Changes

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/> This is the logical fallacy of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|Proof by numbers]], but only if a correlary assumption is made that the majority of Christians are not being guided by the Holy Spirit, which is a logical fallacy called "[[No true Scotsman]]".

Liberal Christians normally disregard the claim of special inspiration of the whole Book of Daniel itself in either form, 12 chapters or 14 chapters, yet believe, for the most part, that it still "has something to say" to them.

Liberal Christians normally disregard the claim of special inspiration of the whole Book of Daniel itself in either form, 12 chapters or 14 chapters, yet believe, for the most part, that it still "has something to say" to them.

===Judge for yourself===

==="Judge for yourself"===

The appeal to readers to "read for themselves" to see if the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel "seem to them" to be inspired is a example of the logical fallacy of "''[[Appeal to personal interest]]''", which appeals to the individual reader's sense of personal integrity and self-reliance, and erroneously implies that the personal judgment of the reader can be relied upon as infallibly correct.<ref name=Private/> It dismisses all possibility of an informed and authentic external authority established and preserved by God that can truly be trusted as more reliable than personal judgment. It sets the reader apart from and above the whole of the Christian community, and it makes the individual reader the final arbiter and judge of the books of the Bible. This is a seductive appeal to individual pride and vanity. [http://biblehub.com/multi/proverbs/3-5.htm Proverbs 3:5] [http://biblehub.com/multi/isaiah/5-21.htm Isaiah 5:21] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=sirach%203:24&version=NRSVCE Sirach 3:24] [http://biblehub.com/multi/jude/1-19.htm Jude 19]

The appeal to readers to "read for themselves" to see if the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel "seem to them" to be inspired is a example of the logical fallacy of "''[[Appeal to personal interest]]''", which appeals to the individual reader's sense of personal integrity and self-reliance, and erroneously implies that the personal judgment of the reader can be relied upon as infallibly correct.<ref name=Private/> It dismisses all possibility of an informed and authentic external authority established and preserved by God that can truly be trusted as more reliable than personal judgment. It sets the reader apart from and above the whole of the Christian community, and it makes the individual reader the final arbiter and judge of the books of the Bible. This is a seductive appeal to individual pride and vanity. [http://biblehub.com/multi/proverbs/3-5.htm Proverbs 3:5] [http://biblehub.com/multi/isaiah/5-21.htm Isaiah 5:21] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=sirach%203:24&version=NRSVCE Sirach 3:24] [http://biblehub.com/multi/jude/1-19.htm Jude 19]

::"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and ''from'' the things which are written in this book." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2022:18-19&version=KJV Revelation 22:18-19] <ref>Many conservative Christians see "the words of the prophesy of this book" as referring not solely to the Book of Revelation alone but to the whole canon of the books of the Bible as the one book of the words of prophesy spoken by the Holy Spirit, God. On the basis of this interpretation, and after formulating a Reformation-defined canon of 66 books, the Protestant Reformers accused the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of having added books to the Bible in the [[Council of Chalcedon|4th century]], and Catholic and Orthodox leaders accused Protestants of taking away whole books and parts of other books from the Bible of the Apostles and the Ancient Christian Church. In response to the controversy, in the Catholic [[Council of Trent]], the Catholic Church declared an end to all debate in the Church regarding the canonical status of particular books of Scripture, by [[dogma]]tically listing the canon of the Bible "as read in the Church". See [[Apocrypha]] and [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Apocrypha Books - King James Bible Online].</ref>

::"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and ''from'' the things which are written in this book." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2022:18-19&version=KJV Revelation 22:18-19] <ref>Many conservative Christians see "the words of the prophesy of this book" as referring not solely to the Book of Revelation alone but to the whole canon of the books of the Bible as the one book of the words of prophesy spoken by the Holy Spirit, God. On the basis of this interpretation, and after formulating a Reformation-defined canon of 66 books, the Protestant Reformers accused the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of having added books to the Bible in the [[Council of Chalcedon|4th century]], and Catholic and Orthodox leaders accused Protestants of taking away whole books and parts of other books from the Bible of the Apostles and the Ancient Christian Church. In response to the controversy, in the Catholic [[Council of Trent]], the Catholic Church declared an end to all debate in the Church regarding the canonical status of particular books of Scripture, by [[dogma]]tically listing the canon of the Bible "as read in the Church". See [[Apocrypha]] and [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Apocrypha Books - King James Bible Online].</ref>

