Changes

Book of Daniel (view source)

Revision as of 07:19, July 13, 2016

212 bytes removed , 07:19, July 13, 2016

clean up & uniformity

Line 2: Line 2:

that interested [[Isaac Newton]] the most. It contains the prophecy of the arrival of the "[[Son of Man]]" and other predictions.

−

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

+

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

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

Line 115: Line 115:

== Greek and Persian words ==

−

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

+

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

==Dispute on Authorship==

Line 121: Line 121:

Due to the fact that the Book of Daniel contains prophecies that were fulfilled in the 2nd century B.C., many [[modernist]] scholars have asserted that this book was not written by Daniel the 6th century B.C., but by a later person. However, both Scriptural and textual arguments support the traditional view.<ref name="d"/>

−

# Jesus (Matthew 24:15; 25:31; 26:64) and His apostles (1 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:3) testify that the book was written by "the prophet Daniel," and that it is authoritative.<ref>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]</ref>~~<ref name="d"/>~~

+

# Jesus (Matthew 24:15; 25:31; 26:64) and His apostles (1 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:3) testify that the book was written by "the prophet Daniel," and that it is authoritative.<ref name="d"/><ref>[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]</ref>

−

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

+

−

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

+

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

+

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

+

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

Line 178: Line 190:

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

Line 191: Line 203:

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

:

−

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

+

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

:

The [[Deuterocanonicals]] were disputed from the 1st century to the 16th century, and include 7 books of the New Testament which many Christians and some individual scholars of those centuries confidently asserted were not authentic, but were ''clearly'' perceived by them as spurious writings.

Line 222: Line 234:

The meaning of the term "deuterocanonical" is therefore not identical with "apocryphal".

:

−

In 1539 Martin Luther declared that four of the New Testament deuterocanonicals are clearly hostile to the Gospel because they do not have "the marks of inspired scripture" and do not clearly "preach Christ": '''Hebrews, James, Jude''' and '''Revelation'''—he held that they were not on the same level as the pure scriptures.<ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books' of the New Testament] (bible-researcher.com/antilegomena) [http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/wilkgren.html Luther And "New Testament Apocrypha", A. Wikgren, in R. H. Fischer's A Tribute To Arthur Vööbus: Studies In Early Christian Literature, 1977, pp. 379-390. © University of Chicago Press]</ref> He found several books of the Bible to be ''clearly'' lacking the "marks of inspired writing".<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZUAuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Martin+Luther+on+the+Book+of+Tobit&source=bl&ots=o2f-ODSQ5i&sig=5akAGrPB7QUCRHbiEqqWxg5Egek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hqmUVLrgM8_4yQS19IGgAw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Martin%20Luther%20on%20the%20Book%20of%20Tobit&f=false The Table Talk of Martin Luther (1599), By Martin Luther, translated Alexander Chalmers, editor William Hazlitt. Bell & Daldy, 1872. 390 pages] ISBN~~-10:~~ 0486443590 ISBN~~-13:~~ 978-0486443591. [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/truth_about_martin_luther.htm The Truth About Martin Luther] (jesus-is-savior.com)</ref>

+

In 1539 Martin Luther declared that four of the New Testament deuterocanonicals are clearly hostile to the Gospel because they do not have "the marks of inspired scripture" and do not clearly "preach Christ": '''Hebrews, James, Jude''' and '''Revelation'''—he held that they were not on the same level as the pure scriptures.<ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books' of the New Testament] (bible-researcher.com/antilegomena) [http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/wilkgren.html Luther And "New Testament Apocrypha", A. Wikgren, in R. H. Fischer's A Tribute To Arthur Vööbus: Studies In Early Christian Literature, 1977, pp. 379-390. © University of Chicago Press]</ref> He found several books of the Bible to be ''clearly'' lacking the "marks of inspired writing".<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZUAuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Martin+Luther+on+the+Book+of+Tobit&source=bl&ots=o2f-ODSQ5i&sig=5akAGrPB7QUCRHbiEqqWxg5Egek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hqmUVLrgM8_4yQS19IGgAw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Martin%20Luther%20on%20the%20Book%20of%20Tobit&f=false The Table Talk of Martin Luther (1599), By Martin Luther, translated Alexander Chalmers, editor William Hazlitt. Bell & Daldy, 1872. 390 pages] ISBN 0486443590 ISBN 978-0486443591. [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/truth_about_martin_luther.htm The Truth About Martin Luther] (jesus-is-savior.com)</ref>

:"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." <ref name=facts>'The Facts About Luther, O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.</ref>

:"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness."

