Changes

Three sections constitute the divisions of the Book of Daniel:

Three sections constitute the divisions of the Book of Daniel:

<br/>Daniel and the Kings of Babylon (1:1–6:29)

:Daniel and the Kings of Babylon (1:1–6:29)

<br/>Daniel’s Visions (7:1–12:13)

:Daniel’s Visions (7:1–12:13)

<br/>Appendix: Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon (13:1–14:42)

:Appendix: Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon (13:1–14:42)

===Masoretic Text===

===Masoretic Text===

===Septuagint and Vulgate===

===Septuagint and Vulgate===

The Christian Old Testament Book of Daniel in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate consists of two distinct kinds of narrative, historical and prophetic, in three parts. In the Septuagint, the first part begins with the first chapter narrative of Daniel, a youth, saving Susanna from the death sentence of the two corrupt judges, with the first part of the book thus consisting of the first seven chapters, which are chiefly historical; the second part, consisting of six chapters, primarily relating visions sent to Daniel and interpreted by [[Gabriel (archangel)|Gabriel]], is chiefly prophetical; and the third part, consisting of one chapter, is chiefly historical. In the 5th century, the 1st chapter of Daniel in the Septuagint was moved by [[Jerome]] and placed in his Vulgate translation near the end of the book as the 13th chapter of Daniel, so that in the Vulgate the first part of Daniel consists of six chapters, the second part six chapters, and the third part two chapters. In accordance with the ancient traditional reading of the text of the Bible in the Christian Church, Jerome elected to leave in their traditional place in the text in the 3rd chapter of Daniel the 62 verses he did not find in any of the Hebrew manuscripts he had available to him; but he noted [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|critically]] that they are "not in the Hebrew".

The Christian Old Testament Book of Daniel in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate consists of two distinct kinds of narrative, historical and prophetic, in three parts.  

 

In the Septuagint, the first part begins with the first chapter narrative of Daniel, a youth, saving Susanna from the death sentence of the two corrupt judges, followed by six chapters of chiefly historical narrative, with the first part of the book thus consisting of the first seven chapters; the second part, consisting of six chapters, primarily relating visions sent to Daniel and interpreted by [[Gabriel (archangel)|Gabriel]], is chiefly prophetical; and the third part, consisting of one chapter, is chiefly historical.  

 

In the 5th century, the 1st chapter of Daniel in the Septuagint was moved by [[Jerome]] and placed in his Vulgate translation near the end of the book as the 13th chapter of Daniel, so that in the Vulgate the first part of Daniel consists of six chapters, the second part six chapters, and the third part two chapters. In accordance with the ancient traditional reading of the text of the Bible in the Christian Church, Jerome elected to leave in the 3rd chapter of Daniel in their traditional place in the text the 62 verses he did not find in any of the Hebrew manuscripts he had available to him; but he noted [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|critically]] that they are "not in the Hebrew".

===Chapter summaries===

===Chapter summaries===

:(1) Daniel and his companions are taken into the palace of the king of Babylon: they abstain from his meat and wine, and succeed better with pulse and water. Their excellence and wisdom.

:(1) Daniel and his companions are taken into the palace of the king of Babylon: they abstain from his meat and wine, and succeed better with pulse and water. Their excellence and wisdom.

:(2) Daniel, by divine revelation, declares the dream of Nabuchodonosor, and the interpretation of it. He is highly honoured by the king.

:(2) Daniel, by divine revelation, declares the dream of Nabuchodonosor, and the interpretation of it. He is highly honoured by the king.

:(3) Nabuchodonosor sets up a golden statue; which he commands all to adore: the three children for refusing to do it are cast into the fiery furnace; but are not hurt by the flames. Their prayer and canticle of praise. (the chapter is 100 verses)

:(3) Nabuchodonosor sets up a golden statue; which he commands all to adore: the three children for refusing to do it are cast into the fiery furnace; but are not hurt by the flames. Their prayer and canticle of praise. (''the 3rd chapter of Daniel is 100 verses'')

:(4) Nabuchodonosor's dream, by which the judgments of God are denounced against him for his pride, is interpreted by Daniel, and verified by the event.

:(4) Nabuchodonosor's dream, by which the judgments of God are denounced against him for his pride, is interpreted by Daniel, and verified by the event.

:(5) Baltasar's profane banquet: his sentence is denounced by a handwriting on the wall, which Daniel reads and interprets.

:(5) Baltasar's profane banquet: his sentence is denounced by a handwriting on the wall, which Daniel reads and interprets.

'''Statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream''' [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%202:31-47&version=NABRE Daniel 2:31-47]

'''Statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream''' [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%202:31-47&version=NABRE Daniel 2:31-47]

The statue of this dream had a head of gold, body and arms of silver, thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay. Daniel interpreted this to be kingdoms, with the head of gold being Neo-Babylon, and other kingdoms not as rich but stronger after. These subsequent kingdoms are often viewed as

The statue of this dream had a head of gold, body and arms of silver, thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay. Daniel interpreted this to be kingdoms, with the head of gold being Neo-Babylon, and other kingdoms not as rich but stronger after. These subsequent kingdoms are often viewed since the 16th century Reformation as

*(starting with the arms of silver) Medo-Persia (2 arms for 2 peoples but still connected by the upper body as 1 nation),

*(starting with the arms of silver) Medo-Persia (2 arms for 2 peoples but still connected by the upper body as 1 nation),

*Alexander the Great's Grecian empire (bronze, or ''steel'' <ref>Some modern commentators have substituted "steel" for bronze and iron. [https://books.google.com/books?id=20GsAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=Daniel+2:32+steel&source=bl&ots=j5nsDgDc58&sig=2VGv6KNe_4aBXlmESBn3FE4dY_s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vI--VJnnHMydNoiGgoAE&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Daniel%202%3A32%20steel&f=false ''Daniel: A Christian Interpretation'', by James E. Smith, Ph.D. Lulu.com, 2008. 420 pages. 5: God of Revelation, page 99, footnote 117:] a citation of David Flusser, "The Four Empires in the Fourth Sybyl and in the Book of Daniel", ''IOS'', 2 (1972): 162–71 "gold, silver, steel, mixed iron".<br/>See [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/2-33.htm Daniel 2:33] ''multiple translations''.</ref>),

*Alexander the Great's Grecian empire (bronze, or ''steel'' <ref>Some modern commentators have substituted "steel" for bronze and iron. [https://books.google.com/books?id=20GsAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=Daniel+2:32+steel&source=bl&ots=j5nsDgDc58&sig=2VGv6KNe_4aBXlmESBn3FE4dY_s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vI--VJnnHMydNoiGgoAE&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Daniel%202%3A32%20steel&f=false ''Daniel: A Christian Interpretation'', by James E. Smith, Ph.D. Lulu.com, 2008. 420 pages. 5: God of Revelation, page 99, footnote 117:] a citation of David Flusser, "The Four Empires in the Fourth Sybyl and in the Book of Daniel", ''IOS'', 2 (1972): 162–71 "gold, silver, steel, mixed iron".<br/>See [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/2-33.htm Daniel 2:33] ''multiple translations''.</ref>),

This particular view seems to be based on an interpretation of "the prince of the covenant" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-22.htm Daniel 11:22]) as being ''only'' [[Jesus Christ]] and no other.