Churches in [[Apostolic succession]] see in their doctrine and practice a sure and biblical means of receiving and perpetuating the Faith from one generation to another. Apostolic Succession requires a "tactile," person to person, conferring of authority from the Apostles onward. The practice originated in the late first century ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2013:2-3&version=KJV Acts 13:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2timothy%201:6-7&version=KJV 2 Timothy 1:6-7]).  It requires the most heightened responsibility in the giving and receiving. It is believed that the grace of the Holy Spirit is transmitted by the laying on of hands at the time of ordination, but not all Christians have the gift of discernment. [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/13-1.htm Romans 13:1] [http://biblehub.com/multi/hebrews/13-17.htm Hebrews 13:17] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_timothy/1-14.htm 2 Timothy 1:14] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_peter/1-19.htm 2 Peter 1:19], also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:3&version=KJV Jude 3] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:17-19&version=KJV 17-19]. See also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:4-11&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 12:4-11] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:28-30&version=KJV 28-30]

Churches in [[Apostolic succession]] see in their doctrine and practice a sure and biblical means of receiving and perpetuating the Faith from one generation to another. Apostolic Succession requires a "tactile," person to person, conferring of authority from the Apostles onward. The practice originated in the late first century ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2013:2-3&version=KJV Acts 13:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2timothy%201:6-7&version=KJV 2 Timothy 1:6-7]).  It requires the most heightened responsibility in the giving and receiving. It is believed that the grace of the Holy Spirit is transmitted by the laying on of hands at the time of ordination, but not all Christians have the gift of discernment or of leadership "''are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?''". [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/13-1.htm Romans 13:1] [http://biblehub.com/multi/hebrews/13-17.htm Hebrews 13:17] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_timothy/1-14.htm 2 Timothy 1:14] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_peter/1-19.htm 2 Peter 1:19], also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:3&version=KJV Jude 3] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:17-19&version=KJV 17-19]. See also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:4-11&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 12:4-11] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:28-30&version=KJV 28-30]

==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==

==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==

Conservative Christian scholars do not accept the proposed 165 B.C. as the date when the Book of Daniel was written. Verification of the individual prophecies in the 70-weeks period as corresponding to historical events does offer an explanation of why conservative scholars hold to the position that Daniel was authored as early as 530 B.C.. Although modern scholars (Naturalist) may not agree with the conservative dating, evidence exists to support the traditional conservative Christian view. The 165 B.C. date proposed by most Biblical scholars can substantiate the conservative view that the Book of Daniel is genuine prophesy.

Conservative Christian scholars do not accept the proposed 165 B.C. as the date when the Book of Daniel was written. Verification of the individual prophecies in the 70-weeks period as corresponding to historical events does offer an explanation of why conservative scholars hold to the position that Daniel was authored as early as 530 B.C.. Although modern scholars (Naturalist) may not agree with the conservative dating, evidence exists to support the traditional conservative Christian view. The 165 B.C. date proposed by most Biblical scholars can substantiate the conservative view that the Book of Daniel is genuine prophesy.

;What does the 70-weeks prophecy foretell?

====What does the 70-weeks prophecy foretell?====

The prophecy including future events is based on a prayer made by Daniel. He prays for the Jewish people, their sin, and he begs that God will permit them to return from Babylon to Jerusalem. Daniel's precedent for his petition is another Jewish prophet, Jeremiah ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2029:10-12&version=DRA Jeremiah 29:10-12]), who had already foretold that the Jewish people would return to Jerusalem ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%209:2-3&version=DRA Daniel 9:2-3]). Daniel only asks when the Jewish people will be allowed to return to Jerusalem.

