Changes

----

----

The complete '''Book of Daniel''' [Hebrew: '''דניאל'''] of 14 chapters, translated from a [[Hebrew]] original which has been lost, is found in the books of the [[Septuagint]], the Old Testament of the apostles and the early Christian Church, accepted as inspired and canonical by the [[Orthodox Church]] in the ''Greek Orthodox Bible'', and in the books of the Old Testament of the ''[[Vulgate]]'' and included in the canon of inspired scripture by the [[Third Council of Carthage (397)]]. It is included in the canon of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church|Ethiopian Orthodox Bible]]. Since the [[Council of Trent]] it is [[Dogma|dogmatically]] accepted as inspired and canonical "with all its parts" by the [[Catholic Church]] in the ''Catholic Bible''—books of the '''[[Bible]]''' accepted as divinely inspired by the majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world.<ref name=largest>The '''Catholic Church''' is the world's largest [[Christianity|Christian]] body comprised of several distinct [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm "Rites"]. The [[Catholic Church|Catholic Church (Latin Rite)]] is the largest religious body in the United States, with over 60 million adherents (4 times as large as the second largest church, the Orthodox).<br/>[http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/ “The Global Catholic Population,” © 2011, Pew Research Center.]<br/>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html The Largest Catholic Communities]<br/>

The complete '''Book of Daniel''' [Hebrew: '''דניאל'''] of 14 chapters, translated from a [[Hebrew]] original which has been lost,<ref name=OriginalHebrew>The '''Theta''', or ''Version of [[Theodotion]]'', Greek version of Daniel with all its parts including chapters 3 and 13 and 14 appears to be a revision of the Septuagint text, with the help of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, now lost. Catholic scholars in general and several Protestants (Eichhorn, Einleit., in ''das Altes Testament'', IV, 24 f; Einleit. in ''die apok. Schriften'', 419; Vatke; Delitzsch, ''De Habacuci'', 50; Zockler, Bissell, Ball, Rothstein, etc.) hold that Hebrew was the original language of ''Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susanna'', and ''Bel and the Dragon''. See the following:<br/>[http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/S/song-of-the-three-children.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: S: Song of the Three Children]<br/>[http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/S/susanna-the-history-of.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: S: Susanna, the History of (T. Witton Davies)]<br/>[http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/B/bel-and-the-dragon.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: B: Bel and the Dragon (T. Witton Davies)]<br/>See also (''page'' 572) [https://books.google.com/books?id=axIMoFf-D5YC&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=Eugene+Ulrich,+1989,+%27%27Daniel+Manuscripts+from+Qumran%27%27&source=bl&ots=5jZxzoJW13&sig=W_29EGA0dmI8Yqt5ES4KOKiMe2A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qv7IVKi3G4aggwTA9YDoAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Eugene%20Ulrich%2C%201989%2C%20&f=false Professor Eugene Ulrich, 1989, ''Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran'']<br/></ref> is found in the books of the [[Septuagint]], the Old Testament of the apostles and the early Christian Church, accepted as inspired and canonical by the [[Orthodox Church]] in the ''Greek Orthodox Bible'', and in the books of the Old Testament of the ''[[Vulgate]]'' and included in the canon of inspired scripture by the [[Third Council of Carthage (397)]]. It is included in the canon of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church|Ethiopian Orthodox Bible]]. Since the [[Council of Trent]] it is [[Dogma|dogmatically]] accepted as inspired and canonical "with all its parts" by the [[Catholic Church]] in the ''Catholic Bible''—books of the '''[[Bible]]''' accepted as divinely inspired by the majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world.<ref name=largest>The '''Catholic Church''' is the world's largest [[Christianity|Christian]] body comprised of several distinct [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm "Rites"]. The [[Catholic Church|Catholic Church (Latin Rite)]] is the largest religious body in the United States, with over 60 million adherents (4 times as large as the second largest church, the Orthodox).<br/>[http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/ “The Global Catholic Population,” © 2011, Pew Research Center.]<br/>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html The Largest Catholic Communities]<br/>

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

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

== Greek and Persian words ==

== Greek and Persian words ==

The Book of Daniel contains words having either Greek or Persian origin.  This has caused some continuing dispute among historians and theologians in explaining how such words, particularly the Greek ones, ended up in the predominantly Hebrew Book of Daniel. Some see this as evidence that the extant [[Masoretic Text|Masoretic Hebrew text]] of Daniel in the Palestinian canon of the Jews is an abbreviated version of the longer Hebrew original text (now lost) which underlies the rabbinical Greek translation of Daniel in the ''Septuagint'', which predates the time of Jesus.

