Changes

:See the video talk [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbBzVH2HM_w '''I Don't Recognize Your "Authority"''' - YouTube] —"I have only your word for this. I have no obligation to believe you. What authority do you have to tell me these books are the word of God? I just don't recognize your authority." (See [[Heresy]])

:See the video talk [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbBzVH2HM_w '''I Don't Recognize Your "Authority"''' - YouTube] —"I have only your word for this. I have no obligation to believe you. What authority do you have to tell me these books are the word of God? I just don't recognize your authority." (See [[Heresy]])

:See also [[Cafeteria Christianity]]. First you actually remove, or simply dismiss, as invalid and unreliable the texts of the Bible supporting the position you dispute, and then you say, "It's not in the Bible." [[Sola Scriptura]]. [[Proof text]]. "That's not in ''my'' Bible!"

:See also [[Cafeteria Christianity]]. First you actually remove, or simply dismiss, as invalid and unreliable the texts of the Bible supporting the position you dispute, and then you say, "It's not in the Bible." [[Sola Scriptura]]. [[Proof text]]. Then you [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|insist]], "That's not in ''my'' Bible!"

:

:

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.

*[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>

*[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). 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.

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. Daniel was thrown into the den, and it was sealed. The next morning he was still alive and unharmed. When Darius saw Daniel's miraculous preservation in the lions' den, he commanded that the conspirators with their wives and children be immediately thrown into the den, and they were attacked and crushed before they reached the bottom. 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 (17?) 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 (100+?) 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 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.

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 (originally the first chapter of Daniel in the Septuagint) 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". 1st century 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 later included in the [[Talmud]] 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 while he was in the lions' den. Others try 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. Legends concerning Daniel's life and place of burial are found in Arabic literature, all equally incredible and conflicting, 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===

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..  

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 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:

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. This is the [[Logical fallacy#Manufacturing facts from a theory|fallacy of manufacturing facts from a theory]]. 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, by peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies, of evidential findings of slanted scholarship by many researchers.<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 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.

*[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 well-educated and highly trained 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 whole Book of Daniel in Greek translation can be traced to earlier texts of that time period no longer extant.

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]] (''Adversus Haereses'' IV, 5, 2f); [[Tertullian]] (''De idolatria'' c. 18); [[Cyprian]] (''Ad fortunatum'', c. 11).

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

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

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

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

11:2 Three kings of Persia: there were more than three Persian kings between Cyrus and the dissolution of the kingdom. The fourth is Xerxes I (486–465 B.C.), who campaigned against Greece.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-2.htm 11:2] Three kings of Persia: there were more than three Persian kings between Cyrus and the dissolution of the kingdom. The fourth is Xerxes I (486–465 B.C.), who campaigned against Greece. After Cyrus I came Cambyses I (Kambiz), then Cyrus II the Great, the beginning of the Achaemenid Empire, 559–530 B.C., Kambiz II, 530–522 B.C., Darius I the Great, 522–486 B.C., Xerxes I (Khashyar), 486–465 B.C.. See [[Literalist Bible chronology#The Second Temple to Alexander the Great 538—334 B.C.|Literalist Bible chronology: The Second Temple to Alexander the Great 538—334 B.C.]] This text in Daniel (11:2) according to the word of the angel Gabriel sets the time of this particular revelation to the prophet (11—12), at the earliest, in '''423 B.C.''', during the reign of Darius II, 423 B.C.—404 B.C.. The three kings "yet to stand up" after Darius II were Artaxerxes II, 404—359 B.C., Artaxerxes III, 359—339 B.C., then Arses, 338—336 B.C., and finally "the fourth" Darius III, 336–330 B.C., who was defeated by Alexander the Great, who dissolved the Persian Empire.<ref>[http://www.farsinet.com/iran/persian_dynasties.html Iran in the Bible: Rulers and Dynasties of Persia (Iran) - History of Persia] (farsinet.com)</ref> See [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:2-4&version=KJV Daniel 11:2-4]

 

11:3 A powerful king: Alexander the Great broke Persian dominance by his victory at Issus in 333 B.C.

