Changes

==="Judge for yourself"===

==="Judge for yourself"===

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

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

''[[Eisegesis]]'' occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text, saying that it means what it does ''not'' mean ([[Proof text|reader-response Biblical interpretation]]).<ref>See four articles

''[[Eisegesis]]'' occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text, saying that it means what it does ''not'' mean ([[Proof text|reader-response Biblical interpretation]]).<ref>See four articles

===Fundamentalist textual analysis===

===Fundamentalist textual analysis===

Fundamentalist Protestant Christian believers consistently maintain that God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be considered an approved text. They said no to the pre-Christian Jewish rabbinical additions to Daniel translated into Greek in the Septuagint Bible of the Alexandrian Jews. Many fundamentalists agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one were to ask their opinion, these texts to do not appear to them to be inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?...,Ecclesiastes,?... But they did not accept 2 Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc into their canon. They admit that they accept by faith that God influenced the final canon of the OT as selected by ''the consensus of the Jews after the time of Christ'', which may not be a very useful instrument to "one who does not have faith" (a variation of the logical fallacy of [[No true Scotsman|No true Scotsman]] "whoever cannot see this lacks faith."). The [[Masoretic Text]] (from A.D. the 8th century) does not include these texts. The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not include them either, although they admit it is true that when Jerome translated the OT he was "forced" (''against his will, they add'') to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The Masoretic text is clear on this. But what is to be included in the LXX is not, on the face of the available extant manuscript evidence, clear to them. It is useful to compare what Jerome himself wrote.

Fundamentalist Protestant Christian believers consistently maintain that God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be considered an approved text. They said no to the pre-Christian Jewish rabbinical additions to Daniel translated into Greek in the Septuagint Bible of the Alexandrian Jews. Many fundamentalists agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one were to ask their opinion, these texts to do not appear to them to be inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?...,Ecclesiastes,?... But they did not accept 2 Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc. into their canon. They admit that they accept by faith that God influenced the final canon of the OT as selected by ''the consensus of the Jews after the time of Christ'', which may not be a very useful instrument to "one who does not have faith" (a variation of the logical fallacy of [[No true Scotsman|No true Scotsman]] "whoever cannot see this lacks faith."). The [[Masoretic Text]] (from A.D. the 8th century) does not include these texts. The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not include them either, although they admit it is true that when Jerome translated the OT he was "forced" (''against his will, they add'') to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The Masoretic text is clear on this. But what is to be included in the LXX is not, on the face of the available extant manuscript evidence, clear to them. It is useful to compare what Jerome himself wrote.

In his reply to Rufinus,<ref>See the following:

In his reply to Rufinus,<ref>See the following:

See [[Black-swan fallacy]] and [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]].

See [[Black-swan fallacy]] and [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]].

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

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

*[http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/KULTGOS.TXT Kulturkampf and the Gospel, by John Beaumont]

*[http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/KULTGOS.TXT Kulturkampf and the Gospel, by John Beaumont]

*[http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/farmer%28n%29.htm Church in History. The ChurchinHistory Information Centre. BISMARCK AND THE FOUR GOSPELS 1870 - 1914, by William R. Farmer (University of Dallas) Editor of A NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY. The theory that Mark's Gospel was published before Matthew's is widely held in German and English speaking countries. This article shows how this theory, with little supporting evidence, came to be spread as part of Bismarck's anti-Catholic 'Kulturkampf' policy. BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM. THE FOUR GOSPELS. 1992] (churchinhistory.org)

*[http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/farmer%28n%29.htm Church in History. The ChurchinHistory Information Centre. BISMARCK AND THE FOUR GOSPELS 1870 - 1914, by William R. Farmer (University of Dallas) Editor of A NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY. The theory that Mark's Gospel was published before Matthew's is widely held in German and English speaking countries. This article shows how this theory, with little supporting evidence, came to be spread as part of Bismarck's anti-Catholic 'Kulturkampf' policy. BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM. THE FOUR GOSPELS. 1992] (churchinhistory.org)

