Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 127:
Line 127: − + + + Line 148:
Line 150: + + Line 153:
Line 157: − + Line 163:
Line 167: − − 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> Line 230:
Line 232: − 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 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>+ Line 238:
Line 240: − + − + + + + + Line 246:
Line 252: − + + + + + + + + + − + Line 254:
Line 268: − + Line 275:
Line 289: − The author of chapter 14 about Daniel's defeat 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 liberalist scholarly dating of the book of Daniel into the 2nd Century B.C. rather than its stated dating from the hand of Daniel, in 534 B.C.. + Line 283:
Line 297: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 364:
Line 518: − ===Date of the Book=== − When was the book of Daniel written? − The date for when the book of Daniel was written is somewhat controversial. For conservative Christians, the earliest date is about 530 B.C.. For liberal scholars (Naturalists), the latest data is about 165 B.C.. + Line 382:
Line 534: − ===Foretold Events after 165 B.C.===+ − − By using 165 B.C. as the date of authorship, any prophecy before that date would be considered to be like writing about past events. However, events foretold to happen that occur after 165 B.C. are truly prophetic. Objective evidence to confirm each event is all that is required. − − To compare Daniel to the Qur’an requires that the study be limited to words claimed to be from the Archangel Gabriel. The 9th chapter of Daniel claims to be from Gabriel, making it an ideal choice to compare to the Qur’an. − − Daniel’s prophecy recorded in chapter 9 is called the prophecy of the 70-weeks. The Hebrew word for "weeks" means a period of 7-years [refer to Strong's Concordance Number 7620]. Therefore, the 70-weeks is based on multiplying 70 time 7-years, which equals 490 years. At various stages during this time, specific human events are expected to occur. The prophetic events are about the Jewish people, Jerusalem, and the coming Messiah. Christians logically accept this prophecy as being fulfilled by Jesus. We will soon understand why. − − It is important to note that conservative Christian scholars do not accept the 165 B.C. date for when Daniel was written. As we move into verifying the individual prophecies contained in the 70-weeks prophecy, we will begin to understand why conservative scholars hold to the position that Daniel was authored as early as 530 B/C.. Although modern scholars (Naturalist) may not agree with the conservative dating, evidence exits to support the traditional Christian view. For now, we will use the 165 B.C. date. − − What does the 70-weeks prophecy foretell? − − The prophecy is based on a prayer given by Daniel. Daniel prays for the Jewish people, their sin, and that God will permit them to return from Babylon to Jerusalem. Daniel’s reason for praying is that another Jewish prophet, Jeremiah (refer to Jeremiah 29:10-12) had already foretold that the Jewish people would return to Jerusalem (Daniel 9:2-3). Daniel is simply wondering when the Jewish people would be allowed to return to Jerusalem. − − The Archangel Gabriel brings an answer to Daniel that foretells the future. Just as Daniel had prayed about the Jewish people and their return to Jerusalem, Gabriel gives Daniel a prophecy about the future of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. However, Gabriel links the Jewish people and their return to the coming of the Messiah. − − Following is a quick overview of Gabriel’s prophecy, which centers on the coming Messiah. − − Christians accept Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks because the prophetic events fit Jesus’ life so well. In general, people understand the 70-weeks prophecy to be literally foretelling of the Messiah. There are three primary reasons why Christians take the view that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy literally. − − First and foremost, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah would be killed at Jerusalem. − Second, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah had to appear at Jerusalem before its destruction. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, which fits Jesus’ lifetime. − Third, the purpose of the 70-weeks prophecy as described by verse 24 is mirrored by the basic teachings of the New Testament. Many Christians take the view that verse 24 is a summary of the gospel story, based on the Messiah’s death foretold in verse 26. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold. − − − − ===Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel=== Line 518:
Line 644: − − − ===Foretold Events after 165 B.C.=== − − By using 165 B.C. as the date of authorship, any prophecy before that date would be considered to be like writing about past events. However, events foretold to happen that occur after 165 B.C. are truly prophetic. Objective evidence to confirm each event is all that is required. − − To compare Daniel to the Qur’an requires that the study be limited to words claimed to be from the Archangel Gabriel. The 9th chapter of Daniel claims to be from Gabriel, making it an ideal choice to compare to the Qur’an. − − Daniel’s prophecy recorded in chapter 9 is called the prophecy of the 70-weeks. The Hebrew word for "weeks" means a period of 7-years [refer to Strong's Concordance Number 7620]. Therefore, the 70-weeks is based on multiplying 70 time 7-years, which equals 490 years. At various stages during this time, specific human events are expected to occur. The prophetic events are about the Jewish people, Jerusalem, and the coming Messiah. Christians logically accept this prophecy as being fulfilled by Jesus. We will soon understand why. − − It is important to note that conservative Christian scholars do not accept the 165 B.C. date for when Daniel was written. As we move into verifying the individual prophecies contained in the 70-weeks prophecy, we will begin to understand why conservative scholars hold to the position that Daniel was authored as early as 530 B/C.. Although modern scholars (Naturalist) may not agree with the conservative dating, evidence exits to support the traditional Christian view. For now, we will use the 165 B.C. date. − − What does the 70-weeks prophecy foretell? − The prophecy is based on a prayer given by Daniel. Daniel prays for the Jewish people, their sin, and that God will permit them to return from Babylon to Jerusalem. Daniel’s reason for praying is that another Jewish prophet, Jeremiah (refer to Jeremiah 29:10-12) had already foretold that the Jewish people would return to Jerusalem (Daniel 9:2-3). Daniel is simply wondering when the Jewish people would be allowed to return to Jerusalem. − The Archangel Gabriel brings an answer to Daniel that foretells the future. Just as Daniel had prayed about the Jewish people and their return to Jerusalem, Gabriel gives Daniel a prophecy about the future of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. However, Gabriel links the Jewish people and their return to the coming of the Messiah. − Following is a quick overview of Gabriel’s prophecy, which centers on the coming Messiah. − Christians accept Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks because the prophetic events fit Jesus’ life so well. In general, people understand the 70-weeks prophecy to be literally foretelling of the Messiah. There are three primary reasons why Christians take the view that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy literally. − − First and foremost, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah would be killed at Jerusalem. − Second, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah had to appear at Jerusalem before its destruction. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, which fits Jesus’ lifetime. − Third, the purpose of the 70-weeks prophecy as described by verse 24 is mirrored by the basic teachings of the New Testament. Many Christians take the view that verse 24 is a summary of the gospel story, based on the Messiah’s death foretold in verse 26. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold. − − ===Subjective textual evaluation=== − − − The Prayer of the Three Holy Children is a segment of a larger component called The Prayer of Azariah and the Prayer of the Three Holy Children which, although part of the Septuagint text, is considered by Protestants as part of the Apocrypha rather than a fully canonical part of Scripture, and so appears in most English-language bibles as a seperate section. If included within the larger text of Daniel, it would appear in the third chapter of between verses 23 and 24. − − The song constitutes a hymn of thanksgiving to God for deliverence from the fiery furnace into which the three young men, Ananias, Azarias and Misael (also known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) had been cast by the Persian king Nebuchadnezzar. They were cast into the furnace for refusing to worship a golden idol that Nebuchadnezzar had created. However, an Angel of the Lord entered the furnace and protected the three young men. In liturgical practice, the event is seen to presage the Resurrection of Christ, thus its inclusion in the canon. − − The Abingdon Bible Handbook (ISBN 0687001692) suggests that the Prayer was based on an earlier composition and was added to the existing text of Daniel sometime in the second or first century B.C. − − − − God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be − considered an approved text. They said no to the additions to Daniel. I − agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one − were to ask my opinion, these texts to do not appear inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted − Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?..,Ecclesiastes,?. But they did not accept 2 − Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc into their canon. Now, I − will admit that I accept this by faith (that God influenced the final − canon of the OT as selected by the consensus of the Jews), which may not − be a very useful instrument to one who dies not have faith. MT does not − include these texts. The LXX did not either, although it is true that − when Jerome translated the OT he was forced (against his will, I might − add) to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The − Masoretic text is clear on this. What is to be included in the LXX is not − clear. Some say anything which was