Line 239: Line 251:

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

:

−

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

+

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

:

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

:

−

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

+

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

:

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

Line 287: Line 299:

*[http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5430/how-to-separate-exegesis-from-eisegesis-in-this-example How to separate exegesis from eisegesis in this example?] —hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

*[http://carm.org/dictionary-eisegesis Dictionary: eisegesis. Brief informal definition and discussion of eisegesis: —''citing a classic example of Mormon eisegesis on 1 Cor. 8:5'' (KJV)] —carm.org</ref> ''Eisegesis'' is severely condemned according to many literalist readings of the text of the [[Deuteronomy|Book of Deuteronomy]] and the [[Book of Revelation]] <ref>See [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/22-18.htm# Literalist commentaries on Revelation 22:18] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/4-2.htm# Literalist commentaries on Deuteronomy 4:2] (biblehub.com).</ref>

−

::"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ''aught'' from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%204:2&version=KJV Deuteronomy 4:2]<ref>''see also'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%205:32&version=KJV Deuteronomy 5:32]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:11&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:11] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:20&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2027:26&version=KJV Deuteronomy 27:26] </ref><ref>The Samaritan Pentateuch text has Mount Gerizim as the place to build the Temple of the ~~LORD~~. Because the text of Deuteronomy 17:20 says "You shall not add to the word which I command you..." the Samaritans do not accept the rest of the books of the Bible as the inspired word of God, but according to their letterist reading of this text see them as the false additions of men. Their community has remained small (withered) according to the words of Jesus [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2015:6&version=KJV John 15:6.]</ref>

+

::"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ''aught'' from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%204:2&version=KJV Deuteronomy 4:2]<ref>''see also'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%205:32&version=KJV Deuteronomy 5:32]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:11&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:11] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2017:20&version=KJV Deuteronomy 17:20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2027:26&version=KJV Deuteronomy 27:26]</ref><ref>The Samaritan Pentateuch text has Mount Gerizim as the place to build the Temple of the LORD. Because the text of Deuteronomy 17:20 says "You shall not add to the word which I command you..." the Samaritans do not accept the rest of the books of the Bible as the inspired word of God, but according to their letterist reading of this text see them as the false additions of men. Their community has remained small (withered) according to the words of Jesus [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2015:6&version=KJV John 15:6.]</ref>

::"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and ''from'' the things which are written in this book." KJV —[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2022:18-19&version=KJV Revelation 22:18-19] <ref>Many conservative Christians see "the words of the prophesy of this book" as referring not solely to the Book of Revelation alone but to the whole canon of the books of the Bible as the one book of the words of prophesy spoken by the Holy Spirit, God. On the basis of this interpretation, and after formulating a Reformation-defined canon of 66 books, the Protestant Reformers accused the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of having added books to the Bible in the [[Third Council of Carthage (397)|4th century]], and Catholic and Orthodox leaders accused Protestants of taking away whole books and parts of other books from the Bible of the Apostles and the Ancient Christian Church. In response to the controversy, in the Catholic [[Council of Trent]], the Catholic Church declared an end to all debate in the Church regarding the canonical status of particular books of Scripture, by [[dogma]]tically listing the canon of the Bible "as read in the Church". See [[Apocrypha]] and [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Apocrypha Books - King James Bible Online].</ref>

Line 422: Line 434:

[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]).

−

[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 [~~~~source: "Daniel", S. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''~~~~] 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) [~~~~''Daniel'', 2003, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, ISBN 978-0-664-25675-3~~~~], and John J. Collins, Peter W. Flint, and others [~~~~''[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~~~~] 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'': "Mediterranean Sea", Philip Lee, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 1097–1098. "Daniel, book of", Stephen R. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 386–388. "Antiochus", ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 76–77. 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.

