Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: − + − + + + + + Line 100:
Line 104: − + − + Line 157:
Line 161: − + − + Line 166:
Line 170: − + − + − + + Line 240:
Line 245: − + − − See [[Logical fallacy#Proof by authority|Logical fallacy of Proof by authority]] Line 336:
Line 339: − + − Yet the 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.+ − − − Although scholars often say we know more now than we ever have about the transmittal of the Bible. This is not necessarily true. The scholars and scribes of the 1st through the 3rd century A.D. knew far more than any modern scholar is willing to credit them, they being closer in time to the origin of the writings than we are. After the turn of the century Biblical scholars have been overtly influenced by the philosophy of evolution to where they consider these early scholars as ignorant cave men, and themselves 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 collecting and evolving and editing writings over thousands of years that developed into a book now called a Bible. The 19th century German Biblical scholars began the over-developed and prejudiced theory embraced by radical liberalist scholars over the past 150 years.+ − + − + − + − − + − + − + − 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.+ − + − + − + − + Line 385:
Line 385: − + − + Line 395:
Line 395: − + − + − + − The hero and traditional author of the book which bears his name.+ − − − − − − − − Louis F. Hartman writes of Daniel 14:1-22 (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 460): "This little 'detective story' is another folk tale of the 'Daniel Cycle.' It is a Jewish satire on the crudities of idolatry, although actually it is a caricature of pagan worship. The offering of food and drink in sacrifice to pagan gods did not differ substantially from similar offerings made to Yahweh in the Temple. In both cases, a certain amount of the sacrificial offerings went quite legitimately to the priests and their families. However, the Jews of the last pre-Christian centuries were so convinced of the folly of idolatry (cf. Wisdom 13:1-15:17) that this unfair ridicule of pagan worship is understandable."+ − − Louis F. Hartman writes of Daniel 14:23-42 (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 460): "Another short story of the 'Daniel Cycle,' it is basically a variant of the story told in Dn 6 (Daniel in the lions' den). Here is included another satire on pagan worship—Daniel's blowing up of the Babylonians' divine serpent. Although once an independent story, in its present form it is edited to follow the preceding tale (cf. v. 28); in all the Gk manuscripts, the two stories are together, and the LXX even prefixes to the former the note, 'From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi.'" − − + − − − − James King West writes of Daniel 14:1-22 (Introduction to the Old Testament, page 458): "The second story is a satire on pagan divinities in the vein of Isaiah 44:9-20 and the Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6). In a discussion with King Cyrus of Babylon as to why he does not worship Cyrus' idol called Bel, Daniel denies the king's claim that Bel eats the food offered to him daily. When Bel's priests are challenged to prove it, they allow the king to place the food in the temple and seal the door. In the meantime Daniel has ashes sifted over the floor. The next day Daniel and the king find the food gone but the floor is covered with footprints. Discovering the secret doors by which he had been deceived, Cyrus is enraged and orders the execution of the priests and their families, while Daniel is permitted to destroy the temple and the idol."+ − − James King West writes of Daniel 14:23-42 (Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 458-459): "In the companion story the same motive of lampooning pagan deities is apparent. The issue is approached, however, from the opposite angle. Whereas Bel is nothing more than a man-made statue, a fact which is easily demonstrated by its inability to eat, the dragon is manifestly a living creature and does eat. To prove that the dragon also is no god, therefore, Daniel must somehow show that merely being alive and able to eat is not sufficient evidence to establish divinity. This he does by offering to perform the apparently impossible feat of slaying the dragon 'without sword or club' (14:26). The king's acceptance of Daniel's challenge is a tacit admission of the premise that if Daniel succeeds the dragon is no god. Having concocted some cakes of pitch, fat, and hair, he feeds them to the witless beast which promptly explodes." − − + − − − − − − − − + + + + + − 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..+ − The date of the writing of the book may be inferred from the following considerations: It was not written by one of the exiles, for many portions of the text could not have been composed by a contemporary of the second king of the Babylonian empire and his immediate successors. This is proved even by the form of that king's name as given in the book. His Assyrian name was "Nabu-kudurriuẓur" (Friedrich Delitzsch, "Assyrische Lesestücke," 1900, p. 192), which the Hebrews at first pronounced "Nebu-kadr-eẓẓar" (Jer. 21:2 et seq. [26 times]; Ezek. 26:7, 29:18 et seq., 30:10). The middle "r" was then dissimilated from the final "r," giving "Nebu-kadn-eẓẓar," a form which is found in Jeremiah only in 27:6-29:3, but which is the usual form in all later writings (2 Kings 24:1 et seq.; 2 Chronicles 36:6 et seq.; Ezra 1:7; Esther 2:6; Daniel 1:18 et seq.; Soferim 14:7; Seder 'Olam R. 24 et seq.; and Septuagint, Ναβουχοδονόσορ).+ − − The Book of Daniel was not written immediately after the Exile. The post-exilic prophets did not know it, for the four horns to which Israel's enemies are compared in Zechariah 1:21, have a local meaning, representing the four points of the compass, and do not refer to the successive kingdoms, as in Daniel 2:29 and following. The same is the case with the four chariots in Zechariah 6:1 et seq. These passages are not exactly parallel with the predictions in Daniel, but it is also stated in Haggai 2:6-9 et seq., that within "a little while" the Messianic time will come. And even Ben Sira says expressly (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 49:15) that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph, a statement he could not have made had he known the extant Book of Daniel, since Daniel is there drawn as a man who, like Joseph, rose to be prime minister by virtue of his ability to interpret dreams. − − 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. Line 584:
Line 561: − − − −
additional information, and links. Source materials are being combined, synthesized, condensed and partially corrected and rewritten. Needs more work)
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 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>
The shorter [[Masoretic Text|Masoretic]] Hebrew book of '''Daniel''' of 12 chapters is ranked by the Jews in that division of the '''[[Tanakh]]''' called the [[Bible#Ketuvim|Ketuvim]], or Writings.<ref name="d"/> The Book of Daniel has never been ranked among the [[Bible#Nevi'im|Nevi'im]], or Prophets, by the Jews. The Christian Church has always ranked Daniel among the books of the [[Major Prophets]] of the Bible, according to its traditional placement immediately following the [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Book of Ezekiel]] in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate Old Testament.
The shorter [[Masoretic Text|Masoretic]] Hebrew book of '''Daniel''' of 12 chapters is ranked by the Jews in that division of the '''[[Tanakh]]''' called the [[Bible#Ketuvim|Ketuvim]], or Writings.<ref name="d"/> The Book of Daniel has never been ranked among the [[Bible#Nevi'im|Nevi'im]], or Prophets, by the Jews. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books.<ref name=EncJud>Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147. ''Source cited in:''
*[http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/deuterocanonical.html Defending the Bride: The Books of the Bible, by John Hellmann: —Jews] (defendingthebride.com)
*[http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM Defending the Deuterocanonicals, James Akin] (ewtn.com)
*''See also'' [http://www.blackjews.org/Ethiopian%20Community/Ethiopian%20Chapter.htm (Beta Yisrael) A Historical Analysis by Rabbi S.B. Levy 2002] (blackjews.org) "Their Torah, written in the Geez language on parchment, contained all the books of the Old Testament and some from the Apocrypha, but none of the New Testament and no references to Jesus at all."
*''See video on the canon, including the canon of the Ethiopian Jews'' : —[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt7WQYK7OfY The Septuagint] (youtube.com)</ref> The Christian Church has always ranked Daniel among the books of the [[Major Prophets]] of the Bible, according to its traditional placement immediately following the [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Book of Ezekiel]] in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate Old Testament.