The account of the lion's den in Daniel 14 is examined by fundamentalists as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6, although it is presented in the book as a separate and much later event. Inclusion of this detail first causes these accounts to be seen by fundamentalist scholars as stories passed on outside the palace walls. They point out that either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate, but that both cannot fit together into the same account, and that the idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So they conclude that one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. They emphasize that Jewish scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. Fundamentalist Christian scholars find here no evidence to override such a decision, but instead that a brief examination "in fact" supports the Jews' suspicions toward the ''Bel and the Dragon'' account, and they contrast some of the differences in these accounts. In the fundamentalist view, within ''Bel and the Dragon'' the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful fairy tale, as a fable, rather than as an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habakkuk's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.

The account of the lion's den in Daniel 14 is examined by fundamentalists as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6, although it is presented in the book as a separate and much later event. Inclusion of this detail first causes these accounts to be seen by fundamentalist scholars as stories passed on outside the palace walls. They point out that either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate, but that both cannot fit together into the same account, and that the idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So they conclude that one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. They emphasize that Jewish scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. Fundamentalist Christian scholars find here no evidence to override such a decision, but instead that a brief examination "in fact" supports the Jews' suspicions toward the ''Bel and the Dragon'' account, and they contrast some of the differences in these accounts. In the fundamentalist view, within ''Bel and the Dragon'' the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful fairy tale, as a fable, rather than as an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habakkuk's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.

The miraculous transport of the Prophet Habakkuk to the lions den with a "sack lunch" for Daniel is for them so beyond belief <ref>"so beyond belief" —See [http://biblehub.com/john/6-60.htm John 6:60 and commentaries.]</ref> that some of them contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story" and that it is a "far more fanciful thing" than found elsewhere in the scriptures. Of course, this overlooks the fact that Daniel had been without food and water for six days, and such a consolation, brought so miraculously by his fellow Prophet from Judea, would be an overwhelming consolation and encouragement, and an additional proof of God's power and providential care. They maintain that there are no other similar accounts of such a transport of one prophet to assist or encourage another in any other Old Testament scripture. Thus the miraculous "zapping" of one person across time or space is not lightly regarded here. But on this basis every account of a miraculous occurrance having no similar parallel account elsewhere in the Old Testament would also be disqualified. However, they acknowledge that just being different from anything found elsewhere in the scriptures does not warrant its exclusion, else they would eliminate the translation of Elijah (2 Kings 2), the snatching away of Enoch (Genesis 5:24) or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture. So they emphasize that the downfall of the credibility of the transport of Habakkuk is what they see as its "total lack of authority, necessity, and significance". However, see Acts 8:26-40 where Philip was suddenly transported more than 40 miles from where he had baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and was suddenly found at Azotus.

The miraculous transport of the Prophet Habakkuk to the lions den with a "sack lunch" for Daniel is for them so beyond belief <ref>"so beyond belief" —See [http://biblehub.com/john/6-60.htm John 6:60 and commentaries.]</ref> that some of them contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story" and that it is a "far more fanciful thing" than found elsewhere in the scriptures. Of course, this overlooks the fact that Daniel had been without food and water for six days, and such a consolation, brought so miraculously by his fellow Prophet from Judea, would be an overwhelming consolation and encouragement, and an additional proof of God's power and providential care. They maintain that there are no other similar accounts of such a transport of one prophet to assist or encourage another in any other Old Testament scripture. Thus the miraculous "zapping" of one person across time or space is not lightly regarded here. But on this basis every account of a miraculous occurrence having no similar parallel account elsewhere in the Old Testament would also be disqualified. However, they acknowledge that just being different from anything found elsewhere in the scriptures does not warrant its exclusion, else they would eliminate the translation of Elijah (2 Kings 2), the snatching away of Enoch (Genesis 5:24) or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture. So they emphasize that the downfall of the credibility of the transport of Habakkuk is what they see as its "total lack of authority, necessity, and significance". However, see Acts 8:26-40 where Philip was suddenly transported more than 40 miles from where he had baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and was suddenly found at Azotus.

