Changes

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%208:2-25&version=NABRE Daniel 8:2-25]

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

These visions are of a Ram, a He-Goat, and a little horn. These are viewed often as Medo-Persia, Greece, and [[Pope|papal]] Rome "broken".  

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]  

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]  

# The prophet Ezekiel testifies that Daniel was known for his wisdom and righteousness (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3).<ref name="d"/><p></p>

# The prophet Ezekiel testifies that Daniel was known for his wisdom and righteousness (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3).<ref name="d"/><p></p>

# The character and records of the book are also entirely in harmony with the times and circumstances in which the author lived.<ref name="d"/><p></p>

# The character and records of the book are also entirely in harmony with the times and circumstances in which the author lived.<ref name="d"/><p></p>

# The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, just such as might be expected.<ref name="d"/> Certain portions (Dan. 2:4; 7) are written in the Chaldee ([[Aramaic]]) language, and the portions written in Hebrew are in a style and form having a close affinity with the later books of the Old Testament, especially with that of Ezra.<ref name="d"/> The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Chaldee, passing from the one to the other just as his subject required.<ref name="d"/> This is in strict accordance with the position of the author and of the people for whom his book was written.<ref name="d"/> That Daniel is the writer of this book is also testified to in the book itself (7:1, 28; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1, 2; 12:4, 5).<ref name="d"/>

# The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, just such as might be expected.<ref name="d"/> Certain portions (Dan. 2:4—7:28) are written in the Chaldee ([[Aramaic]]) language, and the portions written in Hebrew are in a style and form having a close affinity with the later books of the Old Testament, especially with that of Ezra.<ref name="d"/> The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Chaldee, passing from the one to the other just as his subject required.<ref name="d"/> This is in strict accordance with the position of the author and of the people for whom his book was written.<ref name="d"/> That Daniel is the writer of this book is also testified to in the book itself (7:1, 28; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1, 2; 12:4, 5).<ref name="d"/>

Additionally, findings in the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] dating to the 4th century B.C. referred to Daniel as a prophet, which supports the traditional view, as it is unlikely that Daniel would have been accepted as a prophet had the book been written only several years previously rather than several centuries (400 years) previously.<ref>[http://www.harvardhouse.com/Daniel_date-written.htm When was Daniel Written? Evidence Supporting 6th Century BCE Authorship Date After Removing Naturalist Bias]</ref> However, the Jews never accepted the Book of Daniel among the Nevi'im, the Prophets, but placed it among the [[Bible#The Old Testament|Ketuvim, the Writings]]. See [[Biblical Canon#Palestinian canon (A.D. 4th century)|Palestinian canon (A.D. 4th century)]]

Additionally, findings in the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] dating to the 4th century B.C. referred to Daniel as a prophet, which supports the traditional view, as it is unlikely that Daniel would have been accepted as a prophet had the book been written only several years previously rather than several centuries (400 years) previously.<ref>[http://www.harvardhouse.com/Daniel_date-written.htm When was Daniel Written? Evidence Supporting 6th Century BCE Authorship Date After Removing Naturalist Bias]</ref> However, the Jews never accepted the Book of Daniel among the Nevi'im, the Prophets, but placed it among the [[Bible#The Old Testament|Ketuvim, the Writings]]. See [[Biblical Canon#Palestinian canon (A.D. 4th century)|Palestinian canon (A.D. 4th century)]]

==Dispute on Canonicity==

==Dispute on Canonicity==

:''See [[Logical fallacy]]''

:''See [[Biblical Canon]] and [[Logical fallacy]]''

 

Dr. John Oakes <ref>See [http://evidenceforchristianity.org/about/ About Dr. Oakes.] PhD in chemical physics.</ref> represents the view of many Christians who reject the rabbinical additions to Daniel as not inspired or reliable "for at least three reasons".

Dr. John Oakes <ref>See [http://evidenceforchristianity.org/about/ About Dr. Oakes.] PhD in chemical physics.</ref> represents the view of many Christians who reject the rabbinical additions to Daniel as not inspired or reliable "for at least three reasons".

:1. The Jews, the arbiters of the Old Testament canon do not include them.

:1. The Jews, the arbiters of the Old Testament canon do not include them.

:2. The additions were most likely not even originally in Hebrew or Aramaic and

:2. The additions were most likely not even originally in Hebrew or Aramaic.

:3. The actual content does not have the marks of inspired writing.

:3. The actual content does not have the marks of inspired writing.

===First objection: The Jews do not include the rabbinical additions to Daniel===

===First objection: The Jews do not include the rabbinical additions to Daniel===

This presents a problem. If the Jews have been so entrusted with the word of God that they had therefore been given the divine authority to determine the ''canon'' of sacred scripture, then the whole New Testament is excluded from the canon of the Holy Bible because it does not meet established rabbinical criteria for what is sacred inspired scripture. Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. The [[opinion]] of a Jewish council rendered after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ.

This presents a problem. The Alexandrian Jews before A.D. the 1st century recognized the Septuagint as the Bible of Israel, accepting the whole of the "Apocrypha" as canonical.<ref name=OriginalHebrew/> Evidence of this ancient B.C. Jewish opinion regarding the "Apocrypha" as canonical scripture is found in the fact that some Jews even today, such as those from Ethiopia, follow the same canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books the [[Protestant Reformation|Reformers]] rejected,<ref name=EncJud/> while they exclude all New Testament writings.

See [[Logical fallacy#Proof by authority|Logical fallacy of Proof by authority]]

In response to the rise of the Christian sect and the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, Jewish rabbis at the [[Council of Jamnia]] (some say there was no such council <ref name=Jamnia>[https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/00-introduction/text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spring 1976) 319-348. Copyright © 1976 by Westminster Theological Seminary. THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON, by Robert C. Newman] (faculty.gordon.edu)</ref>) in A.D. 90 discussed rejecting the Septuagint ''which Christians were using with great effect'' in favor of selected Hebrew language scriptural texts. Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Jamnia/Javneh/Jabneh. The [[opinion]] of a Jewish council rendered after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. If the Jews have been so entrusted with the word of God that they were therefore given the divine authority to also determine the ''canon'' of sacred scripture, then the whole New Testament is excluded from the canon of the Holy Bible because it does not meet established rabbinical criteria for what is sacred inspired scripture.