This particular view seems to be based on an interpretation of "the prince of the covenant" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-22.htm Daniel 11:22]) as being ''only'' [[Jesus Christ]] and no other.

When "the prince of the covenant" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-22.htm 11:22]) is interpreted as Onias III the anointed high priest, "''because of the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness''" ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%203:1&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 3:1]), who was treacherously murdered on the secret order of Menelaus by the assassin Andronicus under Antiochus IV Epiphanes ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%204:32-36&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 4:32-36]), then the kingdoms foreseen by Daniel are viewed as:

"The prince of the covenant" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-22.htm 11:22]) has also been often interpreted since the 3rd century as Onias III the anointed high priest, "''because of the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness''" ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%203:1&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 3:1]). Onias was treacherously murdered on the secret order of Menelaus by the assassin Andronicus under Antiochus IV Epiphanes ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%204:32-36&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 4:32-36]).

 

When the "prince of the covenant" is interpreted as Onias the high priest, then the kingdoms foreseen by Daniel are viewed as:

*Ancient Babylon, the head of gold, represented by Nebuchanezzar,<ref>See [http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/meru/hd_meru.htm List of Rulers of Mesopotamia] (metmuseum.org)</ref>

*Ancient Babylon, the head of gold, represented by Nebuchanezzar,<ref>See [http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/meru/hd_meru.htm List of Rulers of Mesopotamia] (metmuseum.org)</ref>

*the Kingdom of the Medes (silver),<ref name=Medes>Kingdom of the Medes. See the following articles:

*the Kingdom of the Medes (silver),<ref name=Medes>Kingdom of the Medes. See the following articles:

*the kingdom of the Persians and Medes (bronze),<ref>See [http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/bib/Persian/Persia.html History of the Kings of Media and Persia] (mcadams.posc.mu.edu)</ref>

*the kingdom of the Persians and Medes (bronze),<ref>See [http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/bib/Persian/Persia.html History of the Kings of Media and Persia] (mcadams.posc.mu.edu)</ref>

*the kingdom of the Greeks, established by Alexander the Great, which was divided (iron, iron and clay, and clay), primarily into the two kingdoms of the Ptolemies in Egypt (in the south) and the Seleucids in Syria (in the north) which fought each other for control of Judea and established alliances by marriage.

*the kingdom of the Greeks, established by Alexander the Great, which was divided (iron, iron and clay, and clay), primarily into the two kingdoms of the Ptolemies in Egypt (in the south) and the Seleucids in Syria (in the north) which fought each other for control of Judea and established alliances by marriage.

This particular view sees the two legs and feet of iron and clay as the mixed rule of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and the toes of clay as the successors of Alexander's generals, whose [[Hellenism|Hellenistic]] suppression was finally removed from Judea in the time of Simon the high priest, son of Mattathias.<ref>See the following:

This particular view sees the two legs of iron and feet of iron and clay as the mixed rule of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and the toes of clay as the successors of Alexander's generals, whose [[Hellenism|Hellenistic]] suppression was finally removed from Judea in the time of Simon the high priest, son of Mattathias.<ref>See the following:

*[http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/2#34002033-1 Daniel 2:33ff: footnotes. NABRE];  

*[http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/2#34002033-1 Daniel 2:33ff: footnotes. NABRE];  

*[http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/9#34009024-1 Daniel 9:24ff: footnotes. NABRE];  

*[http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/9#34009024-1 Daniel 9:24ff: footnotes. NABRE];  

*[http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/11#34011002-1 Daniel 11: footnotes. NABRE]</ref>

*[http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/11#34011002-1 Daniel 11: footnotes. NABRE]</ref> This is the view of the majority of Christian believers.<ref name=largest/>

   

   

'''Four Beasts''' [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%207&version=NABRE Daniel 7]

'''Four Beasts''' [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%207&version=NABRE Daniel 7]

   

   

Daniel saw 4 beasts. They were a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a different beast. These prophecies are often viewed as the same as the vision of the statue, with the lion being Neo-Babylon, the bear being Medo-Persia, the leopard being Greece, and the Beast being Rome; or the lion as the Ancient Kingdom of Babylon, the bear as the Kingdom of the Medes,<ref name=Medes/> the leopard as the Kingdom of Persia, and the Different Beast as the Kingdom of the Greeks, with Antiochus IV in particular as the little horn speaking great things who was suddenly broken after 2,300 evenings and mornings (8:9-14).

Daniel saw 4 beasts. They were a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a different beast.  

 

These prophecies are often viewed as the same as the vision of the statue, with the lion being Neo-Babylon, the bear being Medo-Persia, the leopard being Greece, and the Beast being Rome.

 

More prevalent is the view since the 3rd century of the lion as the Ancient Kingdom of Babylon with Nebuchadnezzar as its head, the bear as the Kingdom of the Medes,<ref name=Medes/> the leopard as the Kingdom of Persia, and the Different Beast as the Kingdom of the Greeks, with Antiochus IV in particular as the little horn speaking great things who was suddenly broken after 2,300 evenings and mornings (8:9-14).

See [[Literalist Bible chronology]]

See [[Literalist Bible chronology]]

'''Ram and He-Goat''' [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:2-45&version=NABRE Daniel 11:2-45]

'''Ram and He-Goat''' [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:2-45&version=NABRE Daniel 11:2-45]

These visions are of a Ram, a He-Goat, and a little horn. These are viewed often as Medo-Persia, Greece, and papal Rome; or as Medo-Persia with two horns (both great, but one, Persia, greater than the subordinated other, Medea), which was conquered by the He-Goat headed by Alexander (the ''notable'' or ''conspicuous'' single horn), with Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the little horn, broken "''without hand''" by no human hand. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:5&version=RSVCE 2 Maccabees 9:5] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:28&version=RSVCE 9:28]  

These visions are of a Ram, a He-Goat, and a little horn. These are viewed often as Medo-Persia, Greece, and papal Rome.