The Book of Daniel contains words having either Greek or Persian origin.  This has caused some continuing dispute among historians and theologians in explaining how such words, particularly the Greek ones, ended up in the predominantly Hebrew Book of Daniel. Some see this as evidence that the extant [[Masoretic Text|Masoretic Hebrew text]] of Daniel in the Palestinian canon of the Jews is an abbreviated version of the longer Hebrew original text (now lost) which underlies the rabbinical Greek translation of Daniel in the ''Septuagint'', which predates the time of Jesus.<ref>L. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella point out that there are “no iron rules or golden rules” in the process of textual reconstruction (Hartman and Di Lella 1978:75). These and other scholars assume that the book of Daniel in its entirety was written originally in the Aramaic language and that the Hebrew parts of the book are translations from Aramaic into Hebrew.</ref><ref name=OriginalHebrew/>

==Dispute on Authorship==

==Dispute on Authorship==

The Language of the Manuscripts.

The Language of the Manuscripts.

Another fundamentalist argument against all the portions called additions to Daniel being considered Scripture is found in the language of the manuscripts. The shorter more abbreviated Daniel written in both Hebrew and Aramaic is distinct from the fuller text including the parts that are not found in either Hebrew nor Aramaic thus appear as clearly separate entities. The original language of the additions has been in dispute. There are no extant 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 eminent scholars in the Catholic Church that the original book was Hebrew, fundamentalists assert that they attest to this largely because it supported their doctrine that the apocryphal books are Scripture, rather than for any manuscript reasons. They point out that in fact "some word plays in the Greek make it very unlikely that the additions to Daniel were translated from Hebrew".<ref name=Charles>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'', Page 655 Footnote #3</ref> [[R.H. Charles]] contends that the additions were "written originally almost certainly in Hebrew" <ref name=Charles/> but fundamentalists say this is a subjective view with little evidence, and that 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 extant Hebrew manuscript of ''Bel and the Dragon'' is for fundamentalists a strong indication that it never was regarded as scripture, even if it was a part of the Greek Bible of the early Christian Church in the 1st through 5th centuries.

Another fundamentalist argument against all the portions called additions to Daniel being considered Scripture is found in the language of the manuscripts. The shorter more abbreviated Daniel written in both Hebrew and Aramaic is distinct from the fuller text including the parts that are not found in either Hebrew nor Aramaic and thus appear as clearly separate entities. The original language of the additions has been in dispute. There are no extant 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 eminent scholars in the Catholic Church that the original book was Hebrew,<ref name=OriginalHebrew/> fundamentalists assert that they attest to this largely because it supported their doctrine that the apocryphal books are Scripture, rather than for any manuscript reasons. They point out that in fact "some word plays in the Greek make it very unlikely that the additions to Daniel were translated from Hebrew".<ref name=Charles>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'', Page 655 Footnote #3</ref> [[R.H. Charles]] contends that the additions were "written originally almost certainly in Hebrew" <ref name=Charles/> but fundamentalists say this is a subjective view with little evidence, and that 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 extant Hebrew manuscript of ''Bel and the Dragon'' is for fundamentalists a strong indication that it never was regarded as scripture, even if it was a part of the Greek Bible of the early Christian Church in the 1st through 5th centuries.

Its Treatment in Ancient Versions

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 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 distiguishes the protocanonical books of the OT from the [[Deuterocanonicals|deuterocanonical]] 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 made a separation between the protocanonical books of the OT and the [[Deuterocanonicals|deuterocanonical]] books,<ref>15 Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefore 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 fundamentalists 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> They assume without question that the shorter version of the Book of Daniel is the original composition and not a later abbreviated form of a longer text written originally by Daniel, now lost, whose full message and contents have been divinely preserved in Greek translation by rabbinical scholars before the time of Christ and transmitted in the Septuagint Old Testament text of the Greek Bible preserved from the 1st century to the present day, which the Jews rejected.