A major portion of the 3rd chapter and the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel were first removed from the Christian Old Testament and placed in the [[Apocrypha]] as separate books by Martin Luther in the 16th century. These separated texts are regarded as apocryphal by less than one-third of Christian believers, most of whom have never read them.<ref name=Prot/> In printed editions of the [[King James Bible]] in the 16th through early 20th centuries these separated texts of the Apocrypha are given the following titles:<ref>''A. D. 1611 King James Version and Revised Version of A. D. 1881 arranged in parallel columns'', O. A. Browning & Co., Toledo, Ohio, Potter, Chase & Co., Kansas City, MO, J. H. Buckmaster, Toledo, Ohio, 1881.</ref>
A major portion of the 3rd chapter and the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel were first removed from the Christian Old Testament and placed in the [[Apocrypha]] as separate books by Martin Luther in the 16th century. These separated texts are regarded as apocryphal by less than one-third of Christian believers, most of whom have never read them.<ref name=Prot/> In printed editions of the [[King James Bible]] in the 16th through early 20th centuries these separated texts of the Apocrypha are given the following titles:<ref>''A. D. 1611 King James Version and Revised Version of A. D. 1881 arranged in parallel columns'', O. A. Browning & Co., Toledo, Ohio, Potter, Chase & Co., Kansas City, MO, J. H. Buckmaster, Toledo, Ohio, 1881.</ref>
== 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.<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/>
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==
Due to the fact that the book contains prophecies that were fulfilled in the 2nd century B.C., many [[modernist]] scholars have asserted that this book was not written by Daniel the 6th century B.C., but by a later person. However, both Scriptural and textual arguments support the traditional view.<ref name="d"/>
Due to the fact that the Book of Daniel contains prophecies that were fulfilled in the 2nd century B.C., many [[modernist]] scholars have asserted that this book was not written by Daniel the 6th century B.C., but by a later person. However, both Scriptural and textual arguments support the traditional view.<ref name="d"/>
# Jesus (Matthew 24:15; 25:31; 26:64) and His apostles (1 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:3) testify that the book was written by "the prophet Daniel," and that it is authoritative.<ref>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]</ref><ref name="d"/><p></p>
# Jesus (Matthew 24:15; 25:31; 26:64) and His apostles (1 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:3) testify that the book was written by "the prophet Daniel," and that it is authoritative.<ref>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]</ref><ref name="d"/><p></p>
[[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 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
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. Additional factors 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)
*[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_origin.asp The Origin of the Apocrypha]
*[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_origin.asp The Origin of the Apocrypha]
*[https://books.google.com/books?id=dtlDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=apocryphal+books+having+evidence+of+hebrew+or+aramaic+origin&source=bl&ots=CkMPwQMciG&sig=y6w4tnI_wvIqyzCWqCoN3xo8mvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VGGcVP2RH4r2yQT7toKYAw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=apocryphal%20books%20having%20evidence%20of%20hebrew%20or%20aramaic%20origin&f=false The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, by Edwin Cone Bissell. Scribner, 1890. 680 pages], page 208ff, citing evidence that the "additions to Esther" were also translated from the Hebrew. (Google eBook)</ref> which were relatively recent Jewish contributions of the 3rd through the 1st centuries before Christ) which had become part of Jewish culture. Jamnia considered 4 criteria to determine which of the Writings - such as Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Song of Songs - should be retained for the Hebrew canon for Judaism:
*[https://books.google.com/books?id=dtlDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=apocryphal+books+having+evidence+of+hebrew+or+aramaic+origin&source=bl&ots=CkMPwQMciG&sig=y6w4tnI_wvIqyzCWqCoN3xo8mvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VGGcVP2RH4r2yQT7toKYAw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=apocryphal%20books%20having%20evidence%20of%20hebrew%20or%20aramaic%20origin&f=false The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, by Edwin Cone Bissell. Scribner, 1890. 680 pages], page 208ff, citing evidence that the "additions to Esther" were also translated from the Hebrew. (Google eBook)</ref> which were relatively recent Jewish contributions of the 3rd through the 1st centuries before Christ) which had become part of Jewish culture. Jamnia considered 4 criteria to determine which of the Writings - such as Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Song of Songs - should be retained for the Hebrew canon for Judaism:
:it was written in Hebrew;
:it was written in Hebrew;
:and it was composed in Judah or Israel.<ref>[http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html The Canon of the Old Testament]<br/>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canon.html The Old Testament Canon, by Peter Reed] (biblicalstudies.org.uk)</ref>
:and it was composed in Judah or Israel.<ref>[http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html The Canon of the Old Testament]<br/>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canon.html The Old Testament Canon, by Peter Reed] (biblicalstudies.org.uk)</ref>
Although some books of the Old Testament were discussed in Judea at the Pharisaic Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, the 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> However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books.<ref name=EncJud/><ref name=EncJud/>
===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===
This is the principle of "private judgment", which is highly subjective, and can be in error.<ref>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html Private Judgment [British Critic, July 1841]] (newmanreader.org)</ref> With regard to what texts belong in the Bible it is a certainty that the expertise and judgment of the ancients among the Jews before the time of Christ should not be lightly dismissed.<blockquote>"We attach great importance to the reading [text] of the Septuagint, because it was translated 280 years before Christ, by men who had every facility for ascertaining the real meaning of the Hebrew text, and their work was honoured by the cordial approbation of the Sanhedrim of Alexandria, at a time when Hebrew learning was at its highest state of perfection in that city."
This is the principle of "private judgment", which is highly subjective, and can be in error.<ref>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html '''Private Judgment''' [British Critic, July 1841]] (newmanreader.org)</ref> With regard to what texts belong in the Bible it is a certainty that the expertise and judgment of the ancients among the Jews before the time of Christ should not be lightly dismissed.<blockquote>"We attach great importance to the reading [text] of the Septuagint, because it was translated 280 years before Christ, by men who had every facility for ascertaining the real meaning of the Hebrew text, and their work was honoured by the cordial approbation of the Sanhedrim of Alexandria, at a time when Hebrew learning was at its highest state of perfection in that city."
:—John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book in the public domain</small></blockquote>
:—John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book in the public domain</small></blockquote>
The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as their Bible, accepted the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical.<ref name=OriginalHebrew/>
:
:
[[Marcion]],<ref>Marcion of Sinope (84 - c.160 A.D.). See [http://www.theopedia.com/Marcionism Theopedia: Marcionism] and [[http://www.theopedia.com/Marcion Theopedia: Marcion]]<br/>See also [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Marcionites] (newadvent.org)</ref> around A.D. 140 declared that the entire Old Testament was "obviously" not of God. He dismissed the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, he edited the Gospel of Luke to purify it, and he threw out four of Paul's 14 Epistles as writings contrary to the Gospel.<ref>See the [[Biblical Canon#Canon of Marcion (Heretic) c. 140|Canon of Marcion]]</ref> He was condemned as a heretic for his views about the nature of God and salvation.
[[Marcion]],<ref>Marcion of Sinope (84 - c.160 A.D.). See [http://www.theopedia.com/Marcionism Theopedia: Marcionism] and [[http://www.theopedia.com/Marcion Theopedia: Marcion]]<br/>See also [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Marcionites] (newadvent.org)</ref> around A.D. 140 declared that the entire Old Testament was "obviously" not of God. He dismissed the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, he edited the Gospel of Luke to purify it, and he threw out four of Paul's 14 Epistles as writings contrary to the Gospel.<ref>See the [[Biblical Canon#Canon of Marcion (Heretic) c. 140|Canon of Marcion]]</ref> He was condemned as a heretic for his views about the nature of God and salvation.
[[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 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.
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. See [[Logical fallacy#Proof by authority|Logical fallacy of Proof by authority]]
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.
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.
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/>
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/>
canon of the OT as selected by ''the consensus of the Jews after the time of Christ'', which may not be a very useful instrument to "one who does not have faith" (a variation of the [[No True Scotsman|logical fallacy of No true Scotsman]]. The [[Masoretic Text|MT]] does not
canon of the OT as selected by ''the consensus of the Jews after the time of Christ'', which may not be a very useful instrument to "one who does not have faith" (a variation of the [[No True Scotsman|logical fallacy of No true Scotsman]]. The [[Masoretic Text|MT]] does not
include these texts (from the 8th century). The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not either, and yet admit that although it is true that when Jerome translated the OT he was forced (against his will, they add) to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The Masoretic text is clear on this. But what is to be included in the LXX is not clear to them. Some who oppose their view say that anything which was translated into Greek B.C. which eventually made it into the Vulgate is, by definition, part of the LXX. But fundamentalist Christians do not agree at all, pointing out that this is [[proof by definition]], which is not a good form of proof. They insist that 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, after the establishment of the Christian Church. There is no absolutely clear cut list or canon that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of A.D. the first centuries among the Jews is
include these texts (from the 8th century). The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not either, and yet admit that although it is true that when Jerome translated the OT he was forced (against his will, they add) to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The Masoretic text is clear on this. But what is to be included in the LXX is not clear to them. Some who oppose their view say that anything which was translated into Greek B.C. which eventually made it into the Vulgate is, by definition, part of the LXX. But fundamentalist Christians do not agree at all, pointing out that this is [[proof by definition]], which is not a good form of proof. They insist that 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, after the establishment of the Christian Church. There is no absolutely clear cut list or canon that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of A.D. the first centuries among the Jews is
that Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon etc. are not inspired. Fundamentalists point out that 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. They insist that the only exception is a possible quote or at least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude.
that Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon etc. are not inspired. Fundamentalists point out that 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. They insist that the only exception is a possible quote or at least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude. Yet the books quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers do not include ''Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther'' and ''Song of Songs'' (''Song of Solomon''). But this does not mean they are not inspired scripture.
Fundamentalists consistently affirm that there is ample evidence to justify the omission of these writings from the Christian Bible despite the adoption of them by the Roman Catholic Church. Their position 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 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 the plane of the Holy Scriptures". They maintain that examination of the content of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' (Daniel chapter 14) and the examination of the external evidences surrounding that book (that chapter) boldly justify exclusion of this work from the collection of books that have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. They point out that this apocryphal book was considered by some as an addition to the book of Daniel but that it was not included after the time of Christ in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures by the rabbinical Jewish school at Jamnia and the Masoretic scholars among the Jews.<ref name=EncJud/> The writing itself does not appear to fundamentalist Protestants to have the authoritative style of Daniel, for the accounts in these texts according to their reading contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and they see that the third person style of a prophet's transport across time and space all makes the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, and non-inspired of God. They see the questionable authorship, the date of writing, the language and preservation as clearly indicating that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book (the 14th chapter of Daniel) now called ''Bel and the Dragon''. These simple evidences which fundamentalists present clearly justify to them "the conclusion made 2400 years ago", that ''Bel and the Dragon'' is not Holy Scripture. Yet it was included and preserved as an integral part of the ''Greek Bible'' of the early Christian Church from the 1st century.