 

They are also viewed more prevalently since the 3rd century as Medo-Persia with two horns (both great, but one, Persia, greater than the subordinated other, Media), which was conquered by the He-Goat headed by Alexander (the ''notable'' or ''conspicuous'' single horn), with Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the little horn, broken "''without hand''" (by no human hand). [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:5&version=RSVCE 2 Maccabees 9:5] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:28&version=RSVCE 9:28]  

== Greek and Persian words ==

== Greek and Persian words ==

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

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

==Dispute on Authorship==

==Dispute on Authorship==

11:44 163 B.C.. News of the revolt in Judea enraged Antiochus in Persia. He departed, determined to destroy Jerusalem. (2 Maccabees 9:3-4; 1 Maccabees 6:5-7).

11:44 163 B.C.. News of the revolt in Judea enraged Antiochus in Persia. He departed, determined to destroy Jerusalem. (2 Maccabees 9:3-4; 1 Maccabees 6:5-7).

11:45 163 B.C.. The death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the mountains of Persia, between the Caspian Sea and Mount Zion (2 Maccabees 9:5-28; 1 Maccabees 6:8-9, 14-16).<ref name=11:45>163 B.C.. Antiochus the king died "in the 149th year" (163 B.C.) in the mountains somewhere between [http://www.seetheholyland.net/mount-zion/ mount Zion "''the glorious holy mountain''"] ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2048:1-2&version=KJV Psalms 48:1-2]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2050:2&version=KJV Psalms 50:2] and [http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/caspiansea.htm "''the'' <nowiki>[Caspian]</nowiki> ''sea''" ] in Persia. The Zagros Mountains (Zagros Folded Zone) between the Caspian Sea and Babylon is where Antiochus IV Epiphanes died according to 1 Macc. 6 and 2 Macc. 9, and Daniel 11:45. "''between the sea and the glorious holy mountain...he shall come to his end with none to help him.''"—"''...among the mountains in a strange land.''" (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains#mediaviewer/File:Zagros_Folded_Zone.jpg Map: Zagros Folded Zone: Zagros Mountains]) A majority of Biblical scholars maintain that Daniel wrongly prophesied that Antiochus would die in Palestine. Daniel's prophesy of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes "''among the mountains in a strange land''" ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:28&version=DRA 2 Maccabees 9:28]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:44-45&version=ESV Daniel 11:44-45]) is [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/controversy controverted]. Daniel 11:45 does not specify which "''sea''". Some students of the Bible [<small>source: "Daniel", S. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''</small>] identify Antiochus literally with Daniel 11:21-44, which accords with the description of his policies and actions in 1 and 2 Maccabees. 1 Maccabees 6:1-16 and 2 Maccabees 9:1-16, 28 shows that Antiochus died travelling on the great east-west highway ([http://www.ancient.eu/image/146/ the Silk Road]) running through Persia, northeast of Judea and Mount Zion and southwest of the southern shores of the [[Caspian Sea]], in the mountainous Zagros region of Persia between [http://everything2.com/title/Ecbatana Ecbatana] and Babylon. It is evident that he did not die in Palestine between Mount Zion and the [[Mediterranean Sea]]. Traditionally, "''the sea''" and "''the great sea''" in the Bible is the Mediterranean ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%201:4&version=ESV Joshua 1:4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%209:1&version=ESV Joshua 9:1]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2015:12&version=ESV Joshua 15:12] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2015:47&version=ESV Joshua 15:47]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2023:4&version=ESV Joshua 23:4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2011:11&version=ESV Isaiah 11:11]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2025:19-22&version=ESV Jeremiah 25:19-22]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2047:19&version=ESV Ezekiel 47:19]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%207:2-3&version=ESV Daniel 7:2-3]; compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joel%202:20&version=ESV Joel 2:20 "''eastern sea''" and "''western sea''",] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah%207:12&version=ESV Micah 7:12 "''from sea to sea''"]). This is the understanding of a majority of Old Testament Biblical scholars such as Choon-Leong Seow (C. L. Seow) [<small>''Daniel'', 2003, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, ISBN 978-0-664-25675-3</small>], and John J. Collins, Peter W. Flint, and others [<small>''[http://www.brill.com/book-daniel-volume-1-composition-and-reception The Book of Daniel: Volume 1 Composition and Reception]'', 2000, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-11675-7</small>] who hold that Daniel 11:45 refers to the mountains of Judea between Mount Zion and the Mediterranean Sea, or more specifically to Mount Zion, and conclude that the prophesy that Antiochus would die in Palestine "is totally inaccurate" since he died in Persia. Bible translations of this passage differ: some have Antiochus pitching his pavilion "''between the seas''", others have it "''on the glorious holy mountain''", while others more literally have it "''between the glorious holy mountain and the sea''" (see variant translations at [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-45.htm Daniel 11:45]). The conclusion of most Old Testament scholars is that the account in Daniel 11 is completely accurate through verse 44, but wrong in verse 45, and therefore it must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem. But this scholarly reading of "''the sea''" as the Mediterranean, and those translations having Antiochus' pavilion "''on/in the glorious holy mountain (Zion)''" in Palestine, are simply dismissed as wrong by a literalist plain reading of the Biblical text ([http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/context context]) as it relates to the death of Antiochus among the mountains of Persia "''in a strange land''" between the Caspian Sea and Mount Zion. —''Sources'': <br/> "Mediterranean Sea", Philip Lee, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 1097–1098. <br/>"Daniel, book of", Stephen R. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 386–388. <br/> "Antiochus", ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 76–77. <br/> New American Bible, Daniel 11:5-45 and footnote; 1 Maccabees 6:1 and footnote; 2 Maccabees 9:1-28 and footnote.</ref> He had departed from [http://www.bible-history.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_ecbatana.html Ecbatana (see map)] and was driving furiously toward Jerusalem when he was struck down. ''See'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains#mediaviewer/File:Zagros_Folded_Zone.jpg Zagros Mountains].<br/> 1 Maccabees 6:1-16; 2 Maccabees 9:1-28; Daniel 7:26; 11:44-45; 12:11.<br/>Antiochus died ''the thousand two hundred and ninetieth day from the time that the continual burnt offering was taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate was set up''. Daniel 12:11. A swift messenger set out, and brought the news to Jerusalem 45 days later (''a [http://www.evi.com/q/distance_from_jerusalem_to_ecbatana journey of 800 miles], average 17.77 miles per day''). "Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." (The 1,290th day + 45 days = the 1,335th day.)</ref>