According to the ordinary reading of the New Testament and the consensus of the majority of Christians from the 1st century to this day, the authority of the kingdom of God had been wholly taken away from the Jews in the 1st century and given to the leaders of the Gentiles and Jews in Christ long before the Council of Jamnia. [[Stephen]] the first martyr for Christ testified to the Sanhedrin this fact by the Holy Spirit: <blockquote>"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it."</blockquote> The Apostle Paul himself testified that the Jews are no longer the arbiters of Holy Scripture, but instead that Christian leaders are to be accounted as "the stewards of the mysteries of God". See the testimony of the following scriptures of the Bible:

 

According to the ordinary reading of the New Testament and the consensus of the majority of Christians from the 1st century to this day, the authority of the kingdom of God had been wholly taken away from the Jews in the 1st century and given to the leaders of the Gentiles and Jews in Christ long before the Council of Jamnia. [[Stephen]] the first martyr for Christ testified to the Sanhedrin this fact by the Holy Spirit: <blockquote>"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:51-53 KJV</blockquote> The Apostle Paul himself testified that the Jews are no longer the arbiters of Holy Scripture, but instead that Christian leaders are to be accounted as "the stewards of the mysteries of God". See the testimony of the following scriptures of the Bible:

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:13-14&version=KJV Matthew 15:13-14]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:13-14&version=KJV Matthew 15:13-14]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016:18-19&version=KJV Matthew 16:18-19]

:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016:18-19&version=KJV Matthew 16:18-19]

[[Book of Sirach#The Prologue|Jesus ben Sira]] c. 150 B.C. observed that "''the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.''" ''See'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=sirach%201:1&version=DRA Sirach 1:1]

[[Book of Sirach#The Prologue|Jesus ben Sira]] c. 150 B.C. observed that "''the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.''" ''See'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=sirach%201:1&version=DRA Sirach 1:1]

In response to the rise of the Christian sect and the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, Jewish rabbis at the [[Council of Jamnia]] (some say there was no such council <ref>[https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/00-introduction/text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spring 1976) 319-348. Copyright © 1976 by Westminster Theological Seminary. THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON, by Robert C. Newman] (faculty.gordon.edu)</ref>) in A.D. 90 discussed rejecting the Septuagint ''which Christians were using with great effect'' in favor of selected Hebrew language scriptural texts, omitting certain books such as [[Book of Baruch|Baruch]], [[Judith]], [[Maccabees]], [[Book of Sirach|Sirach]], and [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]] (some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic <ref name=notHebrew/><ref name=HebrewAramaic>"some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic". Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus)]], [[Epistle of Jeremiah]] in the caves at [[Qumran]] near the [[Dead Sea]], the "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]", demonstrate that a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of a text included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures in the Septuagint and accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for its inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon. Additional factors also included consideration of evidence of content which supported Christian doctrine. Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 most certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See

The rabbinical  school of [[Johanan ben Zakkai]] at Jamnia (not a Council <ref name=Jamnia/>) in A.D. 90 discussed rejecting the Septuagint ''which Christians were using with great effect'' in favor of selected Hebrew language scriptural texts, omitting certain books such as [[Book of Baruch|Baruch]], [[Book of Judith|Judith]], [[Maccabee|Maccabees]] ([[1 Maccabees]], [[2 Maccabees]]), [[Book of Sirach|Sirach]], and [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]] (some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic <ref name=notHebrew/><ref name=HebrewAramaic>"some of these originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic". Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus)]], [[Epistle of Jeremiah]] in the caves at [[Qumran]] near the [[Dead Sea]], the "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]", demonstrate that a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of a text included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures in the Septuagint and accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for its inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon. Additional factors also included consideration of evidence of content which supported Christian doctrine. Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 most certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. ''See''—

*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]

*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]

*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf Background and History to the Apocrypha, by David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)

*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf Background and History to the Apocrypha, by David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)

*[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_origin.asp The Origin of the Apocrypha]

*[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_origin.asp The Origin of the Apocrypha]

*[https://books.google.com/books?id=dtlDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=apocryphal+books+having+evidence+of+hebrew+or+aramaic+origin&source=bl&ots=CkMPwQMciG&sig=y6w4tnI_wvIqyzCWqCoN3xo8mvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VGGcVP2RH4r2yQT7toKYAw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=apocryphal%20books%20having%20evidence%20of%20hebrew%20or%20aramaic%20origin&f=false The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, by Edwin Cone Bissell. Scribner, 1890. 680 pages], page 208ff, citing evidence that the "additions to Esther" were also translated from the Hebrew. (Google eBook)</ref> which were relatively recent Jewish contributions of the 3rd through the 1st centuries before Christ) which had become part of Jewish culture. Jamnia considered 4 criteria to determine which of the Writings - such as Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Song of Songs - should be retained for the Hebrew canon for Judaism:

*[https://books.google.com/books?id=dtlDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=apocryphal+books+having+evidence+of+hebrew+or+aramaic+origin&source=bl&ots=CkMPwQMciG&sig=y6w4tnI_wvIqyzCWqCoN3xo8mvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VGGcVP2RH4r2yQT7toKYAw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=apocryphal%20books%20having%20evidence%20of%20hebrew%20or%20aramaic%20origin&f=false The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, by Edwin Cone Bissell. Scribner, 1890. 680 pages], page 208ff, citing evidence that the "additions to Esther" were also translated from the Hebrew. (Google eBook)</ref>) which were relatively recent Jewish contributions of the 3rd through the 1st centuries before Christ and had become part of Jewish culture. The Jewish rabbis at Jamnia considered 4 adopted criteria (''found nowhere in the scriptures'') to determine which of the Writings - such as Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Song of Songs - should be retained for the Hebrew canon for Judaism:

:the book should conform to the Torah;  

:the book should conform to the Torah;  

:it was written before the time of Ezra (circa 450 BC);  

:it was written before the time of Ezra (circa 450 BC);  

:it was written in Hebrew;  

:it was written in Hebrew;  

:and it was composed in Judah or Israel.<ref>[http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html The Canon of the Old Testament]<br/>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canon.html The Old Testament Canon, by Peter Reed] (biblicalstudies.org.uk)</ref>

:and it was composed in Judah or Israel.<ref>[http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html The Canon of the Old Testament]<br/>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canon.html The Old Testament Canon, by Peter Reed] (biblicalstudies.org.uk)</ref>

Although some books of the Old Testament were discussed in Judea at the Pharisaic Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, the whole of the canon itself was not a topic of consideration and this group in fact had no decision-making power.<ref>[http://www.academia.edu/6811953/The_Jewish_Council_of_Jamnia_and_Its_Impact_on_the_Old_Testament_Canon_and_New_Testament_Studies The Jewish “Council” of Jamnia and Its Impact on the Old Testament Canon and New Testament Studies, Tim Gordon October 20, 2007] —(academia.edu/6811953) —''at the page site (which looks empty) scroll down to see the text''.<br/>Jack P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean By Jabneh?" The Journal of Bible and Religion XXXII, no. 2 (April 1964): 125-132<br/>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?] (catholicdefense.blogspot.com)<br/>[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/711-academies-in-palestine Jewish Encyclopedia. Academies in Palestine] (jewishencyclopedia.com)</ref> However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books.<ref name=EncJud/><ref name=EncJud/>

Although some books of the Old Testament were discussed in Judea at the Pharisaic Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, the whole of the canon itself was not a topic of consideration and this group in fact had no decision-making power.<ref>[http://www.academia.edu/6811953/The_Jewish_Council_of_Jamnia_and_Its_Impact_on_the_Old_Testament_Canon_and_New_Testament_Studies The Jewish “Council” of Jamnia and Its Impact on the Old Testament Canon and New Testament Studies, Tim Gordon October 20, 2007] —(academia.edu/6811953) —''at the page site (which looks empty) scroll down to see the text''.<br/>Jack P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean By Jabneh?" The Journal of Bible and Religion XXXII, no. 2 (April 1964): 125-132<br/>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?] (catholicdefense.blogspot.com)<br/>[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/711-academies-in-palestine Jewish Encyclopedia. Academies in Palestine] (jewishencyclopedia.com)</ref> However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia (Beta Israel),<ref>Ethiopian Jews—Beta Israel. The rise of Beta Israel dates back to the reign of King Solomon in the late Tenth Century B.C..<br/>—See [http://www.blackpast.org/gah/beta-israel Blackpast.org: Beta Israel](blackpast.org)</ref> follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books.<ref name=EncJud/>