Fundamentalists consistently affirm that there is ample evidence to justify the omission of these writings from the Christian Bible despite the adoption of them by the Roman Catholic Church. Their position 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 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 the plane of the Holy Scriptures". They maintain that examination of the content of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' (Daniel chapter 14) and the examination of the external evidences surrounding that book (that chapter) boldly justify exclusion of this work from the collection of books that have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. They point out that this apocryphal book was considered by some as an addition to the book of Daniel but that it was not included after the time of Christ in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures by the rabbinical Jewish school at Jamnia and the Masoretic scholars among the Jews. The writing itself does not appear to fundamentalist Protestants to have the authoritative style of Daniel, for the accounts in these texts according to their reading contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and they see that the third person style of a prophet's transport across time and space all makes the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, and non-inspired of God. They see the questionable authorship, the date of writing, the language and preservation as clearly indicating that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book (the 14th chapter of Daniel) now called ''Bel and the Dragon''. These simple evidences which fundamentalists present clearly justify to them "the conclusion made 2400 years ago", that ''Bel and the Dragon'' is not Holy Scripture. Yet it was included and preserved as an integral part of the ''Greek Bible'' of the early Christian Church from the 1st century.
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>
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>
Fundamentalists have pointed out that although scholars often say we know more now than we ever have about the transmittal of the Bible. This is not necessarily true. The scholars and scribes of the 1st through the 3rd century A.D. knew far more than any modern scholar is willing to credit them, since they were closer in time to the origin of the writings than we are. After the turn of the century Biblical scholars have been seen as overtly influenced by the philosophy of evolution to where they consider these early scholars as ignorant cave men, and themselves 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 collecting and evolving and editing writings over thousands of years that developed into a book now called a Bible. The 19th century German Biblical scholars began the over-developed and prejudiced theory embraced by radical liberalist scholars over the past 150 years.
In the view of fundamentalist Biblical scholars the accounts in Daniel 13 and 14 emphasize the craftiness of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. They acknowledge that this in itself is permissible, since it often occurs in other accounts of canonical Bible characters. Their concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and that it appears to them to contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, and as certainly not authored by Daniel, although they admit that it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in third person. The story has as its theme what appears to them to be the craftiness of Daniel to expose false idol worship, which other accept as the expression of divine wisdom. Fundamentalists point out that there is no need here to reject these events as fable or fiction, that 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 what they regard as his "less miraculous, more crafty" daily existence, as interpreted by them, was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. They maintain that if the Jewish scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era after the time of Christ thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing, they certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding their decision.
In the view of fundamentalist Biblical scholars the accounts in Daniel 13 and 14 emphasize the craftiness of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. They acknowledge that this in itself is permissible, since it often occurs in other accounts of canonical Bible characters. Their concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and that it appears to them to contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, and as certainly not authored by Daniel, although they admit that it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in third person. The story has as its theme what appears to them to be the craftiness of Daniel to expose false idol worship, which others accept as the expression of divine wisdom. Fundamentalists point out that there is no need here to reject these events as fable or fiction, that 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 or relate in his personal journal each week. However the passing on of what they regard as his "less miraculous, more crafty" daily existence, as interpreted by them, was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. They maintain that if the Jewish scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era after the time of Christ thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing, they certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding their decision.
Again, fundamentalist Christians insist that 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. They maintain that indeed every part of the account of Bel is conceivable and believable, but that the account of the dragon is only conceivable and believable up to the point of the lion's den account. They say that given the credibility of these accounts, their one drawback is the degree of authority with which they present and support some revelation from God, and of God, saying that they fit better into a category of story that was passed outside the palaces emphasizing the craftiness of Daniel. They do not seem to them to present revelation from God, as preserved by God, to record His sovereign dealings with his prophet Daniel. Thus according to this view there is not any internal evidence that ''Bel and the Dragon'' should have been included at the end of the writings of Daniel, even if they were part of the Septuagint Old Testament of the Christian ''Greek Bible''. As far as the internal evidences are concerned, according to fundamentalist Christians, the Jewish scribes who left them out of the Jewish canon were certainly justified.
Again, fundamentalist Christians insist that 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. They maintain that indeed every part of the account of ''Bel'' is conceivable and believable, but that the account of the ''dragon'' is only conceivable and believable up to the point of the lion's den account. They say that given the credibility of these accounts, their one drawback is the perceived degree of authority with which they present and support some revelation from God, and of God, saying that they fit better into a category of story that was passed outside the palaces emphasizing the craftiness of Daniel. They do not seem to them to present revelation from God, as preserved by God, to record His sovereign dealings with his prophet Daniel. Thus according to this view there is not any internal evidence that ''Bel and the Dragon'' should have been included at the end of the writings of Daniel, even if they were part of the Septuagint Old Testament of the Christian ''Greek Bible''. As far as the internal evidences are concerned, according to fundamentalist Christians, the Jewish scribes who left them out of the Jewish canon were certainly justified.
====Lion's Den Contradictions====
====Lion's Den Contradictions====
The account of the lion's den in Daniel 14 is examined by fundamentalists as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6, although it is presented in the book as a separate and much later event. Inclusion of this detail first causes these accounts to be seen by fundamentalist scholars as stories passed on outside the palace walls. They point out that either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate, but that both cannot fit together into the same account, and that the idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So they conclude that one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. The Jewish scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. Fundamentalist Christian scholars find here no evidence to override such a decision, but instead that a brief examination "in fact" supports the Jews
The account of the lion's den in Daniel 14 is examined by fundamentalists as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6, although it is presented in the book as a separate and much later event. Inclusion of this detail first causes these accounts to be seen by fundamentalist scholars as stories passed on outside the palace walls. They point out that either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate, but that both cannot fit together into the same account, and that the idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So they conclude that one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. They emphasize that Jewish scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. Fundamentalist Christian scholars find here no evidence to override such a decision, but instead that a brief examination "in fact" supports the Jews' suspicions toward the ''Bel and the Dragon'' account, and they contrast some of the differences in these accounts. In the fundamentalist view, within ''Bel and the Dragon'' the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful fairy tale, as a fable, rather than as 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.
' suspicions toward the ''Bel and the Dragon'' account, and they contrast some of the differences in these accounts. In the fundamentalist view, within ''Bel and the Dragon'' the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful fairy tale, as a fable, rather than as 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 Habakkuk to the lions den with a "sack lunch" for Daniel is for them so beyond belief that some of them contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story" and that it is a "far more fanciful thing" than found elsewhere in the scriptures. However, they acknowledge that just being different does not warrant its exclusion, else they would eliminate the translation of Elijah (2 Kings 2), the snatching away of Enoch (Genesis 5:24) or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture. They maintain that 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. But on this basis every account of a miraculous occurrance having no similar parallel account elsewhere in the Old Testament would also be disqualified. So they emphasize that the downfall of the credibility of the transport of Habakkuk is what they see as 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.
The miraculous transport of the Prophet Habakkuk to the lions den with a "sack lunch" for Daniel is for them so beyond belief that some of them contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story" and that it is a "far more fanciful thing" than found elsewhere in the scriptures. Of course, this overlooks the fact that Daniel had been without food and water for six days, and such a consolation, brought so miraculously by his fellow Prophet from Judea, would be an overwhelming encouragement and additional proof of God's power and providential care. However, they acknowledge that just being different does not warrant its exclusion, else they would eliminate the translation of Elijah (2 Kings 2), the snatching away of Enoch (Genesis 5:24) or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture. They maintain that 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. But on this basis every account of a miraculous occurrance having no similar parallel account elsewhere in the Old Testament would also be disqualified. So they emphasize that the downfall of the credibility of the transport of Habakkuk is what they see as 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 suddenly found at Azotus.
Examination of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' reveals to fundamentalist scholars and commentators 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", dismissing the fact that Daniel's "craftiness" is an expression of divine wisdom. The writing "even contradicts the Daniel-given account of the lion's den", and the miraculous transport of Habakkuk to the den's mouth "is not in the first person nor authoritative", and is thus "fanciful" and "more a presentation of legend than a historical event". They state that the Book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. They insist that 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'' reveals to them little credibility for overriding what they see as the initial Jewish decision to "hide" this section from the temple books they considered as Holy Scripture and classify this chapter of Daniel as an apocryphal book, even while Jewish scribes included it in their translation of the Holy Scriptures into Greek.
Examination of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' reveals to fundamentalist scholars and commentators 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", dismissing the fact that Daniel's exercise of "craftiness" in defeating pagan superstition is an expression of divine wisdom. The writing "even contradicts the Daniel-given account of the lion's den", and the miraculous transport of Habakkuk to the den's mouth "is not in the first person nor authoritative", and is thus "fanciful" and "more a presentation of legend than a historical event". They state that the Book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. Catholic and Orthodox Bible scholars agree. But fundamentalists insist that 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'' reveals to them little credibility for overriding what they see as the initial Jewish decision to "hide" this section from the temple books they considered as Holy Scripture and classify this chapter of Daniel as an apocryphal book, even while Jewish scribes included it in their translation of the Holy Scriptures into Greek.<ref name=EncJud/>
====External Evidences====
====External Evidences====
Fundamentalists also look at external evidences for the rejection of ''Bel and the Dragon'' as Holy Scripture. The external evidences against this chapter 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. They acknowledge that the problem of looking at these external evidences is generally a subjective evaluation. Some of these evidences, however subjective, appear to them to clearly support the Jewish suspicions that this writing has been subjected to ever since the scriptures of the captivity period were first collected and considered holy, similar to the suspicions cast on the books of ''Esther, Ecclesiastes'' and the ''Song of Solomon''.