+

[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 [source: "Daniel", S. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''] 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) [''Daniel'', 2003, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, ISBN 978-0-664-25675-3], and John J. Collins, Peter W. Flint, and others [''[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] 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'': "Mediterranean Sea", Philip Lee, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 1097–1098. "Daniel, book of", Stephen R. Miller, ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 386–388. "Antiochus", ''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'', pp. 76–77. 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.

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.)

Line 430: Line 442:

===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]] "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:

Line 447: Line 459:

Fundamentalists acknowledge without hesitation that the chosen prophets who recorded God's word, did so with the authority and supernatural protection of God. This supernatural protection followed their written words as supernatural preservation for the truths that God intended us to have in the 21st century. Orthodox and Catholic scholars heartily agree with this, and point to their preservation in the Septuagint and Vulgate as authoritative Holy Scripture. For fundamentalists this authority and preservation are clearly missing from the account of ''Bel and the Dragon''.

−

The dragon killed by Daniel is sometimes taken as proof that the story is a fabulous fabrication belonging in the category of fairy tale so that it cannot possibly be taken seriously as sacred scripture inspired by the God of truth who cannot lie. St. Peter taught that "we have not followed cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16 KJV). The argument that the dragon in Daniel 14 must therefore have been an idol of a serpent is contested by R.H. Charles in his introduction to ''Bel and the Dragon.''<ref>Charles, R.H., ''The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English'', 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon page 653.</ref> Such an argument is entirely without any correspondence here since it is plain from the text that the creature is a living creature, and that it is not just a large serpent. These clear distinctions are brought into additional controversy by those "scholars" who believe that any dragon-type creature would have been extinct millions of years before this writing. Such presuppositions supported by an evolutionary theory often cloud simple facts and hide them from the "scholar's" view. There is ample evidence that dragon-like creatures (today given the name dinosaur, meaning "terrible lizard") were prevalent in the Babylonian era (for example, the ''sirrush'' depicted on the famous Ishtar Gate of Babylon).<ref>Ham, Snelling, Wieland, ''The Answers Book'', pages ~~21-39~~. See also articles regarding the possible existence of the '''''sirrush''''' the Babylonian dragon.

+

The dragon killed by Daniel is sometimes taken as proof that the story is a fabulous fabrication belonging in the category of fairy tale so that it cannot possibly be taken seriously as sacred scripture inspired by the God of truth who cannot lie. St. Peter taught that "we have not followed cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16 KJV). The argument that the dragon in Daniel 14 must therefore have been an idol of a serpent is contested by R.H. Charles in his introduction to ''Bel and the Dragon.''<ref>Charles, R.H., ''The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English'', 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon page 653.</ref> Such an argument is entirely without any correspondence here since it is plain from the text that the creature is a living creature, and that it is not just a large serpent. These clear distinctions are brought into additional controversy by those "scholars" who believe that any dragon-type creature would have been extinct millions of years before this writing. Such presuppositions supported by an evolutionary theory often cloud simple facts and hide them from the "scholar's" view. There is ample evidence that dragon-like creatures (today given the name dinosaur, meaning "terrible lizard") were prevalent in the Babylonian era (for example, the ''sirrush'' depicted on the famous Ishtar Gate of Babylon).<ref>Ham, Snelling, Wieland, ''The Answers Book'', pages 21–39. See also articles regarding the possible existence of the '''''sirrush''''' the Babylonian dragon.

:[http://www.occultopedia.com/s/sirrush.htm Occultopedia: Sirrush] (occultopedia.com) ''mentions Bel and the Dragon as having possible basis in reality''

:[http://www.redorbit.com/education/reference_library/general-2/cryptozoology/1112967682/sirrush-mushussu/ Sirrush: Mushussu] (redorbit.com)

Line 504: Line 516:

===Content===

−

The Book of Daniel may be divided into two parts: chapters 1–6, recounting the earlier events of Daniel's life; chapters 7–12, containing his prophecies; and an appendix containing the ''Prologue'' of his youth and the events of his last years under Darius. In the Septuagint the two parts are: 1–7, recounting the ''Prologue'' of his youth and the earlier events of Daniel's life; and chapters 8–13, containing his prophecies, and the events of his last years under Darius. "While the first part proves that it is impossible for the world-empire to belong to the heathen forever, the second part shows that Israel is destined to found this world empire through the son of man, who has long since existed in heaven" (J. Böhmer, "''Reich Gottes und Menschensohnim Buche Daniel,''" 1899, p. 60).

