Changes

The Prayer of the Three Holy Children is a segment of a larger component called The Prayer of Azariah and the Prayer of the Three Holy Children which, although part of the Septuagint text, is considered by Protestants as part of the Apocrypha rather than a fully canonical part of Scripture, and so appears in most English-language bibles as a separate section. When included within the larger text of Daniel, it appears in the third chapter of between verses 23 and 24.

The Prayer of the Three Holy Children is a segment of a larger component called The Prayer of Azariah and the Prayer of the Three Holy Children which, although part of the Septuagint text, is considered by Protestants as part of the Apocrypha rather than a fully canonical part of Scripture, and so appears in most English-language bibles as a separate section. When included within the larger text of Daniel, it appears in the third chapter of between verses 23 and 24.

The song constitutes a hymn of thanksgiving to God for deliverence from the fiery furnace into which the three young men, Ananias, Azarias and Misael (also known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) had been cast by the Persian king Nebuchadnezzar. They were cast into the furnace for refusing to worship a golden idol that Nebuchadnezzar had created. However, an Angel of the Lord entered the furnace and protected the three young men. In liturgical practice, the event is seen to presage the Resurrection of Christ, thus its inclusion in the canon.

The song constitutes a hymn of thanksgiving to God for deliverence from the fiery furnace into which the three young men, Ananias, Azarias and Misael (also known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) had been cast by the Persian king Nebuchadnezzar. They were cast into the furnace for refusing to worship a golden idol that Nebuchadnezzar had created. However, an Angel of the Lord entered the furnace and protected the three young men. In liturgical practice, the event is seen to presage the Resurrection of Christ, supporting its inclusion in the canon.

The Abingdon Bible Handbook (ISBN 0687001692) suggests that the Prayer was based on an earlier composition and was added to the existing text of Daniel sometime in the second or first century B.C.

The Abingdon Bible Handbook (ISBN 0687001692) suggests that the Prayer was based on an earlier composition and was added to the existing text of Daniel sometime in the second or first century B.C.

Third, many Christians take the view that [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:20-22&version=KJV Daniel 11:20-22] is a summary of the gospel story, based on the interpretation that the purpose of the Messiah’s death is foretold in the 70-weeks prophecy as described by [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:31-35&version=KJV verses 31-35] which mirrors the basic teachings of the New Testament. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2012:1-3&version=KJV Daniel 12:1-3].

Third, many Christians take the view that [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:20-22&version=KJV Daniel 11:20-22] is a summary of the gospel story, based on the interpretation that the purpose of the Messiah’s death is foretold in the 70-weeks prophecy as described by [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:31-35&version=KJV verses 31-35] which mirrors the basic teachings of the New Testament. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2012:1-3&version=KJV Daniel 12:1-3].

===Fundamentalist textual evaluation===

===Fundamentalist textual analysis===

God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be considered an approved text. They said no to the additions to Daniel. Many fundamentalists agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one were to ask their opinion, these texts to do not appear to them to be inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?..,Ecclesiastes,?. But they did not accept 2 Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc into their canon. They admit that they accept by faith that God influenced the final  

God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be considered an approved text. They said no to the additions to Daniel. Many fundamentalists agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one were to ask their opinion, these texts to do not appear to them to be inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?..,Ecclesiastes,?. But they did not accept 2 Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc into their canon. They admit that they accept by faith that God influenced the final  

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]] (from the 8th century) does not include these texts. The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not include them either, although they admit 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.  

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. 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 the deuterocanonical OT 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 to the present.

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.

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 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.

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 invincible 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 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.

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. Of course, chapters 1 through 6 and verse 1 of chapter 7 also lack the authority of first person accounts, and fundamentalists do not on this same basis conclude that these texts 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, and the Christian leaders which retained them in the Septuagint and preserved them as canonical were not 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. 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.

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 Habakkuk's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.

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.

The miraculous transport of the Prophet Habakkuk to the lions den with a "sack lunch" for Daniel is for them so beyond belief <ref>"so beyond belief" —See [http://biblehub.com/john/6-60.htm John 6:60 and commentaries.]</ref> 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 consolation and encouragement, and an 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 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/>

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/>

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''.

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.

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

====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>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.

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. 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.

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.

===Form===

===Form===

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.

In its form the book shows striking differences, for while 2:4—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 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.