Fundamentalists also look at external evidences for the rejection of ''Bel and the Dragon'' as Holy Scripture. The external evidences against this chapter 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. They honestly acknowledge that the problem of looking at these external evidences is generally a subjective evaluation. Some of these evidences, however subjective, appear to them to clearly support the Jewish suspicions that this writing has been subjected to ever since the scriptures of the captivity period were first collected and considered holy, similar to the suspicions cast on the books of ''Esther, Ecclesiastes'' and the ''Song of Solomon''.
The Language of the Manuscripts.
The Language of the Manuscripts.
A 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 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.
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>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, that 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 instead 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, which he sealed and turned over to the scribes for preservation, but now lost, whose full message and contents after it was unsealed were originally copied in Aramaic, and 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 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.
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. They see 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 ''Bel'' 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.
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''.
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 prophet's 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'', even if rabbinical Greek copies included that chapter of Daniel. 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 the 21st century. Orthodox and Catholic scholars heartily agree, and point to their preservation in the Septuagint and Vulgate as authoritative Holy Scripture. 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==
The Book of Daniel may be divided into two parts: chapters 1–6, recounting the earlier events of Daniel's life; chapters 7–12, containing his prophecies, and an appendix containing the ''Prologue'' of his youth and the events of his last years under Darius. "While the first part proves that it is impossible for the world-empire to belong to the heathen forever, the second part shows that Israel is destined to found this world empire through the son of man, who has long since existed in heaven" (J. Böhmer, "''Reich Gottes und Menschensohnim Buche Daniel,''" 1899, p. 60).
The Book of Daniel may be divided into two parts: chapters 1–6, recounting the earlier events of Daniel's life; chapters 7–12, containing his prophecies, and an appendix containing the ''Prologue'' of his youth and the events of his last years under Darius. "While the first part proves that it is impossible for the world-empire to belong to the heathen forever, the second part shows that Israel is destined to found this world empire through the son of man, who has long since existed in heaven" (J. Böhmer, "''Reich Gottes und Menschensohnim Buche Daniel,''" 1899, p. 60).
The rabbinically added episodes of ''Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon'', found today only in the Greek version, are edifying short stories with a didactic purpose (chaps. 13–14). The Greek version also includes a prayer and a hymn of praise, numbered in the New American Bible, Revised Edition NABRE and the Greek Bible as 3:24–90, between 3:23 and 3:24 in the shorter "Hebrew" (Aramaic) text.
The rabbinically added episodes of ''Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon'', found today only in the Greek version, are edifying short stories with a didactic purpose (chaps. 13–14). The Greek version also includes a prayer and a hymn of praise, numbered in ''The New American Bible, Revised Edition'' NABRE and the ''Greek Bible'' as 3:24–90, between 3:23 and 3:24 in the shorter "Hebrew" (Aramaic) text.
The book is a mixture of history and prophecy. The wonders related have a peculiar and striking character, designed to show the people of God that, amid their degradation, the Lord's hand is not so shortened that it cannot save; also to exhibit to their enemies that there is an essential difference between יהוה L<small>ORD</small> and idols, between the people of God and the world. The prophecies of the latter part of the book extend from the days of Daniel to the general resurrection. The Assyrian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman empires, or the Babylonian, the Medan, the Persian and the Grecian empires (the "little horn" as Antiochus IV) are described under appropriate imagery. The precise time of Christ's coming is told; the rise and the fall of antichrist, and the duration of his power, are accurately determined; the victory of Christ over his enemies, and the universal prevalence of his religion are clearly pointed out. The book is filled with the most exalted sentiments of piety and devout gratitude. Its style is simple, clear, and concise, and many of the prophecies are delivered in language so plain and circumstantial, that some radical scholars have asserted that they were written after the events they described had taken place, since it is obvious that no one can accurately predict the future (the [[fallacy of exclusion]], also called "[[cherry picking]]" <ref>[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/66-cherry-picking Logical Fallacies: cherry picking] (logicallyfallacious.com)</ref>). Sir Isaac Newton regards Daniel as the most distinct and plain of all the prophets, and most easy to be understood; and therefore considers that in things relating to the last times, he is to be regarded as the key to the other prophets.
The book is a mixture of history and prophecy. The wonders related have a peculiar and striking character, designed to show the people of God that, amid their degradation, the Lord's hand is not so shortened that it cannot save; also to exhibit to their enemies that there is an essential difference between יהוה L<small>ORD</small> and idols, between the people of God and the world. The prophecies of the latter part of the book extend from the days of Daniel to the general resurrection. The Assyrian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman empires, or the Babylonian, the Medan, the Persian and the Grecian empires (the "little horn" as Antiochus IV) are described under appropriate imagery. The precise time of Christ's coming is told; the rise and the fall of antichrist, and the duration of his power, are accurately determined; the victory of Christ over his enemies, and the universal prevalence of his religion are clearly pointed out. The book is filled with the most exalted sentiments of piety and devout gratitude. Its style is simple, clear, and concise, and many of the prophecies are delivered in language so plain and circumstantial, that some radical scholars have asserted that they were written after the events they described had taken place, since it is obvious to them that no one can accurately predict the future (the [[fallacy of exclusion]], also called "[[cherry picking]]" <ref>[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/66-cherry-picking Logical Fallacies: cherry picking] (logicallyfallacious.com)</ref>). Sir Isaac Newton regards Daniel as the most distinct and plain of all the prophets, and most easy to be understood; and therefore considers that in things relating to the last times, he is to be regarded as the key to the other prophets.
The book does not belong strictly to the prophetic writings but is rather an early specimen of a distinctive type of literature called "apocalyptic". Apocalyptic literature first appeared about 200 B.C. and flourished among Jews and Christians down to the Middle Ages, especially in times of persecution. The genre has its roots in the older teaching of the prophets, who often pointed ahead to the consummation of history, the [[End Times|Day of the Lord]]. Both prophet and apocalyptist testify to one Lord of history, who will repeatedly and also ultimately vindicate his chosen people. Apocalyptic also has roots in the wisdom tradition. Daniel's gift of discerning wisdom is from God alone. By contrast the pagan wisdom of the gentiles (represented by the Babylonian "magicians and enchanters") is worthy of ridicule (see especially chapters 2 and 5), whereas God reveals hidden things to his faithful servants that cannot be known by reason alone.
The book does not belong strictly to the prophetic writings but is rather an early specimen of a distinctive type of literature called "apocalyptic". Apocalyptic literature first appeared about 200 B.C. and flourished among Jews and Christians down to the Middle Ages, especially in times of persecution. The genre has its roots in the older teaching of the prophets, who often pointed ahead to the consummation of history, the [[End Times|Day of the Lord]]. Both prophet and apocalyptist testify to one Lord of history, who will repeatedly and also ultimately vindicate his chosen people. Apocalyptic also has roots in the wisdom tradition. Daniel's gift of discerning wisdom is from God alone. By contrast the pagan wisdom of the gentiles (represented by the Babylonian "magicians and enchanters") is worthy of ridicule (see especially chapters 2 and 5), whereas God reveals hidden things to his faithful servants that cannot be known by reason alone.
===Form===
===Form===
In its form the book shows striking differences, for while 2:4 to 7:28 is written in Aramaic, the preceding and following portions are written in Hebrew. It is not easy to discover the reason for this peculiarity; it suggests, however, that the "Chaldeans" in this book are the Arameans or Syrians. A similar instance occurs in the Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Joh. Meyer), where the author gradually lapses into Aramaic in talking of personages of the Babylonian exile, but on p. 117 returns to Hebrew. The author of Daniel may have meant to introduce the "Chaldeans" in their own language, and then inadvertently continued in the language that was familiar to him (Driver, "Daniel", page xxii <ref name=Cambridge>"Cambridge Bible for Schools".</ref> J. Böhmer p. 150 <ref name=Cambridge/> maintains that the Aramaic portion was so written because its contents concerned all peoples; Prince and others suggest that the whole book was written originally in Hebrew, and translated into Aramaic; and that a part of the Hebrew book was lost, and replaced by the Aramaic translation. This opinion, however, does not weigh the fact that the Aramaic begins with the speech of the "Chaldeans." Other scholars think that the whole book was originally written in Aramaic, while the beginning and end were translated into Hebrew so that the book might be incorporated into the canon.<ref>Marti, in his Commentary, 1901, p. ix.</ref> But if its inclusion in the canon had depended on its Hebrew form, it would have been necessary to translate the whole into Hebrew. In any case the linguistic diversity in parts of this book is no reason for assuming two sources for it, as Meinhold does in his Commentary (p. 262); for the Aramaic Book of Daniel could not have begun with 2:4.
