Changes

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 extant early manuscripts that support this addition to the book. It is obvious to fundamentalists 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.)

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 extant early manuscripts that support this addition to the book. It is obvious to fundamentalists 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:" This, however, is evidence only of the usage of the Jews after the time of Christ, and after the beginning of the 3rd century. Origen did not here list the Holy Scriptures of the Christian Bible.</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 seen by him as clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. Fundamentalists say 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. But they assert that in actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<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>

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:" This, however, is evidence only of the usage of the Jews after the time of Christ, and after the beginning of the 3rd century. Origen did not here list the Holy Scriptures of the Christian Bible.</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 seen by him as clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. Fundamentalists say 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. But they assert that in actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<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

External Evidence Summary

Although some manuscript versions of the Old Testament treated the apocryphal books on a parallel plane with Holy Scripture, it is clear to fundamentalists 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 to them that those who wanted it included with the book of Daniel were acting more on other motivations than on the evidences on hand. They conclude that this error was swallowed by a whole universal (Catholic) church, but the evidence to support this addition to the book of Daniel is just not there.

Although some manuscript versions of the Old Testament treated the apocryphal books on a parallel plane with Holy Scripture, it is clear to fundamentalists 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 to them that those who wanted it included with the book of Daniel were acting more on other motivations than on the evidences on hand. They conclude that this error was swallowed by a whole universal (Catholic) church, but the evidence to support this addition to the book of Daniel is just not there.

Despite what fundamentalists regard as 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 what they see as the error made by the students of these versions who obviously began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are seen as clearly not on that plane. Their examination of the content of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' and their examination of the external evidences surrounding the book boldly justifies to them 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 appear to them to have the authoritative style of Daniel, the accounts appear to contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and the third person style of a prophets transport across time and space all appears to make the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, and non-inspired of God. The "questionable" authorship, date of writing, language and preservation clearly indicates to fundamentalist Christian scholars that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access to or at least no regard for the book now called ''Bel and the Dragon''. They maintain that 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". Fundamentalists acknowledge without hesitation that the chosen prophets who recorded God's word, did so with the authority and supernatural protection of God. This supernatural protection followed their written words as supernatural preservation for the truths that God intended us to have in 1998. Orthodox and Catholic scholars heartily agree. For fundamentalists this authority and preservation are clearly missing from the account of ''Bel and the Dragon''.

Despite what fundamentalists regard as 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 what they see as the error made by the students of these versions who obviously began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are seen as clearly not on that plane. Their examination of the content of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' and their examination of the external evidences surrounding the book boldly justifies to them 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 appear to them to have the authoritative style of Daniel, the accounts appear to contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and the third person style of a prophets transport across time and space all appears to make the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, and non-inspired of God. The "questionable" authorship, date of writing, language and preservation clearly indicates to fundamentalist Christian scholars that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access to or at least no regard for the book now called ''Bel and the Dragon''. They maintain that 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". Fundamentalists acknowledge without hesitation that the chosen prophets who recorded God's word, did so with the authority and supernatural protection of God. This supernatural protection followed their written words as supernatural preservation for the truths that God intended us to have in 1998. Orthodox and Catholic scholars heartily agree. For fundamentalists this authority and preservation are clearly missing from the account of ''Bel and the Dragon''.