Changes

----

----

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

The complete '''Book of Daniel''' [Hebrew: '''דניאל'''] of 14 chapters, translated from a [[Hebrew]] original which has been lost,<ref name=OriginalHebrew>The '''Theta''', or ''Version of [[Theodotion]]'', Greek version of Daniel with all its parts including chapters 3 and 13 and 14 appears to be a revision of the Septuagint text, with the help of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, now lost. Catholic scholars in general and several Protestants (Eichhorn, Einleit., in ''das Altes Testament'', IV, 24 f; Einleit. in ''die apok. Schriften'', 419; Vatke; Delitzsch, ''De Habacuci'', 50; Zockler, Bissell, Ball, Rothstein, etc.) hold that Hebrew was the original language of ''Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susanna'', and ''Bel and the Dragon''. See the following:<br/>[http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/S/song-of-the-three-children.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: S: Song of the Three Children]<br/>[http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/S/susanna-the-history-of.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: S: Susanna, the History of (T. Witton Davies)]<br/>[http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/B/bel-and-the-dragon.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: B: Bel and the Dragon (T. Witton Davies)]<br/>See also (''page'' 572) [https://books.google.com/books?id=axIMoFf-D5YC&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=Eugene+Ulrich,+1989,+%27%27Daniel+Manuscripts+from+Qumran%27%27&source=bl&ots=5jZxzoJW13&sig=W_29EGA0dmI8Yqt5ES4KOKiMe2A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qv7IVKi3G4aggwTA9YDoAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Eugene%20Ulrich%2C%201989%2C%20&f=false Professor Eugene Ulrich, 1989, ''Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran'']<br/></ref> is found in the books of the [[Septuagint]], the Old Testament of the apostles and the early Christian Church, accepted as inspired and canonical by the [[Orthodox Church]] in the ''Greek Orthodox Bible'', and in the books of the Old Testament of the ''[[Vulgate]]'', and was included in the canon of inspired scripture by Pope [[Damasus I]] and the [[Synod of Rome (382)]],<ref>[http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible]<br/>[http://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon, by Dr Taylor Marshall]<br/>[http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture.html BlogSpot. Beggars All: Reformation & Apologetics. Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture (Part One)] (beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com)  See also [http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture_31.html (Part Two)] ''Both offer clear explanations and clarifications by one Protestant apologist of the rationale for the firm Protestant position that the decision by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome in 382 on the canon of the books of the Bible is invalid (includes discussions)''.</ref> and subsequent councils such as the Council of Hippo (393), the [[Third Council of Carthage (397)]], and reaffirmed at the [[Council of Florence]] of the (briefly reunited) Church of the east and west in 1442.<ref>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-council-of-florence-on-pope-church.html Saturday, October 26, 2013. The Council of Florence on the Pope, the Church and the Bible]<br/>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia (1915) Canon of the Old Testament] "''During the deliberations of the Council'' [of Trent] ''there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod''" [of Florence]."<br/>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.iii.vii.html Christian Classics Ethereal Library. History of the Church, Vol. 6: § 18. The Council of Ferrara-Florence. 1438–1445.]<br/>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM Canons of the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)] (Basel/Ferrara/Florence/Rome)</ref> It is included in the canon of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church|Ethiopian Orthodox Bible]]. Since the [[Council of Trent]] it is [[Dogma|dogmatically]] accepted as inspired and canonical "with all its parts" by the [[Catholic Church]] in the ''Catholic Bible''—books of the '''[[Bible]]''' accepted as divinely inspired by the majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world.<ref name=largest>The '''Catholic Church''' is the world's largest [[Christianity|Christian]] body comprised of several distinct [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm "Rites"]. The [[Catholic Church|Catholic Church (Latin Rite)]] is the largest religious body in the United States, with over 60 million adherents (4 times as large as the second largest church, the Orthodox).<br/>[http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/ “The Global Catholic Population,” © 2011, Pew Research Center.]<br/>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html The Largest Catholic Communities]<br/>

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

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

:

:

Those who have adopted the views of [[Liberal Christianity]] tend to see religious knowledge emerging from research and the use of reason, as superior to Biblical revelation. Thus the liberal idea of religion as a personal relationship with God is one which is not necessarily bound to a Biblical doctrinal basis. This stands in in contrast to salvation resulting from faith in the Biblically substantiated gospel of grace, and in conformity with orthodox theological beliefs. They see the controversy over canonicity of any part of the Bible as pointless and somewhat irrelevant. Reading the texts of scripture does not indicate to them personally that one part is superior to another, or that any of it is inspired by God, although many of them acknowledge that some of it tends to be "inspiring" as a classic of world literature.