In its form the book shows striking differences, for while 2:4 to 7:28 is written in Aramaic, the immediately preceding and following portions are written in Hebrew. It is not easy to discover the reason for this peculiarity; it suggests, however, that the "Chaldeans" in this book are the Arameans or Syrians. A similar instance occurs in the Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Joh. Meyer), where the author gradually lapses into Aramaic in talking of personages of the Babylonian exile, but on page 117 returns to Hebrew. The author of Daniel may have meant to introduce the "Chaldeans" in their own language, and then inadvertently continued in the language that was familiar to him (Driver, "Daniel", page xxii <ref name=Cambridge>"Cambridge Bible for Schools".</ref> J. Böhmer p. 150 <ref name=Cambridge/> maintains that the Aramaic portion was so written because its contents concerned all peoples; '''Prince and others suggest that the whole book was written originally in Hebrew, and translated into Aramaic; and that a part of the Hebrew book was lost, and replaced by the Aramaic translation'''. This opinion, however, does not weigh the fact that the Aramaic begins with the speech of the "Chaldeans." '''Other scholars think that the whole book was originally written in Aramaic, while the beginning and end were translated into Hebrew so that the book might be incorporated into the canon.'''<ref>Marti, in his Commentary, 1901, p. ix.</ref> But if its inclusion in the canon had depended on its Hebrew form, it would have been necessary to translate the whole into Hebrew, unless the censor was satisfied with looking only at the first part and the last part of the scroll. In any case the linguistic diversity in parts of this book is no reason for assuming two sources for it, as Meinhold does in his Commentary (p. 262); for the Aramaic Book of Daniel could not have begun with 2:4.
Another difference in form is found in the fact that the political history forming the background of the first six chapters is absent in 7–12. The author probably thought it his first task to recount without a break the historical facts of Daniel's life; his second task being to record the revelations vouchsafed to Daniel which were not connected with the experiences of other people. In the first six chapters Daniel is introduced in the third person, while in the others he appears as the speaker. This is explicable on the ground that the second part of the book is concerned only with the presentation of Daniel's inner experiences to the exclusion of all objective relations. Such transitions are found in other books—compare, for example, Hosea 1 and 3. The change of person therefore does not necessarily affect the unity of the book. (For other opinions on the composite character of the Book of Daniel, see Eduard König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," p. 384; Von Gall, "Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel," 1895; G. A. Barton, "The Composition of the Book of Daniel," in "Jour. Bib. Lit." 1898, pp. 62-86). Barton finds a contradiction between 1:1, 5, 18, and 2:1; for Nebuchadnezzar is designated as "king" in 1:1, and, according to 1:5, 18, Daniel and his friends were to be prepared three years prior to appearing before the king, while in 2:1 it is stated that this happened as early as the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Still it was not an unnatural prolepsis on first mentioning Nebuchadnezzar, who subsequently became king, to give him the title by which he was commonly known at the time of writing. Barton also finds a contradiction between the words "And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus" (1:21) and "In the third year of Cyrus, kingof Persia, a thing was revealed unto Daniel" (10:1). But 1:21 does not mean that Daniel lived "even unto the first year of Cyrus," but that Daniel survived even the fall of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom and that of his successor. The other contradictions mentioned by Barton are discussed by Eduard König in "Theologisches Litteraturblatt," 1898, columns 539 and following. His conclusion that nine different and complete episodes follow the first chapter is therefore untenable. The book, however, may have included originally only 1–7, an assumption that would explain the following three circumstances: the dropping of the Aramaic; the formula "Hitherto is the end of the matter" (7:28); and the juxtaposition of two materially identical narratives as found in 7 and 8. As events unfolded themselves, amplifications of the prophecy in the form of pamphlets, pointing even more clearly to the day of liberation, may have been added.
Another difference in form is found in the fact that the political history forming the background of the first six chapters is absent in 7–12. The author probably thought his initial task was to recount without a break the historical facts of Daniel's life; his second task being to record the revelations vouchsafed to Daniel which were not connected with the experiences of other people. In the first six chapters Daniel is introduced in the third person, while in the others he appears as the speaker. This is explicable on the ground that the second part of the book is concerned only with the presentation of Daniel's inner experiences to the exclusion of all objective relations. Such transitions are found in other books—compare, for example, Hosea 1 and 3. The change of person therefore does not necessarily affect the unity of the book. (For other opinions on the composite character of the Book of Daniel, see Eduard König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," p. 384; Von Gall, "Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel," 1895; G. A. Barton, "The Composition of the Book of Daniel," in "Jour. Bib. Lit." 1898, pp. 62-86). Barton finds a contradiction between 1:1, 5, 18, and 2:1; for Nebuchadnezzar is designated as "king" in 1:1, and, according to 1:5, 18, Daniel and his friends were to be prepared three years prior to appearing before the king, while in 2:1 it is stated that this happened as early as the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Still it was not an unnatural ''prolepsis'' (anticipatory introduction) on first mentioning Nebuchadnezzar, who subsequently became king, to give him the title by which he was commonly known at the time of writing. Barton also finds a contradiction between the words "And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus" (1:21) and the words "In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a thing was revealed unto Daniel" (10:1). But 1:21 does not mean that Daniel lived "even unto the first year of Cyrus," but that Daniel survived even the fall of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom and that of his successor. The other contradictions mentioned by Barton are discussed by Eduard König in "''Theologisches Litteraturblatt,''" 1898, columns 539 and following. His conclusion that nine different and complete episodes follow the first chapter is therefore untenable. The book, however, may have included originally only 1–7, an assumption that would explain the following three circumstances: the dropping of the Aramaic; the formula "Hitherto is the end of the matter" (7:28); and the juxtaposition of two materially identical narratives as found in 7 and 8. As events unfolded themselves, amplifications of the prophecy in the form of pamphlets, pointing even more clearly to the day of liberation, may have been added.
===Author===
===Author===
Genesis of the Book of Daniel.
Genesis of the Book of Daniel: The hero and traditional author of the book which bears his name.
Stories undoubtedly existed of a person by the name of Daniel, who was known to Ezekiel as a wise man. Tradition then ascribed to this wise man all the traits which Israel could attribute to its heroes. He was exalted as the pattern of piety and faithfulness; and it may also have been said that he interpreted dreams, read cryptograms, and foreshadowed the beginning of the Messianic kingdom. In any case his name may have played the same rôle in literature as that of Solomon or that of Enoch; and as one author ascribed his book, "Koheleth," to Solomon, so another author may have made Daniel responsible for his. As to the origin of his prophecies, it would probably be unjust to say that they were inventions. They may have been suggested by the author's enthusiastic study of the past history of God's people. He utilized the past to unlock the future. This is evident from 9:2, where the author says that he had paid attention to the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years, which earlier prophecy became the basis for a new prophecy. This shows that the author was merely a disciple of the Prophets, one who reproduced the prophecies of his masters. His book, indeed, is not included in the section Nebiim.
Stories undoubtedly existed of a person by the name of Daniel, who was known to Ezekiel as a wise man. Tradition then ascribed to this wise man all the traits which Israel could attribute to its heroes. He was exalted as the pattern of piety and faithfulness; and it may also have been said that he interpreted dreams, read cryptograms, and foreshadowed the beginning of the Messianic kingdom. In any case his name may have played the same rôle in literature as that of Solomon or that of Enoch; and as one author ascribed his book, "Koheleth," to Solomon, so another author may have made Daniel responsible for his. As to the origin of his prophecies, it would probably be unjust to say that they were inventions. They may have been suggested by the author's enthusiastic study of the past history of God's people. He utilized the past to unlock the future. This is evident from ix. 2, where the author says that he had paid attention to the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years, which prophecy became the basis for a new prophecy. This shows that the author was merely a disciple of the Prophets, one who reproduced the prophecies of his masters. His book, indeed, is not included in the section Nebiim.
This name (Hebrew ''dnyal'' or ''dnal''; Septuagint Daniél), which is also that of two other persons in the Old Testament [cf. 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 3:1; 1 Esdras 8:2, and 2 Esdras (Nehemiah) 10:6], means "God is my judge", and is thus a fitting appellation for the writer of the Book of Daniel, wherein God's judgments are repeatedly pronounced upon the Gentile powers.
This name (Hebrew ''dnyal'' or ''dnal''; Septuagint Daniél), which is also that of two other persons in the Old Testament [cf. 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 3:1; 1 Esdras 8:2, and 2 Esdras (Nehemiah) 10:6], means "God is my judge", and is thus a fitting appellation for the writer of the Book of Daniel, wherein God's judgments are repeatedly pronounced upon the Gentile powers.
W. Sibley Towner writes (''Harper's Bible Commentary'', p. 696): "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C."
W. Sibley Towner writes (''Harper's Bible Commentary'', p. 696): "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C."
Louis F. Hartman writes (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 448): "Having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing, until relatively recent years Jews and Christians have considered Dn to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. Inasmuch as chs. 7-12 are written in the first person, it was natural to assume that Daniel in chs. 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. An author living in the 6th century could hardly have written the late Hebrew used in Daniel, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri, which date from the end of the 5th century. The theological outlook of the author, with his interest in angelology, his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision, and especially his belief in the resurrection of the dead, points unescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. His historical perspective, often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty, indicates the Hellenistic age. Finally, his detailed description of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35) contrasted with his merely general reference to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165."
Louis F. Hartman writes (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 448): "Having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing, until relatively recent years Jews and Christians have considered Dn to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. Inasmuch as chs. 7-12 are written in the first person, it was natural to assume that Daniel in chs. 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. An author living in the 6th century could hardly have written the late Hebrew used in Daniel, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri, which date from the end of the 5th century. The theological outlook of the author, with his interest in angelology, his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision, and especially his belief in the resurrection of the dead, points unescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. His historical perspective, often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty, indicates the Hellenistic age. Finally, his detailed description of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35) contrasted with his merely general reference to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165."