translated into Greek B.C. which − eventually made it into the Vulgate is, by definition, part of the LXX. I − do not agree at all. This is proof by definition, which is not a good − form of proof. The parts of the Greek/Jewish literature which are to be − accepted are the parts of the Greek Bible (and therefore the LXX) which − were accepted by the Jews, for example, at the Council of Jamnia. There is no absolutely clear cut list that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of A.D. the first centuries is − that Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon etc. are not inspired. Neither Jesus nor the NT writers ever quoted even a single time from Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, Tobit, Bel and − the Dragon, yet they quoted extensively from virtually every OT book. The only exception is a possible quote or at least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude. − − Books quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers do not include Ezra Nehemiah Esther and Song of Songs. But this does not mean they are not inspired scripture. − − − There is ample evidence to justify the omission of these writings from our Bible despite the adoption of them by the Roman Catholic Church. Despite the misjudgment of those who made versions of the Old Testament and included the apocryphal books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite the error made by the students of these versions who began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are clearly not on that plane. The examination of the content of the book Bel and the Dragon and the examination of the external evidences surrounding the book boldly justify the exclusion of this work from the collection of books that have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. This apocryphal book was considered by some as an addition to the book of Daniel but it was not included in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. The writing itself does not have the authoritative style of Daniel, the accounts contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and the third person style of a prophet's transport across time and space all make the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, a non inspired of God. The questionable authorship, date of writing, language and preservation clearly indicate that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book now called Bel and the Dragon. The simple evidences presented in this work clearly justify the conclusion that was made 2400 years ago, that Bel and the Dragon is not Holy Scripture. − − Although this is obvious to me because of my faith in God and His providence to preserve His Word, (Psalm 12:6-7 ''The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.'') this concept should be explored with the detailed manuscript evidence uncovered in the last 100 years. I must point out here, that scholars often say we know more now than we ever have about the transmittal of the Bible. This is not true. The scholars and scribes of the 1st through the 3rd century A.D. knew far more than any modern scholar is willing to give them credit for. After the turn of the century we have been overtly influenced by the philosophy of evolution to where we consider these as ignorant cave men, and us as highly evolved intellectuals. There is still an inbred reluctance in modern scholarship to acknowledge that these were holy men of God writing as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God, and not bumbling editors evolving a book that developed over thousands of years into a Bible. The latter begin the over-developed and prejudice theory of infidels over the past 150 years. − − The accounts emphasize the craftiness of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. This in itself is permissible as it often occurs in other accounts of Bible characters. The concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, certainly not authored by Daniel, (although it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in third person.) . The story has as its theme the craftiness of Daniel to expose false idol worship. There is no need here to reject the events as fable or fiction. Indeed it is very likely that many instances of Daniel's wisdom, wit and ability were not recorded by Daniel himself, but were told and retold outside the palaces of the Babylonian kingdom and likely recorded in writing. Daniel did not likely exist day to day with a tremendous miracle of deliverance to account each week. However the passing on of his less miraculous, more crafty daily existence was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. If the scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing, we certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding that decision. − − Again it is not necessary to dismiss these accounts as false, only to recognize they lack the authority of first person accounts, and therefore may be stories that were passed on without Godly inspiration or preservation of truth and detail. Indeed every part of the account of Bel is conceivable and believable. The account of the dragon is only conceivable and believable up to the point of the lion's den account. − − The argument that the dragon in this account must have been an idol of a serpent is contested by R.H. Charles in his introduction to ''Bel and the Dragon.''<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 653</ref> Such an argument is wholly without measure since plainly from the text the creature is a living creature, and from the text it is not just a large serpent. These clear distinctions are brought into controversy by those 'scholars' who believe that any dragon type creature would have been extinct millions of years before this writing. Such a long road of presuppositions paved with an evolutionary theory often cloud simple facts from the 'scholar's' view. There is ample evidence that dragon like creatures (today given the name dinosaur, meaning 'terrible lizard') were prevalent in the Babylonian era.<ref>Ham, Snelling, Wieland, The Answers Book, Pg. 21-39.</ref> − − So given the believableness of these accounts, their one drawback is the authority with which they present and support some revelation from God, of God. They fit better into a category of story that was passed outside the palaces emphasizing the craftiness of Daniel. They do not present revelation from God, preserved by God to record His sovereign dealings with his prophet Daniel. Thus there is not any internal evidence that Bel and the Dragon should have been included at the end of the writings of Daniel. The scribes who left them off were certainly justified as far as the internal evidences are concerned. − − Lion's Den Contradictions. − − The account of the lion's den experience, however, must be examined as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6. It is probably the inclusion of this detail that first causes these accounts to be seen as stories passed on outside the palace walls. Either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate. They both cannot fit together into the same account and an idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. The scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. We can find here no evidence to override such a decision. In fact a brief examination supports their suspicions toward the Bel and the Dragon account. Lets contrast some of the differences in these accounts. − − Thirdly within Bel and the Dragon the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful, fairy tale, fable than an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habbacuc's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back. − − The miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the lions den with a sack lunch for Daniel is so beyond belief that some contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story" it is a far more fanciful thing than found elsewhere in scriptures, however just being different does not warrant its exclusion. (else we would eliminate the translation Elijah, the snatching away of Enoch or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture.) There are no other similar accounts of such a transport of one prophet to assist or encourage another in any other old testament scripture. Thus the miraculous zapping of one person across time or space is not lightly regarded here. So the downfall of the transport of Habbacoc is its total lack of authority, necessity, and significance. [However, see Acts 8:26-40 Where Philip was suddenly transported more than 40 miles from where he had baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and was found at Azotus.] − − Examination of the book Bel and the Dragon reveals that this writing does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man. The writing even contradicts the Daniel given account of the lion's den, and the miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the den's mouth is not in the first person nor authoritative, and thus fanciful and more presentation of legend then a historical event. The book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. To include such a narration as Bel and the Dragon at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be certain folly. Folly that was avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity. This examination of the internal evidences of Bel and the Dragon reveal little credibility to override the initial decision to 'hide' this section from the temple books considered Holy Scripture and classify it as an apocryphal book. This initial decision and the treatment of this writing through history will now be more closely examined as we look at external evidences for the rejection of Bel and the Dragon as Holy Scripture. − − External Evidences − − The external evidences against the inclusion of Bel and the Dragon as scripture include its language, its authenticity, assurance of its author, and date of writing, and manuscript evidence that would include evidence of how it was treated by early collectors of the scriptures. These evidences primarily give indications of how it was treated by those closest to the author who wrote the accounts, and its earliest acceptance or rejection. The problem of looking at these external evidences is that this will generally be a subjective look. We know the beginning and the end but to say we can accurately unfold all the moves that were made is purely fictional. Some of these evidences, however subjective, clearly support the suspicions that this writing has been subjected to ever since the scriptures of the captivity period were first collected and considered holy. − − The Language of the Manuscripts. − − Another argument against all the additions to Daniel being considered Scripture is found in the language of the manuscripts. Daniel written in both Hebrew and Aramaic is distinct from the additions that are not found in either Hebrew nor Aramaic thus are clearly separate entities. The original language of the additions has been in dispute. There is no existant Hebrew or Aramaic 'versions' only Greek 'versions' were ever found.