Those who have adopted the views of [[Liberal Christianity]] tend to see religious knowledge emerging from research and the use of reason, as superior to Biblical revelation. Thus the liberal idea of religion as a personal relationship with God is one which is not necessarily bound to a Biblical doctrinal basis. This stands in in contrast to salvation resulting from faith in the Biblically substantiated gospel of grace, and in conformity with orthodox theological beliefs. They see the controversy over canonicity of any part of the Bible as pointless and somewhat irrelevant. Reading the texts of scripture does not indicate to them personally that one part is superior to another, or that any of it is inspired by God, although many of them acknowledge that some of it tends to be "inspiring" as a classic of world literature.

:

:

It is evident from the facts cited above that those portions of the Book of Daniel called ''The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Story of Susanna,'' and ''Bel and the Dragon,'' cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of Jewish rejection, apparent lack of evidence of an original Hebrew text, and subjective assessment of content according to what seems ''to the reader'' to be marks of inspired writing.

It is evident from the facts cited above that those portions of the Book of Daniel called ''The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Story of Susanna,'' and ''Bel and the Dragon,'' cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of Jewish rejection, apparent lack of evidence of an original Hebrew text, and subjective assessment of content according to what seems ''to the reader'' to be marks of inspired writing.

[[Liberal bias|Liberalist]] scholars who reject the authority of the Bible and abuse the legitimate tools of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#Radical critical scholars: abuse of critical methods|Historical-critical method]] insist that each book and text of the Bible should be divorced from the whole, taken out of context, and analyzed separately and independently to determine its particular reliability and authenticity, for comparison to other parts of the Bible also taken as individual and separate writings. They are often represented as having no common theme or apparent unity of purpose. These are set in opposition to each other for comparison, emphasizing what appears as contradictions and discrepancies, which appears to invalidate their message and their authority as parts of the revealed word of God. This tactic dismisses the unity of the mind of the primary Author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit himself, and makes a lie of the promise of Jesus that the Spirit of the Father would lead us into all truth forever.<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?john%2014:15-17&version=NABRE John 14:15-17;] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?john%2014:24&version=NABRE John 14:24;] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?john%2016:13&version=NABRE John 16:13;]</ref>  

[[Liberal bias|Liberalist]] scholars who reject the authority of the Bible and abuse the legitimate tools of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#Radical critical scholars: abuse of critical methods|Historical-critical method]] insist that each book and text of the Bible should be divorced from the whole, taken out of context, and analyzed separately and independently to determine its particular reliability and authenticity, for comparison to other parts of the Bible also taken as individual and separate writings. They are often represented as having no common theme or apparent unity of purpose. These are set in opposition to each other for comparison, emphasizing what appears as contradictions and discrepancies, which appears to invalidate their message and their authority as parts of the revealed word of God. This tactic dismisses the unity of the mind of the primary Author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit himself, and makes a lie of the promise of Jesus that the Spirit of the Father would lead us into all truth forever.<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?john%2014:15-17&version=NABRE John 14:15-17;] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?john%2014:24&version=NABRE John 14:24;] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?john%2016:13&version=NABRE John 16:13;]</ref>  

Many highly educated and imminently qualified radical liberalist scholars appear to have set themselves up as judges of the Bible, determining for themselves and for others which parts are to be considered good or bad, reliable or unreliable, genuine or spurious, inspired or uninspired. See [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2016:17-19&version=NABRE Romans 16:17-19] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%204:11-12&version=NABRE James 4:11-12]. However, these do not represent the majority view. See [[Logical fallacy#Proof by authority|Logical fallacy of Proof by authority]]

Many highly educated and imminently qualified radical liberalist scholars appear to have set themselves up as judges of the Bible, determining for themselves and for others which parts are to be considered good or bad, reliable or unreliable, genuine or spurious, inspired or uninspired. See [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2016:17-19&version=NABRE Romans 16:17-19] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%204:11-12&version=NABRE James 4:11-12]. However, these do not represent the majority view. See [[Logical fallacy#Proof by authority|Logical fallacy of Proof by [unqualified] authority]]

In contrast to these are those other equally highly educated and imminently qualified conservative Biblical scholars who accept the authority of the Bible and use rightly and objectively the legitimate tools of Historical-critical method, who analyze the scriptures individually and also within the context of the whole, and have found instead a unity which seems to them to affirm the authenticity and canonicity of each text traditionally included in the Bible.