11:45 163 B.C.. The death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the mountains of Persia, between the Caspian Sea and Mount Zion (2 Maccabees 9:5-28; 1 Maccabees 6:8-9, 14-16).<ref name=11:45>163 B.C.. Antiochus the king died "in the 149th year" (163 B.C.) in the mountains somewhere between [http://www.seetheholyland.net/mount-zion/ mount Zion "''the glorious holy mountain''"] ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2048:1-2&version=KJV Psalms 48:1-2]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2050:2&version=KJV Psalms 50:2] and [http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/caspiansea.htm "''the'' <nowiki>[Caspian]</nowiki> ''sea''" ] in Persia. The Zagros Mountains (Zagros Folded Zone) between the Caspian Sea and Babylon is where Antiochus IV Epiphanes died according to 1 Macc. 6 and 2 Macc. 9, and Daniel 11:45. "''between the sea and the glorious holy mountain...he shall come to his end with none to help him.''"—"''...among the mountains in a strange land.''" (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains#mediaviewer/File:Zagros_Folded_Zone.jpg Map: Zagros Folded Zone: Zagros Mountains]) A majority of Biblical scholars maintain that Daniel wrongly prophesied that Antiochus would die in Palestine. Daniel's prophesy of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes "''among the mountains in a strange land''" ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:28&version=DRA 2 Maccabees 9:28]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:44-45&version=ESV Daniel 11:44-45]) is [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/controversy controverted]. Daniel 11:45 does not specify which "''sea''". Some students of the Bible [<small>source: "Daniel", S. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''</small>] identify Antiochus literally with Daniel 11:21-44, which accords with the description of his policies and actions in 1 and 2 Maccabees. 1 Maccabees 6:1-16 and 2 Maccabees 9:1-16, 28 shows that Antiochus died travelling on the great east-west highway ([http://www.ancient.eu/image/146/ the Silk Road]) running through Persia, northeast of Judea and Mount Zion and southwest of the southern shores of the [[Caspian Sea]], in the mountainous Zagros region of Persia between [http://everything2.com/title/Ecbatana Ecbatana] and Babylon. It is evident that he did not die in Palestine between Mount Zion and the [[Mediterranean Sea]]. Traditionally, "''the sea''" and "''the great sea''" in the Bible is the Mediterranean ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%201:4&version=ESV Joshua 1:4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%209:1&version=ESV Joshua 9:1]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2015:12&version=ESV Joshua 15:12] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2015:47&version=ESV Joshua 15:47]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2023:4&version=ESV Joshua 23:4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2011:11&version=ESV Isaiah 11:11]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2025:19-22&version=ESV Jeremiah 25:19-22]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2047:19&version=ESV Ezekiel 47:19]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%207:2-3&version=ESV Daniel 7:2-3]; compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joel%202:20&version=ESV Joel 2:20 "''eastern sea''" and "''western sea''",] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah%207:12&version=ESV Micah 7:12 "''from sea to sea''"]). This is the understanding of a majority of Old Testament Biblical scholars such as Choon-Leong Seow (C. L. Seow) [<small>''Daniel'', 2003, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, ISBN 978-0-664-25675-3</small>], and John J. Collins, Peter W. Flint, and others [<small>''[http://www.brill.com/book-daniel-volume-1-composition-and-reception The Book of Daniel: Volume 1 Composition and Reception]'', 2000, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-11675-7</small>] who hold that Daniel 11:45 refers to the mountains of Judea between Mount Zion and the Mediterranean Sea, or more specifically to Mount Zion, and conclude that the prophesy that Antiochus would die in Palestine "is totally inaccurate" since he died in Persia. Bible translations of this passage differ: some have Antiochus pitching his pavilion "''between the seas''", others have it "''on the glorious holy mountain''", while others more literally have it "''between the glorious holy mountain and the sea''" (see variant translations at [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-45.htm Daniel 11:45]). The conclusion of most Old Testament scholars is that the account in Daniel 11 is completely accurate through verse 44, but wrong in verse 45, and therefore it must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem. But this scholarly reading of "''the sea''" as the Mediterranean, and those translations having Antiochus' pavilion "''on/in the glorious holy mountain (Zion)''" in Palestine, are simply dismissed as wrong by a literalist plain reading of the Biblical text ([http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/context context]) as it relates to the death of Antiochus among the mountains of Persia "''in a strange land''" between the Caspian Sea and Mount Zion. —''Sources'': <br/> "Mediterranean Sea", Philip Lee, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 1097–1098. <br/>"Daniel, book of", Stephen R. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 386–388. <br/> "Antiochus", ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 76–77. <br/> New American Bible, Daniel 11:5-45 and footnote; 1 Maccabees 6:1 and footnote; 2 Maccabees 9:1-28 and footnote.</ref> He had departed from [http://www.bible-history.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_ecbatana.html Ecbatana (see map)] and was driving furiously toward Jerusalem when he was struck down. ''See'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains#mediaviewer/File:Zagros_Folded_Zone.jpg Zagros Mountains]. 1 Maccabees 6:1-16; 2 Maccabees 9:1-28; Daniel 7:26; 11:44-45; 12:11.<br/>Antiochus died ''the thousand two hundred and ninetieth day from the time that the continual burnt offering was taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate was set up''. Daniel 12:11. A swift messenger set out, and brought the news to Jerusalem 45 days later (''a [http://www.evi.com/q/distance_from_jerusalem_to_ecbatana journey of 800 miles], average 17.77 miles per day''). "Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." (The 1,290th day + 45 days = the 1,335th day.)</ref>

===Fundamentalist textual analysis===

===Fundamentalist textual analysis===

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

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

canon of the OT as selected by ''the consensus of the Jews after the time of Christ'', which may not be a very useful instrument to "one who does not have faith" (a variation of the [[No True Scotsman|logical fallacy of No true Scotsman]]. The [[Masoretic Text|MT]] (from the 8th century) does not include these texts. The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not include them either, although they admit it is true that when Jerome translated the OT he was "forced" (''against his will, they add') to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The Masoretic text is clear on this. But what is to be included in the LXX is not clear to them.  

canon of the OT as selected by ''the consensus of the Jews after the time of Christ'', which may not be a very useful instrument to "one who does not have faith" (a variation of the [[No true Scotsman|logical fallacy of No true Scotsman]]. The [[Masoretic Text|MT]] (from the 8th century) does not include these texts. The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not include them either, although they admit it is true that when Jerome translated the OT he was "forced" (''against his will, they add'') to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The Masoretic text is clear on this. But what is to be included in the LXX is not clear to them.  

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 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.

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 deuterocanonical books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite what they see as the "error" made by the students of these versions who obviously began to interpret these "apocryphal" books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the deuterocanonical books are seen as "clearly not on the plane of the Holy Scriptures". They maintain that their examination of the content of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' (Daniel chapter 14) and the examination of the external evidences surrounding that chapter (book) boldly justifies to them the exclusion of this work from the collection of texts which 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 and 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; according to their reading the accounts in the text appear to contradict details accredited to Daniel himself (''written in the third person''); and they see that the third person style of narrating a prophet's transport across time and space all makes the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, and non-inspired of God.

