Changes

==Dispute on Authorship==

==Dispute on Authorship==

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"/>  

Due to the fact that the book contains prophecies that were fulfilled in the 2nd century B.C., many [[modernist]] scholars have asserted that this book was not written by Daniel the 6th century B.C., but by a later person.  However, both Scriptural and textual arguments support the traditional view.<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 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)]]

Additionally, findings in the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] dating to the 4th century B.C. referred to Daniel as a prophet, which supports the traditional view, as it is unlikely that Daniel would have been accepted as a prophet had the book been written only several years previously rather than several centuries (400 years) previously.<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==

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

===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.

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. Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. A Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ.  

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:

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 Holy Scripture, but instead that Christian leaders are to be accounted as "the stewards of the mysteries of God". See the testimony of the following scriptures of the Bible:

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:13-14&version=KJV Matthew 15:13-14]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:13-14&version=KJV Matthew 15:13-14]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016:18-19&version=KJV Matthew 16:18-19]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016:18-19&version=KJV Matthew 16:18-19]

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.

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 name=Private>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>

:

:

Members of ''[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]]'' have taken a form of "private judgment" as an infallible guide. They quote Moroni 10:4 <ref>[http://www.originalbookofmormonrestored.com/Original_Book_of_Mormon_Text.pdf Original Book of Mormon Text, page 575] (originalbookofmormonrestored.com)</ref><blockquote>"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."</blockquote> Some individuals, whom Mormon missionaries have instructed to use this test as a form of certain discernment, have experienced a kind of negative affirmation in the form of an intuitive insight or feeling that indicates, "Yes, these things are not so". But others have interpreted the affirmative feeling that they experienced in response to the prayer as meaning instead, "Yes, these things are so".  

Members of ''[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]]'' have taken a form of "private judgment" as an infallible guide. They quote Moroni 10:4 <ref>[http://www.originalbookofmormonrestored.com/Original_Book_of_Mormon_Text.pdf Original Book of Mormon Text, page 575] (originalbookofmormonrestored.com)</ref><blockquote>"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."</blockquote> Some individuals, whom Mormon missionaries have instructed to use this test as a form of certain discernment, have experienced a kind of negative affirmation in the form of an intuitive insight or feeling that indicates, "Yes, these things are not so". But others have interpreted the affirmative feeling that they experienced in response to the prayer as meaning instead, "Yes, these things are so".

:

:

Historical-critical researchers who use the literary methods of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|Higher Criticism]] seek to find out all they can with regard to the portion of the Bible they are studying; the author, the date, the circumstances, and purpose of its writing. The Higher Criticism means nothing more than the study of the literary structure of the various books of the Bible, and more especially of the Old Testament. Historical criticism assumes the time-conditions; the historical character of the Scriptures. This does not necessarily mean that the individual historical critic conceives of God revealing Himself objectively within history, but that he conceives the production of Scripture to have taken place within historical causes. What one scholar holds to be very probable another considers to be very unlikely. The regular majority of intelligent higher critical scholars who take the Bible seriously have found the Bible to be historically reliable and truthful and unique as a ''very credible witness'' to what the Lord of history has actually done in history, and as documents in character superior to all the ethical rationalism of the writings of secular humanists. This includes those deuterocanonicals called "apocrypha".<blockquote>"'''''The more conservative theologians who employ the historical-critical method believe that the Scriptures are 'more than the writings of mortal men'...'''''" —(Siegbert W. Becker, "The Historical-Critical Method of Bible Interpretation", page 4. ''bold-face emphasis added''.)</blockquote>They have found that the Scriptures are unique among world literature, and that the Bible is of a wholly different order from the pagan mythologies of the nations.<ref name=BFMKwatera>St. John's Abbey: ''The Bible’s message is both ‘divine’ and ‘human’.'' Friday, January 17th, 2014, Benedictine Father Michael Kwatera, a monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, MN. A discussion of the meaning of historical-critical methodology.</ref><ref name=literature>[https://bibleasliterature.wordpress.com/ The Bible as Literature: The Bible ~ A Literary Work and an Artistic Presentation of Human Experience]</ref>