===Third objection: The rabbinical additions do not have the "marks" of inspired writing===

===Third objection: The rabbinical additions do not have the "marks" of inspired writing===

This is the principle of "private judgment", which is highly subjective, and can be in error.<ref>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html '''Private Judgment''' [British Critic, July 1841]] (newmanreader.org)</ref> With regard to what texts belong in the Bible it is a certainty that the expertise and judgment of the ancients among the Jews before the time of Christ should not be lightly dismissed.<blockquote>"We attach great importance to the reading [text] of the Septuagint, because it was translated 280 years before Christ, by men who had every facility for ascertaining the real meaning of the Hebrew text, and their work was honoured by the cordial approbation of the Sanhedrim of Alexandria, at a time when Hebrew learning was at its highest state of perfection in that city."

This is based on the principle of "private judgment", which is highly subjective, and can be in error.<ref>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html '''Private Judgment''' [British Critic, July 1841]] (newmanreader.org)</ref> With regard to what texts belong in the Bible it is a certainty that the expertise and judgment of the ancients among the Jews before the time of Christ should not be lightly dismissed.<blockquote>"We attach great importance to the reading [text] of the Septuagint, because it was translated 280 years before Christ, by men who had every facility for ascertaining the real meaning of the Hebrew text, and their work was honoured by the cordial approbation of the Sanhedrim of Alexandria, at a time when Hebrew learning was at its highest state of perfection in that city."

:—John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book in the public domain</small></blockquote>  

:—John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book in the public domain</small></blockquote>  

The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as their Bible, accepted the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical.<ref name=OriginalHebrew/>  

The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as the Bible, accepted the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical and as having all the marks of inspired writing,<ref name=OriginalHebrew/> as did the Ethiopian Jews.<ref name=EncJud/> Jesus and the New Testament writers also quoted from the Septuagint Bible as from authoritative scripture having the marks of inspired writing.<ref name=LXX.NTquotes>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]. Jesus and the New Testament writers never quote ''Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes'', and ''Song of Songs'' (''Song of Solomon''). See [http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm A list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers.]</ref>

:

:

[[Marcion]],<ref>Marcion of Sinope (84 - c.160 A.D.). See [http://www.theopedia.com/Marcionism Theopedia: Marcionism] and [[http://www.theopedia.com/Marcion Theopedia: Marcion]]<br/>See also [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Marcionites] (newadvent.org)</ref> around A.D. 140 declared that the entire Old Testament was "obviously" not of God. He dismissed the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, he edited the Gospel of Luke to purify it, and he threw out four of Paul's 14 Epistles as writings contrary to the Gospel.<ref>See the [[Biblical Canon#Canon of Marcion (Heretic) c. 140|Canon of Marcion]]</ref> He was condemned as a heretic for his views about the nature of God and salvation.

[[Marcion]],<ref>Marcion of Sinope (84 - c.160 A.D.). See [http://www.theopedia.com/Marcionism Theopedia: Marcionism] and [[http://www.theopedia.com/Marcion Theopedia: Marcion]]<br/>See also [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Marcionites] (newadvent.org)</ref> around A.D. 140 declared that the entire Old Testament was "obviously" not of God. He dismissed the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, he edited the Gospel of Luke to purify it, and he threw out four of Paul's 14 Epistles as writings contrary to the Gospel.<ref>See the [[Biblical Canon#Canon of Marcion (Heretic) c. 140|Canon of Marcion]]</ref> He was condemned as a heretic for his views about the nature of God and salvation.

:"If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone'), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so:  Papist and ass are one and the same thing.  Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge.  Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom." <ref>Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.</ref>

:"If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone'), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so:  Papist and ass are one and the same thing.  Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge.  Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom." <ref>Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.</ref>

:

:

In 1546 at the [[Council of Trent]] the bishops of the Catholic Church [[dogma]]tically "added" the [[Deuterocanonicals]], the 7 disputed New Testament books along with the 7 disputed books and parts of 2 other books of the Old Testament "with all their parts", to the canon of the Bible. The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church had definitively found all 73 books of the Catholic Bible to be "certainly" inspired scripture, given by God himself. Writers who point out that the Apocrypha were ''added'' to the Bible by the Catholic Church do not include the fact that the disputed New Testament books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation were ''added'' to the Bible by the Catholic Church at the same time.

In 1546 at the [[Council of Trent]] the bishops of the Catholic Church [[dogma]]tically "added" the [[Deuterocanonicals]], the 7 disputed New Testament books along with the 7 disputed books and parts of 2 other books of the Old Testament "with all their parts", to the canon of the Bible. The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church had definitively found all 73 books of the Catholic Bible to be "certainly" inspired scripture, given by God himself, and preserved and retained by the Church as sacred scripture since the 1st century. Writers who point out that the Apocrypha were ''added'' to the Bible by the Catholic Church do not include the fact that the disputed New Testament books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation were ''added'' to the Bible by the Catholic Church at the same time.

:

:

The [[Religious Society of Friends|Friends (Quakers)]] do not define any writing as canonical but what each person, "led by the spirit and light of Christ", has determined to be scripture or recognizes as inspired.<ref name=Private>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html '''Private Judgment''' [British Critic, July 1841]] (newmanreader.org)</ref><blockquote>"Now the Lord's power was so mighty upon me, and so strong in me, that I could not hold, but was made to cry out and say, "Oh! no; it is not the scriptures;" and told them it was the Holy Spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth the scriptures, whereby opinions, religions, and judgments were to be tried; for it led into all Truth, and so gave the knowledge of all Truth." —''from the'' Journal of [[George Fox]].<ref>[http://www.qis.net/~daruma/foxbible.html George Fox's Teaching on the Place of Scripture] (qis.net)</ref></blockquote>

The [[Religious Society of Friends|Friends (Quakers)]] do not define any writing as canonical but what each person, "led by the spirit and light of Christ", has determined to be scripture or recognizes as inspired.<ref name=Private>See the essay [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/private.html '''Private Judgment''' [British Critic, July 1841]] (newmanreader.org)</ref><blockquote>"Now the Lord's power was so mighty upon me, and so strong in me, that I could not hold, but was made to cry out and say, "Oh! no; it is not the scriptures;" and told them it was the Holy Spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth the scriptures, whereby opinions, religions, and judgments were to be tried; for it led into all Truth, and so gave the knowledge of all Truth." —''from the'' Journal of [[George Fox]].<ref>[http://www.qis.net/~daruma/foxbible.html George Fox's Teaching on the Place of Scripture] (qis.net)</ref></blockquote>

:

:

Members of ''[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]]'' have taken a form of "private judgment" as an infallible guide. They quote Moroni 10:4 <ref>[http://www.originalbookofmormonrestored.com/Original_Book_of_Mormon_Text.pdf Original Book of Mormon Text, page 575] (originalbookofmormonrestored.com)</ref><blockquote>"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."</blockquote> Some individuals, whom Mormon missionaries have instructed to use this test as a form of certain discernment, have experienced a kind of negative affirmation in the form of an intuitive insight or feeling that indicates, "Yes, these things are not so". But others have interpreted the affirmative feeling that they experienced in response to the prayer as meaning instead, "Yes, these things are so".