Examination of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' reveals to fundamentalist scholars and commentators that this writing "does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man", dismissing the fact that Daniel's exercise of "craftiness" in defeating pagan superstition is an expression of divine wisdom. The writing "even contradicts the Daniel-given account of the lion's den", and the miraculous transport of Habakkuk to the den's mouth "is not in the first person nor authoritative", and is thus "fanciful" and "more a presentation of legend than a historical event". They state that the Book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. Catholic and Orthodox Bible scholars agree. But fundamentalists insist that to include such a narration as ''Bel and the Dragon'' at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be "certain folly", folly that was "avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity". This examination of the internal evidences of ''Bel and the Dragon'' reveals to them little credibility for overriding what they see as the initial Jewish decision to "hide" this section from the temple books they considered as Holy Scripture and classify this chapter of Daniel as an apocryphal book, even while Jewish scribes included it in their translation of the Holy Scriptures into Greek.<ref name=EncJud/> It is notable that, in saying the accounts in the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel were "hidden" from the temple books, fundamentalist scholars apparently acknowledge or implicitly assume an original larger written text that included them and was edited to remove them.

Examination of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' reveals to fundamentalist scholars and commentators that this writing "does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man", dismissing the fact that Daniel's exercise of "craftiness" in defeating pagan superstition is an expression of divine wisdom. The writing "even contradicts the Daniel-given account of the lion's den", and the miraculous transport of Habakkuk to the den's mouth "is not in the first person nor authoritative", and is thus "fanciful" and "more a presentation of legend than a historical event". They state that the Book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. Catholic and Orthodox Bible scholars agree. But fundamentalists insist that to include such a narration as ''Bel and the Dragon'' at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be "certain folly", folly that was "avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity". This examination of the internal evidences of ''Bel and the Dragon'' reveals to them little credibility for overriding what they see as the initial Jewish decision to "hide" this section from the temple books they considered as Holy Scripture and classify this chapter of Daniel as an apocryphal book, even while Jewish scribes included it in their translation of the Holy Scriptures into Greek.<ref name=EncJud/> It is notable that, in saying the accounts in the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel were "hidden" from the temple books, fundamentalist scholars apparently acknowledge or implicitly assume an original larger written text that included them and was edited to remove them.

In its form historical criticism sees the book as showing striking differences, for while 2:4–7:28 is written in Aramaic, the immediately preceding and following portions are written in Hebrew. It is not easy to discover the reason for this peculiarity; it suggests to them, however, that the "Chaldeans" in this book are the Arameans or Syrians. A similar instance occurs in the ''Seder 'Olam Zuṭa'' (ed. Joh. Meyer),<ref>Seder Olam Zutta (Hebrew: סדר עולם זוטא) is an anonymous chronicle from 804 CE, called "Zuṭa" (= "smaller," or "younger") to distinguish it from the older Seder 'Olam Rabbah.</ref> where the author gradually lapses into Aramaic in talking of personages of the Babylonian exile, but on page 117 returns to Hebrew. Critical analysis suggests that the author of Daniel may have meant to introduce the "Chaldeans" in their own language, and then inadvertently continued in the language that was familiar to him (Driver, "Daniel", page xxii <ref name=Cambridge>"Cambridge Bible for Schools".</ref>) J. Böhmer page 150 <ref name=Cambridge/> maintains that the Aramaic portion was so written because its contents concerned all peoples; Prince<ref>J. D. Prince, Ph.D, Columbia University.</ref> and others suggest that the whole book was written originally in Hebrew, and translated into Aramaic; and that a part of the Hebrew book was lost, and replaced by the Aramaic translation. But this does not include the fact that the Aramaic portion begins with the speech of the "Chaldeans." Other scholars think that the whole book was originally written in Aramaic, while the beginning and end were translated into Hebrew so that the book might be incorporated into the canon.<ref>Marti, in his Commentary, 1901, page ix. Das Buch Daniel erklärt von D. Karl Marti, ord. Professor der Theologie an der Universität Bern; in the "Kurzer Handcommentar zum Alten Testament", herausg. v. D. Karl Marti. Lieferung 12.</ref> But if Hebrew form was necessary for its inclusion in the canon, it would have been necessary to translate the whole into Hebrew, unless the censor was satisfied with looking only at the first part and the last part of the scroll (which implies a deception). In any case the linguistic diversity in parts of this book is no reason for assuming two sources for it, as Meinhold does in his Commentary (page 262) <ref>Meinhold, J. ''Beiträge zur Erklärung des Buches Daniels''. Heft I: Dan. 2–6. Leipzig, Dorffling u. Franke 1888.</ref>; for the Aramaic Book of Daniel could not have begun with [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/2-4.htm 2:4.]