In contrast to these are those other equally highly educated and imminently qualified conservative Biblical scholars who accept the authority of the Bible and use rightly and objectively the legitimate tools of Historical-critical method, who analyze the scriptures individually and also within the context of the whole, and have found instead a unity which seems to them to affirm the authenticity and canonicity of each text traditionally included in the Bible.

When read within the whole context of the Bible, and as the received and preserved sacred heritage of the whole Christian Church, the portions rejected as Apocrypha read instead to most Christians as inspired Holy Scripture and as legitimate parts of the whole Bible. The majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world who have carefully heard and read and compared these texts believe that the complete Book of Daniel "with all its parts" is ''obviously'' canonical and inspired by God, and that those portions of the Book of Daniel which have been rejected as Apocrypha are actually canonical scriptures of the Holy Bible inspired by God.<ref name=largest/> Less than one-third of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world believe they are apocryphal.<ref name=Prot/> 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]]".

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 corellary assumption is made that the majority of Christians are not being guided by the Holy Spirit, which is also 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.

::"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ''aught'' from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%204:2&version=KJV Deuteronomy 4:2]<ref>''see also'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%205:32&version=KJV Deuteronomy 5:32]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:11&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:11] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:20&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2027:26&version=KJV Deuteronomy 27:26] </ref><ref>The Samaritan Pentateuch text has Mount Gerizim as the place to build the Temple of the L<small>ORD</small>. Because the text of Deuteronomy 17:20 says "You shall not add to the word which I command you..." the Samaritans do not accept the rest of the books of the Bible as the inspired word of God, but according to their letterist reading of this text see them as the false additions of men. Their community has remained small (withered) according to the words of Jesus [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%205:32&version=KJV John 15:6.]</ref>

::"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ''aught'' from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%204:2&version=KJV Deuteronomy 4:2]<ref>''see also'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%205:32&version=KJV Deuteronomy 5:32]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:11&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:11] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:20&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2027:26&version=KJV Deuteronomy 27:26] </ref><ref>The Samaritan Pentateuch text has Mount Gerizim as the place to build the Temple of the L<small>ORD</small>. Because the text of Deuteronomy 17:20 says "You shall not add to the word which I command you..." the Samaritans do not accept the rest of the books of the Bible as the inspired word of God, but according to their letterist reading of this text see them as the false additions of men. Their community has remained small (withered) according to the words of Jesus [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%205:32&version=KJV John 15:6.]</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>

::"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 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]

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]

Theories abound about the date of writing but most of these entangle themselves in the liberalist scholarly dating of the book of Daniel into the 2nd Century B.C. rather than its stated dating as being from the hand of Daniel himself, in 534 B.C..  

Theories abound about the date of writing but most of these entangle themselves in the liberalist scholarly dating of the book of Daniel into the 2nd Century B.C. rather than its stated dating as being from the hand of Daniel himself, in 534 B.C..  

Scholars with a [[liberal bias]] do not acknowledge the supernatural foreknowledge of any written prophecy, presumptively dating each book as having been written after the prophecy was fulfilled. Conservative responses to these pointed dating theories take Proverbs 26:4 above Proverbs 26:5 in the case of such outspoken one-sided opinions <ref>Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.</ref> In Hill and Waltons ''Survey of the Old Testament Introduction to the book of Daniel'' (and throughout their whole survey) excessive weight is given the 'scholars' who support the latest possible speculative dating of Bible books.<ref>Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. ''A Survey of the Old Testament'' page 349.</ref> When extensive argument is given to refute their dating and critical treatment of the Bible it seems to lend them more credence than they are due.<ref>See [http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/protest+too+much TheFreeDicionary: idioms: protest too much] (thefreedictionary.com), [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thou+doth+protest+too+much Urban Dictionary: "thou doth protest too much"], [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_lady_doth_protest_too_much wiktionary: the lady doth protest too much] (wiktionary.org)</ref> Many modern scholars have a preconceived notion of a bible that evolved from man. As evolution of a species requires the fabrication of ''millions of years'' of evolution, so the premise of evolution of a bible requires that the scholars similarly manufacture and collect hundreds of years of folklore and legend as being prior to the written Biblical record. In support of their opinions they stretch out dates and propose compounded multiple authorship. The ''proposed conclusions'' constructed from abuse of ''legitimate'' historical-critical dating methods by some "modern scholars" on any manuscript can be treated as suspect, as subjective and as having little substantive credibility, based on a long history of evidential findings of slanted scholarship by peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies.<ref>Documented evidence of a long history of biased scholarly research findings—see the following:

Scholars with a [[liberal bias]] do not acknowledge the supernatural foreknowledge of any written prophecy, presumptively dating each book as having been written after the prophecy was fulfilled. Conservative responses to these pointed dating theories take Proverbs 26:4 above Proverbs 26:5 in the case of such outspoken one-sided opinions <ref>Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." This is held to be a better counsel than Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. See also [http://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-15.htm 1 Peter 3:15]</ref> In Hill and Waltons ''Survey of the Old Testament Introduction to the book of Daniel'' (and throughout their whole survey) excessive weight is given the 'scholars' who support the latest possible speculative dating of Bible books.<ref>Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. ''A Survey of the Old Testament'' page 349.</ref> When extensive argument is given to refute their dating and critical treatment of the Bible it seems to lend them more credence than they are due.<ref>See [http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/protest+too+much TheFreeDicionary: idioms: protest too much] (thefreedictionary.com), [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thou+doth+protest+too+much Urban Dictionary: "thou doth protest too much"], [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_lady_doth_protest_too_much wiktionary: the lady doth protest too much] (wiktionary.org)</ref> Many modern scholars have a preconceived notion of a bible that evolved from man. As evolution of a species requires the fabrication of ''millions of years'' of evolution, so the premise of evolution of a bible requires that the scholars similarly manufacture and collect hundreds of years of folklore and legend as being prior to the written Biblical record. In support of their opinions they stretch out dates and propose compounded multiple authorship. The ''proposed conclusions'' constructed from abuse of ''legitimate'' historical-critical dating methods by some "modern scholars" on any manuscript can be treated as suspect, as subjective and as having little substantive credibility, based on a long history of evidential findings of slanted scholarship by peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies.<ref>Documented evidence of a long history of biased scholarly research findings—see the following:

*[https://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/bias.html Approaching history: Bias] (umass.edu)

*[https://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/bias.html Approaching history: Bias] (umass.edu)

*[http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html Biases in the Interpretation and use of Research Results—Robert J. MacCoun. Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-7320, maccoun@socrates.berkeley.edu]—<blockquote>"The first prototype is fraud-intentional, conscious efforts to fabricate, conceal, or distort evidence, for whatever reason-material gain, enhancing one's professional reputation, protecting one's theories, or influencing a political debate. There is a growing literature on such cases (see Fuchs & Westervelt, 1996; Woodward & Goodstein, 1996), though we still lack good estimates of their prevalence. At a macro level, they are often explicable from sociological, economic, or historical perspectives (Cole, 1992; Zuckerman, 1988). At a micro level, they are sometimes explicable in terms of individual psychopathology. These cases are extremely serious..."</blockquote></ref> (See [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#"illegitimate historical-critical findings".|Historical-critical method: "illegitimate historical-critical findings"]]) It is quite logical that the book was composed and written during the captivity, and that no cheating trick was made to make it look ancient. The major contention is not when the Book of Daniel was written, even if it was written the day Daniel got out of the lions den. The problem with the account for the scholar is its authenticity, and/or its authority: was it written by Daniel, was it written by one in the know, and was it written by one in the control of God?

*[http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html Biases in the Interpretation and use of Research Results—Robert J. MacCoun. Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-7320, maccoun@socrates.berkeley.edu]—<blockquote>"The first prototype is fraud-intentional, conscious efforts to fabricate, conceal, or distort evidence, for whatever reason-material gain, enhancing one's professional reputation, protecting one's theories, or influencing a political debate. There is a growing literature on such cases (see Fuchs & Westervelt, 1996; Woodward & Goodstein, 1996), though we still lack good estimates of their prevalence. At a macro level, they are often explicable from sociological, economic, or historical perspectives (Cole, 1992; Zuckerman, 1988). At a micro level, they are sometimes explicable in terms of individual psychopathology. These cases are extremely serious..."</blockquote></ref> (See [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#"illegitimate historical-critical findings".|Historical-critical method: "illegitimate historical-critical findings"]]) It is quite logical that the book was composed and written during the captivity, and that no cheating trick was made to make it look ancient. The major contention is not when the Book of Daniel was written, even if it was written the day Daniel got out of the lions den. The problem with the account for the scholar is its authenticity, and/or its authority: was it written by Daniel, was it written by one in the know, and was it written by one in the control of God?