<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with introductions and critical explanatory notes to the several books, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 655</ref> Although, it has been strongly attested by the Catholic Church that the original was Hebrew, they attest to this largely because it supported their doctrine that the apocryphal books are Scripture, rather than for any manuscript reasons. In fact some word plays in the Greek make it very unlikely that the additions to Daniel were translated from Hebrew.<ref>These Greek word plays show up in Susanna rather than in Bel and the Dragon, but the argument follows for all the additions to Daniel, Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Pg. 655 Foot note #3</ref> R.H. Charles contends that the additions were "written originally almost certainly in Hebrew" <ref>Ibid. Page 655</ref> but this is a subjective view with little evidence. Should an argument be proven for a Hebrew original, it still stands clear the text for the Bel and the Dragon was not preserved in the Temple with the book of Daniel as were the Holy Scriptures, and this fanciful account was not considered scripture by the 5th century B.C. Hebrew Scribes. Regardless of whether it was originally written in Hebrew or not, the lack of any Hebrew manuscript of Bel and the Dragon is a strong indication that it never was regarded as scripture. − − Its Treatment in Ancient Versions − − In the Latin Vulgate, a translation of the Septuagint (Greek Version of the OT), Bel and the Dragon is positioned as chapter 14 of Daniel. There are however, no early manuscripts that support this addition to the book. It is obvious that the Hebrew scribes in charge of keeping the Holy Scriptures preserved within the Temple did not safeguard Bel and the Dragon as Scripture, (i.e no Hebrew version of the book is in existence, it simply was not included nor kept by the scribes.) − − It is clear that Origen, the Alexandrine 2nd century biblical scholar (c. A.D. 185-254 ) clearly separates the canonical books of the OT from the apocryphal books,<ref>15 Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefor before A.D. 231, the eminent biblical scholar Origen (c. A.D. 185-254) wrote an exposition of Psalm 1 in which he included 'a catalogue of the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament'. He comments that 'there are twenty-two canonical books as the Hebrews tradition them, the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet'. He proceeds to give the titles in Greek, followed by a transliteration of the Hebrew names:"</ref> however he does defend the Septuagint additions to Daniel, i.e. Susanna.<ref>Origen, Ad Africanum 9: The Hebrew copies lack the Septuagint readings because the elders 'hid from the knowledge of the people' passages that might bring discredit on them, e.g. The story of Susanna. Some of the passages 'have been preserved in their non-canonical writings'. For an ET of Ad Africanum cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.</ref> In this defense he infers that these additions were kept out because of embarrassment of the scholars (elders) who determined which books were to be canonical. This defense is clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. This process of canonization is greatly exaggerated and misused by scholars who are bent on defaming the Bible. They make as though it were a council that convened, debated and voted about whether a book was acceptable, discarding some and including others. In actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<ref>Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house,... and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.</ref> − − External Evidence Summary − − Although some manuscript version of the Old Testament treated the apocryphal books on a parallel plane with Holy Scripture, it is clear that their predecessors did not. The external evidences apparent around Bel and the Dragon clearly, yet subjectively point to a conclusion that this work was not highly regarded by those who were close to the prophets and scribes of the exile. The questions and suspicions about its authorship, date and original language indicate that those who wanted it included with the book of Daniel were acting more on other motivations than on the evidences on hand. This error was swallowed by a whole universal (Catholic) church, but the evidence to support this addition to the book of Daniel is just not there. − − Despite the misjudgment of those who made versions of the Old Testament and included the apocryphal books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite the error made by the students of these versions who began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are clearly not on that plane. The examination of the content of the book Bel and the Dragon and the examination of the external evidences surrounding the book boldly justify the exclusion of this work from the collection of books which have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. The writing itself does not have the authoritative style of Daniel, the accounts contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and the third person style of a prophets transport across time and space all make the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, an non inspired of God. The questionable authorship, date of writing, language and preservation clearly indicate the those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book now called Bel and the Dragon. The simple evidences presented in this work clearly justify the conclusion that was made 2400 years ago, that Bel and the Dragon is not Holy Scripture, but an account of events in Daniel's life, made by those outside the inner circle of God. The chosen prophets who recorded God's word, did so with the authority and supernatural protection of God. This supernatural protection followed their written words as supernatural preservation for the truths that God intended us to have in 1998. This authority and preservation are clearly missing from the account of Bel and the Dragon. Line 633:
Line 660: − +
additional information, and links. Source materials are being combined, synthesized, condensed and partially corrected and rewritten. Needs more work
===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. 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.
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. The [[opinion]] of a Jewish council rendered after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ.
See [[Logical fallacy#Proof by authority|Logical fallacy of Proof by authority]]
According to the ordinary reading of the New Testament and the consensus of the majority of Christians from the 1st century to this day, the authority of the kingdom of God had been wholly taken away from the Jews in the 1st century and given to the leaders of the Gentiles and Jews in Christ long before the Council of Jamnia. [[Stephen]] the first martyr for Christ testified to the Sanhedrin this fact by the Holy Spirit: <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:
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=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]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:3&version=KJV Jude 3]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:3&version=KJV Jude 3]
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> The Jews as arbiters of the Old Testament canon have excluded everything Christian.
===Second objection: The rabbinical additions might not have been written in Hebrew===
===Second objection: The rabbinical additions might not have been written in Hebrew===
[[Book of Sirach#The Prologue|Jesus ben Sira]] c. 150 B.C. observed that "''the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.''" ''See'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=sirach%201:1&version=DRA Sirach 1:1]
[[Book of Sirach#The Prologue|Jesus ben Sira]] c. 150 B.C. observed that "''the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.''" ''See'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=sirach%201:1&version=DRA Sirach 1:1]
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
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 its 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)
: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 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>
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>
===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===
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.
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 majority of quotations of the Old Testament are not from the Masoretic Hebrew version in the Tanakh, but are according to the Septuagint version of the Bible (LXX) which contains the books and texts which have been rejected as Apocrypha and are in the ''Greek Bible'' of the early Church.<ref>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]</ref> The entire New Testament was written in Greek, addressed to the people and to individual Christians (such as Philemon, Timothy and Titus), and there appears to be no evidence that the assemblies of worshiping Christians in the ancient early Church read the Old Testament in Hebrew but in the language of the people, from the Septuagint.
===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>
[[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. 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.
Many highly educated and imminently qualified radical liberalist scholars appear to have set themselves up as judges of the Bible, determining for themselves and for others which parts are to be considered good or bad, reliable or unreliable, genuine or spurious, inspired or uninspired. See [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.