In its form historical criticism sees the book as showing striking differences, for while 2:4–7:28 is written in Aramaic, the immediately preceding and following portions are written in Hebrew. It is not easy to discover the reason for this peculiarity; it suggests to them, however, that the "Chaldeans" in this book are the Arameans or Syrians. A similar instance occurs in the ''Seder 'Olam Zuṭa'' (ed. Joh. Meyer),<ref>Seder Olam Zutta (Hebrew: סדר עולם זוטא) is an anonymous chronicle from 804 CE, called "Zuṭa" (= "smaller," or "younger") to distinguish it from the older Seder 'Olam Rabbah.</ref> where the author gradually lapses into Aramaic in talking of personages of the Babylonian exile, but on page 117 returns to Hebrew. Critical analysis suggests that the author of Daniel may have meant to introduce the "Chaldeans" in their own language, and then inadvertently continued in the language that was familiar to him (Driver, "Daniel", page xxii <ref name=Cambridge>"Cambridge Bible for Schools".</ref>) J. Böhmer page 150 <ref name=Cambridge/> maintains that the Aramaic portion was so written because its contents concerned all peoples; Prince<ref>J. D. Prince, Ph.D, Columbia University.</ref> and others suggest that the whole book was written originally in Hebrew, and translated into Aramaic; and that a part of the Hebrew book was lost, and replaced by the Aramaic translation. But this does not include the fact that the Aramaic portion begins with the speech of the "Chaldeans." Other scholars think that the whole book was originally written in Aramaic, while the beginning and end were translated into Hebrew so that the book might be incorporated into the canon.<ref>Marti, in his Commentary, 1901, page ix. Das Buch Daniel erklärt von D. Karl Marti, ord. Professor der Theologie an der Universität Bern; in the "Kurzer Handcommentar zum Alten Testament", herausg. v. D. Karl Marti. Lieferung 12.</ref> But if Hebrew form was necessary for its inclusion in the canon, it would have been necessary to translate the whole into Hebrew, unless the censor was satisfied with looking only at the first part and the last part of the scroll (which implies a deception). In any case the linguistic diversity in parts of this book is no reason for assuming two sources for it, as Meinhold does in his Commentary (page 262) <ref>Meinhold, J. ''Beiträge zur Erklärung des Buches Daniels''. Heft I: Dan. 2–6. Leipzig, Dorffling u. Franke 1888.</ref>; for the Aramaic Book of Daniel could not have begun with [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/2-4.htm 2:4.]