+

The Book of Daniel may be divided into two parts: chapters 1–6, recounting the earlier events of Daniel's life; chapters 7–12, containing his prophecies; and an appendix containing the ''Prologue'' of his youth and the events of his last years under Darius. In the Septuagint the two parts are: 1–7, recounting the ''Prologue'' of his youth and the earlier events of Daniel's life; and chapters 8–13, containing his prophecies, and the events of his last years under Darius. "While the first part proves that it is impossible for the world-empire to belong to the heathen forever, the second part shows that Israel is destined to found this world empire through the son of man, who has long since existed in heaven" (J. Böhmer, "''Reich Gottes und Menschensohnim Buche Daniel,''" 1899, p. 60).

The rabbinically added episodes of ''Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon'', found today only in the Greek version, are edifying short stories with a didactic purpose (chapters 13–14). The Greek version also includes a prayer and a hymn of praise, numbered in ''The New American Bible, Revised Edition'' NABRE and the ''Greek Bible'' as 3:24–90, between 3:23 and 3:24 in the shorter "Hebrew" (Aramaic) text.

Line 531: Line 543:

===Form===

−

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.

Line 543: Line 555:

The name '''Daniel''' (Hebrew '''דניאל''' ''dnyal'' or ''dnal''; Septuagint '''Δανιὴλ''' ''Daniél''), means "God is my judge", the name also of two other persons in the Old Testament [see 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 3:1; 1 Esdras (Ezra) 8:2, and 2 Esdras (Nehemiah) 10:6]. It is thus seen as a fitting appellation for the unknown writer of the Book of Daniel, in which God's judgments are repeatedly pronounced on Gentile powers.

−

W. Sibley Towner (''Harper's Bible Commentary'', p. 696) writes that Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In its current form (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), he says the book must have been given its final form at some time in 167–164 B.C. Towner says this is based on two assumptions: first, that the authors lived near the end of the historical events characterizing Daniel 7–12; and second, that "prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray". Hence, the references to the Temple's desecration and the "abomination that makes desolate" in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events previously known to the author. He insists that the best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The "inaccurate" description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests to him that "the author did not know" of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C.. However, because Towner, as many others, implicitly assumes that the "sea" must be the Mediterranean, he does not advert to the fact that this text [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-45.htm 11:45] accurately designated with divine foreknowledge the geographical location of Antiochus' death in Persia as between Mount Zion and the Caspian Sea and "between the seas" of the Mediterranean Sea and the Caspian Sea (the translations vary).<ref name=11:45/> Dr. Towner suggests that the roots of the [[Hagiography|hagiographa]] (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chapters 1–6 may in fact date to an earlier time, but that the entire work was probably given its final shape in 164 B.C..

+

W. Sibley Towner (''Harper's Bible Commentary'', p. 696) writes that Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In its current form (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), he says the book must have been given its final form at some time in 167–164 B.C. Towner says this is based on two assumptions: first, that the authors lived near the end of the historical events characterizing Daniel 7–12; and second, that "prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray". Hence, the references to the Temple's desecration and the "abomination that makes desolate" in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events previously known to the author. He insists that the best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The "inaccurate" description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests to him that "the author did not know" of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C.. However, because Towner, as many others, implicitly assumes that the "sea" must be the Mediterranean, he does not advert to the fact that this text [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/11-45.htm 11:45] accurately designated with divine foreknowledge the geographical location of Antiochus' death in Persia as between Mount Zion and the Caspian Sea and "between the seas" of the Mediterranean Sea and the Caspian Sea (the translations vary).<ref name=11:45/> Dr. Towner suggests that the roots of the [[Hagiography|hagiographa]] (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chapters 1–6 may in fact date to an earlier time, but that the entire work was probably given its final shape in 164 B.C..