The prophecy including future events is based on a prayer made by Daniel. He prays for the Jewish people, their sin, and he begs that God will permit them to return from Babylon to Jerusalem. Daniel's precedent for his petition is another Jewish prophet, Jeremiah ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2029:10-12&version=DRA Jeremiah 29:10-12]), who had already foretold that the Jewish people would return to Jerusalem ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%209:2-3&version=DRA Daniel 9:2-3]). Daniel only asks when the Jewish people will be allowed to return to Jerusalem.

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 analysis===

===Fundamentalist textual analysis===

In his reply to Rufinus, Jerome affirmed that he was in fact being consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include:<blockquote>What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For '''I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they''' [the Jews] '''are wont to make against us.''' (''Against Rufinus'', 11:33 [A.D. 402] ''boldface emphasis added'').</ref></blockquote>

In his reply to Rufinus, Jerome affirmed that he was in fact being consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include:<blockquote>What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For '''I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they''' [the Jews] '''are wont to make against us.''' (''Against Rufinus'', 11:33 [A.D. 402] ''boldface emphasis added'').</ref></blockquote>

Some who oppose the fundamentalist view say that anything which was translated B.C. into Greek, 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; but this objection is itself an example of the [http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/404-phil/Summer-99/Handouts/Philosophical/Self-Sealing-Arguments.htm. self-sealing fallacy] which excludes evidence presented. 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, and not those parts accepted by Christian leadership. 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 in the Jewish and Protestant canon. 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.

Some who oppose the fundamentalist view say that anything which was translated B.C. into Greek, which fundamentalists claim "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; but this objection is itself an example of the [http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/404-phil/Summer-99/Handouts/Philosophical/Self-Sealing-Arguments.htm. self-sealing fallacy] which excludes as invalid the evidence presented—the fact is not regarded as [[admissible evidence]], but is held to be wholly irrelevant. 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, and not the whole of the Septuagint (LXX) Old Testament of the Greek Bible accepted and read by Christians in their worship services (Hebrew was not used in Christian readings to the congregation). 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 in the Jewish and Protestant canon. 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 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.

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 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> In ''Susanna'' there are a goodly number of Hebraisms, rather more than one would expect had the writer composed in Hellenistic Greek. [[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 to them that the text for ''Bel and the Dragon'' was not preserved in the Temple with the book of Daniel as were the Holy Scriptures, and that 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 by the Jews as scripture, even if it was an integral part of the Old Testament of the Greek Bible revered and preserved by the early Christian Church in the 1st through 5th centuries.

====Treatment in Ancient Versions====

====Treatment in Ancient Versions====

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.

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 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.

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 first recount without a break the historical facts of Daniel's life, and that his second more important 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 of person narrative 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===

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.

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), 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.

This name (Hebrew '''דניאל''' ''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.

 

 

 

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.'"

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/> 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..

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."

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, he says it was natural for them 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/>

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."

Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 460) says that Daniel 14:1-22 is another folk tale of the "Daniel Cycle". It is a little Jewish "detective story" satire on the crudities of idolatry, although actually it is a caricature of pagan worship. He points out that 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 (see Wisdom 13:1-15:17) that this unfair ridicule of pagan worship is understandable.

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."

Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 460) says the second story in Daniel 14:23-42 is another short story in the "Daniel Cycle", basically a variant of Daniel 6 (the lions' den). Here pagan worship is again satired by Daniel's "blowing up" (bowel blockage and hemorrhage) of the Babylonians' divine serpent. He says that although this was once an independent story, in its present form it has been edited to follow the preceding tale (see verse 28); and he acknowledges that in all the Greek manuscripts, the two stories appear together, and the LXX of the Jews even prefixes to the former tale the note, "From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi." However, neither Hartman nor fundamentalist Christians believe that this explicit pre-Christian rabbinical testimony in the LXX constitutes authentic inspired scriptural sanction of the book as being a genuine part of the Book of Daniel.

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."