Historical-critical researchers who use the literary methods of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|Higher Criticism]] seek to find out all they can with regard to the portion of the Bible they are studying; the author, the date, the circumstances, and purpose of its writing. The Higher Criticism means nothing more than the study of the literary structure of the various books of the Bible, and more especially of the Old Testament. Historical criticism assumes the time-conditions; the historical character of the Scriptures. This does not necessarily mean that the individual historical critic conceives of God revealing Himself objectively within history, but that he conceives the production of Scripture to have taken place within historical causes. What one scholar holds to be very probable another considers to be very unlikely. The regular majority of intelligent higher critical scholars who take the Bible seriously have found the Bible to be historically reliable and truthful and unique as a ''very credible witness'' to what the Lord of history has actually done in history, and as documents in character superior to all the ethical rationalism of the writings of secular humanists. This includes those deuterocanonicals called "apocrypha".<blockquote>"'''''The more conservative theologians who employ the historical-critical method believe that the Scriptures are 'more than the writings of mortal men'...'''''" —(Siegbert W. Becker, "The Historical-Critical Method of Bible Interpretation", page 4. ''bold-face emphasis added''.)</blockquote>They have found that the Scriptures are unique among world literature, and that the Bible is of a wholly different order from the pagan mythologies of the nations.<ref name=BFMKwatera>St. John's Abbey: ''The Bible’s message is both ‘divine’ and ‘human’.'' Friday, January 17th, 2014, Benedictine Father Michael Kwatera, a monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, MN. A discussion of the meaning of historical-critical methodology.</ref><ref name=literature>[https://bibleasliterature.wordpress.com/ The Bible as Literature: The Bible ~ A Literary Work and an Artistic Presentation of Human Experience]</ref>

:

:

The highly educated scholars who have elected to participate in the [[Jesus Seminar]] are fully persuaded from reading all of the varied translations and early extant manuscripts of the Gospels and discussions with other Biblical scholars that it is "obviously evident" to them, and a "virtual certainty", that almost none of the words and teachings attributed to Jesus are authentic, but are instead fabrications by unknown individuals in the Christian Church who were promoting their own slanted theological points of view. Other highly educated scholars are firmly convinced by their studies and reading of the Bible that the entire canon of the ''Orthodox Bible'' is authentic and inspired.

The highly educated scholars who have elected to participate in the [[Jesus Seminar]] are fully persuaded from reading all of the varied translations and early extant manuscripts of the Gospels and discussions with other Biblical scholars that it is "obviously evident" to them, and a "virtual certainty", that almost none of the words and teachings attributed to Jesus are authentic, but are instead fabrications by unknown individuals in the Christian Church who were promoting their own slanted theological points of view. In striking contrast to these, other highly educated scholars are firmly convinced by their studies and reading of the Bible that the entire canon of the ''Orthodox Bible'' is authentic and inspired.

:

:

Those who have adopted the views of [[Liberal Christianity]] tend to see religious knowledge emerging from research and the use of reason, as superior to Biblical revelation. Thus the liberal idea of religion as a personal relationship with God is one which is not necessarily bound to a Biblical doctrinal basis. This stands in in contrast to salvation resulting from faith in the Biblically substantiated gospel of grace, and in conformity with orthodox theological beliefs. They see the controversy over canonicity of any part of the Bible as pointless and somewhat irrelevant. Reading the texts of scripture does not indicate to them personally that one part is superior to another, or that any of it is inspired by God, although many of them acknowledge that some of it tends to be "inspiring" as a classic of world literature.

Those who have adopted the views of [[Liberal Christianity]] tend to see religious knowledge emerging from research and the use of reason, as superior to Biblical revelation. Thus the liberal idea of religion as a personal relationship with God is one which is not necessarily bound to a Biblical doctrinal basis. This stands in in contrast to salvation resulting from faith in the Biblically substantiated gospel of grace, and in conformity with orthodox theological beliefs. They see the controversy over canonicity of any part of the Bible as pointless and somewhat irrelevant. Reading the texts of scripture does not indicate to them personally that one part is superior to another, or that any of it is inspired by God, although many of them acknowledge that some of it tends to be "inspiring" as a classic of world literature.