−

Louis F. Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, page 448) asserts that Jews and Christians, "having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing", until relatively recent years have "erroneously" considered Daniel to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. As chapters 7–12 are written in the first person, he says it was natural for them to assume that Daniel in chapters 1–6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. However, he insists that few modern biblical scholars would now seriously defend such an opinion. Hartman says the arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. The late Hebrew used in Daniel could hardly have written by an author living in the 6th century, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri dating from the end of the 5th century. He points out that the theological outlook of the author, with "his interest in angelology", "his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision", and especially "his belief in the resurrection of the dead", points inescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. Hartman says the author's historical perspective, "often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty", is characteristic of the Hellenistic age. Finally, the author's detailed description matching the details of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35), in contrast to his "merely general reference" to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165.<ref name=11:45/> Hartman says (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 460) that Daniel 14:1-22 is another folk tale of the "Daniel Cycle", a little Jewish "detective story" satire on the crudities of idolatry, although actually it is a caricature of pagan worship. He points out that the offering of food and drink in sacrifice to pagan gods "did not differ substantially from similar offerings made to Yahweh in the Temple". In both cases, a certain amount of the sacrificial offerings went quite legitimately to the priests and their families. However, the Jews of the last pre-Christian centuries were so convinced of the folly of idolatry (see Wisdom 13:1–15:17) that this "unfair ridicule of pagan worship" is understandable. (Compare the human sacrificial practices of [[infanticide]]/[[abortion]] in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=wisdom%2012:2-7&version=DRA Wisdom 12:2-7].) Hartman says the second story in Daniel 14:23-42 is another short story in the "Daniel Cycle", basically a variant of Daniel 6 (the lions' den). Here pagan worship is again satired by Daniel's "blowing up" of the Babylonians' divine serpent (this is Hartman's ridicule of Daniel's inducing in the beast a serious bowel blockage and hemorrhage with rupture to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it was no god). He says that although this was once an independent story, in its present form it has been edited to follow the preceding tale (see verse 28); and he acknowledges that in all the Greek manuscripts, the two stories do appear together, and the LXX of the Jews even prefixes to the former tale the note, "From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi." However, neither Hartman nor fundamentalist Christians believe that this explicit pre-Christian rabbinical testimony/certification of authenticity in the LXX constitutes authentic inspired scriptural sanction of the book as being a genuine part of the Book of Daniel. This is the [[fallacy of exclusion]], also called "[[cherry picking]]".

+

Louis F. Hartman (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, page 448) asserts that Jews and Christians, "having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing", until relatively recent years have "erroneously" considered Daniel to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. As chapters 7–12 are written in the first person, he says it was natural for them to assume that Daniel in chapters 1–6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. However, he insists that few modern biblical scholars would now seriously defend such an opinion. Hartman says the arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. The late Hebrew used in Daniel could hardly have written by an author living in the 6th century, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri dating from the end of the 5th century. He points out that the theological outlook of the author, with "his interest in angelology", "his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision", and especially "his belief in the resurrection of the dead", points inescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. Hartman says the author's historical perspective, "often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty", is characteristic of the Hellenistic age. Finally, the author's detailed description matching the details of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35), in contrast to his "merely general reference" to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165.<ref name=11:45/> Hartman says (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 460) that Daniel 14:1-22 is another folk tale of the "Daniel Cycle", a little Jewish "detective story" satire on the crudities of idolatry, although actually it is a caricature of pagan worship. He points out that the offering of food and drink in sacrifice to pagan gods "did not differ substantially from similar offerings made to Yahweh in the Temple". In both cases, a certain amount of the sacrificial offerings went quite legitimately to the priests and their families. However, the Jews of the last pre-Christian centuries were so convinced of the folly of idolatry (see Wisdom 13:1–15:17) that this "unfair ridicule of pagan worship" is understandable. (Compare the human sacrificial practices of [[infanticide]]/[[abortion]] in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=wisdom%2012:2-7&version=DRA Wisdom 12:2-7].) Hartman says the second story in Daniel 14:23-42 is another short story in the "Daniel Cycle", basically a variant of Daniel 6 (the lions' den). Here pagan worship is again satired by Daniel's "blowing up" of the Babylonians' divine serpent (this is Hartman's ridicule of Daniel's inducing in the beast a serious bowel blockage and hemorrhage with rupture to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it was no god). He says that although this was once an independent story, in its present form it has been edited to follow the preceding tale (see verse 28); and he acknowledges that in all the Greek manuscripts, the two stories do appear together, and the LXX of the Jews even prefixes to the former tale the note, "From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi." However, neither Hartman nor fundamentalist Christians believe that this explicit pre-Christian rabbinical testimony/certification of authenticity in the LXX constitutes authentic inspired scriptural sanction of the book as being a genuine part of the Book of Daniel. This is the [[fallacy of exclusion]], also called "[[cherry picking]]".