Hartman writes of Daniel 14:1-22 (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 460): "This little 'detective story' is another folk tale of the 'Daniel Cycle.' It is a Jewish satire on the crudities of idolatry, although actually it is a caricature of pagan worship. The offering of food and drink in sacrifice to pagan gods did not differ substantially from similar offerings made to Yahweh in the Temple. In both cases, a certain amount of the sacrificial offerings went quite legitimately to the priests and their families. However, the Jews of the last pre-Christian centuries were so convinced of the folly of idolatry (cf. Wisdom 13:1-15:17) that this unfair ridicule of pagan worship is understandable."
Hartman writes of Daniel 14:23-42 (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 460): "Another short story of the 'Daniel Cycle,' it is basically a variant of the story told in Dn 6 (Daniel in the lions' den). Here is included another satire on pagan worship—Daniel's blowing up of the Babylonians' divine serpent. Although once an independent story, in its present form it is edited to follow the preceding tale (cf. v. 28); in all the Gk manuscripts, the two stories are together, and the LXX even prefixes to the former the note, 'From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi.'"
J. Alberto Soggin writes (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', p. 408): "The first difficulties in the historical classification of the book begin with the deportation of Daniel and his companions. We do not in fact know anything of a deportation which took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, i.e. in 607 BC. If we allow its basic historicity, the event might be connected with the conquest of Syria and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar II a little later, after the battle of Carchemish in 605-4 and the victory over Egypt; it was on this occasion that Jehoiakim moved out of the sphere of Egyptian influence and into that of Babylon (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:5). Complex problems of foreign policy followed, to which we alluded in our discussion of Jeremiah. Until recently the note in Chronicles was considered spurious, since there was no point of comparison, but discoveries during the 1950s of various unedited fragments of the Babylonian Chronicle have unexpectedly made sense of both this passage and 2 Kings 24:1ff. But even admitting the substantial historicity of the events narrated, there remains the problem of chronology, which is evidently some years out. Other elements are no less perplexing: in 5:11 Belshazzar is implicitly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar and in 7:1 he appears as king of Babylon. However, he was neither one nor the other, but the son of Nabonidus, one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors who came to the throne as the result of a plot. (The only other possibility is that "son of..." is intended in a generic sense, as "descendant of...", a usage which is attested in Akkadian.) On the other hand, the statement that Belshazzar was king may simply be imprecise wording: towards 553 he was resident in Babylon as a kind of lieutenant-general for the king during his numerous absences, and could therefore have been called king, at least by the people. Again, in 5:31, as we have seen, a certain Darius the Mede appears, who is considered to be king of Persia after the fall of Babylon. In 9:1 he appears as son of Xerxes, whereas in 6:29 Cyrus succeeds a Darius. If we are to be precise, the question arises what Daniel is doing at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen, always assuming that we take the term "Mede" seriously. This question has never been answered. We must therefore accept that Media is in reality Persia. But the genealogy of the kings of Persia is well known: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I Hystaspes, Xerxes. If the Darius mentioned here was Darius I from the last quarter of the sixth century, how old would Daniel be? These are features which were already pointed out by the anti-Christian polemicist [[Celsus]] at the end of the second century A.D."
J. Alberto Soggin writes (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', p. 408): "The first difficulties in the historical classification of the book begin with the deportation of Daniel and his companions. We do not in fact know anything of a deportation which took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, i.e. in 607 BC. If we allow its basic historicity, the event might be connected with the conquest of Syria and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar II a little later, after the battle of Carchemish in 605-4 and the victory over Egypt; it was on this occasion that Jehoiakim moved out of the sphere of Egyptian influence and into that of Babylon (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:5). Complex problems of foreign policy followed, to which we alluded in our discussion of Jeremiah. Until recently the note in Chronicles was considered spurious, since there was no point of comparison, but discoveries during the 1950s of various unedited fragments of the Babylonian Chronicle have unexpectedly made sense of both this passage and 2 Kings 24:1ff. But even admitting the substantial historicity of the events narrated, there remains the problem of chronology, which is evidently some years out. Other elements are no less perplexing: in 5:11 Belshazzar is implicitly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar and in 7:1 he appears as king of Babylon. However, he was neither one nor the other, but the son of Nabonidus, one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors who came to the throne as the result of a plot. (The only other possibility is that "son of..." is intended in a generic sense, as "descendant of...", a usage which is attested in Akkadian.) On the other hand, the statement that Belshazzar was king may simply be imprecise wording: towards 553 he was resident in Babylon as a kind of lieutenant-general for the king during his numerous absences, and could therefore have been called king, at least by the people. Again, in 5:31, as we have seen, a certain Darius the Mede appears, who is considered to be king of Persia after the fall of Babylon. In 9:1 he appears as son of Xerxes, whereas in 6:29 Cyrus succeeds a Darius. If we are to be precise, the question arises what Daniel is doing at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen, always assuming that we take the term "Mede" seriously. This question has never been answered. We must therefore accept that Media is in reality Persia. But the genealogy of the kings of Persia is well known: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I Hystaspes, Xerxes. If the Darius mentioned here was Darius I from the last quarter of the sixth century, how old would Daniel be? These are features which were already pointed out by the anti-Christian polemicist [[Celsus]] at the end of the second century A.D."
James King West writes (Introduction to the Old Testament, pages 417-418): "The same persecutions that provoked the Maccabean uprising also stimulated the development within Jewish circles of a new literary and theological form known as the apocalypse. The name itself (Greek apokalypsis) means 'revelation' or 'unveiling,' in reference to the revealed truths which such writings purport to convey. The book of Daniel, which comes from this period, is the only true apocalypse in the old Testament, though some portions of other books share close affinities with its style (Isaiah 24-27; Ezekiel 38-39; Zechariah 1:7-6:8; Joel 2:1-11; 4:1-21). Between the second century B.C. and the end of A.D. the first century, other books of this genre, both Jewish and Christian, became popular; the Revelation of John in the New Testament is one of its best-known representatives. The characteristic theology of the apocalypse is an eschatological dualism which depicts the present age of world history as about to give way to God's final age—a climactic intervention by God himself for judgment and deliverance. This message is couched in a literary form marked by visions, bizarre imagery, cryptic numbers, and angelic interpreters. Authorship is generally pseudonymous, the works being consigned to some authoritative figure of the distant past, such as Enoch, Moses, Daniel, or Ezra."
James King West writes (Introduction to the Old Testament, pages 417-418): "The same persecutions that provoked the Maccabean uprising also stimulated the development within Jewish circles of a new literary and theological form known as the apocalypse. The name itself (Greek apokalypsis) means 'revelation' or 'unveiling,' in reference to the revealed truths which such writings purport to convey. The book of Daniel, which comes from this period, is the only true apocalypse in the old Testament, though some portions of other books share close affinities with its style (Isaiah 24-27; Ezekiel 38-39; Zechariah 1:7-6:8; Joel 2:1-11; 4:1-21). Between the second century B.C. and the end of A.D. the first century, other books of this genre, both Jewish and Christian, became popular; the Revelation of John in the New Testament is one of its best-known representatives. The characteristic theology of the apocalypse is an eschatological dualism which depicts the present age of world history as about to give way to God's final age—a climactic intervention by God himself for judgment and deliverance. This message is couched in a literary form marked by visions, bizarre imagery, cryptic numbers, and angelic interpreters. Authorship is generally pseudonymous, the works being consigned to some authoritative figure of the distant past, such as Enoch, Moses, Daniel, or Ezra."
West writes of Daniel 14:1-22 (Introduction to the Old Testament, page 458): "The second story is a satire on pagan divinities in the vein of Isaiah 44:9-20 and the Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6). In a discussion with King Cyrus of Babylon as to why he does not worship Cyrus' idol called Bel, Daniel denies the king's claim that Bel eats the food offered to him daily. When Bel's priests are challenged to prove it, they allow the king to place the food in the temple and seal the door. In the meantime Daniel has ashes sifted over the floor. The next day Daniel and the king find the food gone but the floor is covered with footprints. Discovering the secret doors by which he had been deceived, Cyrus is enraged and orders the execution of the priests and their families, while Daniel is permitted to destroy the temple and the idol."
West writes of Daniel 14:23-42 (Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 458-459): "In the companion story the same motive of lampooning pagan deities is apparent. The issue is approached, however, from the opposite angle. Whereas Bel is nothing more than a man-made statue, a fact which is easily demonstrated by its inability to eat, the dragon is manifestly a living creature and does eat. To prove that the dragon also is no god, therefore, Daniel must somehow show that merely being alive and able to eat is not sufficient evidence to establish divinity. This he does by offering to perform the apparently impossible feat of slaying the dragon 'without sword or club' (14:26). The king's acceptance of Daniel's challenge is a tacit admission of the premise that if Daniel succeeds the dragon is no god. Having concocted some cakes of pitch, fat, and hair, he feeds them to the witless beast which promptly explodes."
Daniel J. Harrington writes of Daniel 14:23-42 (Invitation to the Apocrypha, p. 118): "This addition is a combination of three episodes: Daniel and the dragon (vv. 23-28), Daniel in the lions' den (vv. 29-32, 40-42), and Habakkuk's magical journey (vv. 33-39). The three episodes are loosely joined in a plot that vindicates Daniel and the God whom he worships, and are linked to the Story of Bel by verse 28 ('he has destroyed Bel, and killed the dragon')."