Also, the political history forming the background of the first six chapters is absent in 7–12. Historical critics suggest that the author may have thought his initial task was to first recount without a break the historical facts of Daniel's life, and that his second more important task was to record the revelations imparted to Daniel which were unconnected with his interaction with other people. In the first chapters Daniel is introduced in the third person, while in others he appears as the speaker. This is perhaps because the second part of the book is concerned only with the presentation of Daniel's relevatory experiences excluding all objective relations with the court and with the people, with the possible exception of the manifestation of the man clothed in linen which only Daniel saw, when great trembling fell on those about him and they fled (10:7). Such transitions of person narrative are found in other books (for example, Hosea 1 and 3). Therefore the change of third- to first-person narrative does not necessarily affect the unity of the book.<ref>For other opinions on the composite character of the Book of Daniel, see Eduard König, "''Einleitung ins Alte Testament''," p. 384; Von Gall, "''Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel,''" 1895; G. A. Barton, "''The Composition of the Book of Daniel''," in "''Journal of Biblical Literature''" 1898, pp. 62-86.</ref> Barton finds a contradiction between 1:1, 5, 18, and 2:1; for Nebuchadnezzar is designated as "king" in 1:1, and, according to 1:5, 18, Daniel and his friends were to be prepared three years prior to appearing before the king, while in 2:1 it is stated that this happened as early as the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. But there is no unnatural ''prolepsis'' (anticipatory introduction) on first mentioning "King" Nebuchadnezzar, who subsequently did become king, in giving him the title by which he was commonly known at the time of writing. Barton also finds a contradiction between the words "''And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus''" (1:21) and the words "''In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a thing was revealed unto Daniel''" (10:1). But according to Barton, 1:21 does not mean that Daniel lived "even unto the first year of Cyrus," but that Daniel survived even the fall of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom and that of his successor. The other contradictions mentioned by Barton are discussed by Eduard König in "''Theologisches Litteraturblatt,''" 1898, columns 539 and following. Barton's conclusion that nine different and complete episodes follow the first chapter is therefore untenable. The book, however, may have included originally only 1–7, an assumption that would explain the following three observations: the dropping of the Aramaic; the formula "''Hitherto is the end of the matter''" (7:28); and the juxtaposition of two materially identical narratives as found in 7 and 8. But this critique indicates that historical-critics may have difficulty accepting the principle set forth by Joseph in Genesis 41:32 "the doubling means that the thing is fixed by God", and that similarity of multiple narratives does not necessarily mean identity of event but more likely that it happened more than once (see [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%208:19-20 Mark 8:19-20]). Historical critics suggest that as events unfolded themselves, independent amplifications of the prophecy in the form of separately composed pamphlets, pointing even more clearly to the day of liberation, may have been added and incorporated into the book.

Also, the political history forming the background of the first six chapters is absent in 7–12. Historical critics suggest that the author may have thought his initial task was to first recount without a break the historical facts of Daniel's life, and that his second more important task was to record the revelations imparted to Daniel which were unconnected with his interaction with other people. In the first chapters Daniel is introduced in the third person, while in others he appears as the speaker. This is perhaps because the second part of the book is concerned only with the presentation of Daniel's relevatory experiences excluding all objective relations with the court and with the people, with the possible exception of the manifestation of the man clothed in linen which only Daniel saw, when great trembling fell on those about him and they fled (10:7). Such transitions of person narrative are found in other books (for example, Hosea 1 and 3). Therefore, the change of third- to first-person narrative does not necessarily affect the unity of the book.<ref>For other opinions on the composite character of the Book of Daniel, see Eduard König, "''Einleitung ins Alte Testament''," p. 384; Von Gall, "''Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel,''" 1895; G. A. Barton, "''The Composition of the Book of Daniel''," in "''Journal of Biblical Literature''" 1898, pp. 62-86.</ref> Barton finds a contradiction between 1:1, 5, 18, and 2:1; for Nebuchadnezzar is designated as "king" in 1:1, and, according to 1:5, 18, Daniel and his friends were to be prepared three years prior to appearing before the king, while in 2:1 it is stated that this happened as early as the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. But there is no unnatural ''prolepsis'' (anticipatory introduction) on first mentioning "King" Nebuchadnezzar, who subsequently did become king, in giving him the title by which he was commonly known at the time of writing. Barton also finds a contradiction between the words "''And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus''" (1:21) and the words "''In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a thing was revealed unto Daniel''" (10:1). But according to Barton, 1:21 does not mean that Daniel lived "even unto the first year of Cyrus," but that Daniel survived even the fall of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom and that of his successor. The other contradictions mentioned by Barton are discussed by Eduard König in "''Theologisches Litteraturblatt,''" 1898, columns 539 and following. Barton's conclusion that nine different and complete episodes follow the first chapter is therefore untenable. The book, however, may have included originally only 1–7, an assumption that would explain the following three observations: the dropping of the Aramaic; the formula "''Hitherto is the end of the matter''" (7:28); and the juxtaposition of two materially identical narratives as found in 7 and 8. But this critique indicates that historical-critics may have difficulty accepting the principle set forth by Joseph in Genesis 41:32 "the doubling means that the thing is fixed by God", and that similarity of multiple narratives does not necessarily mean identity of event but more likely that it happened more than once (see [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%208:19-20 Mark 8:19-20]). Historical critics suggest that as events unfolded themselves, independent amplifications of the prophecy in the form of separately composed pamphlets, pointing even more clearly to the day of liberation, may have been added and incorporated into the book.