[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:5–45&version=KJV 11:5–45] describes the dynastic histories of the Ptolemies in Egypt (the king of the south) and the Seleucids in Syria (the king of the north), the two divisions of the Hellenistic empire (v. 6) corresponding to the two legs of iron in Daniel 2:33, 40. Verses 10–20 describe the struggle between the two kingdoms for the control of Palestine; the Seleucids were eventually victorious.

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

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-6.htm 11:6] c. 250 B.C. The marriage of Antiochus II Theos and Berenice of Egypt, which ended in tragedy.

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

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-11.htm  11:11] 217 B.C.. The battle of Raphia. Egypt defeated Syria.

11:11 217 B.C.. The battle of Raphia. Egypt defeated Syria.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-13.htm  11:13] 200 B.C.. The battle of Paneas. Syria defeated Egypt. Judea then came under Syrian rule.

11:13 200 B.C.. The battle of Paneas. Syria defeated Egypt. Judea then came under Syrian rule.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-15.htm 11:15] The subsequent siege of Sidon.

11:15 The subsequent siege of Sidon.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-17.htm 11:17] 197 B.C.. Antiochus III, the Great, betrothed his daughter to Ptolemy Epiphanes.

11:17 197 B.C.. Antiochus III, the Great, betrothed his daughter to Ptolemy Epiphanes.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-18.htm 11:18] 190 B.C.. Battle of Magnesia. The Roman general Scipio defeated Antiochus.

11:18 190 B.C.. Battle of Magnesia. The Roman general Scipio defeated Antiochus.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-20.htm 1:20] Seleucus IV sent Heliodorus to Jerusalem [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%203&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 3].

11:20 Seleucus IV sent Heliodorus to Jerusalem (cf. 2 Maccabees 3).

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-21.htm 11:21] Antiochus IV Epiphanes began to reign. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1maccabees%201:10&version=NABRE 1 Maccabees 1:10] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%204:7&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 4:7]

11:21 Antiochus IV Epiphanes began to reign.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-22.htm 11:22] "The prince of the covenant": historically the high priest Onias III, who was murdered. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%204:33-36&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 4:33-36]

11:22 "The prince of the covenant": historically the high priest Onias III, who was murdered.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-28.htm 11:28] "He": historically probably Antiochus IV "the king of the north" (Syria). [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1maccabees%201:16-24&version=NABRE 1 Maccabees 1:16-24]

11:28 "He": historically probably Antiochus IV "the king of the north" (Syria).

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-30.htm 11:30] "Kittim": originally this word generally referred to Cypriots or other westerners, and sometimes to the Greeks ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1maccabees%201:1&version=NABRE 1 Maccabees 1:1]). Here it refers historically to the Romans, who forced Antiochus to withdraw during his second campaign against Egypt. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%205:1-4&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 5:1-4]

11:30 "Kittim": originally this word generally referred to Cypriots or other westerners, and sometimes to the Greeks (1 Maccabees 1:1). Here it refers historically to the Romans, who forced Antiochus to withdraw during his second campaign against Egypt.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-34.htm 11:34] "Helped": this is seen historically as the Maccabean revolt, providentially helped by the fierce Hasidean warriors dedicated to the law ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1maccabees%202:42&version=NABRE 1 Maccabees 2:42]).

11:34 "Helped": this is seen historically as the Maccabean revolt, providentially helped by the fierce Hasidean warriors dedicated to the law (1 Maccabees 2:42).

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-37.htm 11:37] "The one in whom women delight": Tammuz. Antiochus favored the cult of Zeus above the other gods. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1maccabees%201:41-42&version=NABRE 1 Maccabees 1:41-42] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%205:21&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 5:21]

11:37 "The one in whom women delight": Tammuz. Antiochus favored the cult of Zeus above the other gods.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-38.htm 11:38] "The god of strongholds": the god worshiped in the fortress Akra, the "citadel" which Antiochus established in Jerusalem ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=_maccabees%20_&version=NABRE 1 Maccabees 1:33-35]).