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.

There is the strongest evidence respecting the genuineness and authenticity of the book, both internal and external. We have the testimony of Christ himself, [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/24-15.htm Matthew 24:15]; of St. John and St. Paul, who have copied his prophecies; of the Jewish synagogue and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical but have never ranked it among the Prophets; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish ''tannaim'' and ''amoraim'', which frequently in the Talmud cite his authority. As to the internal evidence, the style, language, and manner of writing perfectly agree with the historical period represented from Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon into the reigns of Cyrus and Darius of Persia; and especially, Daniel is proved to have been a prophet by the exact fulfilment of his predictions. This book, like that of Ezra, is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee, the prevailing language of the Babylonians, and was translated in its entirety for the Jews of the Diaspora into Greek, the prevailing language of the entire [[Levant]] and middle east from the 2nd century B.C. through the 1st century of Christianity.

There is the strongest evidence respecting the genuineness and authenticity of the book, both internal and external. We have the testimony of Christ himself, [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/24-15.htm Matthew 24:15]; of St. John and St. Paul, who have copied his prophecies; of the Jewish synagogue and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical but have never ranked it among the Prophets; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish ''tannaim'' and ''amoraim'', which frequently in the Talmud cite his authority. As to the internal evidence, the style, language, and manner of writing perfectly agree with the historical period represented from Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon into the reigns of Cyrus and Darius of Persia; and especially, Daniel is proved to have been a prophet by the exact fulfilment of his predictions. This book, like that of Ezra, is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee, the prevailing language of the Babylonians, and was translated in its entirety for the Jews of the Diaspora into Greek, the prevailing language of the entire [[Levant]] and middle east from the 2nd century B.C. through the 1st century of Christianity.

===Date of the Book===

===Date of the Book c. 530 B.C. and c. 165 B.C.===

The date the book of Daniel was written is controversial. For conservative Christians, the earliest date is about 530 B.C.. For liberal scholars (Naturalists), the latest data is about 165 B.C..

The date the book of Daniel was written is controversial. For conservative Christians, the earliest date is about 530 B.C.. For liberal scholars (Naturalists), the latest data is about 165 B.C..

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.

The Archangel Gabriel brings an answer to Daniel from God that foretells the future. Gabriel gives Daniel a prophecy about the future of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. However, according to Christian reading of the scripture, Gabriel links the Jewish people and their return to the coming of the Messiah.

The [[Angel|Archangel]] [[Gabriel (archangel)|Gabriel]] brings an answer to Daniel from God that foretells the future. Gabriel gives Daniel a prophecy about the future of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. However, according to Christian reading of the scripture, Gabriel links the Jewish people and their return to the coming of the Messiah.

Most Christians accept that the prophetic events of Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks fit Jesus’ life and ministry, generally understanding the 70-weeks prophecy to be a literally foretelling of the Messiah. Three primary reasons are usually presented as to why Christians take the view that Jesus literally fulfilled this prophecy, though some disagree.

Most Christians accept that the prophetic events of Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks fit Jesus’ life and ministry, generally understanding the 70-weeks prophecy to be a literally foretelling of the Messiah. Three primary reasons are usually presented as to why Christians take the view that Jesus literally fulfilled this prophecy, though some disagree.

====The Historical View====

====The Historical View====

Most historians, and the majority of both Christian believers and non-Christians who know history, immediately recognize exact and detailed historical parallels in Daniel chapter 11 to the books of [[1 Maccabees|First]] and [[2 Maccabees|Second Maccabees]] and to ancient and modern secular histories covering the period of 333 B.C. through 164 B.C. in Judea. This particular historical-grammatical analysis (one among several) is the "Historical View".<ref>"Historical View". See

Most historians, and the majority of both Christian believers and non-Christians who know history, immediately recognize exact and detailed historical parallels in Daniel chapter 11 to the books of [[1 Maccabees|First]] and [[2 Maccabees|Second Maccabees]] and to ancient and modern secular histories covering the period of 333 B.C. through 164 B.C. in Judea. This particular historical-grammatical analysis (one among several, and not the only one) is the "Historical View".<ref>"Historical View". See