===Author===

===Author===

David A. deSilva (''Introducing the Apocrypha'', pages 239–240) writes that while the author remains anonymous, some scholars have ventured to posit a very specific time and circumstance of composition. He cites Davies (1913: 656),<ref>Davies, Witton. 1913. "Bel and the Dragon", in ''APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English'', vol. I, Oxford, 1913. pages 652–664. [https://archive.org/details/apocryphapseudep01charuoft online archive link] (archive.org)

David A. deSilva (''Introducing the Apocrypha'', pages 239–240) writes that while the author remains anonymous, some scholars have ventured to posit a very specific time and circumstance of composition. He cites Davies (1913: 656),<ref>Davies, Witton. 1913. "Bel and the Dragon", in ''APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English'', vol. I, Oxford, 1913. pages 652–664. [https://archive.org/details/apocryphapseudep01charuoft online archive link] (archive.org)

:—Robert Henry Charles (R. H. Charles), ed., ''The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books.'' 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).</ref> for example, who suggests the book is a composition in a time of serious religious persecution, as under Antiochus VII Sidetes (ruler of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire, from 138 to 129 B.C). DeSilva claims that the assertion that "the general character of this tract" suggests authorship during a time of bitter persecution is without foundation, "arising no doubt from the unwarranted reading of the actions against Daniel in the second part of the story as a reflection of the author's own time". He says, moreover, that the picture of Antiochus VII painted by Josephus (''Jewish Antiquities'' 13.236–248) does not support the claim that he was an enemy of the Jewish religion ''per se''. Although Antiochus VII retaliated against Simon's anti-Seleucid actions by invading Judea and even besieging Jerusalem, and although he pressed the seige so hard that many died of famine, deSilva says he showed himself quite favorably disposed toward Jewish piety, allowing a truce for the week of the Pentecost celebration at John Hyrcanus's request and even providing bulls for sacrifices, winning himself the epithet 'Antiochus the Pious.' This display of reverence toward Jewish piety led to a resolution of the dispute shortly thereafter. Thus, according to deSilva, the composition of ''Bel and the Dragon'' was inspired not by persecution but by the perennial problem of living as a monolatrous minority culture (''monolatry—worship of one God'') in an idol-worshipping world. He says the attack on both idolatry and zoolatry (''worship of animals'') makes ''Egypt'' the place where the stories would be most on target with regard to the religious alternatives encountered by God-fearing Jews (he cites the "Egyptian Jewish texts" Wisdom 11:15-16; 15:18-19; ''Letter of Aristeas'' 138) (Roth 1975: 43), who could profit from some reinforcement of the unique truth of their own religious heritage despite the lavish expenditures and apparent devotion of their neighbors toward their gods. He points out that the main obstacle to this proposed provenance of the book is the fact that no known Egyptian Jewish text was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew (Collins 1993: 419 <ref>[http://divinity.yale.edu/collins-1 John J. Collins, Yale Divinity School]</ref>). Thus, deSilva concludes that, while this provenance is not impossible, since not all Egyptian Jews need to be supposed to have forgotten their ancestral language, it is more likely that the story originates in Palestine and that idolatry and zoolatry simply are attacked as two well-known forms of Gentile impiety. Others also concur with this view suggesting that perhaps the Hebrew text originated in Palestine about 146 B.C. or later.