11:38 "The god of strongholds": the god worshiped in the fortress Akra, the "citadel" which Antiochus established in Jerusalem (1 Maccabees 1:33-35).

[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:40-45&version=KJV 11:40–45] The events described in these concluding verses, correspond to the history of the Maccabean period. The death of Antiochus parallels the ruin of Gog in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2038:1-39:16&version=NABRE Ezekiel 38–39.] Antiochus actually died in Persia.

11:40–45 The events described in these concluding verses, correspond to the history of the Maccabean period. The death of Antiochus parallels the ruin of Gog in Ezekiel 38–39. Antiochus actually died in Persia.

[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:40-43&version=KJV 11:40-43] 167 B.C.. The second invasion of Egypt by Antiochus, and his departure to the east to gain needed treasure as funding for his armies ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=_maccabees%20_&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 5:1;] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=_maccabees%20_&version=NABRE 1 Maccabees 3:25-37;] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=_maccabees%20_&version=NABRE 6:12]). The forces under the Maccabees routed the Syrian troops, recaptured Jerusalem, purified and rededicated the Temple, and brought to an end the Syrian persecution.

11:40-43 167 B.C.. The second invasion of Egypt by Antiochus, and his departure to the east to gain needed treasure as funding for his armies (2 Maccabees 5:1; 1 Maccabees 3:25-37; 6:12). The forces under the Maccabees routed the Syrian troops, recaptured Jerusalem, purified and rededicated the Temple, and brought to an end the Syrian persecution.

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-44.htm 11:44] 163 B.C.. News of the revolt in Judea enraged Antiochus in Persia. He departed, determined to destroy Jerusalem. ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:3-4&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 9:3-4;] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1maccabees%206:5-7&version=NABRE 1 Maccabees 6:5-7).