Members of ''[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]]'' have taken a form of "private judgment" as an infallible guide. They quote Moroni 10:4 <ref>[http://www.originalbookofmormonrestored.com/Original_Book_of_Mormon_Text.pdf Original Book of Mormon Text, page 575] (originalbookofmormonrestored.com)</ref><blockquote>"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."</blockquote> Some individuals, who have used this suggested test as a form of certain discernment, have experienced a kind of negative affirmation in the form of an intuitive insight or feeling that indicates, "Yes, these things are not so". But others have interpreted the affirmative feeling experienced in response to the prayer as meaning instead, "Yes, these things are so".

:

:

Every person who approaches Bible study, usually to learn about the historical events it relates, is heavily influenced by the hermeneutical theory, or interpretive understandings, he or she brings to the text, consciously or unconsciously. According to Dr. J. Philip Hyatt, very little of the Bible relates history for its own sake, or for the purposes that a modern historian would adopt. It is, therefore, history of a special order, designed not simply to inform the reader, but to awaken in the reader a response to what the Lord of history has done.<ref name=Hyatt>John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book in the public domain</small></ref><ref name=Bond>"Bible hermeneutics", Steve Bond, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 203–207.</ref>  

Every person who approaches Bible study, usually to learn about the historical events it relates, is heavily influenced by the hermeneutical theory, or interpretive understandings, he or she brings to the text, consciously or unconsciously. According to Dr. J. Philip Hyatt, very little of the Bible relates history for its own sake, or for the purposes that a modern historian would adopt. It is, therefore, history of a special order, designed not simply to inform the reader, but to awaken in the reader a response to what the Lord of history has done.<ref name=Hyatt>John Grigg Hewlett, D.D. ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860), p. 162 –<small>book in the public domain</small></ref><ref name=Bond>"Bible hermeneutics", Steve Bond, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 203–207.</ref>  

Historical-critical researchers who use the literary methods of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|Higher Criticism]] seek to find out all they can with regard to the portion of the Bible they are studying; the author, the date, the circumstances, and purpose of its writing. The Higher Criticism means nothing more than the study of the literary structure of the various books of the Bible, and more especially of the Old Testament. Historical criticism assumes the time-conditions; the historical character of the Scriptures. This does not necessarily mean that the individual historical critic conceives of God revealing Himself objectively within history, but that he conceives the production of Scripture to have taken place within historical causes. What one scholar holds to be very probable another considers to be very unlikely. The regular majority of intelligent higher critical scholars who take the Bible seriously have found the Bible to be historically reliable and truthful and unique as a ''very credible witness'' to what the Lord of history has actually done in history, and as documents in character superior to all the ethical rationalism of the writings of secular humanists. This includes those deuterocanonicals called "apocrypha".<blockquote>"'''''The more conservative theologians who employ the historical-critical method believe that the Scriptures are 'more than the writings of mortal men'...'''''" —(Siegbert W. Becker, "The Historical-Critical Method of Bible Interpretation", page 4. ''bold-face emphasis added''.)</blockquote>They have found that the Scriptures are unique among world literature, and that the Bible is of a wholly different order from the pagan mythologies of the nations.<ref name=BFMKwatera>St. John's Abbey: ''The Bible’s message is both ‘divine’ and ‘human’.'' Friday, January 17th, 2014, Benedictine Father Michael Kwatera, a monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, MN. A discussion of the meaning of historical-critical methodology.</ref><ref name=literature>[https://bibleasliterature.wordpress.com/ The Bible as Literature: The Bible ~ A Literary Work and an Artistic Presentation of Human Experience]</ref>

Historical-critical researchers who use the literary methods of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|Higher Criticism]] seek to find out all they can with regard to the portion of the Bible they are studying; the author, the date, the circumstances, and purpose of its writing. The Higher Criticism means nothing more than the study of the literary structure of the various books of the Bible, and more especially of the Old Testament. Historical criticism assumes the time-conditions; the historical character of the Scriptures. This does not necessarily mean that the individual historical critic conceives of God revealing Himself objectively within history, but that he conceives the production of Scripture to have taken place within historical causes. What one scholar holds to be very probable another considers to be very unlikely. The regular majority of intelligent higher critical scholars who take the Bible seriously have found the Bible to be historically reliable and truthful and unique as a ''very credible witness'' to what the Lord of history has actually done in history, and as documents in character superior to all the ethical rationalism of the writings of secular humanists. This includes those deuterocanonicals called "apocrypha".<blockquote>"'''''The more conservative theologians who employ the historical-critical method believe that the Scriptures are 'more than the writings of mortal men'...'''''" —(Siegbert W. Becker, "The Historical-Critical Method of Bible Interpretation", page 4. ''bold-face emphasis added''.)</blockquote>They have found that the Scriptures are unique among world literature, and that the Bible is of a wholly different order from the pagan mythologies of the nations.<ref name=BFMKwatera>St. John's Abbey: ''The Bible’s message is both ‘divine’ and ‘human’.'' Friday, January 17th, 2014, Benedictine Father Michael Kwatera, a monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, MN. A discussion of the meaning of historical-critical methodology.</ref><ref name=literature>[https://bibleasliterature.wordpress.com/ The Bible as Literature: The Bible ~ A Literary Work and an Artistic Presentation of Human Experience]</ref>

:

:

The highly educated scholars who have elected to participate in the [[Jesus Seminar]] are fully persuaded from reading all of the varied translations and early extant manuscripts of the Gospels and discussions with other Biblical scholars that it is "obviously evident" to them, and a "virtual certainty", that almost none of the words and teachings attributed to Jesus are authentic, but are instead fabrications by unknown individuals in the Christian Church who were promoting their own slanted theological points of view. In striking contrast to these, other highly educated scholars are firmly convinced by their studies and reading of the Bible that the entire canon of the ''Orthodox Bible'' is authentic and inspired.

The highly educated scholars who have elected to participate in the [[Jesus Seminar]] are fully persuaded from reading all of the varied translations and early extant manuscripts of the Gospels, and from discussions with other Biblical scholars, that it is "obviously evident" to them, and a "virtual certainty", that almost none of the words and teachings attributed to Jesus are authentic, but are instead fabrications by unknown individuals in the Christian Church who were promoting their own slanted theological points of view. In striking contrast to these, other highly educated scholars are firmly convinced by their own studies and reading of the Bible, and by discussions with other Biblical scholars, that the entire canon of the ''Orthodox Bible'' including the ''[[Anagignoskomena]]'' is authentic and inspired. (See [[Biblical Canon#Greek Old Testament canon (A.D. 1st century)|Greek Old Testament canon (A.D. 1st century)]].)

:

:

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 contrast to the doctrine of 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.