:—Robert Henry Charles (R. H. Charles), ed., ''The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books.'' 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).</ref> for example, who suggests the book is a composition in a time of serious religious persecution, as under Antiochus VII Sidetes (ruler of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire, from 138 to 129 B.C). DeSilva claims that the assertion that "the general character of this tract" suggests authorship during a time of bitter persecution is without foundation, "arising no doubt from the unwarranted reading of the actions against Daniel in the second part of the story as a reflection of the author's own time". He says, moreover, that the picture of Antiochus VII painted by Josephus (''Jewish Antiquities'' 13.236–248) does not support the claim that he was an enemy of the Jewish religion ''per se''. Although Antiochus VII retaliated against Simon's anti-Seleucid actions by invading Judea and even besieging Jerusalem, and although he pressed the siege so hard that many died of famine, deSilva says he showed himself quite favorably disposed toward Jewish piety, allowing a truce for the week of the Pentecost celebration at John Hyrcanus's request and even providing bulls for sacrifices, winning himself the epithet 'Antiochus the Pious.' This display of reverence toward Jewish piety led to a resolution of the dispute shortly thereafter. Thus, according to deSilva, the composition of ''Bel and the Dragon'' was inspired not by persecution but by the perennial problem of living as a monolatrous minority culture (''monolatry—worship of one God'') in an idol-worshipping world. He says the attack on both idolatry and zoolatry (''worship of animals'') makes ''Egypt'' the place where the stories would be most on target with regard to the religious alternatives encountered by God-fearing Jews (he cites the "Egyptian Jewish texts" Wisdom 11:15-16; 15:18-19; ''Letter of Aristeas'' 138) (Roth 1975: 43), who could profit from some reinforcement of the unique truth of their own religious heritage despite the lavish expenditures and apparent devotion of their neighbors toward their gods. He points out that the main obstacle to this proposed provenance of the book is the fact that no known Egyptian Jewish text was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew (Collins 1993: 419 <ref>[http://divinity.yale.edu/collins-1 John J. Collins, Yale Divinity School]</ref>). Thus, deSilva concludes that, while this provenance is not impossible, since not all Egyptian Jews need to be supposed to have forgotten their ancestral language, it is more likely that the story originates in Palestine and that idolatry and zoolatry simply are attacked as two well-known forms of Gentile impiety. Others also concur with this view suggesting that perhaps the Hebrew text originated in Palestine about 146 B.C. or later.

Jay G. Williams (''Understanding the Old Testament'', page 316) asserts that when the author of Daniel himself attempted to predict the future specifically, he, on the whole, proved to be incorrect. Williams emphasizes that "Antiochus did not die as the author of Daniel said nor did his Seleucid kingdom come to a sudden end".<ref name=11:45/> The world still awaits the full manifestation of God's righteous rule upon earth. Still, Williams concedes the author was right about one thing: Antiochus did not destroy Israel. On the contrary, the Maccabees (he characterizes them as the "little help" mentioned in 11:34) even led the people to "a few moments of glory" before the Roman armies put an end to their semi-independent nation. Williams dismisses more than eighty years of Jewish autonomy under the [[Hasmoneans]] as a "few moments". He says that "perhaps our author was wrong in attempting to predict so precisely what was to occur, for the course of history is never easily determined in advance, even by a visionary prophet". Williams says that the author, however, knew that what his people actually needed was not "general platitudes" but a specific hope to which to cling, and that he provided this hope even at the risk of being wrong. But Williams assumes against Jewish cultural tradition that the Jews of the time had no sense of historical and political destiny, and that the warning of Moses against false prophets in the Book of Deuteronomy had no meaning for them [http://biblehub.com/multi/deuteronomy/18-22.htm Deuteronomy 18:22]. (Jesus himself declared that Daniel is a prophet and he cites the words spoken through him of the "abomination of desolation" in the Book of Daniel, [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/24-15.htm Matthew 24:15,] compare [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/8-13.htm Daniel 8:13.] The word, <big>'''ἐρημώσεως'''</big> ''eremosis'' in Septuagint Daniel, is quoted exactly by Jesus, <big>'''ἐρημώσεως'''</big> ''eremosis'' in Greek Matthew. The Lord does not use the word <big>'''שמם'''</big> ''shâmêm'' from the Hebrew Daniel.) Williams says, furthermore, that the author's central, motivating thesis is one which faithful men can hardly reject. He concludes that essentially the book of Daniel is an affirmation of the faith that the God of Israel has dominion over the world and that in the end he will save his people, and teaches that the faithful man must live expectantly, with the hope that the Kingdom of God is indeed at hand.