Daniel J. Harrington writes of Daniel 14:23-42 (Invitation to the Apocrypha, p. 118): "This addition is a combination of three episodes: Daniel and the dragon (vv. 23-28), Daniel in the lions' den (vv. 29-32, 40-42), and Habakkuk's magical journey (vv. 33-39). The three episodes are loosely joined in a plot that vindicates Daniel and the God whom he worships, and are linked to the Story of Bel by verse 28 ('he has destroyed Bel, and killed the dragon')."
David A. deSilva writes (Introducing the Apocrypha, pp. 239-240): While the author remains anonymous, some scholars have ventured to posit a very specific time and circumstance of composition. Davies (1913: 656), for example, suggests composition in a time of serious religious persecution, as under Antiochus VII Sidetes. The assertion that 'the general character of this tract' suggests authorship during a time of bitter persecution is without foundation, arising no doubt from the unwarranted reading of the actions against Daniel in the second part of the story as a reflection of the author's own time. Moreover, the picture of Antiochus VII painted by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 13.236-248) does not support the claim that he was an enemy of the Jewish religion per se. Although he retaliated against Simon's anti-Seleucid actions by invading Judea and even besieging Jerusalem, and although he pressed the seige so hard that many died of famine, he showed himself quite favorably disposed toward Jewish piety, allowing a truce for the week of the Pentecost celebration at John Hyrcanus's request and even providing bulls for sacrifices, winning himself the epithet 'Antiochus the Pious.' This display of reverence toward Jewish piety led to a resolution of the dispute shortly thereafter.
David A. deSilva writes (Introducing the Apocrypha, pp. 239-240): While the author remains anonymous, some scholars have ventured to posit a very specific time and circumstance of composition. Davies (1913: 656), for example, suggests composition in a time of serious religious persecution, as under Antiochus VII Sidetes. The assertion that 'the general character of this tract' suggests authorship during a time of bitter persecution is without foundation, arising no doubt from the unwarranted reading of the actions against Daniel in the second part of the story as a reflection of the author's own time. Moreover, the picture of Antiochus VII painted by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 13.236-248) does not support the claim that he was an enemy of the Jewish religion per se. Although he retaliated against Simon's anti-Seleucid actions by invading Judea and even besieging Jerusalem, and although he pressed the seige so hard that many died of famine, he showed himself quite favorably disposed toward Jewish piety, allowing a truce for the week of the Pentecost celebration at John Hyrcanus's request and even providing bulls for sacrifices, winning himself the epithet 'Antiochus the Pious.' This display of reverence toward Jewish piety led to a resolution of the dispute shortly thereafter.
The composition of Bel and the Dragon was inspired not by persecution but by the perennial problem of living as a minority, monolatrous culture in an idol-worshipping world. The attack on both idolatry and zoolatry makes Egypt the place where the stories would be most on target with regard to the religious alternatives encountered by God-fearing Jews (see the Egyptian Jewish texts Wis. 11:15-16; 15:18-19; Letter of Aristeas 138) (Roth 1975: 43), who could profit from some reinforcement of the unique truth of their own religious heritage despite the lavish expenditures and apparent devotion of their neighbors toward their gods. The main obstacle to this provenance is the fact that no known Egyptian Jewish text was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew (Collins 1993: 419). Thus, while this provenance is not impossible, since not all Egyptian Jews need to be supposed to have forgotten their ancestral language, it is more likely that the story originates in Palestine and that idolatry and zoolatry simply are attacked as two well-known forms of Gentile impiety.
The composition of Bel and the Dragon was inspired not by persecution but by the perennial problem of living as a minority, monolatrous culture in an idol-worshipping world. The attack on both idolatry and zoolatry makes Egypt the place where the stories would be most on target with regard to the religious alternatives encountered by God-fearing Jews (see the Egyptian Jewish texts Wis. 11:15-16; 15:18-19; Letter of Aristeas 138) (Roth 1975: 43), who could profit from some reinforcement of the unique truth of their own religious heritage despite the lavish expenditures and apparent devotion of their neighbors toward their gods. The main obstacle to this provenance is the fact that no known Egyptian Jewish text was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew (Collins 1993: 419). Thus, while this provenance is not impossible, since not all Egyptian Jews need to be supposed to have forgotten their ancestral language, it is more likely that the story originates in Palestine and that idolatry and zoolatry simply are attacked as two well-known forms of Gentile impiety.
Jay G. Williams writes (Understanding the Old Testament, page 316): "When the author of Daniel himself attempted to predict the future specifically, he, on the whole, proved to be incorrect. Antiochus did not die as he said nor did his kingdom come to a sudden end. The world still awaits the full manifestation of God's righteous rule upon earth. Still, he was right about one thing. Antiochus did not destroy Israel. On the contrary, the Maccabees (the "little help" mentioned in 11:34) even led the people to a few moments of glory before the Roman armies put an end to their semi-independent nation. Perhaps our author was wrong in attempting to predict so precisely what was to occur, for the course of history is never easily determined in advance, even by a visionary prophet. He knew, however, that what his people needed was not general platitudes but a specific hope to which to cling. This he provided even at the risk of being wrong. Furthermore, his central, motivating thesis is one which faithful men can hardly reject. Essentially the book of Daniel is an affirmation of the faith that the God of Israel has dominion over the world and that in the end he will save his people. Daniel teaches that the faithful man must live expectantly, with the hope that the Kingdom of God is indeed at hand."
Jay G. Williams writes (Understanding the Old Testament, page 316): "When the author of Daniel himself attempted to predict the future specifically, he, on the whole, proved to be incorrect. Antiochus did not die as he said nor did his kingdom come to a sudden end. The world still awaits the full manifestation of God's righteous rule upon earth. Still, he was right about one thing. Antiochus did not destroy Israel. On the contrary, the Maccabees (the "little help" mentioned in 11:34) even led the people to a few moments of glory before the Roman armies put an end to their semi-independent nation. Perhaps our author was wrong in attempting to predict so precisely what was to occur, for the course of history is never easily determined in advance, even by a visionary prophet. He knew, however, that what his people needed was not general platitudes but a specific hope to which to cling. This he provided even at the risk of being wrong. Furthermore, his central, motivating thesis is one which faithful men can hardly reject. Essentially the book of Daniel is an affirmation of the faith that the God of Israel has dominion over the world and that in the end he will save his people. Daniel teaches that the faithful man must live expectantly, with the hope that the Kingdom of God is indeed at hand."
Robert Doran writes (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 868): "The narrative has been nicely welded together into a single plot. The LXX and Theodotion use different connectives, but in both versions the narrative coheres. The major actors remain the same throughout—Daniel, the king, and the Babylonians. Both Bel and the snake are characterized as objects that the Babylonians worship (vv. 3, 23). After the snake is destroyed, all those from the region (LXX v. 23; Theodotion: 'the Babylonians') came against Daniel to complain that the king had become a Jew, had overthrown Bel, and had killed the snake. The story of the threat to Daniel's life is thus strongly connected with the preceding narrative. The king's first confession of Bel's greatness (v. 18) and his final confession of Daniel's God (v. 41) use almost exactly the same formulas, even though LXX and Theodotion offer minor differences. This repitition is highly significant and helps unite the narrative. The LXX further connects the two episodes by the phrase 'in that place' in v. 23, but also by developing the motif of eating. This motif dominates the Bel episode (vv. 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 21). In the snake episode the king claims, 'You cannot say he is bronze. Look, he lives and eats and drinks.' Daniel then destroys the snake by offering it fatal food (v. 23). In the Theodotionic version the connection is made through the notion of life: Daniel worships the living God (v. 5), while Bel is not a living God (v. 6); the king asserts that Daniel cannot say that the snake is not a living God (v. 24), but Daniel insists that it is his God who lives (v. 25). The links between all the episodes in both versions are so pervasive that the narrative must be seen to be a whole. Such stories, of course, could theoretically have existed independently, but there is no evidence that they did."
Robert Doran writes (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 868): "The narrative has been nicely welded together into a single plot. The LXX and Theodotion use different connectives, but in both versions the narrative coheres. The major actors remain the same throughout—Daniel, the king, and the Babylonians. Both Bel and the snake are characterized as objects that the Babylonians worship (vv. 3, 23). After the snake is destroyed, all those from the region (LXX v. 23; Theodotion: 'the Babylonians') came against Daniel to complain that the king had become a Jew, had overthrown Bel, and had killed the snake. The story of the threat to Daniel's life is thus strongly connected with the preceding narrative. The king's first confession of Bel's greatness (v. 18) and his final confession of Daniel's God (v. 41) use almost exactly the same formulas, even though LXX and Theodotion offer minor differences. This repitition is highly significant and helps unite the narrative. The LXX further connects the two episodes by the phrase 'in that place' in v. 23, but also by developing the motif of eating. This motif dominates the Bel episode (vv. 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 21). In the snake episode the king claims, 'You cannot say he is bronze. Look, he lives and eats and drinks.' Daniel then destroys the snake by offering it fatal food (v. 23). In the Theodotionic version the connection is made through the notion of life: Daniel worships the living God (v. 5), while Bel is not a living God (v. 6); the king asserts that Daniel cannot say that the snake is not a living God (v. 24), but Daniel insists that it is his God who lives (v. 25). The links between all the episodes in both versions are so pervasive that the narrative must be seen to be a whole. Such stories, of course, could theoretically have existed independently, but there is no evidence that they did."
===Historical-critical opinion: Antiochus Epiphanes===
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..