When read within the whole context of the Bible, and as the received and preserved sacred heritage of the whole Christian Church, the portions rejected as Apocrypha read instead to most Christians as inspired Holy Scripture and as legitimate parts of the whole Bible. The majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world who have 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/>
In contrast to these are those other equally highly educated and imminently qualified conservative Biblical scholars who accept the authority of the Bible and use rightly and objectively the legitimate tools of Historical-critical method, who analyze the scriptures individually and also within the context of the whole, and have found instead a unity which seems to them to affirm the authenticity and canonicity of each text traditionally included in the Bible.
See [[Logical fallacy#Proof by authority|Logical fallacy of Proof by authority]]
When read within the whole context of the Bible, and as the received and preserved sacred heritage of the whole Christian Church, the portions rejected as Apocrypha read instead to most Christians as inspired Holy Scripture and as legitimate parts of the whole Bible. The majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world who have carefully heard and read and compared these texts believe that the complete Book of Daniel "with all its parts" is ''obviously'' canonical and inspired by God, and that those portions of the Book of Daniel which have been rejected as Apocrypha are actually canonical scriptures of the Holy Bible inspired by God.<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 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.
===Judge for yourself===
===Judge for yourself===
The appeal to readers to "read for themselves" to see if the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel "seem to them" to be inspired is a example of the logical fallacy of "''[[Appeal to personal interest]]''", which appeals to the individual reader's sense of personal integrity and self-reliance, and erroneously implies that the personal judgment of the reader can be relied upon as infallibly correct.<ref name=Private/> It dismisses all possibility of an informed and authentic external authority that can truly be trusted as more reliable than personal judgment, it sets the reader apart from and above the whole of the Christian community, and it makes the individual reader the final arbiter and judge of the books of the Bible. This is a seductive appeal to individual pride and vanity. [http://biblehub.com/multi/proverbs/3-5.htm Proverbs 3:5] [http://biblehub.com/multi/isaiah/5-21.htm Isaiah 5:21] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=sirach%203:24&version=NRSVCE Sirach 3:24]
The appeal to readers to "read for themselves" to see if the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel "seem to them" to be inspired is a example of the logical fallacy of "''[[Appeal to personal interest]]''", which appeals to the individual reader's sense of personal integrity and self-reliance, and erroneously implies that the personal judgment of the reader can be relied upon as infallibly correct.<ref name=Private/> It dismisses all possibility of an informed and authentic external authority established and preserved by God that can truly be trusted as more reliable than personal judgment. It sets the reader apart from and above the whole of the Christian community, and it makes the individual reader the final arbiter and judge of the books of the Bible. This is a seductive appeal to individual pride and vanity. [http://biblehub.com/multi/proverbs/3-5.htm Proverbs 3:5] [http://biblehub.com/multi/isaiah/5-21.htm Isaiah 5:21] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=sirach%203:24&version=NRSVCE Sirach 3:24] [http://biblehub.com/multi/jude/1-19.htm Jude 19]
''Eisegesis'' occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text, saying that it means what it does ''not'' mean ([[Proof text|reader-response Biblical interpretation]]).<ref>See four articles
*[http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?] —gotquestions.org
*[http://thechristianwatershed.com/2007/12/10/eisegesis-vs-exegesis/ Eisegesis vs. Exegesis] —thechristianwatershed.com
*[http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5430/how-to-separate-exegesis-from-eisegesis-in-this-example How to separate exegesis from eisegesis in this example?] —hermeneutics.stackexchange.com
*[http://carm.org/dictionary-eisegesis Dictionary: eisegesis. Brief informal definition and discussion of eisegesis: —''citing a classic example of Mormon eisegesis on 1 Cor. 8:5'' (KJV)] —carm.org</ref> ''Eisegesis'' is severely condemned according to many literalist readings of the text of the [[Deuteronomy|Book of Deuteronomy]] and the [[Book of Revelation]] <ref>See [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/22-18.htm# Literalist commentaries on Revelation 22:18] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/4-2.htm# Literalist commentaries on Deuteronomy 4:2] (biblehub.com).</ref>
::"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ''aught'' from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%204:2&version=KJV Deuteronomy 4:2]<ref>''see also'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%205:32&version=KJV Deuteronomy 5:32]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:11&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:11] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:20&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2027:26&version=KJV Deuteronomy 27:26] </ref><ref>The Samaritan Pentateuch text has Mount Gerizim as the place to build the Temple of the L<small>ORD</small>. Because the text of Deuteronomy 17:20 says "You shall not add to the word which I command you..." the Samaritans do not accept the rest of the books of the Bible as the inspired word of God, but according to their letterist reading of this text see them as the false additions of men. Their community has remained small (withered) according to the words of Jesus [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%205:32&version=KJV John 15:6.]</ref>
::"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and ''from'' the things which are written in this book." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2022:18-19&version=KJV Revelation 22:18-19] <ref>Many conservative Christians see "the words of the prophesy of this book" as referring not solely to the Book of Revelation alone but to the whole canon of the books of the Bible as the one book of the words of prophesy spoken by the Holy Spirit, God. On the basis of this interpretation, and after formulating a Reformation-defined canon of 66 books, the Protestant Reformers accused the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of having added books to the Bible in the [[Council of Chalcedon|4th century]], and Catholic and Orthodox leaders accused Protestants of taking away whole books and parts of other books from the Bible of the Apostles and the Ancient Christian Church. In response to the controversy, in the Catholic [[Council of Trent]], the Catholic Church declared an end to all debate in the Church regarding the canonical status of particular books of Scripture, by [[dogma]]tically listing the canon of the Bible "as read in the Church". See [[Apocrypha]] and [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Apocrypha Books - King James Bible Online].</ref>
Churches in [[Apostolic succession]] see in their doctrine and practice a sure and biblical means of receiving and perpetuating the Faith from one generation to another. Apostolic Succession requires a "tactile," person to person, conferring of authority from the Apostles onward. The practice originated in the late first century. It requires the most heightened responsibility in the giving and receiving. It is believed that the grace of the Holy Spirit is transmitted by the laying on of hands at the time of ordination. Not all Christians have the gift of discernment. [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/13-1.htm Romans 13:1] [http://biblehub.com/multi/hebrews/13-17.htm Hebrews 13:17] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_timothy/1-14.htm 2 Timothy 1:14] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_peter/1-19.htm 2 Peter 1:19], also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:3&version=KJV Jude 3] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:17-19&version=KJV 17-19]. See also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:4-11&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 12:4-11] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:28-30&version=KJV 28-30]
Churches in [[Apostolic succession]] see in their doctrine and practice a sure and biblical means of receiving and perpetuating the Faith from one generation to another. Apostolic Succession requires a "tactile," person to person, conferring of authority from the Apostles onward. The practice originated in the late first century ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2013:2-3&version=KJV Acts 13:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2timothy%201:6-7&version=KJV 2 Timothy 1:6-7]). It requires the most heightened responsibility in the giving and receiving. It is believed that the grace of the Holy Spirit is transmitted by the laying on of hands at the time of ordination, but not all Christians have the gift of discernment. [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/13-1.htm Romans 13:1] [http://biblehub.com/multi/hebrews/13-17.htm Hebrews 13:17] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_timothy/1-14.htm 2 Timothy 1:14] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_peter/1-19.htm 2 Peter 1:19], also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:3&version=KJV Jude 3] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:17-19&version=KJV 17-19]. See also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:4-11&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 12:4-11] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:28-30&version=KJV 28-30]
==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==
==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==
The Book of Daniel takes its name not from the author, who is actually unknown, but from its principal character, who in 606 B.C. the 3rd year of Jehoiakim ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%201:1-5&version=KJV Daniel 1:1-5]) was among the first Jews deported to Babylon with King Jehoiakim, where he lived at least until 538 B.C., perhaps later. The first six chapters are chiefly historical, and the remainder prophetical. The unknown author completed it about 4 years later in 534 B.C..