The argument that the dragon in this account must have been an idol of a serpent is contested by R.H. Charles in his introduction to ''Bel and the Dragon.''<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 653</ref> Such an argument is wholly without measure since plainly from the text the creature is a living creature, and from the text it is not just a large serpent. These clear distinctions are brought into controversy by those 'scholars' who believe that any dragon type creature would have been extinct millions of years before this writing. Such a long road of presuppositions paved with an evolutionary theory often cloud simple facts from the 'scholar's' view. There is ample evidence that dragon like creatures (today given the name dinosaur, meaning 'terrible lizard') were prevalent in the Babylonian era.<ref>Ham, Snelling, Wieland, The Answers Book, Pg. 21-39.</ref>

Fundamentalist Christian scholars see the "questionable" authorship, the date of writing, the language and preservation by the Jews as clearly indicating to them that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself had no access to or at least no regard for the book (the 14th chapter of Daniel) now called ''Bel and the Dragon'', even if rabbinical Greek copies before the time of Christ included that chapter of Daniel as an integral part of the book. They maintain that the simple evidences in this work which fundamentalists present clearly justify to them "the conclusion that was made 2400 years ago", that ''Bel and the Dragon'' is not Holy Scripture, but "an account of events in Daniel's life, made by those outside the inner circle of God". 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 have pointed out that although scholars often say we know more now than we ever have about the transmittal of the Bible. This is not necessarily true. The scholars and scribes of the 1st through the 3rd century A.D. knew far more than any modern scholar is willing to credit them, since they were closer in time to the origin of the writings than we are. After the turn of the century Biblical scholars have been seen as overtly influenced by the philosophy of evolution to where they consider these early scholars as ignorant cave men, and themselves as highly evolved intellectuals. There is still an inbred reluctance in modern scholarship to acknowledge that these were holy men of God writing as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God, and not bumbling editors collecting and evolving and editing writings over thousands of years that developed into a book now called a Bible. The 19th century German Biblical scholars began the over-developed and prejudiced theory embraced by radical liberalist scholars over the past 150 years.

 

 

Fundamentalists have pointed out that although scholars often say we know more now than we ever have about the transmittal of the Bible, this is not necessarily true. The scholars and scribes of A.D. the 1st through the 3rd century knew far more than any modern scholar is willing to allow them, since they were closer in time to the origin of the writings than we are. After the turn of the century Biblical scholars have been seen as transparently influenced by the philosophy of evolution to where they consider these ancient early scholars as ignorant cave men, and themselves as highly evolved intellectuals. There is still an inbred reluctance in modern scholarship to acknowledge that these were holy men of God writing as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God, and not bumbling editors collecting and evolving and editing writings over thousands of years that developed into a book now called a Bible. The 19th century German Biblical scholars originated the over-developed and prejudiced theory which has been embraced by radical liberalist scholars over the past 150 years.<ref>Beginning in the 19th century [[Heinrich Julius Holtzmann]] together with other German scholars, abusing the literary tools of historical-critical methods in opposition to Christian tradition, declared on their authority as German scholars that Mark's gospel was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. This theory is called "Marcan priority", and it was aggressively spread as part of [[Otto von Bismarck|Bismarck's]] anti-Catholic ''Kulturkampf'' policy.

In the view of fundamentalist Biblical scholars the accounts in Daniel 13 and 14 emphasize the craftiness of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. They acknowledge that this in itself is permissible, since it often occurs in other accounts of canonical Bible characters. Their concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and that it appears to them to contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, and as certainly not authored by Daniel, although they admit that it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in third person. The story has as its theme what appears to them to be the craftiness of Daniel to expose false idol worship, which others accept as the expression of invincible divine wisdom. Fundamentalists point out that there is no need here to reject these events as fable or fiction, that indeed it is very likely that many instances of Daniel's wisdom, wit and ability were not recorded by Daniel himself, but were told and retold outside the palaces of the Babylonian kingdom and likely recorded in writing. Daniel did not likely exist day to day with a tremendous miracle of deliverance to account or relate in his personal journal each week. However the passing on of what they regard as his "less miraculous, more crafty" daily existence, as interpreted by them, was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. They maintain that if the Jewish scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era after the time of Christ thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing, they certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding their decision.

In the view of fundamentalist Biblical scholars the accounts in Daniel 13 and 14 emphasize the craftiness of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. They acknowledge that this in itself is permissible, since it often occurs in other accounts of canonical Bible characters. Their concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and that it appears to them to contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, and as certainly not authored by Daniel, although they admit that it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in third person. The story has as its theme what appears to them to be the craftiness of Daniel to expose false idol worship, which others accept as the expression of invincible divine wisdom. Fundamentalists point out that there is no need here to reject these events as fable or fiction, that indeed it is very likely that many instances of Daniel's wisdom, wit and ability were not recorded by Daniel himself, but were told and retold outside the palaces of the Babylonian kingdom and likely recorded in writing. Daniel did not likely exist day to day with a tremendous miracle of deliverance to account or relate in his personal journal each week. However the passing on of what they regard as his "less miraculous, more crafty" daily existence, as interpreted by them, was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. They maintain that if the Jewish scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era after the time of Christ thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing, they certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding their decision.

In the Latin Vulgate, a translation of the Septuagint (Greek Version of the OT), ''Bel and the Dragon'' is positioned as chapter 14 of Daniel. There are however, no extant early manuscripts that support this addition to the book. It is obvious to fundamentalists that the Hebrew scribes in charge of keeping the Holy Scriptures preserved within the Temple did not safeguard ''Bel and the Dragon'' as Scripture, (i.e no Hebrew version of the book is in existence, it simply was not included nor kept by the scribes.)

In the Latin Vulgate, a translation of the Septuagint (Greek Version of the OT), ''Bel and the Dragon'' is positioned as chapter 14 of Daniel. There are however, no extant early manuscripts that support this addition to the book. It is obvious to fundamentalists that the Hebrew scribes in charge of keeping the Holy Scriptures preserved within the Temple did not safeguard ''Bel and the Dragon'' as Scripture, (i.e no Hebrew version of the book is in existence, it simply was not included nor kept by the scribes.)

