, under penalty of being cast into the lions' den, to ask any petition of either god or man, except the monarch, for thirty days. As they had anticipated, Daniel nevertheless prayed, three times a day, at his open window, towards Jerusalem. This they reported to the king, and they forced him to apply the threatened punishment to the violator of the decree. Upon Daniel's miraculous preservation in the lions' den, Darius 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". And so Daniel continued to prosper through the rest of the reign of Darius, and in that of his successor, Cyrus the Persian (vi).

Nothing is expressly said as to what became of Daniel upon the death of Nabuchodonosor (561 B.C.); it is simply intimated in Daniel, v, 11 sqq., that he lost his high office at the court and lived long in retirement. The incident which brought him to public notice again was the scene of revelry in Baltasar's palace, on the eve of Cyrus's conquest of Babylon (538 B.C.). While Baltasar (Heb. Belsh’aççar, corresponding to the Babyl. 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". These mysterious words, which none of the king's wise men was able to interpret, were explained by Daniel, who at length had been summoned, and who for his reward became one of the three chief ministers in the kingdom. The prophet, now at least eighty years of age, remained in that exalted position under Darius the Mede, a prince possibly to be identified with Darius Hystaspes (485 B.C.). Darius, moreover, thought of setting him over all the kingdom (vi, 4), when Daniel's fellow-officers, fearing such an elevation, sought to compass his ruin by convicting him of disloyalty to the Crown. They secured from the king a decree forbidding anyone, under penalty of being cast into the lions' den, to ask any petition of either god or man, except the monarch, for thirty days. As they had anticipated, Daniel nevertheless prayed, three times a day, at his open window, towards Jerusalem. This they reported to the king, and they forced him to apply the threatened punishment to the violator of the decree. Upon Daniel's miraculous preservation in the lions' den, Darius 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". And so Daniel continued to prosper through the rest of the reign of Darius, and in that of his successor, Cyrus the Persian (vi).

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 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.