===Fourth objection: Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted the rabbinical additions to Daniel===

===Fourth objection: Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted the rabbinical additions to Daniel===

There are a number of places where there appears to be a similarity of thought, and sometimes of the actual words used, between New Testament passages and verses in the Apocrypha.<ref>[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_ntreferences.asp Church Society: For Bible, Church and Nation. Issues | The Apocrypha | New Testament References — New Testament similarities to the Apocrypha] (churchsociety.org)</ref>

There are a number of places where there appears to be a similarity of thought, and sometimes of the actual words used, between New Testament passages and verses in the Apocrypha.<ref>[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_ntreferences.asp Church Society: For Bible, Church and Nation. Issues | The Apocrypha | New Testament References — New Testament similarities to the Apocrypha] (churchsociety.org)</ref>

The majority of quotations of the Old Testament are not from the Masoretic Hebrew version in the Tanakh, but are according to the Septuagint version of the Bible (LXX) which contains the books and texts which have been rejected as Apocrypha and are in the ''Greek Bible'' of the early Church.<ref>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]</ref> The entire New Testament was written in Greek, addressed to the people and to individual Christians (such as Philemon, Timothy and Titus), and there appears to be no evidence that the assemblies of worshiping Christians in the ancient early Church read the Old Testament in Hebrew but in the language of the people, from the Septuagint.

The majority of quotations of the Old Testament are not from the Masoretic Hebrew version in the Tanakh, but are according to the Septuagint version of the Bible (LXX) which contains the books and texts which have been rejected as Apocrypha and are in the ''Greek Bible'' of the early Church.<ref name=LXX.NTquotes/> The entire New Testament was written in Greek, addressed to the people, and to individual Christians (such as Philemon, Timothy and Titus), and there appears to be no evidence that the assemblies of worshiping Christians in the ancient early Church read the Old Testament in Hebrew but substantial evidence instead that they read them in the language of the people, from the Septuagint. The ''[[Vetus Latina]]'' <ref>[http://www.vetuslatina.org/ Vetus Latina - Resources for the study of the Old Latin Bible]</ref> (Old Latin) and ''[[Vulgate]]'' versions of the Old Testament of the Bible read in Christian worship services contained all of the books of the Septuagint.

===The consensus of the majority of Christian believers regarding the Book of Daniel===

===The consensus of the majority of Christian believers regarding the Book of Daniel===

[[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 [unqualified] 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#Circular reasoning|Logical fallacy of Circular reasoning]].

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 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]]".

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]]": for example, "No true Christian would believe these books are inspired after reading 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.

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.

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]

==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==

==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==

The Book of Daniel takes its name not from the author, who is actually unknown, but from its principal character, who in 606 B.C. the 3rd year of Jehoiakim ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%201:1-5&version=KJV Daniel 1:1-5]) was among the first Jews deported to Babylon with King Jehoiakim, where he lived at least until 538 B.C., perhaps later. The first six chapters are chiefly historical, and the remainder prophetical. The unknown author completed it about 4 years later in 534 B.C..  

The Book of Daniel takes its name not from the author, who is actually unknown, but from its principal character, who in 606 B.C. the 3rd year of Jehoiakim ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%201:1-5&version=KJV Daniel 1:1-5]) was among the first Jews deported to Babylon with King Jehoiakim, where he lived at least until 538 B.C., and perhaps later. The unknown author/compiler completed it about 4 years later in 534 B.C.. It was sealed and kept hidden and secret for about 370 years until 165 B.C., when the book was unsealed, opened, and its contents were made known to the people of Israel. The first chapters are chiefly historical, and the remainder prophetical. It is a collection of third person narratives about the prophet joined to first person narratives written by the prophet himself. The "time of the end" is the 16 decades immediately preceding the birth of the Messiah, the first coming of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-4.htm Daniel 12:4,] [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-9.htm Daniel 12:9.] Daniel clearly speaks about the future bodily resurrection of many of the dead (but not all) [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-2.htm Daniel 12:2.] See [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/27-52.htm Matthew 27:52] and [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/27-53.htm 53.]

===The Prophet Daniel===

===The Prophet Daniel===

Almost that is known about the Prophet Daniel is from the Book of Daniel.  

Almost that is known about the Prophet Daniel is from the Book of Daniel.  

He was a member of the  tribe of Judah (1:6), and of noble, perhaps royal, descent (1:3 <ref>see also Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', Book 10, chapter 10, § 1 (186-189).</ref>) In his youth, about fourteen years old, he together with three other youths of equal rank named Ananiah, Mishael and Azariah, was carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor, in the third/fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (606/605 B.C.). There, Daniel and Ananiah, Mishael and Azariah were entrusted to the care of Ashpenez, the king's chief [[eunuch]], to be educated in the language and learning of the "Chaldeans", the professors of divination, magic, and astrology in Babylon (1:3-4). Jewish tradition has inferred from this passage that Daniel and his companions were made eunuchs; but this cannot be proved; the chief of the eunuchs was charged with training these Jewish youths, among others, to prepare them to enter the king's service (1:5). Daniel was given the new name of Belteshazzar/Baltassar (Babylonian ''Balâtsu-usur'', "Bel protect his life"), and Ananiah, Mishael, and Azariah similarly were given the new names of Shadrach/Sidrach, Meshach/Misach, and Abednego/Abdenago. Daniel/Belteshazzar in agreement with them, asked for and obtained permission to not use the special food and wines from the royal table provided for all those in training, but to be limited to a vegetable diet and water only. After 10 days they appeared better fed and healthier than the other youths. At the end of three years (1:5) Daniel and his three companions appeared before the king, who found they excelled all the others who had been educated with them, and he promoted them to a place in his court. Whenever the prince tested them, they proved superior to "all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom" (1:7-20).  

He was a member of the  tribe of Judah (1:6), and of noble, perhaps royal, descent (1:3 <ref>see also Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'', Book 10, chapter 10, § 1 (186-189).</ref>) In his youth, about fourteen years old, he was carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor, together with three other youths of equal rank named Ananiah, Mishael and Azariah, in the third/fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (606/605 B.C.). There, Daniel and Ananiah, Mishael and Azariah were entrusted to the care of Ashpenez, the king's chief [[eunuch]], to be educated in the language and learning of the "Chaldeans", the professors of divination, magic, and astrology in Babylon (1:3-4). Jewish tradition has inferred from this passage that Daniel and his companions were made eunuchs; but this cannot be proved; the chief of the eunuchs was charged only with training these Jewish youths, among others, to prepare them to enter the king's service (1:5). Daniel was given the new name of Belteshazzar/Baltassar (Babylonian ''Balâtsu-usur'', "Bel protect his life"), and Ananiah, Mishael, and Azariah similarly were given the new names of Shadrach/Sidrach, Meshach/Misach, and Abednego/Abdenago. Daniel/Belteshazzar in agreement with them, asked for and obtained permission to not use the special food and wines from the royal table provided for all those in training, but to be limited to a vegetable diet and water only. After 10 days they appeared better fed and healthier than the other youths. The program was originally designed so that at the end of three years (1:5) Daniel and his three companions would appear before the king. In a compact summary statement of their whole career under Nebuchadnezzar the book says the king found that they excelled all the others who had been educated with them, and he promoted them to a place in his court. Whenever the prince tested them, they proved superior to "all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom" (1:7-20). The narrative portions that follow in the book relate more specific details of their wisdom which prompted the king's opinion.