*[http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/eschatology13.htm Daniel 11 and Other Schools of Prophetic Interpretation]

*[http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/eschatology13.htm Daniel 11 and Other Schools of Prophetic Interpretation]

*''visual presentation'' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDiEgiUZtGs Bible Prophesy and Real History: Daniel 11–12, Tim Schaaf] (youtube.com)</ref>

*''visual presentation'' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDiEgiUZtGs Bible Prophesy and Real History: Daniel 11–12, Tim Schaaf] (youtube.com)</ref>

11:5–45 describes the dynastic histories of the Ptolemies in Egypt (the king of the south) and the Seleucids in Syria (the king of the north), the two divisions of the Hellenistic empire (v. 6) corresponding to the two legs of iron in Daniel 2:33, 40. Verses 10–20 describe the struggle between the two kingdoms for the control of Palestine; the Seleucids were eventually victorious.

11:5–45 describes the dynastic histories of the Ptolemies in Egypt (the king of the south) and the Seleucids in Syria (the king of the north), the two divisions of the Hellenistic empire (v. 6) corresponding to the two legs of iron in Daniel 2:33, 40. Verses 10–20 describe the struggle between the two kingdoms for the control of Palestine; the Seleucids were eventually victorious.

11:6 The marriage of Antiochus II Theos and Berenice of Egypt about 250 B.C. ended in tragedy.

11:6 The marriage of Antiochus II Theos and Berenice of Egypt about 250 B.C. ended in tragedy.

===Form===

===Form===

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 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.

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.

The so called 4QFlorilegium, a fragment that employs the quotation formula "which written in the book of Daniel the prophet", also supports canonicity. Such a formula is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran. It is similar also to Matthew 24:15, where Jesus refers to "Daniel the prophet."

The so called 4QFlorilegium, a fragment that employs the quotation formula "which written in the book of Daniel the prophet", also supports canonicity. Such a formula is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran. It is similar also to Matthew 24:15, where Jesus refers to "Daniel the prophet."

   

   

It is reasonable to ask how Daniel could have become so quickly canonical if it had just been produced about 150 B.C. a mere half century before Daniel was already accepted as canonical at Qumran at about 100 B.C.? While scholars do not know exactly how long it took for books to become accepted as canonical, they allow that it may be surmised that to the degree that Daniel was reckoned as among the canonical books, it therefore had a longer existence than the mere five decades suggested by the Maccabean dating hypothesis. Both the evidential canonical status and the fact that Daniel was considered a "prophet" speak for the antiquity of the book of Daniel. An existence of a mere five decades between the production of a Biblical book in its final form and canonization does not seem reasonable.

Conservative Bible scholars emphasize that it is reasonable to ask how Daniel could have become so quickly canonical if it had just been produced about 150 B.C. a mere half century before Daniel was already accepted as canonical at Qumran at about 100 B.C.? While scholars do not know exactly how long it took for books to become accepted as canonical, they allow that it may be surmised that, to the degree that Daniel was reckoned as among the canonical books, it therefore had a longer existence than the mere five decades suggested by the Maccabean dating hypothesis. Both the evidential canonical status and the fact that Daniel was considered a "prophet" speak for the antiquity of the book of Daniel. An existence of a mere five decades between the production of a Biblical book in its final form and canonization does not seem reasonable.

   

   

The obvious canonical acceptance of the book of Daniel at Qumran therefore suggests an earlier origin of the book than the second century B.C.. Based on the evidence available at the time in 1969 regarding the Qumran Daniel texts, Roland K. Harrison had already concluded that the second century dating of the book of Daniel was "absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumran, partly because there are no indications whatever that the sectaries compiled any of the Biblical manuscripts recovered from the site, and partly because there would, in the latter event, have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect" (Harrison 1969:1127). And soon afterward, he stated that based on the Qumran manuscripts, "there can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product" (Harrison 1979:862). The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.

The obvious canonical acceptance of the book of Daniel at Qumran therefore suggests an earlier origin of the book than the second century B.C.. Based on the evidence available at the time in 1969 regarding the Qumran Daniel texts, Roland K. Harrison had already concluded that the second century dating of the book of Daniel was "absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumran, partly because there are no indications whatever that the sectaries compiled any of the Biblical manuscripts recovered from the site, and partly because there would, in the latter event, have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect" (Harrison 1969:1127). And soon afterward, he stated that based on the Qumran manuscripts, "there can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product" (Harrison 1979:862). The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.