J. Alberto Soggin (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', p. 408) observes that the first difficulties in the historical classification of the book begin with the deportation of Daniel and his companions, because historians do not in fact know anything of a deportation which took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, in 607 B.C.. Allowing its possibly basic historicity, the event might be connected with the conquest of Syria and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar II after the battle of Carchemish in 605-4 and his victory over Egypt. Soggin sees King Jehoiakim as taking this occasion to move out of the sphere of Egyptian influence and into that of Babylon (see 2 Chronicles 36:5). Complex problems of foreign policy followed, to which he alludes in his discussion of Jeremiah. Soggins points out that until recently this notation in the text of Chronicles was considered spurious, since there was no external historical 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, Soggins emphasized that there remains the problem of chronology. He finds other elements 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, according to historical records 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.) Alternatively, Soggin says the statement that Belshazzar was king may simply be imprecise wording: towards 553 B.C. 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 a certain Darius the Mede appears, who is considered by many readers to be king of Persia after the fall of Babylon. In 9:1 "Darius" appears as son of Xerxes, whereas in 6:29 Cyrus succeeds a "Darius". Soggin affirms that, if we are to be precise, the question arises regarding why Daniel is at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen, always assuming that we take the term "Mede" seriously. He does not appear to entertain the real possibility that Cyrus assigned his own lieutenant and chief commander the whole province of Babylon to govern as a subordinate ruler. Soggin says this question has never been answered. He says we must therefore accept that Media in the Book of Daniel is in reality Persia. But the genealogy of the kings of Persia is well known: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I Hystaspes, Xerxes. Soggin asks, if the Darius mentioned here was Darius I Hystaspes from the last quarter of the sixth century, king of Persia 521–486 B.C., how old would Daniel be? He says these are features which were already pointed out by the anti-Christian polemicist [[Celsus]] at the end of the second century A.D. It is evident that they do not believe a prophet of God could live to the age of around 105 (about 17 years old, a "child/youth without blemish" 1:4 in 607 B.C. the third year of Jehoiakim living to 519 B.C. the first year of Darius I Hystaspes: 607 – 519 = 88 years + 17 = 105 years old).<ref>"about 17 years old". Daniel 1:4 "children" Strong's number 3206 '''ילד ''yeled''''' : The [[King James Version]] of Genesis 21:14 and Daniel 1:4 translates '''ילד ''yeled''''' as "child". According to Strong's Concordance of the Bible ''Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament'' (Strong's number 3206) this word also means "young man", ''a lad''.</ref>

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')."

James King West (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', pages 417-418) writes that the same persecutions which provoked the Maccabean uprising also stimulated the development of a new literary and theological form within Jewish circles, known as "apocalypse".<ref>"apocalypse". Ancient Greek: ἀποκάλυψις ''apocálypsis'', from ἀπό ''apo'' (from, remove) and καλύπτω ''kalupto'' (cover, concealment) meaning "un-covering".</ref> The name itself (Greek ''apokalypsis'') means "revelation" or "unveiling", in reference to the revealed truths which these writings purport to convey. West states that the book of Daniel, from this period, is the only true apocalypse in the old Testament, though he acknowledges 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). He notes that 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 being one of its best-known representatives. West says the characteristic theology of the apocalypse form is an [[Eschatology|eschatological]] (end time) dualism which presents 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. The marked literary form of apocalyptic message is couched in 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 (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', pages 458-459) says Daniel 14:1-22 is a satire on pagan divinities in the vein of Isaiah 44:9-20 and the ''Letter of Jeremiah'' (Baruch 6). King Cyrus of Babylon asks Daniel why he does not worship Cyrus' idol, "Bel", and 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  servant sift ashes 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 that in the companion story (Daniel 14:23-42) the same motive of lampooning pagan deities is apparent, but that the issue is approached from the opposite angle. The fact that Bel is nothing more than a man-made statue is easily demonstrated by its inability to eat, but the dragon is obviously a living creature and does eat. Therefore, to prove that the dragon too is no god, Daniel must show that merely being big and alive and able to eat is not sufficient evidence to establish divinity. He offers 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".

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.

Daniel J. Harrington (''Invitation to the Apocrypha'', page 118) says the addition to Daniel of the second story in 14:23-42 is a combination of three episodes: Daniel and the dragon (verses 23-28), Daniel in the lions' den (verses 29-32, 40-42), and Habakkuk's "magical" journey (verses 33-39). Harrington evidently sees miraculous acts of divine intervention as "magic" instead of provident acts of God which He has done through his angels and prophets. Harrington sees the three episodes as loosely joined in a plot that vindicates Daniel and the God whom he worships, and as linked to the ''Story of Bel'' by verse 28 ("he has destroyed Bel, and killed the dragon").