After this—in the twelfth year of King Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor, in the second year of his reign over King Zedekiah of Judah—Daniel manifested his gift of wisdom. After the failure of all the other wise men, he prayed, and then described and interpreted the king's dream of a colossal statue made of gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay, which, when struck by a stone shaped without hands, was broken into pieces and blown away, and the stone grew into a mountain that filled the whole earth. The king was satisfied, and Daniel in Babylon, as Joseph of old in Egypt, rose into high favour with him. Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor bestowed on him numerous gifts, and in addition made him ruler of "the whole province of Babylon" and chief governor of "all the wise men". At Daniel's request, his three friends also received important promotions (chapter 2).  

Even before the third year of training—in the twelfth year of King Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor, in the second year of his reign over King Zedekiah of Judah (2:1)—Daniel had already manifested his gift of wisdom. After the failure of all the other wise men to describe and interpret the king's dream and he had sentenced all the wise men to death, Daniel and his three companions prayed, and then he told Arioch, the king's captain of the guard, that he could show the king the interpretation of the dream. Arioch quickly brought him before Nebuchadnezzar, and he described and interpreted the king's dream of a colossal statue made of gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay, which, when struck by a stone shaped without hands, was broken into pieces and blown away, and the stone grew into a mountain that filled the whole earth. The king was satisfied; the wise men were saved, and Daniel in Babylon, as Joseph of old in Egypt, rose into high favor with him. Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor bestowed on him numerous gifts, and in addition made him ruler of "the whole province of Babylon" and chief governor of "all the wise men". At Daniel's request, his three friends also received important promotions (chapter 2).  

Further evidence of his wisdom was another dream of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor which he alone was able to interpret. The dream of a mighty tree, and the king heard the command given to cut it down, and that "seven times" should "pass over" its stump, which had been left standing. Daniel explained that this portended that in punishment of his pride the monarch would for a while lose his throne, be deprived of his reason, imagine himself an ox (''bo-anthropy'' <ref>'''Boanthropy''' is a type of [[insanity]] or psychological disorder in which a [[human being]] believes himself to be a [[Bovine]] (a cow and/or an ox). <br/>"boanthropy"

Further evidence of his wisdom was another dream of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor which he alone was able to interpret, the dream of a mighty tree. The king heard the command given to cut it down, and that "seven times" should "pass over" its stump, which had been left standing. Daniel explained that this portended that in punishment of his pride the monarch would for a while lose his throne, be deprived of his reason, imagine himself an ox (''bo-anthropy'' <ref>'''Boanthropy''' is a type of [[insanity]] or psychological disorder in which a [[human being]] believes himself to be a [[Bovine]] (a cow and/or an ox). <br/>"boanthropy"

(bō·an′thrə·pē) noun [<NL <Gk. ''boanthrōpos'' <bous bull, ox + ''anthrōpos'' man]<br/>[http://www.whatdoesthatmean.com/dictionary/B/boanthropy.html#ixzz3PlKiIP8e What Does That Mean? English Dictionary. B. boanthropy.] <br/>Charles Talbut Onions (ed) ''The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary On Historical Principles'' Vol.1 Oxford University Press 1933 page 195</ref>), and live in the open fields, but be again restored to his power, finally convinced of the supreme might and goodness of the Most High. The Prophet exhorted the king to forestall such punishment by atoning for his sins with deeds of mercy (''atoning for his sins with '''works''''' <ref>"deeds of mercy/works"—Compare [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/4-27.htm Daniel 4:27], [http://biblehub.com/multi/ezekiel/18-21.htm Ezekiel 18:21], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=tobit%2012:9&version=DRA Tobit 12:9a], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1john%203:17-22&version=DRA 1 John 3:17-22], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%202:14-26&version=DRA James 2:14-26] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46&version=DRA Matthew 25:31-46]. The [[Book of Tobit]] is rejected as ''obviously'' apocryphal in part because of the text: "For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin". This counsel, the same counsel the Prophet Daniel gave to the king, is condemned as false Catholic doctrine by Protestant teaching, yet the book of Daniel 1–12, which includes chapter 4, is fully accepted by Protestant Christians as the inspired word of God in the Protestant Bible, along with the books of Ezekiel and James, 1 John and Matthew. Jesus himself in Matthew teaches the absolute necessity of good works. See

(bō·an′thrə·pē) noun [<NL <Gk. ''boanthrōpos'' <bous bull, ox + ''anthrōpos'' man]<br/>[http://www.whatdoesthatmean.com/dictionary/B/boanthropy.html#ixzz3PlKiIP8e What Does That Mean? English Dictionary. B. boanthropy.] <br/>Charles Talbut Onions (ed) ''The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary On Historical Principles'' Vol.1 Oxford University Press 1933 page 195</ref>), and live in the open fields, but be again restored to his power, finally convinced of the supreme might and goodness of the Most High. The Prophet exhorted the king to forestall such punishment by atoning for his sins with deeds of mercy ('''''works''''' <ref>"deeds of mercy/works"—Compare [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/4-27.htm Daniel 4:27], [http://biblehub.com/multi/ezekiel/18-21.htm Ezekiel 18:21], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=tobit%2012:9&version=DRA Tobit 12:9a], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1john%203:17-22&version=DRA 1 John 3:17-22], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%202:14-26&version=DRA James 2:14-26] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46&version=DRA Matthew 25:31-46]. The [[Book of Tobit]] is rejected as ''obviously'' apocryphal in part because of the text: "For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin". This counsel, the same counsel the Prophet Daniel gave to the king, is condemned as false Catholic doctrine by Protestant teaching, yet the book of Daniel 1–12, which includes chapter 4, is fully accepted by Protestant Christians as the inspired word of God in the Protestant Bible, along with the books of Ezekiel and James, 1 John and Matthew. Jesus himself in Matthew teaches the absolute necessity of good works. See

*[http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined, and The Apocrypha: "Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!"] (bible.ca)

*[http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined, and The Apocrypha: "Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!"] (bible.ca)

*[http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible, by Ryan Turner] (carm.org)</ref>); but he did not listen to the word of God taught by the Prophet, and Daniel's prediction was fulfilled to the letter (chapter 4). For a parallel to this, see Abydenus' account (second century B.C.) quoted in Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX, xl).<ref>[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_06_book6.htm Eusebius of Caesarea: ''Praeparatio Evangelica'' (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 6]</ref>

*[http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible, by Ryan Turner] (carm.org)</ref>); but he did not listen to the word of God taught by the Prophet, and Daniel's prediction was fulfilled to the letter (chapter 4).<ref>For a parallel to this, see Abydenus' account (second century B.C.) quoted in Eusebius ''Præp. Evang.'' IX, xl. [http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_06_book6.htm Eusebius of Caesarea: ''Praeparatio Evangelica'' (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 6])</ref>