It is clear that Origen, the Alexandrine 2nd century biblical scholar (c. A.D. 185-254 ) clearly made a separation between the protocanonical books of the OT and the [[Deuterocanonicals|deuterocanonical]] books,<ref>Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefore before A.D. 231, the eminent biblical scholar Origen (c. A.D. 185-254) wrote an exposition of Psalm 1 in which he included 'a catalogue of the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament'. He comments that 'there are twenty-two canonical books as the Hebrews tradition them, the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet'. He proceeds to give the titles in Greek, followed by a transliteration of the Hebrew names:" This, however, is evidence only of the usage of the Jews after the time of Christ, and after the beginning of the 3rd century. Origen did not here list the Holy Scriptures of the ''Christian'' Bible.</ref> however he does defend the Septuagint additions to Daniel, i.e. Susanna.<ref>Origen, ''Ad Africanum'' 9: The Hebrew copies lack the Septuagint readings because the elders "hid from the knowledge of the people" passages that might bring discredit on them, e.g. ''The story of Susanna''. Some of the passages "have been preserved in their non-canonical writings". For an ET of ''Ad Africanum'' cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.</ref> In this defense he infers that these additions were kept out because of embarrassment of the scholars (elders) who determined which books were to be canonical. This defense is seen by fundamentalists as clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. Fundamentalists say this process of canonization is greatly exaggerated and misused by scholars who are bent on defaming the Bible, that they make as though it were a council that convened, debated and voted about whether a book was acceptable, discarding some and including others. But they assert instead that in actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<ref>Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house,... and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.</ref> They assume without question that the shorter version of the Book of Daniel is the original composition and not a later abbreviated form of a longer text written originally by Daniel, which he sealed and turned over to the scribes for preservation, but now lost, whose full message and contents after it was unsealed were originally copied in Aramaic, and have been divinely preserved in Greek translation by rabbinical scholars before the time of Christ, and transmitted in the Septuagint Old Testament text of the Greek Bible preserved from the 1st century to the present day, which the Jews rejected.

It is clear that Origen, the Alexandrine 2nd century biblical scholar (c. A.D. 185-254 ) made a distinct separation between the protocanonical books of the OT and the [[Deuterocanonicals|deuterocanonical]] books,<ref>Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefore before A.D. 231, the eminent biblical scholar Origen (c. A.D. 185-254) wrote an exposition of Psalm 1 in which he included 'a catalogue of the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament'. He comments that 'there are twenty-two canonical books as the Hebrews tradition them, the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet'. He proceeds to give the titles in Greek, followed by a transliteration of the Hebrew names:" This, however, is evidence only of the usage of the Jews after the time of Christ, and after the beginning of the 3rd century. Origen did not here list the Holy Scriptures of the ''Christian'' Bible.</ref> however he does defend the Septuagint additions to Daniel, i.e. Susanna.<ref>Origen, ''Ad Africanum'' 9: The Hebrew copies lack the Septuagint readings because the elders "hid from the knowledge of the people" passages that might bring discredit on them, e.g. ''The story of Susanna''. Some of the passages "have been preserved in their non-canonical writings". For an ET of ''Ad Africanum'' cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.</ref> In this defense he infers that these additions were kept out because of embarrassment of the scholars (elders) who determined which books were to be canonical. This defense is seen by fundamentalists as clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. Fundamentalists say this process of canonization is greatly exaggerated and misused by scholars who are bent on defaming the Bible, that they make as though it were a council that convened, debated and voted about whether a book was acceptable, discarding some and including others. But they assert instead that in actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<ref>Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house,... and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.</ref> They assume without question that the shorter version of the Book of Daniel is the original composition and not a later abbreviated form of a longer text written originally by Daniel, which he sealed and turned over to the scribes for preservation, but now lost, whose full message and contents after it was unsealed were originally copied in Aramaic, and have been divinely preserved in Greek translation by rabbinical scholars before the time of Christ, and transmitted in the Septuagint Old Testament text of the Greek Bible preserved from the 1st century to the present day, which the Jews rejected.

====External Evidence Summary====

====External Evidence Summary====

Although some manuscript versions of the Old Testament clearly treated the apocryphal books on a parallel plane with Holy Scripture, it is clear to fundamentalists that their predecessors did not. They see the external evidences apparent around ''Bel and the Dragon'' clearly, yet subjectively, point to a conclusion that this work was not highly regarded by those who were close to the prophets and scribes of the exile. The questions and suspicions about its authorship, date and original language indicate to them that those who wanted ''Bel'' included with the book of Daniel were acting more on other motivations than on the evidences on hand. They conclude that this error was swallowed by a whole universal (Catholic) church including all of its trained Biblical scholars who were experts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but that the evidence to support this addition to the book of Daniel is just not there.

Although some manuscript versions of the Old Testament clearly treated the apocryphal books on a parallel plane with Holy Scripture, it is clear to fundamentalists that their predecessors did not. They see the external evidences apparent around ''Bel and the Dragon'' clearly, yet subjectively, point to a conclusion that this work was not highly regarded by those who were close to the prophets and scribes of the exile. The questions and suspicions about its authorship, date and original language indicate to them that those who wanted ''Bel'' included with the book of Daniel were acting more on other motivations than on the evidences on hand. They conclude that this error was swallowed by a whole universal (Catholic) church including all of its trained Biblical scholars who were experts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but that the evidence to support this addition to the book of Daniel is just not there.