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

[http://biblehub.com/daniel/11-45.htm 11:45] 163 B.C.. The death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the mountains of Persia, between the Caspian Sea and Mount Zion, between the seas, the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean Sea ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:5-28&version=NABRE 2 Maccabees 9:5-28;] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1maccabees%206:8-9&version=NABRE 1 Maccabees 6:8-9, 14-16]).<ref name=11:45>163 B.C.. Antiochus the king died "in the 149th year" (163 B.C.) in the mountains somewhere between [http://www.seetheholyland.net/mount-zion/ mount Zion "''the glorious holy mountain''"] ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2048:1-2&version=KJV Psalms 48:1-2]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2050:2&version=KJV Psalms 50:2] and [http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/caspiansea.htm "''the'' <nowiki>[Caspian]</nowiki> ''sea''" ] in Persia. The Zagros Mountains (Zagros Folded Zone) between the Caspian Sea and Babylon is where Antiochus IV Epiphanes died according to 1 Macc. 6 and 2 Macc. 9, and Daniel 11:45. "''between the sea and the glorious holy mountain...he shall come to his end with none to help him.''"—"''...among the mountains in a strange land.''" (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains#mediaviewer/File:Zagros_Folded_Zone.jpg Map: Zagros Folded Zone: Zagros Mountains]) A majority of Biblical scholars maintain that Daniel wrongly prophesied that Antiochus would die in Palestine. Daniel's prophesy of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes "''among the mountains in a strange land''" ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2maccabees%209:28&version=DRA 2 Maccabees 9:28]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:44-45&version=ESV Daniel 11:44-45]) is [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/controversy controverted]. Daniel 11:45 does not specify which "''sea''". Some students of the Bible [<small>source: "Daniel", S. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''</small>] identify Antiochus literally with Daniel 11:21-44, which accords with the description of his policies and actions in 1 and 2 Maccabees. 1 Maccabees 6:1-16 and 2 Maccabees 9:1-16, 28 shows that Antiochus died travelling on the great east-west highway ([http://www.ancient.eu/image/146/ the Silk Road]) running through Persia, northeast of Judea and Mount Zion and southwest of the southern shores of the [[Caspian Sea]], in the mountainous Zagros region of Persia between [http://everything2.com/title/Ecbatana Ecbatana] and Babylon. It is evident that he did not die in Palestine between Mount Zion and the [[Mediterranean Sea]]. Traditionally, "''the sea''" and "''the great sea''" in the Bible is the Mediterranean ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%201:4&version=ESV Joshua 1:4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%209:1&version=ESV Joshua 9:1]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2015:12&version=ESV Joshua 15:12] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2015:47&version=ESV Joshua 15:47]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2023:4&version=ESV Joshua 23:4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2011:11&version=ESV Isaiah 11:11]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2025:19-22&version=ESV Jeremiah 25:19-22]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2047:19&version=ESV Ezekiel 47:19]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%207:2-3&version=ESV Daniel 7:2-3]; compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joel%202:20&version=ESV Joel 2:20 "''eastern sea''" and "''western sea''",] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah%207:12&version=ESV Micah 7:12 "''from sea to sea''"]). This is the understanding of a majority of Old Testament Biblical scholars such as Choon-Leong Seow (C. L. Seow) [<small>''Daniel'', 2003, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, ISBN 978-0-664-25675-3</small>], and John J. Collins, Peter W. Flint, and others [<small>''[http://www.brill.com/book-daniel-volume-1-composition-and-reception The Book of Daniel: Volume 1 Composition and Reception]'', 2000, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-11675-7</small>] who hold that Daniel 11:45 refers to the mountains of Judea between Mount Zion and the Mediterranean Sea, or more specifically to Mount Zion, and conclude that the prophesy that Antiochus would die in Palestine "is totally inaccurate" since he died in Persia. Bible translations of this passage differ: some have Antiochus pitching his pavilion "''between the seas''", others have it "''on the glorious holy mountain''", while others more literally have it "''between the glorious holy mountain and the sea''" (see variant translations at [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-45.htm Daniel 11:45]). The conclusion of most Old Testament scholars is that the account in Daniel 11 is completely accurate through verse 44, but wrong in verse 45, and therefore it must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem. But this scholarly reading of "''the sea''" as the Mediterranean, and those translations having Antiochus' pavilion "''on/in the glorious holy mountain (Zion)''" in Palestine, are simply dismissed as wrong by a literalist plain reading of the Biblical text ([http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/context context]) as it relates to the death of Antiochus among the mountains of Persia "''in a strange land''" between the Caspian Sea and Mount Zion. —''Sources'': <br/> "Mediterranean Sea", Philip Lee, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 1097–1098. <br/>"Daniel, book of", Stephen R. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 386–388. <br/> "Antiochus", ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 76–77. <br/> New American Bible, Daniel 11:5-45 and footnote; 1 Maccabees 6:1 and footnote; 2 Maccabees 9:1-28 and footnote.</ref> He had departed from [http://www.bible-history.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_ecbatana.html Ecbatana (see map)] and was driving furiously toward Jerusalem when he was struck down. ''See'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains#mediaviewer/File:Zagros_Folded_Zone.jpg Zagros Mountains]. 1 Maccabees 6:1-16; 2 Maccabees 9:1-28; Daniel 7:26; 11:44-45; 12:11.

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

Antiochus died ''the thousand two hundred and ninetieth day from the time that the continual burnt offering was taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate was set up''. Daniel 12:11. A swift messenger set out, and brought the news to Jerusalem 45 days later (''a [http://www.evi.com/q/distance_from_jerusalem_to_ecbatana journey of 800 miles], average 17.77 miles per day''). "Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." (The 1,290th day + 45 days = the 1,335th day.)

===Fundamentalist textual analysis===

===Fundamentalist textual analysis===