The Book of Daniel takes its name not from the author, who is actually unknown, but from its principal character, who in 606 B.C. the 3rd year of Jehoiakim ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%201:1-5&version=KJV Daniel 1:1-5]) was among the first Jews deported to Babylon with King Jehoiakim, where he lived at least until 538 B.C., perhaps later. The first six chapters are chiefly historical, and the remainder prophetical. The unknown author completed it about 4 years later in 534 B.C..
===The prophet Daniel===
===The Prophet Daniel===
Almost that is known about the Prophet Daniel is from the Book of Daniel.
Almost that is known about the Prophet Daniel is from the Book of Daniel.
The author of chapters 1:1–7:1 (according to their numbering in the Vulgate Bible) is unknown. He may have been a disciple of the Prophet. Chapters 7:2–12:13 are presented as first-person narratives written by Daniel himself.
The author of chapters 1:1–7:1 (according to their numbering in the Vulgate Bible) is unknown. He may have been a disciple of the Prophet. Chapters 7:2–12:13 are presented as first-person narratives written by Daniel himself.
Theories abound about the date of writing but most of these entangle themselves in the liberalist scholarly dating of the book of Daniel into the 2nd Century B.C. rather than its stated dating as being from the hand of Daniel himself, in 534 B.C..
Scholars with a [[liberal bias]] do not acknowledge the supernatural foreknowledge of any written prophecy, presumptively dating each book as having been written after the prophecy was fulfilled. Conservative responses to these pointed dating theories take Proverbs 26:4 above Proverbs 26:5 in the case of such outspoken one-sided opinions <ref>Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Proverbs 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) excessive weight is given the 'scholars' who support the latest possible speculative dating of Bible books.<ref>Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. ''A Survey of the Old Testament'' page 349.</ref> When extensive argument is given to refute their dating and critical treatment of the Bible it seems to lend them more credence than they are due.<ref>See [http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/protest+too+much TheFreeDicionary: idioms: protest too much] (thefreedictionary.com), [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thou+doth+protest+too+much Urban Dictionary: "thou doth protest too much"], [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_lady_doth_protest_too_much wiktionary: the lady doth protest too much] (wiktionary.org)</ref> Many modern scholars have a 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 premise of evolution of a bible requires that the scholars similarly manufacture and collect hundreds of years of folklore and legend as being prior to the written Biblical record. In support of their opinions they stretch out dates and propose compounded multiple authorship. The ''proposed conclusions'' constructed from abuse of ''legitimate'' historical-critical dating methods by some "modern scholars" on any manuscript can be treated as suspect, as subjective and as having little substantive credibility, based on a long history of evidential findings of slanted scholarship by peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies.<ref>Documented evidence of a long history of biased scholarly research findings—see the following:
Scholars with a [[liberal bias]] do not acknowledge the supernatural foreknowledge of any written prophecy, presumptively dating each book as having been written after the prophecy was fulfilled. Conservative responses to these pointed dating theories take Proverbs 26:4 above Proverbs 26:5 in the case of such outspoken one-sided opinions <ref>Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Proverbs 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) excessive weight is given the 'scholars' who support the latest possible speculative dating of Bible books.<ref>Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. ''A Survey of the Old Testament'' page 349.</ref> When extensive argument is given to refute their dating and critical treatment of the Bible it seems to lend them more credence than they are due.<ref>See [http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/protest+too+much TheFreeDicionary: idioms: protest too much] (thefreedictionary.com), [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thou+doth+protest+too+much Urban Dictionary: "thou doth protest too much"], [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_lady_doth_protest_too_much wiktionary: the lady doth protest too much] (wiktionary.org)</ref> Many modern scholars have a 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 premise of evolution of a bible requires that the scholars similarly manufacture and collect hundreds of years of folklore and legend as being prior to the written Biblical record. In support of their opinions they stretch out dates and propose compounded multiple authorship. The ''proposed conclusions'' constructed from abuse of ''legitimate'' historical-critical dating methods by some "modern scholars" on any manuscript can be treated as suspect, as subjective and as having little substantive credibility, based on a long history of evidential findings of slanted scholarship by peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies.<ref>Documented evidence of a long history of biased scholarly research findings—see the following:
Critics of the Book of Daniel who base their datings of the time of writing on extant 2nd century B.C. hand-copied manuscripts almost entirely ignore the fact that after Daniel wrote it, the book was sealed and kept hidden "until the time of the end". [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-4.htm Daniel 12:4] and [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-9.htm 12:9] This is why no textual manuscript evidence for the book predates the 2nd century B.C.. We know about the book and its inspired content only because it had finally been unsealed; then immediately handwritten manuscript copies were made and distributed to be read to the assemblies of the people beginning the 2nd century B.C. as proof that all that had happened had been prophesied. (A parallel example is found in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2044:24-45:7&version=KJV Isaiah 44:24-45:7].) The Book of Daniel is an extreme historical example of handwritten ''posthumous publication''.
Critics of the Book of Daniel who base their datings of the time of writing on extant 2nd century B.C. hand-copied manuscripts almost entirely ignore the fact that after Daniel wrote it, the book was sealed and kept hidden "until the time of the end". [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-4.htm Daniel 12:4] and [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-9.htm 12:9] This is why no textual manuscript evidence for the book predates the 2nd century B.C.. We know about the book and its inspired content only because it had finally been unsealed; then immediately handwritten manuscript copies were made and distributed to be read to the assemblies of the people beginning the 2nd century B.C. as proof that all that had happened had been prophesied. (A parallel example is found in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2044:24-45:7&version=KJV Isaiah 44:24-45:7].) The Book of Daniel is an extreme historical example of handwritten ''posthumous publication''.
There is the strongest evidence respecting the genuineness and authenticity of the book, both internal and external. We have the testimony of Christ himself, [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/24-15.htm Matthew 24:15]; of St. John and St. Paul, who have copied his prophecies; of the Jewish synagogue and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical but have never ranked it among the Prophets; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish ''tannaim'' and ''amoraim'', which frequently in the Talmud cite his authority. As to the internal evidence, the style, language, and manner of writing perfectly agree with the historical period represented from Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon into the reigns of Cyrus and Darius of Persia; and especially, Daniel is proved to have been a prophet by the exact fulfilment of his predictions. This book, like that of Ezra, is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee, the prevailing language of the Babylonians, and translated in its entirety into Greek for the Jews of the Diaspora, the prevailing language of the entire [[Levant]] and middle east from the 2nd century B.C. through the 1st century of Christianity.
The Prayer of the Three Holy Children is a segment of a larger component called The Prayer of Azariah and the Prayer of the Three Holy Children which, although part of the Septuagint text, is considered by Protestants as part of the Apocrypha rather than a fully canonical part of Scripture, and so appears in most English-language bibles as a separate section. When included within the larger text of Daniel, it appears in the third chapter of between verses 23 and 24.