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 clearly 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 including all of its trained Biblical scholars who were experts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but that 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''.

The fundamentalist view is that 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 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 by the Jews 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''.

==[[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|Historical-critical]] textual analysis==

==[[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|Historical-critical]] textual analysis==

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.

With regard to Daniel, many scholars have regarded the Hebrew and Aramaic text as of no greater authority than other ancient translations such as the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the version attributed to Theodotion. Among the reasons given is that the Septuagint treatment of Daniel is less literal, less closely related to the MT, than the treatment given to the rest of the Old Testament. This fact has led some to assume that the MT of Daniel is of relatively little value.

With regard to Daniel, many scholars have regarded the Hebrew and Aramaic text as of no greater authority than other ancient translations such as the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the version attributed to Theodotion.<ref name=OriginalHebrew/> Among the reasons given is that the Septuagint treatment of Daniel is less literal, less closely related to the MT, than the treatment given to the rest of the Old Testament. This fact has led some to assume that the MT of Daniel is of relatively little value.

   

   

Moreover, the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel, available in only two ancient manuscripts, is said to be periphrastic [use of many words] and expansionistic, containing considerably more material than the MT, aside from such deuterocanonical additions as the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, and the Song of the Three Young Men (Moore 1977).

Moreover, the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel, available in only two ancient manuscripts, is said to be periphrastic [use of many words] and expansionistic, containing considerably more material than the MT, aside from such deuterocanonical additions as the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, and the Song of the Three Young Men (Moore 1977).

Based on the overwhelming conformity of these Qumran Daniel manuscripts with each other and with the MT, despite the few insignificant variants that agree with the Septuagint, it is evident that the MT is the well-preserved key text for the book of Daniel. An eclectic approach, using the Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Greek, and other versions as if they were all on the same level without giving priority to the Hebrew text is no longer supportable, if it ever was previously. The Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text of the book of Daniel now has stronger support than at any other time in the history of the interpretation of the book of Daniel.

Based on the overwhelming conformity of these Qumran Daniel manuscripts with each other and with the MT, despite the few insignificant variants that agree with the Septuagint, it is evident that the MT is the well-preserved key text for the book of Daniel. An eclectic approach, using the Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Greek, and other versions as if they were all on the same level without giving priority to the Hebrew text is no longer supportable, if it ever was previously. The Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text of the book of Daniel now has stronger support than at any other time in the history of the interpretation of the book of Daniel.

   

   

The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and Protocanonical Book of Daniel

The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and the Protocanonical Book of Daniel

   

   

When Professor D. Barthélemy published in 1955 the first fragmentary Daniel manuscripts from Cave 1 of Qumran, that is, 1QDana and 1QDanb, he ventured the opinion that “certain indications permit the thought that Daniel had perhaps not yet been considered at Qumran as a canonical book” (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:250). This idea perpetuated itself for years afterward. In 1964, however, F.F. Bruce stated that the book of Daniel “may well have enjoyed canonical status among them [the Qumran sectaries]” (Bruce 1964:57). In his 1989 Daniel commentary, written before the newest publications of the Qumran Daniel manuscripts were accessible, John Goldingay stated, “There are no real grounds for suggesting that the form of the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel indicates that the book was not regarded as canonical there, though neither for affirming that it was (Goldingay 1989:xxvii).

When Professor D. Barthélemy published in 1955 the first fragmentary Daniel manuscripts from Cave 1 of Qumran, that is, 1QDana and 1QDanb, he ventured the opinion that “certain indications permit the thought that Daniel had perhaps not yet been considered at Qumran as a canonical book” (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:250). This idea perpetuated itself for years afterward. In 1964, however, F.F. Bruce stated that the book of Daniel “may well have enjoyed canonical status among them [the Qumran sectaries]” (Bruce 1964:57). In his 1989 Daniel commentary, written before the newest publications of the Qumran Daniel manuscripts were accessible, John Goldingay stated, “There are no real grounds for suggesting that the form of the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel indicates that the book was not regarded as canonical there, though neither for affirming that it was (Goldingay 1989:xxvii).