Another difference in form is that the political history forming the background of the first six chapters is absent in 7–12. The author may have thought his initial task was to recount without a break the historical facts of Daniel's life, and that his second task was to record the revelations imparted to Daniel which were not connected with his interaction with other people. In the first chapters Daniel is introduced in the third person, while in others he appears as the speaker. This can be explained by the fact that the second part of the book is concerned only with the presentation of Daniel's relevatory experiences excluding all objective relations with the court and with the people, with the possible exception of the manifestation of the man clothed in linen which only Daniel saw and great trembling fell on those about him (10:7). Such transitions are found in other books—compare, for example, Hosea 1 and 3. The change of third- to first-person narrative 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. But there is no unnatural ''prolepsis'' (anticipatory introduction) on first mentioning "King" Nebuchadnezzar, who subsequently did become 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 according to Barton 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. This indicates that historical-critics may have difficulty accepting the principle set forth by Joseph in Genesis 41:32 "the doubling means that the thing is fixed by God", and that similarity of multiple narratives does not necessarily mean identity of event but more likely that it happened more than once (Mark 8:19-20). 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: The hero and traditional author of the book which bears his name.

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 (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3). 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. His name may have played the same rôle in literature as that of Solomon or Enoch. As one anonymous author ascribed his book, "Koheleth" (Ecclesiastes), to Solomon, so another likewise may have ascribed his book to Daniel. Historical critics acknowledge that it would probably be unjust to say that the origin of his prophecies was creative invention. They may have been suggested by the author's enthusiastic study of the past history of God's people, then utilized to unlock the future. This is evident from 9:2, where the author says that he had pondered the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years, and the earlier prophecy provided the basis for a new prophecy. The author according to this reading is merely a disciple of the Prophets, one who reproduced the prophecies of his masters, and suggests why it is not included in the section Nebiim in the Palestinian canon. However, this speculative reading does not suggest why the book is included among the Major Prophets in the Septuagint.