The song constitutes a hymn of thanksgiving to God for deliverence from the fiery furnace into which the three young men, Ananias, Azarias and Misael (also known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) had been cast by the Persian king Nebuchadnezzar. They were cast into the furnace for refusing to worship a golden idol that Nebuchadnezzar had created. However, an Angel of the Lord entered the furnace and protected the three young men. In liturgical practice, the event is seen to presage the Resurrection of Christ, thus its inclusion in the canon.
The Abingdon Bible Handbook (ISBN 0687001692) suggests that the Prayer was based on an earlier composition and was added to the existing text of Daniel sometime in the second or first century B.C.
There is the strongest evidence respecting the genuineness and authenticity of the book, both internal and external. We have the testimony of Christ himself, [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/24-15.htm Matthew 24:15]; of St. John and St. Paul, who have copied his prophecies; of the Jewish synagogue and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical but have never ranked it among the Prophets; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish ''tannaim'' and ''amoraim'', which frequently in the Talmud cite his authority. As to the internal evidence, the style, language, and manner of writing perfectly agree with the historical period represented from Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon into the reigns of Cyrus and Darius of Persia; and especially, Daniel is proved to have been a prophet by the exact fulfilment of his predictions. This book, like that of Ezra, is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee, the prevailing language of the Babylonians, and was translated in its entirety for the Jews of the Diaspora into Greek, the prevailing language of the entire [[Levant]] and middle east from the 2nd century B.C. through the 1st century of Christianity.
===Date of the Book===
When was the book of Daniel written?
The date for when the book of Daniel was written is somewhat controversial. For conservative Christians, the earliest date is about 530 B.C.. For liberal scholars (Naturalists), the latest data is about 165 B.C..
===Foretold Events after 165 B.C.===
By using 165 B.C. as the date of authorship, any prophecy before that date would be considered to be like writing about past events. However, events foretold to happen that occur after 165 B.C. are truly prophetic. Objective evidence to confirm each event is all that is required.
To compare Daniel to the Qur’an requires that the study be limited to words claimed to be from the Archangel Gabriel. The 9th chapter of Daniel claims to be from Gabriel, making it an ideal choice to compare to the Qur’an.
Daniel’s prophecy recorded in chapter 9 is called the prophecy of the 70-weeks. The Hebrew word for "weeks" means a period of 7-years [refer to Strong's Concordance Number 7620]. Therefore, the 70-weeks is based on multiplying 70 time 7-years, which equals 490 years. At various stages during this time, specific human events are expected to occur. The prophetic events are about the Jewish people, Jerusalem, and the coming Messiah. Christians logically accept this prophecy as being fulfilled by Jesus. We will soon understand why.
It is important to note that conservative Christian scholars do not accept the 165 B.C. date for when Daniel was written. As we move into verifying the individual prophecies contained in the 70-weeks prophecy, we will begin to understand why conservative scholars hold to the position that Daniel was authored as early as 530 B/C.. Although modern scholars (Naturalist) may not agree with the conservative dating, evidence exits to support the traditional Christian view. For now, we will use the 165 B.C. date.
What does the 70-weeks prophecy foretell?
The prophecy is based on a prayer given by Daniel. Daniel prays for the Jewish people, their sin, and that God will permit them to return from Babylon to Jerusalem. Daniel’s reason for praying is that another Jewish prophet, Jeremiah (refer to Jeremiah 29:10-12) had already foretold that the Jewish people would return to Jerusalem (Daniel 9:2-3). Daniel is simply wondering when the Jewish people would be allowed to return to Jerusalem.
The Archangel Gabriel brings an answer to Daniel that foretells the future. Just as Daniel had prayed about the Jewish people and their return to Jerusalem, Gabriel gives Daniel a prophecy about the future of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. However, Gabriel links the Jewish people and their return to the coming of the Messiah.
Following is a quick overview of Gabriel’s prophecy, which centers on the coming Messiah.
Christians accept Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks because the prophetic events fit Jesus’ life so well. In general, people understand the 70-weeks prophecy to be literally foretelling of the Messiah. There are three primary reasons why Christians take the view that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy literally.
First and foremost, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah would be killed at Jerusalem.
Second, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah had to appear at Jerusalem before its destruction. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, which fits Jesus’ lifetime.
Third, the purpose of the 70-weeks prophecy as described by verse 24 is mirrored by the basic teachings of the New Testament. Many Christians take the view that verse 24 is a summary of the gospel story, based on the Messiah’s death foretold in verse 26. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold.
===Fundamentalist textual evaluation===
God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be
considered an approved text. They said no to the additions to Daniel. I
agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one
were to ask my opinion, these texts to do not appear inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted
Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?..,Ecclesiastes,?. But they did not accept 2
Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc into their canon. Now, I
will admit that I accept this by faith (that God influenced the final
canon of the OT as selected by the consensus of the Jews), which may not
be a very useful instrument to one who dies not have faith. MT does not
include these texts. The LXX did not either, although it is true that
when Jerome translated the OT he was forced (against his will, I might
add) to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The
Masoretic text is clear on this. What is to be included in the LXX is not
clear. Some say anything which was translated into Greek B.C. which
eventually made it into the Vulgate is, by definition, part of the LXX. I
do not agree at all. This is proof by definition, which is not a good
form of proof. The parts of the Greek/Jewish literature which are to be
accepted are the parts of the Greek Bible (and therefore the LXX) which
were accepted by the Jews, for example, at the Council of Jamnia. There is no absolutely clear cut list that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of A.D. the first centuries is
that Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon etc. are not inspired. Neither Jesus nor the NT writers ever quoted even a single time from Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, Tobit, Bel and
the Dragon, yet they quoted extensively from virtually every OT book. The only exception is a possible quote or at least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude.
Books quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers do not include Ezra Nehemiah Esther and Song of Songs. But this does not mean they are not inspired scripture.
There is ample evidence to justify the omission of these writings from our Bible despite the adoption of them by the Roman Catholic Church. Despite the misjudgment of those who made versions of the Old Testament and included the apocryphal books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite the error made by the students of these versions who began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are clearly not on that plane. The examination of the content of the book Bel and the Dragon and the examination of the external evidences surrounding the book boldly justify the exclusion of this work from the collection of books that have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. This apocryphal book was considered by some as an addition to the book of Daniel but it was not included in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. The writing itself does not have the authoritative style of Daniel, the accounts contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and the third person style of a prophet's transport across time and space all make the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, a non inspired of God. The questionable authorship, date of writing, language and preservation clearly indicate that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book now called Bel and the Dragon. The simple evidences presented in this work clearly justify the conclusion that was made 2400 years ago, that Bel and the Dragon is not Holy Scripture.
The argument that the dragon in this account must have been an idol of a serpent is contested by R.H. Charles in his introduction to ''Bel and the Dragon.''<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 653</ref> Such an argument is wholly without measure since plainly from the text the creature is a living creature, and from the text it is not just a large serpent. These clear distinctions are brought into controversy by those 'scholars' who believe that any dragon type creature would have been extinct millions of years before this writing. Such a long road of presuppositions paved with an evolutionary theory often cloud simple facts from the 'scholar's' view. There is ample evidence that dragon like creatures (today given the name dinosaur, meaning 'terrible lizard') were prevalent in the Babylonian era.<ref>Ham, Snelling, Wieland, The Answers Book, Pg. 21-39.</ref>
Although this is obvious to me because of my faith in God and His providence to preserve His Word, (Psalm 12:6-7 ''The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.'') this concept should be explored with the detailed manuscript evidence uncovered in the last 100 years. I must point out here, that scholars often say we know more now than we ever have about the transmittal of the Bible. This is not true. The scholars and scribes of the 1st through the 3rd century A.D. knew far more than any modern scholar is willing to give them credit for. After the turn of the century we have been overtly influenced by the philosophy of evolution to where we consider these as ignorant cave men, and us as highly evolved intellectuals. There is still an inbred reluctance in modern scholarship to acknowledge that these were holy men of God writing as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God, and not bumbling editors evolving a book that developed over thousands of years into a Bible. The latter begin the over-developed and prejudice theory of infidels over the past 150 years.