===Date===
The date of the writing of the book may be inferred from the following considerations: It was not written by one of the exiles, for many portions of the text could not have been composed by a contemporary of the second king of the Babylonian empire and his immediate successors. This is proved even by the form of that king's name as given in the book. His Assyrian name was "Nabu-kudurriuẓur" (Friedrich Delitzsch, "Assyrische Lesestücke," 1900, p. 192), which the Hebrews at first pronounced "Nebu-kadr-eẓẓar" (Jer. 21:2 et seq. [26 times]; Ezek. 26:7, 29:18 et seq., 30:10). The middle "r" was then dissimilated from the final "r," giving "Nebu-kadn-eẓẓar," a form which is found in Jeremiah only in 27:6-29:3, but which is the usual form in all later writings (2 Kings 24:1 et seq.; 2 Chronicles 36:6 et seq.; Ezra 1:7; Esther 2:6; Daniel 1:18 et seq.; Soferim 14:7; Seder 'Olam R. 24 et seq.; and Septuagint, Ναβουχοδονόσορ).
===Anonymous author: the historical milieu===
The Book of Daniel was not written immediately after the Exile. The post-exilic prophets did not know it, for the four horns to which Israel's enemies are compared in Zechariah 1:21, have a local meaning, representing the four points of the compass, and do not refer to the successive kingdoms, as in Daniel 2:29 and following. The same is the case with the four chariots in Zechariah 6:1 et seq. These passages are not exactly parallel with the predictions in Daniel, but it is also stated in Haggai 2:6-9 et seq., that within "a little while" the Messianic time will come. And even Ben Sira says expressly (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 49:15) that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph, a statement he could not have made had he known the extant Book of Daniel, since Daniel is there drawn as a man who, like Joseph, rose to be prime minister by virtue of his ability to interpret dreams.
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.
Nor would a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors have written the stories of the Book of Daniel in the form in which they exist, since they contain many details that can not be harmonized with the data furnished in other historical sources. The first verse, for instance, contradicts other passages of the O. T. in saying that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and besieged it. For the verb means here, as elsewhere, "come," "arrive," and can not be equivalent to "break up"; this is also proved by the context of 1:1. But Jeremiah announced the coming of the Chaldeans only in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a year that is expressly designated, in Jeremiah 25:1, 46:2, as the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar. The date, "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" (Daniel 1:1), is probably derived from 2 Kings 24:1 et seq., where it is said that Jehoiakim, after having been subject to Nebuchadnezzar three years, turned and rebelled, and was attacked by predatory bands of the Chaldeans and their vassals. As no date is given for the beginning of this period of three years, it might be supposed that it began with the accession of Jehoiakim. The supposition being made, it could be said that the Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar would naturally be their leader. But these statements in Daniel 1:1 are erroneously drawn from 2 Kings 24:1 et seq., and contradict those found in Jeremiah 25:1, 9, and 46:2. Such discrepancies are not unparalleled in the O. T. (compare Eduard König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," pages 172 et seq.). Nor can Nebuchadnezzar's madness (Daniel 4:12 et seq.) during seven years be taken literally. Belshazzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, is mentioned again (5:11, 13, 18, 22) in a way which compels the inference that he really was such. This may be explained on the ground that during the long period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar. The same thing occurred in Baruch 1:11, and Sennacherib is mentioned as the son of Enemessar (i.e. Shalmaneser) in Tobit 1:15, Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) being passed over. It is also well known that the period 516-331 B.C., of which only a few events are recorded, was contracted to thirty-four years in computing the time elapsed since the Creation (Seder 'Olam R. 30).
Nor would a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors have written the stories of the Book of Daniel in the form in which they exist, since they contain many details that can not be harmonized with the data furnished in other historical sources. The first verse, for instance, contradicts other passages of the O. T. in saying that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and besieged it. For the verb means here, as elsewhere, "come," "arrive," and can not be equivalent to "break up"; this is also proved by the context of 1:1. But Jeremiah announced the coming of the Chaldeans only in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a year that is expressly designated, in Jeremiah 25:1, 46:2, as the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar. The date, "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" (Daniel 1:1), is probably derived from 2 Kings 24:1 et seq., where it is said that Jehoiakim, after having been subject to Nebuchadnezzar three years, turned and rebelled, and was attacked by predatory bands of the Chaldeans and their vassals. As no date is given for the beginning of this period of three years, it might be supposed that it began with the accession of Jehoiakim. The supposition being made, it could be said that the Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar would naturally be their leader. But these statements in Daniel 1:1 are erroneously drawn from 2 Kings 24:1 et seq., and contradict those found in Jeremiah 25:1, 9, and 46:2. Such discrepancies are not unparalleled in the O. T. (compare Eduard König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," pages 172 et seq.). Nor can Nebuchadnezzar's madness (Daniel 4:12 et seq.) during seven years be taken literally. Belshazzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, is mentioned again (5:11, 13, 18, 22) in a way which compels the inference that he really was such. This may be explained on the ground that during the long period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar. The same thing occurred in Baruch 1:11, and Sennacherib is mentioned as the son of Enemessar (i.e. Shalmaneser) in Tobit 1:15, Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) being passed over. It is also well known that the period 516-331 B.C., of which only a few events are recorded, was contracted to thirty-four years in computing the time elapsed since the Creation (Seder 'Olam R. 30).
The Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. This assertion is supported by the following data: The kingdom which is symbolized by the he goat (8:5 et seq.) is expressly named as the "kingdom of Yawan"—that is, the Grecian kingdom (8:21) the great horn being its first king, Alexander the Great (definitely stated in Seder "Olam R. 30), and the little horn Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). This kingdom was to persecute the host of the saints "unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings" (8:14, R. V.); that is, "half-days," or 1,150 days; and Epiphanes did, in fact, profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem for about that length of time, from Kislew 15, 168, to Kislew 25,165 (I Maccabees 1:57, 4:52). The little horn described in Daniel 8:9-12, 23-25 has the same general characteristics as the little horn in 7:8, 20; hence the same ruler is designated in both passages. The well-known passage 9:23-27 also points to the same period. The first and imperative rule in interpreting it is to begin the period of the seventy times seven units (A. V. "seventy weeks") with the first period of seven (9:25), and to let the second period, the "sixty-two times seven units," follow this; for if this second period (the sixty-two weeks) be reckoned as beginning again from the very beginning, the third period, the "one week," must be carried back in the same way. The context demands, furthermore, that the origin of the prediction concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem be sought in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and the parallel passage, ib. 29:10. The "anointed," the "prince," mentioned after the first seven times seven units, must be Cyrus, who is called the anointed of the Lord in Isaiah 45:1 also. He concluded the first seven weeks of years by issuing the decree of liberation, and the time that elapsed between the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem (586) and the year 538 was just about forty-nine years. The duration of the sixty-two times seven units (434 years) does not correspond with the time 538-171 (367 years); but the chronological knowledge of that age was not very exact. The Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Meyer, p. 104) computed the Persian rule to have lasted fifty-two years. This is all the more evident as the last period of seven units must include the seven years 171-165 (see "Rev. Et. Juives," xix. 202 et seq.). This week of years began with the murder of an anointed one (compare Leviticus 4:3 et seq. on the anointing of the priest)—namely, the legitimate high priest Onias III.—and it was in the second half of this week of years that the Temple of the Lord was desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in place of the Lord's altar for burnt offering (see 1 Maccabees 1:54).
The Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. This assertion is supported by the following data: The kingdom which is symbolized by the he goat (8:5 et seq.) is expressly named as the "kingdom of Yawan"—that is, the Grecian kingdom (8:21) the great horn being its first king, Alexander the Great (definitely stated in Seder "Olam R. 30), and the little horn Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). This kingdom was to persecute the host of the saints "unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings" (8:14, R. V.); that is, "half-days," or 1,150 days; and Epiphanes did, in fact, profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem for about that length of time, from Kislew 15, 168, to Kislew 25,165 (I Maccabees 1:57, 4:52). The little horn described in Daniel 8:9-12, 23-25 has the same general characteristics as the little horn in 7:8, 20; hence the same ruler is designated in both passages. The well-known passage 9:23-27 also points to the same period. The first and imperative rule in interpreting it is to begin the period of the seventy times seven units (A. V. "seventy weeks") with the first period of seven (9:25), and to let the second period, the "sixty-two times seven units," follow this; for if this second period (the sixty-two weeks) be reckoned as beginning again from the very beginning, the third period, the "one week," must be carried back in the same way. The context demands, furthermore, that the origin of the prediction concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem be sought in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and the parallel passage, ib. 29:10. The "anointed," the "prince," mentioned after the first seven times seven units, must be Cyrus, who is called the anointed of the Lord in Isaiah 45:1 also. He concluded the first seven weeks of years by issuing the decree of liberation, and the time that elapsed between the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem (586) and the year 538 was just about forty-nine years. The duration of the sixty-two times seven units (434 years) does not correspond with the time 538-171 (367 years); but the chronological knowledge of that age was not very exact. The Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Meyer, p. 104) computed the Persian rule to have lasted fifty-two years. This is all the more evident as the last period of seven units must include the seven years 171-165 (see "Rev. Et. Juives," xix. 202 et seq.). This week of years began with the murder of an anointed one (compare Leviticus 4:3 et seq. on the anointing of the priest)—namely, the legitimate high priest Onias III.—and it was in the second half of this week of years that the Temple of the Lord was desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in place of the Lord's altar for burnt offering (see 1 Maccabees 1:54).
===Qumran manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel===
===Qumran manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel===
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==