In support of the carbon dating done by independent labs, the Israel Antiquities Authority stated in a news release that "Some of the papyrus samples bear exact written dates within the text itself. These dates match those determined by the carbon-14 measurements. The reliability of paleography as a dating method is thus confirmed.

In support of the carbon dating done by independent labs, the Israel Antiquities Authority stated in a news release that "Some of the papyrus samples bear exact written dates within the text itself. These dates match those determined by the carbon-14 measurements. The reliability of paleography as a dating method is thus confirmed.

=====Dates from Coins at the Dead Sea Scrolls=====

=====Dates from Coins at the Dead Sea Scrolls site=====

More than 550 silver coins were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The coins were used to date when people lived at the site. The silver coins were minted between 136 B.C. to 9 B.C..

More than 550 silver coins were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The coins were used to date when people lived at the site. The silver coins were minted between 136 B.C. to 9 B.C..

   

   

Along with the dates of the earlier publications, the date for the three Daniel manuscripts published by 1989 is also of great importance. Some of the recently published scrolls on Daniel are even older than the previously published ones. The date of 4QDana is assigned to about 60 B.C. and 4QDanb to about A.D. 60 (Ulrich 1987:17). The oldest manuscript of Daniel by far is 4QDanc, which Cross dated in 1961 to the "late second century BC" (Cross 1961:43). Scholars who support a date for the writing of the book of Daniel in the Maccabean crisis at about the middle of the second century B.C. will be able to say that 4QDanc is "only a half century later than the composition of the book of Daniel" (Ulrich 1987:17). For supporters of this dating this means that the manuscript evidence for Daniel is as close to the autograph as the Rylands Papyrus is to the Gospel of John. "It is thus, for the Hebrew Bible, comparable to the Rylands manuscript of the Johannine Gospel for the New Testament" (Ulrich 1989:3). This comparison means that the papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, published in 1935, Rylands 457, dated in the first half of A.D. the second century, effectively refuted claims of scholars who had attempted to date the Gospel of John to the latter part of A.D. the second century. The Rylands papyrus was within 25 to 50 years of the writing of the Gospel of John.

Along with the dates of the earlier publications, the date for the three Daniel manuscripts published by 1989 is also of great importance. Some of the recently published scrolls on Daniel are even older than the previously published ones. The date of 4QDana is assigned to about 60 B.C. and 4QDanb to about A.D. 60 (Ulrich 1987:17). The oldest manuscript of Daniel by far is 4QDanc, which Cross dated in 1961 to the "late second century BC" (Cross 1961:43). Scholars who support a date for the writing of the book of Daniel in the Maccabean crisis at about the middle of the second century B.C. will be able to say that 4QDanc is "only a half century later than the composition of the book of Daniel" (Ulrich 1987:17). For supporters of this dating this means that the manuscript evidence for Daniel is as close to the autograph as the Rylands Papyrus is to the Gospel of John. "It is thus, for the Hebrew Bible, comparable to the Rylands manuscript of the Johannine Gospel for the New Testament" (Ulrich 1989:3). This comparison means that the papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, published in 1935, Rylands 457, dated in the first half of A.D. the second century, effectively refuted claims of scholars who had attempted to date the Gospel of John to the latter part of A.D. the second century. The Rylands papyrus was within 25 to 50 years of the writing of the Gospel of John.

   

   

New issues are being raised for those supporting the late historical-critical date of the book of Daniel. Is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book, since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph? Supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable when all the available evidence is objectively considered.

New issues are being raised for those supporting the late historical-critical date of the book of Daniel. Is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book, since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph? Supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable when all the available evidence is objectively considered.

==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 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.

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. Gentile rulers are able to see the truth of the religion of Israel and are able to acknowledge the true God. Magicians and enchanters have not the true wisdom (a lesson applicable to [[New Age]] teachings). In the chapter of the fiery furnace and the ''Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children of Israel'' the holiness of God and His power are praised and manifested and the whole of the created order of existence is summoned to worship the Creator. In the chapter of Susanna the false accusers who abused their authority to destroy the righteous innocent are put to death, and virtue triumphs. In the chapter of Bel and the Dragon the folly of superstitious worship, the deceitfulness of false religions, and the superiority of the true God is presented in contrast. Key passages in the book express in summary form the whole of the message:

==Church traditions==

==Church traditions==