The accounts emphasize the craftiness of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. This in itself is permissible as it often occurs in other accounts of Bible characters. The concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, certainly not authored by Daniel, (although it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in third person.) . The story has as its theme the craftiness of Daniel to expose false idol worship. There is no need here to reject the events as fable or fiction. Indeed it is very likely that many instances of Daniel's wisdom, wit and ability were not recorded by Daniel himself, but were told and retold outside the palaces of the Babylonian kingdom and likely recorded in writing. Daniel did not likely exist day to day with a tremendous miracle of deliverance to account each week. However the passing on of his less miraculous, more crafty daily existence was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. If the scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing, we certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding that decision.
Again it is not necessary to dismiss these accounts as false, only to recognize they lack the authority of first person accounts, and therefore may be stories that were passed on without Godly inspiration or preservation of truth and detail. Indeed every part of the account of Bel is conceivable and believable. The account of the dragon is only conceivable and believable up to the point of the lion's den account.
The argument that the dragon in this account must have been an idol of a serpent is contested by R.H. Charles in his introduction to ''Bel and the Dragon.''<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 653</ref> Such an argument is wholly without measure since plainly from the text the creature is a living creature, and from the text it is not just a large serpent. These clear distinctions are brought into controversy by those 'scholars' who believe that any dragon type creature would have been extinct millions of years before this writing. Such a long road of presuppositions paved with an evolutionary theory often cloud simple facts from the 'scholar's' view. There is ample evidence that dragon like creatures (today given the name dinosaur, meaning 'terrible lizard') were prevalent in the Babylonian era.<ref>Ham, Snelling, Wieland, The Answers Book, Pg. 21-39.</ref>
So given the believableness of these accounts, their one drawback is the authority with which they present and support some revelation from God, of God. They fit better into a category of story that was passed outside the palaces emphasizing the craftiness of Daniel. They do not present revelation from God, preserved by God to record His sovereign dealings with his prophet Daniel. Thus there is not any internal evidence that Bel and the Dragon should have been included at the end of the writings of Daniel. The scribes who left them off were certainly justified as far as the internal evidences are concerned.
Lion's Den Contradictions.
The account of the lion's den experience, however, must be examined as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6. It is probably the inclusion of this detail that first causes these accounts to be seen as stories passed on outside the palace walls. Either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate. They both cannot fit together into the same account and an idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. The scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. We can find here no evidence to override such a decision. In fact a brief examination supports their suspicions toward the Bel and the Dragon account. Lets contrast some of the differences in these accounts.
Thirdly within Bel and the Dragon the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful, fairy tale, fable than an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habbacuc's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.
The miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the lions den with a sack lunch for Daniel is so beyond belief that some contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story" it is a far more fanciful thing than found elsewhere in scriptures, however just being different does not warrant its exclusion. (else we would eliminate the translation Elijah, the snatching away of Enoch or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture.) There are no other similar accounts of such a transport of one prophet to assist or encourage another in any other old testament scripture. Thus the miraculous zapping of one person across time or space is not lightly regarded here. So the downfall of the transport of Habbacoc is its total lack of authority, necessity, and significance. [However, see Acts 8:26-40 Where Philip was suddenly transported more than 40 miles from where he had baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and was found at Azotus.]
Examination of the book Bel and the Dragon reveals that this writing does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man. The writing even contradicts the Daniel given account of the lion's den, and the miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the den's mouth is not in the first person nor authoritative, and thus fanciful and more presentation of legend then a historical event. The book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. To include such a narration as Bel and the Dragon at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be certain folly. Folly that was avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity. This examination of the internal evidences of Bel and the Dragon reveal little credibility to override the initial decision to 'hide' this section from the temple books considered Holy Scripture and classify it as an apocryphal book. This initial decision and the treatment of this writing through history will now be more closely examined as we look at external evidences for the rejection of Bel and the Dragon as Holy Scripture.
Examination of the book Bel and the Dragon reveals that this writing does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man. The writing even contradicts the Daniel given account of the lion's den, and the miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the den's mouth is not in the first person nor authoritative, and thus fanciful and more presentation of legend then a historical event. The book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. To include such a narration as Bel and the Dragon at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be certain folly. Folly that was avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity. This examination of the internal evidences of Bel and the Dragon reveal little credibility to override the initial decision to 'hide' this section from the temple books considered Holy Scripture and classify it as an apocryphal book. This initial decision and the treatment of this writing through history will now be more closely examined as we look at external evidences for the rejection of Bel and the Dragon as Holy Scripture.
External Evidences
The external evidences against the inclusion of Bel and the Dragon as scripture include its language, its authenticity, assurance of its author, and date of writing, and manuscript evidence that would include evidence of how it was treated by early collectors of the scriptures. These evidences primarily give indications of how it was treated by those closest to the author who wrote the accounts, and its earliest acceptance or rejection. The problem of looking at these external evidences is that this will generally be a subjective look. We know the beginning and the end but to say we can accurately unfold all the moves that were made is purely fictional. Some of these evidences, however subjective, clearly support the suspicions that this writing has been subjected to ever since the scriptures of the captivity period were first collected and considered holy.
The Language of the Manuscripts.
Another argument against all the additions to Daniel being considered Scripture is found in the language of the manuscripts. Daniel written in both Hebrew and Aramaic is distinct from the additions that are not found in either Hebrew nor Aramaic thus are clearly separate entities. The original language of the additions has been in dispute. There is no existant Hebrew or Aramaic 'versions' only Greek 'versions' were ever found.<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with introductions and critical explanatory notes to the several books, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 655</ref> Although, it has been strongly attested by the Catholic Church that the original was Hebrew, they attest to this largely because it supported their doctrine that the apocryphal books are Scripture, rather than for any manuscript reasons. In fact some word plays in the Greek make it very unlikely that the additions to Daniel were translated from Hebrew.<ref>These Greek word plays show up in Susanna rather than in Bel and the Dragon, but the argument follows for all the additions to Daniel, Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Pg. 655 Foot note #3</ref> R.H. Charles contends that the additions were "written originally almost certainly in Hebrew" <ref>Ibid. Page 655</ref> but this is a subjective view with little evidence. Should an argument be proven for a Hebrew original, it still stands clear the text for the Bel and the Dragon was not preserved in the Temple with the book of Daniel as were the Holy Scriptures, and this fanciful account was not considered scripture by the 5th century B.C. Hebrew Scribes. Regardless of whether it was originally written in Hebrew or not, the lack of any Hebrew manuscript of Bel and the Dragon is a strong indication that it never was regarded as scripture.
Its Treatment in Ancient Versions
In the Latin Vulgate, a translation of the Septuagint (Greek Version of the OT), Bel and the Dragon is positioned as chapter 14 of Daniel. There are however, no early manuscripts that support this addition to the book. It is obvious that the Hebrew scribes in charge of keeping the Holy Scriptures preserved within the Temple did not safeguard Bel and the Dragon as Scripture, (i.e no Hebrew version of the book is in existence, it simply was not included nor kept by the scribes.)