:

:

Every person who approaches Bible study, usually to learn about the historical events it relates, is heavily influenced by the hermeneutical theory, or interpretive understandings, he or she brings to the text, consciously or unconsciously. According to Dr. J. Philip Hyatt, very little of the Bible relates history for its own sake, or for the purposes that a modern historian would adopt. It is, therefore, history of a special order, designed not simply to inform the reader, but to awaken in the reader a response to what the Lord of history has done.<ref name=Hyatt>John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book in the public domain</small></ref><ref name=Bond>"Bible hermeneutics", Steve Bond, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 203–207.</ref>

It is evident from the facts cited above that those portions of the Book of Daniel called ''The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Story of Susanna,'' and ''Bel and the Dragon,'' cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of Jewish rejection, apparent lack of evidence of an original Hebrew text, and subjective assessment of content according to what seems ''to the reader'' to be marks of inspired writing.

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.

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

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

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 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>

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>

There are a number of places where there appears to be a similarity of thought, and sometimes of the actual words used, between New Testament passages and verses in the Apocrypha.<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>

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

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

[[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 book and text of the Bible should be divorced from the whole, taken out of context, and analyzed separately and independently to determine its particular reliability and authenticity, for comparison to other parts of the Bible also taken as individual and separate writings. They are often represented as having no common theme or apparent unity of purpose. These are set in opposition to each other for comparison, emphasizing what appears as contradictions and discrepancies, which appears to invalidate their message and their authority as parts of the revealed word of God. This tactic dismisses the unity of the mind of the primary Author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit himself, and makes a lie of the promise of Jesus that the Spirit of the Father would lead us into all truth forever.<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 radical liberalist scholars appear to have set themselves up as judges of the Bible, determining for themselves and for others which parts are to be considered good or bad, reliable or unreliable, genuine or spurious, inspired or uninspired. See [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2016:17-19&version=NABRE Romans 16:17-19] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%204:11-12&version=NABRE James 4:11-12]. However, these do not represent the majority view. Conservative Biblical scholars who accept the authority of the Bible and use rightly and objectively the legitimate tools of Historical-critical method, who analyze the scriptures individually and also within the context of the whole, find a unity which seems to them to affirm the authenticity and canonicity of each text traditionally included in the Bible.

[[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 book and text of the Bible should be divorced from the whole, taken out of context, and analyzed separately and independently to determine its particular reliability and authenticity, for comparison to other parts of the Bible also taken as individual and separate writings. They are often represented as having no common theme or apparent unity of purpose. These are set in opposition to each other for comparison, emphasizing what appears as contradictions and discrepancies, which appears to invalidate their message and their authority as parts of the revealed word of God. This tactic dismisses the unity of the mind of the primary Author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit himself, and makes a lie of the promise of Jesus that the Spirit of the Father would lead us into all truth forever.<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>  

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/>

Many radical liberalist scholars appear to have set themselves up as judges of the Bible, determining for themselves and for others which parts are to be considered good or bad, reliable or unreliable, genuine or spurious, inspired or uninspired. See [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2016:17-19&version=NABRE Romans 16:17-19] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%204:11-12&version=NABRE James 4:11-12]. However, these do not represent the majority view. In contrast to these are those highly educated and imminently qualified conservative Biblical scholars who accept the authority of the Bible and use rightly and objectively the legitimate tools of Historical-critical method, who analyze the scriptures individually and also within the context of the whole, and have found instead a unity which seems to them to affirm the authenticity and canonicity of each text traditionally included in the Bible.

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 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==