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

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

===The historical milieu===

===The historical milieu===

Historical critics observe that the Book of Daniel was not written immediately after the Exile. Some of them say the post-exilic prophets do not appear to know this book, for the four horns, to which Israel's enemies are compared in Zechariah 1:21, are read as having a local meaning, representing the four points of the compass, and do not appear to them to refer to the successive kingdoms, as in Daniel 2:29 and following. The same is the case with the four chariots in Zechariah 6:1 and following. These passages are not exactly parallel with the predictions in Daniel, but it is also stated in Haggai 2:6-9 and following, that within "a little while" the Messianic time will come. And even Ben Sira says expressly (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 49:15) that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph, "a statement he could not have made had he known the Book of Daniel", since Daniel is there in the book of his name drawn as a man who, like Joseph, rose to be prime minister by virtue of his ability to interpret dreams. However, this observation overlooks the fact that Ben Sira in the same chapter of praise of Joseph (49) also omits Jeremiah and the Twelve (Minor Prophets). In the chapters of praise of famous men, Ben Sira (Sirach 44–50) speaks of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, David, Joshua son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the Judges, Samuel, Nathan, David again, Solomon, Elijah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezekiel, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Joseph, Shem and Seth, and Adam, and of Simon the high priest son of Onias, and even of himself, Jesus the son of Sirach, son of Eleazar, of Jerusalem. Ben Sira does not mention ''the Twelve'' (the Minor Prophets, Hosea through Malachi), he does not mention ''Jeremiah'', and he does not mention ''Daniel''. The fact he does not mention them is no evidence that he "could not have known" the books of the Prophets Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Historical critics observe that the Book of Daniel was not written immediately after the Exile. Some of them say the post-exilic prophets do not appear to know this book, for as they see them the four horns, to which Israel's enemies are compared in Zechariah 1:21, read as having a local meaning, representing the four points of the compass, and do not appear to them to refer to the successive kingdoms, as in Daniel 2:29 and following. The same is the case with the four chariots in Zechariah 6:1 and following. They apparently see the imagery set forth in these books as symbolic literary constructions by the authors and not as faithful descriptions of actual visions which they witnessed. These literary critics say these passages are not exactly parallel with the predictions in Daniel, but it is also stated in Haggai 2:6-9 and following, that within "a little while" the Messianic time will come. And even Ben Sira says expressly (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 49:15) that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph, "''a statement he could not have made had he known the Book of Daniel''", since Daniel is there in the book of Daniel drawn as a man who, like Joseph, rose to be prime minister by virtue of his ability to interpret dreams. However, this critical observation omits the fact that Ben Sira in the same chapter which praises Joseph (49) also omits Jeremiah and the Twelve (the Minor Prophets). In Sirach 44–50, the chapters of praise of famous men, Ben Sira speaks (in the following order) of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, David, Joshua son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the Judges, Samuel, Nathan, David again, Solomon, Elijah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezekiel, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Joseph, Shem and Seth, and Adam, and of Simon the high priest son of Onias, and even of himself, Jesus the son of Sirach, son of Eleazar, of Jerusalem. Ben Sira does not mention ''the Twelve'' (the Minor Prophets, Hosea through Malachi); he does not mention ''Jeremiah''; and he does not mention ''Daniel''. The fact that he does not mention them is no evidence that Ben Sira c. 150 B.C. "could not have known" the books of the Prophets Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. The fact that he does not mention Daniel is no evidence that his saying (that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph) is "''a statement he could not have made had he known the Book of Daniel''". The Book of Daniel was unsealed in 164 B.C..

Many historical-critics maintain that this work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal. The persecution was occasioned by Antiochus’s efforts to unify his kingdom, in face of the rising power of Rome, by continuing the hellenization begun by Alexander the Great; Antiochus tried to force Jews to adopt Greek ways, including religious practices. Severe penalties, including death, were exacted against those who refused (see, for example, 1 Maccabees 1:41–63). The stories appear to them to bristle with historical problems and have the character of historical novels rather than factual records. They assure us that what is more important than the question of historicity, and closer to the intention of the author, is the fact that persecuted Jews of the second century B.C. would quickly see the application of these stories to their own plight.

Many historical-critics maintain that this work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal. The persecution was occasioned by Antiochus’s efforts to unify his kingdom, in face of the rising power of Rome, by continuing the hellenization begun by Alexander the Great; Antiochus tried to force Jews to adopt Greek ways, including religious practices. Severe penalties, including death, were exacted against those who refused (see, for example, 1 Maccabees 1:41–63). The stories appear to them to bristle with historical problems and have the character of historical novels rather than factual records. They assure us that what is more important than the question of historicity, and closer to the intention of the author, is the fact that persecuted Jews of the second century B.C. would quickly see the application of these stories to their own plight.

Nor would a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors have written the stories of the Book of Daniel in the form in which they exist, since they contain many details that can not be harmonized with the data furnished in other historical sources. The first verse, for instance, appears to them to contradict other passages of the O. T. in saying that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and besieged it. For the verb means here, as elsewhere, "come," "arrive," and cannot be equivalent to "break up"; this is also apparently proved by the context of 1:1. But Jeremiah announced the coming of the Chaldeans only in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a year that is expressly designated, in Jeremiah 25:1, 46:2, as the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar. The date, "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" (Daniel 1:1), is seen as probably derived from 2 Kings 24:1 and following, where it is said that Jehoiakim, after having been subject to Nebuchadnezzar three years, turned and rebelled, and was attacked by predatory bands of the Chaldeans and their vassals. As no date is given for the beginning of this period of three years, it might be supposed that it began with the accession of Jehoiakim. The supposition being made, it could be said that the Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar would naturally be their leader. But these statements in Daniel 1:1 are seen as erroneously drawn from 2 Kings 24:1 and following, and as contradicting those found in Jeremiah 25:1, 9, and 46:2. Such discrepancies are not unparalleled in the O. T. (compare Eduard König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," pages 172 et seq.). Nor can Nebuchadnezzar's madness (Daniel 4:12 et seq.) during seven years be taken literally by many of them. Belshazzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, is mentioned again (5:11, 13, 18, 22) in a way which historical critics say compels the inference that he really was such. This is tentatively explained on the ground that during the long period of oral tradition it is possible that the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar. The same thing occurred in Baruch 1:11, and Sennacherib is mentioned as the son of Enemessar (i.e. Shalmaneser) in Tobit 1:15, Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) being passed over. It is also well known that the period 516-331 B.C., of which only a few events are recorded, was contracted to thirty-four years in computing the time elapsed since the Creation (Seder 'Olam R. 30).

Nor would a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors have written the stories of the Book of Daniel in the form in which they exist, since they appear to historical-critical scholars to contain many details that can not be harmonized with the data furnished in other historical sources. The first verse, for instance, appears to them to contradict other passages of the Old Testament in saying that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and besieged it. For the verb means here, as elsewhere, "come," "arrive," and cannot be equivalent to "break up"; this is also apparently proved by the context of 1:1. But Jeremiah announced the coming of the Chaldeans only in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a year that is expressly designated, in Jeremiah 25:1, 46:2, as the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar. The date, "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" (Daniel 1:1), is seen as probably derived from 2 Kings 24:1 and following, where it is said that Jehoiakim, after having been subject to Nebuchadnezzar three years, turned and rebelled, and was attacked by predatory bands of the Chaldeans and their vassals. As no date is given for the beginning of this period of three years, critical scholars suggest that it might be supposed that the period began with the accession of Jehoiakim. The supposition being made, it could be said that the Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar would naturally be their leader. But these statements in Daniel 1:1 are seen by them as erroneously drawn from 2 Kings 24:1 and following, and as contradicting those found in Jeremiah 25:1, 9, and 46:2. Such discrepancies are not unparalleled in the Old Testament (compare Eduard König, "Einleitung ins Alte Testament," pages 172 et seq.). Nor can Nebuchadnezzar's madness (Daniel 4:12 et seq.) during seven years be taken literally by many of them. Belshazzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, is mentioned again (5:11, 13, 18, 22) in a way which historical critics say compels the inference that he really was such. This is tentatively explained on the ground that during the long period of oral tradition "it is possible" that the unimportant kings of Babylon "might easily have been forgotten", and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchadnezzar. The same thing occurred in Baruch 1:11, and Sennacherib is mentioned as the son of Enemessar (Shalmaneser) in Tobit 1:15, with Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) being passed over. It is also well known that the period 516-331 B.C., of which only a few events are recorded, was contracted to thirty-four years in computing the time elapsed since the Creation in one Jewish chronology (Seder 'Olam R. 30).