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.

David A. deSilva (''Introducing the Apocrypha'', pages 239-240) writes that while the author remains anonymous, some scholars have ventured to posit a very specific time and circumstance of composition. He cites Davies (1913: 656), for example, who suggests the book is a composition in a time of serious religious persecution, as under Antiochus VII Sidetes (ruler of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire, from 138 to 129 B.C). DeSilva claims that 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". He says, moreover, that 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 Antiochus VII 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, deSilva says 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. Thus, according to deSilva, the composition of ''Bel and the Dragon'' was inspired not by persecution but by the perennial problem of living as a monolatrous (''monolatry—worship of one God'') minority culture in an idol-worshipping world. The attack on both idolatry and zoolatry (''worship of animals'') 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 Wisdom 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 of the book is the fact that no known Egyptian Jewish text was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew (Collins 1993: 419). Thus, deSilva concludes that, 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 (Understanding the Old Testament, page 316) asserts that when the author of Daniel himself attempted to predict the future specifically, he, on the whole, proved to be incorrect. Williams emphasizes that Antiochus did not die as the author of Daniel said nor did his Seleucid kingdom come to a sudden end. The world still awaits the full manifestation of God's righteous rule upon earth. Still, Williams concedes he was right about one thing: Antiochus did not destroy Israel. On the contrary, the Maccabees (characterizing them as 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. Williams dismisses more than eighty years of Jewish autonomy under the [[Hasmoneans]] as a "few moments". He says that "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". Williams says that the author, however, knew that what his people needed was not "general platitudes" but a specific hope to which to cling, and that he provided this hope even at the risk of being wrong. He says, furthermore, that the author's central, motivating thesis is one which faithful men can hardly reject. Williams concludes that 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, and 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 (''Harper's Bible Commentary'', p. 868) writes that the narrative of ''Bel and the Dragon'' has been nicely welded together into a single plot. He observes that 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 (verses 3, 23). After the snake is destroyed, all those from the region (LXX verse 23; Theodotion: "the Babylonians") came against Daniel to complain that the king had become a Jew, had overthrown Bel, and had killed the snake. Doran says 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 (verse 18) and his final confession of Daniel's God (verse 41) use almost exactly the same formulas, even though LXX and Theodotion offer minor differences. Doran points out that this repetition is highly significant and helps unite the narrative. The LXX further connects the two episodes by the phrase "in that place" in verse 23, but also by developing the motif of eating. This motif dominates the Bel episode (verses 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 (verse 23). Doran says that the connection is made in the Theodotionic version through the notion of life: Daniel worships the living God (verse 5), while Bel is not a living God (verse 6); the king asserts that Daniel cannot say that the snake is not a living God (verse 24), but Daniel insists that it is his God who lives (verse 25). The links between all the episodes in both versions are seen by Doran as so pervasive that he insists the narrative must be seen to be a whole. He acknowledges that such stories, "of course", could theoretically have existed independently, but he points out the indisputable fact that there is no evidence that they did.

===Historical-critical opinion: Antiochus Epiphanes===

===The persecution crisis===

According to current historical-critical opinion, the book of Daniel originated in its present form in the Antiochus Epiphanes crisis, that is, between 168/167–165/164 B.C.. It seems very difficult to perceive that one single desert community (Qumran) should have preserved such a significant number of Daniel manuscripts if this book had really been produced at so late a date. The large number of manuscripts in this community can be much better explained if one accepts an earlier origin of Daniel than the one proposed by the Maccabean hypothesis of historical-critical scholarship, which dates it to the second century B.C..

According to current historical-critical opinion, the book of Daniel originated in its present form in the crisis precuipitated by Antiochus Epiphanes, between 168/167—165/164 B.C.. It seems to conservative historical-critical scholars 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. They say the evidence of a 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 liberalist historical-critical scholarship, which dates it to no earlier than the second century B.C..

===Date===

===Date===