It is clear that Origen, the Alexandrine 2nd century biblical scholar (c. A.D. 185-254 ) clearly separates the canonical books of the OT from the apocryphal books,<ref>15 Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefor before A.D. 231, the eminent biblical scholar Origen (c. A.D. 185-254) wrote an exposition of Psalm 1 in which he included 'a catalogue of the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament'. He comments that 'there are twenty-two canonical books as the Hebrews tradition them, the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet'. He proceeds to give the titles in Greek, followed by a transliteration of the Hebrew names:"</ref> however he does defend the Septuagint additions to Daniel, i.e. Susanna.<ref>Origen, Ad Africanum 9: The Hebrew copies lack the Septuagint readings because the elders 'hid from the knowledge of the people' passages that might bring discredit on them, e.g. The story of Susanna. Some of the passages 'have been preserved in their non-canonical writings'. For an ET of Ad Africanum cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.</ref> In this defense he infers that these additions were kept out because of embarrassment of the scholars (elders) who determined which books were to be canonical. This defense is clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. This process of canonization is greatly exaggerated and misused by scholars who are bent on defaming the Bible. They make as though it were a council that convened, debated and voted about whether a book was acceptable, discarding some and including others. In actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<ref>Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house,... and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.</ref>
External Evidence Summary
Although some manuscript version of the Old Testament treated the apocryphal books on a parallel plane with Holy Scripture, it is clear that their predecessors did not. The external evidences apparent around Bel and the Dragon clearly, yet subjectively point to a conclusion that this work was not highly regarded by those who were close to the prophets and scribes of the exile. The questions and suspicions about its authorship, date and original language indicate that those who wanted it included with the book of Daniel were acting more on other motivations than on the evidences on hand. This error was swallowed by a whole universal (Catholic) church, but the evidence to support this addition to the book of Daniel is just not there.
Despite the misjudgment of those who made versions of the Old Testament and included the apocryphal books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite the error made by the students of these versions who began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are clearly not on that plane. The examination of the content of the book Bel and the Dragon and the examination of the external evidences surrounding the book boldly justify the exclusion of this work from the collection of books which have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. The writing itself does not have the authoritative style of Daniel, the accounts contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and the third person style of a prophets transport across time and space all make the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, an non inspired of God. The questionable authorship, date of writing, language and preservation clearly indicate the those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book now called Bel and the Dragon. The simple evidences presented in this work clearly justify the conclusion that was made 2400 years ago, that Bel and the Dragon is not Holy Scripture, but an account of events in Daniel's life, made by those outside the inner circle of God. The chosen prophets who recorded God's word, did so with the authority and supernatural protection of God. This supernatural protection followed their written words as supernatural preservation for the truths that God intended us to have in 1998. This authority and preservation are clearly missing from the account of Bel and the Dragon.
==[[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|Historical-critical]] textual analysis==
==[[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|Historical-critical]] textual analysis==
According to current historical-critical opinion, the book of Daniel originated in its present form in the Antiochus Epiphanes crisis, that is, between 168/167–165/164 B.C.. It seems very difficult to perceive that one single desert community (Qumran) should have preserved such a significant number of Daniel manuscripts if this book had really been produced at so late a date. The large number of manuscripts in this community can be much better explained if one accepts an earlier origin of Daniel than the one proposed by the Maccabean hypothesis of historical-critical scholarship, which dates it to the second century B.C..
According to current historical-critical opinion, the book of Daniel originated in its present form in the Antiochus Epiphanes crisis, that is, between 168/167–165/164 B.C.. It seems very difficult to perceive that one single desert community (Qumran) should have preserved such a significant number of Daniel manuscripts if this book had really been produced at so late a date. The large number of manuscripts in this community can be much better explained if one accepts an earlier origin of Daniel than the one proposed by the Maccabean hypothesis of historical-critical scholarship, which dates it to the second century B.C..
This work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal. The persecution was occasioned by Antiochus’s efforts to unify his kingdom, in face of the rising power of Rome, by continuing the hellenization begun by Alexander the Great; Antiochus tried to force Jews to adopt Greek ways, including religious practices. Severe penalties, including death, were exacted against those who refused (cf., e.g., 1 Maccabees 1:41–63). The stories bristle with historical problems and have the character of historical novels rather than factual records. What is more important than the question of historicity, and closer to the intention of the author, is the fact that persecuted Jews of the second century B.C. would quickly see the application of these stories to their own plight.
This work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal. The persecution was occasioned by Antiochus’s efforts to unify his kingdom, in face of the rising power of Rome, by continuing the hellenization begun by Alexander the Great; Antiochus tried to force Jews to adopt Greek ways, including religious practices. Severe penalties, including death, were exacted against those who refused (cf., e.g., 1 Maccabees 1:41–63). The stories bristle with historical problems and have the character of historical novels rather than factual records. What is more important than the question of historicity, and closer to the intention of the author, is the fact that persecuted Jews of the second century B.C. would quickly see the application of these stories to their own plight.
===Qumran manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel===
===Qumran manuscripts===
Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, many scholars questioned the faithfulness of the Hebrew text and took great freedom in amending, changing, and adjusting the Hebrew text. This freedom has been significantly curtailed by the Qumran findings.
Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, many scholars questioned the faithfulness of the Hebrew text and took great freedom in amending, changing, and adjusting the Hebrew text. This freedom has been significantly curtailed by the Qumran findings.
For those supporting the historical-critical date of the book of Daniel new issues are being raised. Since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph, is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book? Supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable.
For those supporting the historical-critical date of the book of Daniel new issues are being raised. Since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph, is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book? Supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable.
==Message==
==Message==
In Orthodox Christian worship, the prayer is the basis of the seventh and eighth biblical canticles sung at Orthros. Although the text of the canticles are generally not read in contemporary practice, the hymns sung as part of the canon reference the theme of the Three Holy Children. At Vespers of Holy Saturday, the text of the prayer is heard as part of one of the fifteen Old Testament readings prescribed for that day. In Byzantine practice, the closing refrains to each verse "bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever" are chanted elaborately. The Roman Catholic Church considers this text to be part of the deuterocanonical collection which was defined at the Council of Trent in 1546 as "sacred" and "canonical." The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England includes the text as the canticle Benedicite omnia Opera.
In Orthodox Christian worship, the prayer is the basis of the seventh and eighth biblical canticles sung at Orthros. Although the text of the canticles are generally not read in contemporary practice, the hymns sung as part of the canon reference the theme of the Three Holy Children. At Vespers of Holy Saturday, the text of the prayer is heard as part of one of the fifteen Old Testament readings prescribed for that day. In Byzantine practice, the closing refrains to each verse "bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever" are chanted elaborately. The Roman Catholic Church considers this text to be part of the deuterocanonical collection which was defined at the Council of Trent in 1546 as "sacred" and "canonical." The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England includes the text as the canticle Benedicite omnia Opera.
==Classic Commentaries on Daniel==
==Classic Commentaries on Daniel online==
===[[Cornelius à Lapide|à Lapede]] Great Commentary on the Bible 1681 Online===
===[[Cornelius à Lapide|à Lapede]] Great Commentary on the Bible 1681 Online===