===The prophet Daniel===

===The prophet Daniel===

Almost that is known about the Prophet Daniel is from the Book of Daniel. He was a member of the  tribe of Judah (1:6), and of noble, perhaps royal, descent (1:3 <ref>see also Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', Book 10, chapter 10, § 1 (186-189).</ref>) In his youth, about fourteen years old, he together with three other youths of equal rank named Ananiah, Mishael and Azariah, was carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor, in the third/fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (606/605 B.C.). There, Daniel and Ananiah, Mishael and Azariah were entrusted to the care of Ashpenez, the king's chief [[eunuch]], to be educated in the language and learning of the "Chaldeans", the professors of divination, magic, and astrology in Babylon (1:3-4). Jewish tradition has inferred from this passage that Daniel and his companions were made eunuchs; but this cannot be proved; the chief of the eunuchs was charged with training these Jewish youths, among others, to prepare them to enter the king's service (1:5). Daniel was given the new name of Belteshazzar/Baltassar (Babylonian ''Balâtsu-usur'', "Bel protect his life"), and Ananiah, Mishael, and Azariah similarly were given the new names of Shadrach/Sidrach, Meshach/Misach, and Abednego/Abdenago. Daniel/Belteshazzar in agreement with them, asked for and obtained permission to not use the special food and wines from the royal table provided for all those in training, but to be limited to a vegetable diet and water only. After 10 days they appeared better fed and healthier than the other youths. At the end of three years (1:5) Daniel and his three companions appeared before the king, who found they excelled all the others who had been educated with them, and he promoted them to a place in his court. Whenever the prince tested them, they proved superior to "all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom" (1:7-20). After this—in the twelfth year of King Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor, in the second year of his reign over King Zedekiah of Judah—Daniel manifested his gift of wisdom. After the failure of all the other wise men, he prayed, and then described and interpreted the king's dream of a colossal statue made of gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay, which, when struck by a stone shaped without hands, was broken into pieces and blown away, and the stone grew into a mountain that filled the whole earth. The king was satisfied, and Daniel in Babylon, as Joseph of old in Egypt, rose into high favour with him. Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor bestowed on him numerous gifts, and in addition made him ruler of "the whole province of Babylon" and chief governor of "all the wise men". At Daniel's request, his three friends also received important promotions (chapter 2). Further proof of his wisdom was another dream of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor which he alone was able to interpret. The dream of a mighty tree, and the king heard the command given to cut it down, and that "seven times" should "pass over" its stump, which had been left standing. Daniel explained that this portended that in punishment of his pride the monarch would for a while lose his throne, be deprived of his reason, imagine himself an ox, and live in the open fields, but be again restored to his power, finally convinced of the supreme might and goodness of the Most High. The Prophet exhorted the king to forestall such punishment by atoning for his sins with deeds of mercy (''atoning for his sins with '''works'''''  <ref>"deeds of mercy/works"—Compare [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/4-27.htm Daniel 4:27], [http://biblehub.com/multi/ezekiel/18-21.htm Ezekiel 18:21], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=tobit%2012:9&version=DRA Tobit 12:9a], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1john%203:17-22&version=DRA 1 John 3:17-22], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%202:14-26&version=DRA James 2:14-26] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46&version=DRA Matthew 25:31-46]. The [[Book of Tobit]] is rejected as ''obviously'' apocryphal in part because of the text: "For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin". This counsel, the same counsel the Prophet Daniel gave to the king, is condemned as false Catholic doctrine by Protestant teaching, yet the book of Daniel 1–12, which includes chapter 4, is fully accepted by Protestant Christians as the inspired word of God in the Protestant Bible, along with the books of Ezekiel and James, 1 John and Matthew. Jesus himself in Matthew teaches the absolute necessity of good works. See

Almost that is known about the Prophet Daniel is from the Book of Daniel.  

 

He was a member of the  tribe of Judah (1:6), and of noble, perhaps royal, descent (1:3 <ref>see also Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', Book 10, chapter 10, § 1 (186-189).</ref>) In his youth, about fourteen years old, he together with three other youths of equal rank named Ananiah, Mishael and Azariah, was carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor, in the third/fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (606/605 B.C.). There, Daniel and Ananiah, Mishael and Azariah were entrusted to the care of Ashpenez, the king's chief [[eunuch]], to be educated in the language and learning of the "Chaldeans", the professors of divination, magic, and astrology in Babylon (1:3-4). Jewish tradition has inferred from this passage that Daniel and his companions were made eunuchs; but this cannot be proved; the chief of the eunuchs was charged with training these Jewish youths, among others, to prepare them to enter the king's service (1:5). Daniel was given the new name of Belteshazzar/Baltassar (Babylonian ''Balâtsu-usur'', "Bel protect his life"), and Ananiah, Mishael, and Azariah similarly were given the new names of Shadrach/Sidrach, Meshach/Misach, and Abednego/Abdenago. Daniel/Belteshazzar in agreement with them, asked for and obtained permission to not use the special food and wines from the royal table provided for all those in training, but to be limited to a vegetable diet and water only. After 10 days they appeared better fed and healthier than the other youths. At the end of three years (1:5) Daniel and his three companions appeared before the king, who found they excelled all the others who had been educated with them, and he promoted them to a place in his court. Whenever the prince tested them, they proved superior to "all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom" (1:7-20).  