After the death of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor (561 B.C.), the book simply intimates in Daniel, 5:11 ''and following'', that he lost his high position at the court and lived long in retirement. But afterward, at the scene of revelry in Belshazzar/Baltasar's palace, on the eve of Cyrus's conquest of Babylon (538 B.C.), while Baltasar (Hebrew ''Belsh’aççar'', corresponding to Babylonian ''Balâtsu-usur'', "Bel protect the king") and his lords feasted, impiously drinking their wine from precious vessels which had been taken from the Temple at Jerusalem, there appeared the fingers of a man writing on the wall: "Mane, Thecel, Phares". None of the king's wise men was able to interpret these mysterious words, which Daniel, who at length had been summoned, translated and explained. For his reward Belshazzar, the second in the kingdom ([[Nabonidus]] was first in rank), made Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/5-29.htm Daniel 5:29.] The prophet, now at least eighty years of age, remained in that exalted position under Darius the Mede, possibly to be identified with Darius Hystaspes (485 B.C.) though some disagree. When Darius thought of setting Daniel over all the kingdom (6:4), Daniel's fellow-ministers of state, fearing such an elevation, sought his ruin by convicting him of disloyalty to the Crown. They secured from the king a decree forbidding anyone to ask any petition of either god or man, except the monarch, for thirty days, under penalty of being cast into the lions' den. Daniel nevertheless prayed, three times a day, at his open window, towards Jerusalem. They reported this to the king, and coerced him into applying the threatened punishment for violation of the decree. When Darius saw Daniel's miraculous preservation in the lions' den, he published a decree that all in his realm should honour and revere the God of Daniel, proclaiming that He is "the living and eternal God". Daniel continued to prosper through the rest of the reign of Darius, and in that of his successor, Cyrus the Persian (chapter 6).

After the death of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor (561 B.C.), the book simply intimates in Daniel, 5:11 and following, that he lost his high position at the court and lived long in retirement. But afterward, at the scene of revelry in Belshazzar/Baltasar's palace, on the eve of Cyrus's conquest of Babylon (538 B.C.), while Baltasar (Hebrew ''Belsh’aççar'', corresponding to Babylonian ''Balâtsu-usur'', "Bel protect the king") and his lords feasted, impiously drinking their wine from precious vessels which had been taken from the Temple at Jerusalem, there appeared the fingers of a man writing on the wall: "Mane, Thecel, Phares". None of the king's wise men was able to interpret these mysterious words, which Daniel, who at length had been summoned, translated and explained. For his reward Belshazzar, the second in the kingdom ([[Nabonidus]] was first in rank), made Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/5-29.htm Daniel 5:29.] The prophet, now at least eighty years of age, remained in that exalted position under Darius the Mede, possibly to be identified with Darius Hystaspes (485 B.C.) though some disagree. When Darius thought of setting Daniel over all the kingdom (6:4), Daniel's fellow-ministers of state, fearing such an elevation, sought his ruin by convicting him of disloyalty to the Crown. They secured from the king a decree forbidding anyone to ask any petition of either god or man, except the monarch, for thirty days, under penalty of being cast into the lions' den. Daniel nevertheless prayed, three times a day, at his open window, towards Jerusalem. They reported this to the king, and coerced him into applying the threatened punishment for violation of the decree. When Darius saw Daniel's miraculous preservation in the lions' den, he published a decree that all in his realm should honour and revere the God of Daniel, proclaiming that He is "the living and eternal God". Daniel continued to prosper through the rest of the reign of Darius, and in that of his successor, Cyrus the Persian (chapter 6). As a mere youth when he first arrived in Babylon, he first manifested an extraordinary gift of divine wisdom and authority in convicting out of their own mouths the two judges among the exiles of perjury in plotting the death of Susanna. In his advanced old age Daniel is no less acute in his wisdom in demonstrating how the priests of Bel were deceiving and defrauding the king and the fact that the idol does not eat all the food offered to it. The king destroys the priests and the idol. Daniel also manifests brilliant wisdom in his insistence on worshiping only the living God and destroying "without sword or club" a large living "dragon" worshiped as a living god by the Babylonians, by feeding the greedy animal cakes made of an indigestible blend of tar, fat and hair, which caused an extreme bowel blockage and a herniated abdominal rupture, which burst, killing it, and thus demonstrating that it was no god. The outraged Babylonian ministers of state accuse the king of becoming a Jew and coerce him, with threats of assassination of him and all his family, into condemning Daniel to 7 days in the lion's den with no food or water. On the sixth day an angel from God transports Daniel's fellow prophet Habakkuk from Judea to the den with bread and stew in a bowl for Daniel which revives him and Habakkuk is immediately returned to Judea. When the king on the 7th day finds Daniel alive, he praises the Lord God of Daniel, pulls him out, and throws those who attempted to destroy him into the den where they were immediately devoured.

These are the only facts which may be gathered for a biography of the Prophet Daniel from the narrative portion of his book (1–6). Few other facts can be drawn from the second, distinctly apocalyptic, portion of the book (7–12), written in the first-person by Daniel. The visions there represent him chiefly as a seer favored with Divine communications about the future punishment of the Gentile powers and the ultimate setting up of the Messianic Kingdom. These revelations are given in the reigns of Darius, Belshazzar/Baltasar, and Cyrus, and are explained to him by the Angel [[Gabriel (archangel)|Gabriel]] in increasingly clearer disclosures of what is to happen in "the time of the end". In the deuterocanonical appendix to his book (13–14), Daniel reappears in the same general character as in the first part of his work (1–6). Chapter 13 sets him forth as an inspired youth whose superior wisdom puts to shame and secures the punishment of the false accusers of the chaste Susanna. The concluding chapter (14) represents Daniel as a fearless and most successful champion of the true and living God, telling the history of the destruction of two Babylonian idols, Bel and the dragon. Outside of the Book of Daniel, the Bible has few references to the prophet of that name. Ezechiel (14:14) speaks of Daniel, together with Noah and Job, as a pattern of righteousness and, in chapter 28:3, as the representative of perfect wisdom. The writer of the First Book of Maccabees (2:60) refers to his deliverance out of the mouth of the lions, and St. Matthew (24:15) to "the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet". Jewish tradition had been attempting to complete the meagre account of Daniel's life as supplied by the Sacred Scriptures. The tradition of the Jews, accepted by many Fathers of the Church, states that he was made a eunuch in Babylon. Other Jewish traditions represent him as refusing divine honors proffered to him by Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor; they explain the reason why he was not forced with his three friends to worship that prince's statue in the plain of Dura (Daniel 3), was that he had been sent away by the king, who wanted to spare Daniel's life, for he knew full well that the prophet would never agree to commit such an act of idolatry; they also give many fanciful details, as for instance concerning what happened to Daniel in the lions' den. Others endeavour to account for what they assume to be a fact, that Yahweh's devout prophet apparently did not return to God's land and city after the decree of restoration issued by Cyrus; while others again assert that he actually went back to Judea and died there. Equally incredible and conflicting legends concerning Daniel's life and place of burial are found in Arabic literature, although his name is not mentioned in the Koran. During the Middle Ages a widespread and persistent tradition held that Daniel was buried at Susa, the modern Shuster, in the Persian province of Khuzistan. In the account of his visit to Susa in A.D. 1165, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela narrates that Daniel's tomb was shown him in the façade of one of the synagogues of that city; and it is shown there to the present day.