This assertion that the Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes appears to them to be supported by the following data: The kingdom which is symbolized by the he goat (8:5 and following) is expressly named as the "kingdom of Yawan [Javan]"—that is, the Grecian kingdom (8:21) the great horn being its first king, Alexander the Great (definitely stated in Seder "Olam R. 30), and the little horn being Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). This kingdom was to persecute the host of the saints "unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings" (8:14, R.V.); that is, "half-days," or 1,150 days; and Epiphanes did, in fact, profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem for about that length of time, from Kislew 15, 168, to Kislew 25,165 (1 Maccabees 1:57, 4:52). The little horn described in Daniel 8:9-12, 23-25 has the same general characteristics as the little horn in 7:8, 20; hence the same ruler is designated in both passages. The well-known passage 9:23-27 also points to the same period. They emphasize that the first and imperative rule in interpreting it is to begin the period of the seventy times seven units (A.V. "seventy weeks") with the first period of seven (9:25), and to let the second period, the "sixty-two times seven units," follow this; for if this second period (the sixty-two weeks) is reckoned as beginning again from the very beginning, the third period, the "one week," must be carried back in the same way. Furthermore, the context appears to them to demand that the origin of the prediction concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem be sought in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and the parallel passage in Jeremiah 29:10. The "anointed," the "prince," mentioned after the first seven times seven units, "must be Cyrus" (not Onias), who is called the anointed of the Lord in Isaiah 45:1 also. He concluded the first seven weeks of years by issuing the decree of liberation, and the time that elapsed between the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem (586) and the year 538 was just about forty-nine years (7 × 7 = 49). The duration of the sixty-two times seven units (434 years) does not correspond with the time 538–171 (367 years); but the chronological knowledge of that age was not very exact. The Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Meyer, p. 104) computed the Persian rule to have lasted fifty-two years. This is all the more evident as the last period of seven units must include the seven years 171–165 (see "''Rev. Et. Juives''," xix. 202 et seq.). This week of years began with the murder of an anointed one (compare Leviticus 4:3 et seq. on the anointing of the priest)—namely, the legitimate high priest Onias III—and it was in the second half of this week of years that the Temple of the Lord was desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in place of the Lord's altar for burnt offering (see 1 Maccabees 1:54).

This assertion that the Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes appears to them to be supported by the following data:

:The kingdom which is symbolized by the he goat (8:5 and following) is expressly named as the "kingdom of Yawan [Javan]"—that is, the Grecian kingdom (8:21) the great horn being its first king, Alexander the Great (definitely stated in Seder "Olam R. 30), the little horn being Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). This kingdom was to persecute the host of the saints "unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings" (8:14, R.V.); that is, "half-days," or 1,150 days; and Epiphanes did, in fact, profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem for about that length of time, from Kislew 15, 168, to Kislew 25,165 (1 Maccabees 1:57, 4:52). The little horn described in Daniel 8:9-12, 23-25 has the same general characteristics as the little horn in 7:8, 20; hence the same ruler is designated in both passages. The well-known passage 9:23-27 also points to the same period.  

They emphasize that the first and imperative rule in interpreting it is to begin the period of the seventy times seven units (A.V. "seventy weeks") with the first period of seven (9:25), and to let the second period, the "sixty-two times seven units," follow this; for if this second period (the sixty-two weeks) is reckoned as beginning again from the very beginning, the third period, the "one week," must be carried back in the same way. Furthermore, the context appears to them to demand that the origin of the prediction concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem be sought in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and the parallel passage in Jeremiah 29:10. The "anointed," the "prince," mentioned after the first seven times seven units, "must be Cyrus" (not Onias), who is called the anointed of the Lord in Isaiah 45:1 also. He concluded the first seven weeks of years by issuing the decree of liberation, and the time that elapsed between the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem (586) and the year 538 was just about forty-nine years (7 × 7 = 49). The duration of the sixty-two times seven units (434 years) does not correspond with the time 538–171 (367 years); but the chronological knowledge of that age was not very exact. The Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Meyer, p. 104) computed the Persian rule to have lasted fifty-two years. This is all the more evident as the last period of seven units must include the seven years 171–165 (see "''Rev. Et. Juives''," xix. 202 et seq.). This week of years began with the murder of an anointed one (compare Leviticus 4:3 et seq. on the anointing of the priest)—namely, the legitimate high priest Onias III—and it was in the second half of this week of years that the Temple of the Lord was desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in place of the Lord's altar for burnt offering (see 1 Maccabees 1:54).

===Qumran manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel===

===Qumran manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel===

====The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and the Protocanonical Book of Daniel====

====The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and the Protocanonical Book of Daniel====

   

   

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

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

   

   

These doubts and uncertainties about the canonicity of Daniel among the Qumran people can now be laid aside for good. They have been based largely on the "roughly square proportions of the columns of 1QDana and because Pap6QDan is written on papyrus" (Ulrich 1987:19). But professor Ulrich now says,

These doubts and uncertainties about the canonicity of Daniel among the Qumran people can now be laid aside for good. They have been based largely on the "roughly square proportions of the columns of 1QDana and because Pap6QDan is written on papyrus" (Ulrich 1987:19). But professor Ulrich now says,

==Classic Commentaries on Daniel online==

==Classic Commentaries on Daniel online==

===[[Cornelius à Lapide|à Lapede]] Great Commentary on the Bible 1681 Online===

===[[Cornelius à Lapide|à Lapede]] Great Commentary on the Bible 1681 Online (Latin)===

The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide (8 vols.) by Cornelius à Lapide  • John Hodges, John Grant 1887–1908<ref>[http://www.academia.edu/7080496/Cornelius_a_Lapide_and_Catholic_Hebrew_Studies_after_Trent Cornelius a Lapide and Catholic Hebrew studies after Trent. An Essay Presented at the Renaissance Society of American Annual Meeting, March 27, 2014. New York, NY.]</ref>

The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide (8 vols.) by Cornelius à Lapide  • John Hodges, John Grant 1887–1908<ref>[http://www.academia.edu/7080496/Cornelius_a_Lapide_and_Catholic_Hebrew_Studies_after_Trent Cornelius a Lapide and Catholic Hebrew studies after Trent. An Essay Presented at the Renaissance Society of American Annual Meeting, March 27, 2014. New York, NY.]</ref>