Jay G. Williams (''Understanding the Old Testament'', page 316) asserts that when the author of Daniel himself attempted to predict the future specifically, he, on the whole, proved to be incorrect. Williams emphasizes that "Antiochus did not die as the author of Daniel said nor did his Seleucid kingdom come to a sudden end".<ref name=11:45/> The world still awaits the full manifestation of God's righteous rule upon earth. Still, Williams concedes the author was right about one thing: Antiochus did not destroy Israel. On the contrary, the Maccabees (he characterizes them as the "little help" mentioned in 11:34) even led the people to "a few moments of glory" before the Roman armies put an end to their semi-independent nation. Williams dismisses more than eighty years of Jewish autonomy under the [[Hasmoneans]] as a "few moments". He says that "perhaps our author was wrong in attempting to predict so precisely what was to occur, for the course of history is never easily determined in advance, even by a visionary prophet". Williams says that the author, however, knew that what his people actually needed was not "general platitudes" but a specific hope to which to cling, and that he provided this hope even at the risk of being wrong. But Williams assumes against Jewish cultural tradition that the Jews of the time had no sense of historical and political destiny, and that the warning of Moses against false prophets in the Book of Deuteronomy had no meaning for them [http://biblehub.com/multi/deuteronomy/18-22.htm Deuteronomy 18:22]. (Jesus himself declared that Daniel is a prophet and he cites the words spoken through him of the "abomination of desolation" in the Book of Daniel, [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/24-15.htm Matthew 24:15,] compare [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/8-13.htm Daniel 8:13.] The word, <big>'''ἐρημώσεως'''</big> ''eremosis'' in Septuagint Daniel, is quoted exactly by Jesus, <big>'''ἐρημώσεως'''</big> ''eremosis'' in Greek Matthew. The Lord does not use the word <big>'''שמם'''</big> ''shâmêm'' from the Hebrew Daniel.) Williams says, furthermore, that the author's central, motivating thesis is one which faithful men can hardly reject. He concludes that essentially the book of Daniel is an affirmation of the faith that the God of Israel has dominion over the world and that in the end he will save his people, and teaches that the faithful man must live expectantly, with the hope that the Kingdom of God is indeed at hand.

Historical-critical scholars believe these doubts and uncertainties about the canonicity of Daniel among the Qumran people can now be laid aside for good. They have been based largely on the "roughly square proportions of the columns of 1QDana and because Pap6QDan is written on papyrus" (Ulrich 1987:19). But professor Ulrich now says that from Cave 4 scholars now have "overriding evidence" on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or "canonical", including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms, etc., that however one uses the category of what is later explicitly termed "canonical" in relation to Qumran, the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).

Historical-critical scholars believe these doubts and uncertainties about the canonicity of Daniel among the Qumran people can now be laid aside for good. They have been based largely on the "roughly square proportions of the columns of 1QDana and because Pap6QDan is written on papyrus" (Ulrich 1987:19). But professor Ulrich now says that from Cave 4 scholars now have "overriding evidence" on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or "canonical", including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms, etc., that however one uses the category of what is later explicitly termed "canonical" in relation to Qumran, the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).

   

   

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

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

   

   

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

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