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), means "God is my judge", the name also of two other persons in the Old Testament [see 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 3:1; 1 Esdras (Ezra) 8:2, and 2 Esdras (Nehemiah) 10:6]. It is thus a fitting appellation for the writer of the Book of Daniel, in which God's judgments are repeatedly pronounced on 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 (''Harper's Bible Commentary'', p. 696) writes that Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In its current form (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form at some time in 167-164 B.C. Towner says this is based on two assumptions: first, that the authors lived near the end of the historical events characterizing 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". Hence, the references to the Temple's desecration and the "abomination that makes desolate" in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events previously known to the author. He insists that 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.<ref name=11:45>163 B.C.. Antiochus the king died "in the 149th year" (163 B.C.) in the mountains somewhere between [http://www.seetheholyland.net/mount-zion/ mount Zion "''the glorious holy mountain''"] ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2048:1-2&version=KJV Psalms 48:1-2]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2050:2&version=KJV Psalms 50:2] and [http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/caspiansea.htm "''the'' <nowiki>[Caspian]</nowiki> ''sea''"] in Persia. The Zagros Mountains (Zagros Folded Zone) between the Caspian Sea and Babylon is where Antiochus IV Epiphanes died according to 1 Macc. 6 and 2 Macc. 9, and Daniel 11:45. "''between the sea and the glorious holy mountain...he shall come to his end with none to help him.''"—"''...among the mountains in a strange land.''" (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains#mediaviewer/File:Zagros_Folded_Zone.jpg Map: Zagros Folded Zone: Zagros Mountains]) A majority of Biblical scholars maintain that Daniel wrongly prophesied that Antiochus would die in Palestine. Daniel's prophesy of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes "''among the mountains in a strange land''" ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:28&version=DRA 2 Maccabees 9:28]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:44-45&version=ESV Daniel 11:44-45]) is [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/controversy controverted]. Daniel 11:45 does not specify which "''sea''". Some students of the Bible [<small>source: "Daniel", S. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''</small>] identify Antiochus literally with Daniel 11:21-44, which accords with the description of his policies and actions in 1 and 2 Maccabees. 1 Maccabees 6:1-16 and 2 Maccabees 9:1-16, 28 shows that Antiochus died travelling on the great east-west highway ([http://www.ancient.eu/image/146/ the Silk Road]) running through Persia, northeast of Judea and Mount Zion and southwest of the southern shores of the [[Caspian Sea]], in the mountainous Zagros region of Persia between [http://everything2.com/title/Ecbatana Ecbatana] and Babylon. It is evident that he did not die in Palestine between Mount Zion and the [[Mediterranean Sea]]. Traditionally, "''the sea''" and "''the great sea''" in the Bible is the Mediterranean ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%201:4&version=ESV Joshua 1:4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%209:1&version=ESV Joshua 9:1]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2015:12&version=ESV Joshua 15:12] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2015:47&version=ESV Joshua 15:47]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2023:4&version=ESV Joshua 23:4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2011:11&version=ESV Isaiah 11:11]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2025:19-22&version=ESV Jeremiah 25:19-22]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2047:19&version=ESV Ezekiel 47:19]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%207:2-3&version=ESV Daniel 7:2-3]; compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joel%202:20&version=ESV Joel 2:20 "''eastern sea''" and "''western sea''",] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah%207:12&version=ESV Micah 7:12 "''from sea to sea''"]). This is the understanding of a majority of Old Testament Biblical scholars such as Choon-Leong Seow (C. L. Seow) [<small>''Daniel'', 2003, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, ISBN 978-0-664-25675-3</small>], and John J. Collins, Peter W. Flint, and others [<small>''[http://www.brill.com/book-daniel-volume-1-composition-and-reception The Book of Daniel: Volume 1 Composition and Reception]'', 2000, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-11675-7</small>] who hold that Daniel 11:45 refers to the mountains of Judea between Mount Zion and the Mediterranean Sea, or more specifically to Mount Zion, and conclude that the prophesy that Antiochus would die in Palestine "is totally inaccurate" since he died in Persia. Bible translations of this passage differ: some have Antiochus pitching his pavilion "''between the seas''", others have it "''on the glorious holy mountain''", while others more literally have it "''between the glorious holy mountain and the sea''" (see variant translations at [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-45.htm Daniel 11:45]). The conclusion of most Old Testament scholars is that the account in Daniel 11 is completely accurate through verse 44, but wrong in verse 45, and therefore it must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem. But this scholarly reading of "''the sea''" as the Mediterranean, and those translations having Antiochus' pavilion "''on/in the glorious holy mountain (Zion)''" in Palestine, are simply dismissed as wrong by a literalist plain reading of the Biblical text ([http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/context context]) as it relates to the death of Antiochus among the mountains of Persia "''in a strange land''" between the Caspian Sea and Mount Zion. —''Sources'': <br/> "Mediterranean Sea", Philip Lee, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 1097–1098. <br/>"Daniel, book of", Stephen R. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 386–388. <br/> "Antiochus", ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 76–77. <br/> New American Bible, Daniel 11:5-45 and footnote; 1 Maccabees 6:1 and footnote; 2 Maccabees 9:1-28 and footnote.</ref> He had departed from [http://www.bible-history.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_ecbatana.html Ecbatana (see map)] and was driving furiously toward Jerusalem when he was struck down. ''See'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains#mediaviewer/File:Zagros_Folded_Zone.jpg Zagros Mountains].<br/> 1 Maccabees 6:1-16; 2 Maccabees 9:1-28; Daniel 7:26; 11:44-45; 12:11.<br/>Antiochus died ''the thousand two hundred and ninetieth day from the time that the continual burnt offering was taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate was set up''. Daniel 12:11. A swift messenger set out, and brought the news to Jerusalem 45 days later (''a [http://www.evi.com/q/distance_from_jerusalem_to_ecbatana journey of 800 miles], average 17.77 miles per day''). "Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." (The 1,290th day + 45 days = the 1,335th day.)</ref> Dr. Towner suggests that the roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but that the entire work was probably 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 (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 448) asserts that Jews and Christians, having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing, until relatively recent years have erroneously considered Daniel to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. As chapters 7-12 are written in the first person, it was natural to assume that Daniel in chapters 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. However, few modern biblical scholars, he insists, would now seriously defend such an opinion. Hartman says the arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. the late Hebrew used in Daniel could hardly have written by An author living in the 6th century, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri dating from the end of the 5th century. He points out that 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 inescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. Hartman says the author's 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", is characteristic of the Hellenistic age. Finally, his detailed description matching the details of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35), in contrast to 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.<ref name=11:45/>

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 14:1-22 (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."

==Message==

==Message==

The book contains traditional stories (chapters 1–6), which tell of the trials and triumphs of the wise Daniel and his three companions. The moral is that people of faith can resist temptation and conquer adversity.

The book contains traditional stories (chapters 1–6), which tell of the trials and triumphs of the wise Daniel and his three companions. The moral is that people of faith can resist temptation and conquer adversity. The message in both parts of the first twelve chapters (i.e., chaps. 1–6 and chaps. 7–12) is that history unrolls under the watchful eye of God, who does not abandon those who trust in him and will finally deliver and re-establish them. Susanna The false accusers are put to death, and virtue triumphs.

==Church traditions==

==Church traditions==