 

After this—in the twelfth year of King Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor, in the second year of his reign over King Zedekiah of Judah—Daniel manifested his gift of wisdom. After the failure of all the other wise men, he prayed, and then described and interpreted the king's dream of a colossal statue made of gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay, which, when struck by a stone shaped without hands, was broken into pieces and blown away, and the stone grew into a mountain that filled the whole earth. The king was satisfied, and Daniel in Babylon, as Joseph of old in Egypt, rose into high favour with him. Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor bestowed on him numerous gifts, and in addition made him ruler of "the whole province of Babylon" and chief governor of "all the wise men". At Daniel's request, his three friends also received important promotions (chapter 2).  

 

Further evidence of his wisdom was another dream of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor which he alone was able to interpret. The dream of a mighty tree, and the king heard the command given to cut it down, and that "seven times" should "pass over" its stump, which had been left standing. Daniel explained that this portended that in punishment of his pride the monarch would for a while lose his throne, be deprived of his reason, imagine himself an ox (''bo-anthropy'' <ref>'''Boanthropy''' is a type of [[insanity]] or psychological disorder in which a [[human being]] believes himself to be a [[Bovine]] (a cow and/or an ox). <br/>"boanthropy"

(bō·an′thrə·pē) noun [<NL <Gk. ''boanthrōpos'' <bous bull, ox + ''anthrōpos'' man]<br/>[http://www.whatdoesthatmean.com/dictionary/B/boanthropy.html#ixzz3PlKiIP8e What Does That Mean? English Dictionary. B. boanthropy.] <br/>Charles Talbut Onions (ed) ''The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary On Historical Principles'' Vol.1 Oxford University Press 1933 page 195</ref>), and live in the open fields, but be again restored to his power, finally convinced of the supreme might and goodness of the Most High. The Prophet exhorted the king to forestall such punishment by atoning for his sins with deeds of mercy (''atoning for his sins with '''works'''''  <ref>"deeds of mercy/works"—Compare [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/4-27.htm Daniel 4:27], [http://biblehub.com/multi/ezekiel/18-21.htm Ezekiel 18:21], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=tobit%2012:9&version=DRA Tobit 12:9a], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1john%203:17-22&version=DRA 1 John 3:17-22], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%202:14-26&version=DRA James 2:14-26] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46&version=DRA Matthew 25:31-46]. The [[Book of Tobit]] is rejected as ''obviously'' apocryphal in part because of the text: "For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin". This counsel, the same counsel the Prophet Daniel gave to the king, is condemned as false Catholic doctrine by Protestant teaching, yet the book of Daniel 1–12, which includes chapter 4, is fully accepted by Protestant Christians as the inspired word of God in the Protestant Bible, along with the books of Ezekiel and James, 1 John and Matthew. Jesus himself in Matthew teaches the absolute necessity of good works. See

*[http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined, and The Apocrypha: "Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!"] (bible.ca)

*[http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined, and The Apocrypha: "Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!"] (bible.ca)

*[http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible, by Ryan Turner] (carm.org)</ref>); but he did not listen to the word of God taught by the Prophet, and Daniel's prediction was fulfilled to the letter (chapter 4). For a parallel to this, see Abydenus' account (second century B.C.) quoted in Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX, xl).<ref>[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_06_book6.htm Eusebius of Caesarea: ''Praeparatio Evangelica'' (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 6]</ref>

*[http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible, by Ryan Turner] (carm.org)</ref>); but he did not listen to the word of God taught by the Prophet, and Daniel's prediction was fulfilled to the letter (chapter 4). For a parallel to this, see Abydenus' account (second century B.C.) quoted in Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX, xl).<ref>[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_06_book6.htm Eusebius of Caesarea: ''Praeparatio Evangelica'' (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 6]</ref>

*[http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation. William Webster] (christiantruth.com)

*[http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation. William Webster] (christiantruth.com)

*[http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx Luther Had His Chance] (orthodoxinfo.com)

*[http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx Luther Had His Chance] (orthodoxinfo.com)

*[http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals. A Response to 11 ‘reasons’ that the Deuterocanonicals Should be Thrown Out of the Bible, By Matt1618. Introduction] (matt1618.freeyellow.com)

*[http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals. A Response to 11 ‘reasons’ that the Deuterocanonicals Should be Thrown Out of the Bible, By Matt1618. Introduction] (matt1618.freeyellow.com)