These are the only facts which may be gathered for a biography of the Prophet Daniel from the narrative portions of his book (1–6, 13–14). Few other facts can be drawn from the second, distinctly apocalyptic, portion of the book (7–12), written in the first-person by Daniel himself. The visions there represent him chiefly as a seer favored with divine communications about the future punishment of the Gentile powers and the ultimate setting up of the Messianic Kingdom. These revelations are given in the reigns of Darius, Belshazzar/Baltasar, and Cyrus, and are explained to him by the Angel [[Gabriel (archangel)|Gabriel]] in increasingly clearer disclosures of what is to happen in "the time of the end". In the deuterocanonical appendix to his book (13–14), Daniel reappears in the same general character as in the first part of his work (1–6). Chapter 13 sets him forth as an inspired youth whose superior wisdom puts to shame and secures the punishment of the false accusers of the chaste Susanna. The concluding chapter (14) represents Daniel as a fearless and most successful champion of the true and living God, telling the history of the destruction of two Babylonian idols, Bel and the dragon. Outside of the Book of Daniel, the Bible has few references to the prophet of that name. Ezechiel (14:14) speaks of Daniel, together with Noah and Job, as a pattern of righteousness and, in chapter 28:3, as the representative of perfect wisdom. The writer of the First Book of Maccabees (2:60) refers to his deliverance out of the mouth of the lions, and St. Matthew (24:15) to "the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet". Jewish tradition had been attempting to complete the meagre account of Daniel's life as supplied by the Sacred Scriptures. The tradition of the Jews, accepted by many Fathers of the Church, states that he was made a eunuch in Babylon. Other Jewish traditions represent him as refusing divine honors proffered to him by Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor; they explain that the reason why he was not forced with his three friends to worship that prince's statue in the plain of Dura (Daniel 3), was that he had been sent away by the king, who wanted to spare Daniel's life, for he knew full well that the prophet would never agree to commit such an act of idolatry; they also give many fanciful details, as for instance concerning what happened to Daniel in the lions' den. Others endeavour to account for what they assume to be a fact, that Yahweh's devout prophet apparently did not return to God's land and city after the decree of restoration issued by Cyrus; while others again assert that he actually went back to Judea and died there. Equally incredible and conflicting legends concerning Daniel's life and place of burial are found in Arabic literature, although his name is not mentioned in the Koran. During the Middle Ages a widespread and persistent tradition held that Daniel was buried at Susa, the modern Shuster, in the Persian province of Khuzistan. In the account of his visit to Susa in A.D. 1165, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela narrates that Daniel's tomb was shown him in the façade of one of the synagogues of that city; and it is shown there to the present day.

===The text===

===The text===

The author of chapters 1:1–7:1 (according to their numbering in the Vulgate Bible) is unknown. He may have been a disciple of the Prophet. Chapters 7:2–12:13 are presented as first-person narratives written by Daniel himself.

The author of chapters 1:1–7:1 (according to their numbering in the Vulgate Bible) is unknown. He may have been a disciple of the Prophet. Chapters 7:2–12:13 are presented as first-person narratives written by Daniel himself.

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 well into the 2nd Century B.C. rather than its stated dating as being from the hand of Daniel himself, c. 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." 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:

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 to those "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 the creative imagination of 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 hundreds of years of pagan folklore and legend as being prior to and the foundation of the written Biblical record. In support of their opinions they stretch out dates and propose compounded multiple authorship. The ''proposed conclusions'' constructed from such 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 the long, documented 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 entirely reasonable and quite logical that the Book of Daniel was composed and written during the captivity and during the reign of Darius and Cyrus of Persia, and that no cheating trick was used to make it look ancient. The major contention among scholars 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 continuous testimony of the Christian church and the majority of Christian scholars since the 1st century is that it is wholly authentic, written by Daniel, and by one in the know, and under the control and inspiration of God.

Critics of the Book of Daniel who base their datings of the time of writing on extant 2nd century B.C. hand-copied manuscripts almost entirely ignore the fact that after Daniel wrote it, the book was sealed and kept hidden "until the time of the end". [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-4.htm Daniel 12:4] and [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-9.htm 12:9] This is why no textual manuscript evidence for the book predates the 2nd century B.C.. We know about the book and its inspired content only because it had finally been unsealed; then immediately handwritten manuscript copies were made and distributed to be read to the assemblies of the people beginning the 2nd century B.C. as proof that all that had happened had been prophesied. (A parallel example is found in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2044:24-45:7&version=KJV Isaiah 44:24-45:7].) The Book of Daniel is an extreme historical example of handwritten ''posthumous publication''.

Critics of the Book of Daniel who base their datings of the time of writing on extant 2nd century B.C. hand-copied manuscripts almost entirely ignore the fact that after Daniel wrote it, the book was sealed and kept hidden "until the time of the end". [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-4.htm Daniel 12:4] and [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-9.htm 12:9] This is why no textual manuscript evidence for the book predates the 2nd century B.C.. We know about the book and its inspired content only because it had finally been unsealed; then immediately handwritten manuscript copies were made and distributed to be read to the assemblies of the people beginning the 2nd century B.C. as proof that all that had happened had been prophesied. (A parallel example is found in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2044:24-45:7&version=KJV Isaiah 44:24–45:7].) The Book of Daniel is an extreme historical example of handwritten ''posthumous publication''.

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

The text called ''Song of the Three Holy Children'' is a segment of a larger component called The Prayer of Azariah and the Prayer of the Three Holy Children which, although part of the Septuagint text, is considered by Protestants as belonging among the uninspired Apocrypha rather than as a fully canonical part of Holy Scripture, and so it appears in the separate Apocrypha section in most English-language versions of the Bible. When included within the larger text of Daniel, it appears in the third chapter between verses 23 and 24, with the complete third chapter of Daniel numbering 100 verses.

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

The Song itself is a hymn of thanksgiving to God for deliverance from the fiery furnace into which the three young men, Ananias, Azarias and Misael (also known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) had been cast by the Persian king Nebuchadnezzar. They were cast into the furnace for refusing to worship a golden idol that Nebuchadnezzar had created. However, "'''an''' Angel of the Lord" (King James Version; Douay-Rheims "'''the''' Angel of the Lord") entered the furnace and protected the three young men. In liturgical celebration, this event is seen to presage the Resurrection of Christ, supporting its inclusion in the canon.

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

The Abingdon Bible Handbook (ISBN 0687001692) suggests that the Prayer and Song was based on an earlier composition and was added to the existing text of Daniel sometime in the second or first century B.C. This is by no means certain. It is certain that manuscript copies of the Book of Daniel can be traced to earlier texts of that time period.

The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as their Bible, accepted the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical. In the early Christian church all three texts which Jerome and the 16th century Reformation rejected as "additions" to Daniel are quoted as integral parts of Daniel by Greek and Latin Fathers: as, for example, by [[Irenaeus]] (IV, 5, 2f); [[Tertullian]] (''De idolatria'' c. 18); [[Cyprian]] (''Ad fortunatum'', c. 11).

The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as their Bible, accepted the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical. In the early Christian church all three texts which Jerome and the 16th century Reformation rejected as "additions" to Daniel are quoted as integral parts of Daniel by Greek and Latin Fathers: as, for example, by [[Irenaeus]] (IV, 5, 2f); [[Tertullian]] (''De idolatria'' c. 18); [[Cyprian]] (''Ad fortunatum'', c. 11).