−

J. Alberto Soggin (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', p. 408) observes that the first difficulties in the historical classification of the book begin with the deportation of Daniel and his companions, because historians do not in fact know anything of a deportation which took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, in 607 B.C.. Allowing for its possibly basic historicity, he says the event might be connected with the conquest of Syria and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar II after the battle of Carchemish in 605–4 and his victory over Egypt. Soggin sees King Jehoiakim as taking this occasion to move out of the sphere of Egyptian influence and into that of Babylon (he refers his reader to [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_chronicles/36-5.htm 2 Chronicles 36:5], but his reference is of itself uninformative, vague, does not illustrate his point, and is of itself not complete, a pervasive general characteristic of modern liberal scholarship—see the fuller reference [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2chronicles%2036:1-7&version=KJV 2 Chronicles 36:1-7], and compare this usage to the far more explicit [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2kings%2023:31-24:7&version=KJV 2 Kings 23:31–24:7] which apparently was his intended reference). Complex problems of foreign policy followed, to which Soggin alludes in his discussion of Jeremiah. He points out that until recently this notation in the text of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 36:5 again?)was considered spurious, since there was no external historical point of comparison, but discoveries during the 1950s of various unedited fragments of the ''[[Babylonian Chronicle]]'' have, for historical-critical scholars, unexpectedly made sense of both this passage and 2 Kings 24:1ff. But even admitting the substantial historicity of the events narrated, Soggin emphasizes that there remains the problem of chronology. He finds other elements no less perplexing: in 5:11 Belshazzar is implicitly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar and in 7:1 he appears as king of Babylon. However, according to historical records he was neither one nor the other, but the son of Nabonidus, one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors who came to the throne as the result of a plot. (The only other possibility, according to Soggin, is that "''son of...''" is intended in a generic sense, as "''descendant of...''", a usage which is attested in [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]].) Alternatively, Soggin says the statement that Belshazzar was king may simply be imprecise wording: towards 553 B.C. he was resident in Babylon as a kind of lieutenant-general for the king during his numerous absences, and could therefore have been called king, at least by the people. Again, in 5:31 a certain Darius the Mede appears, who is considered by many readers to be king of Persia after the fall of Babylon. In 9:1 "Darius" appears as son of Xerxes, whereas in 6:29 Cyrus succeeds a "Darius". Soggin affirms that, if we are to be precise, the question arises regarding why Daniel is at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen, "always assuming that we take the term 'Mede' seriously". Soggin says this question has never been answered. He says we must therefore accept that Media in the Book of Daniel is in reality Persia. He does not appear to entertain the real possibility that Cyrus assigned to his own lieutenant and chief commander Darius the whole province of Babylon to govern as a subordinate ruler, and that the Babylonian empire fell when Darius "received" the kingdom. Conservative scholars can point out that he obviously "received the kingdom" from Cyrus (Aramaic '''קְבַל''' ''qĕbal'' "''received''"<ref>KJV says he "''took''" the kingdom. [http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6902&t=NASB Strong's number 6902 '''קְבַל''' ''qĕbal'']</ref>), that Darius is not called "king of the Medes", and therefore Daniel was not "at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen"—compare multiple versions of [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/5-31.htm 5:31]. But the genealogy of the kings of Persia is well known: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I Hystaspes, Xerxes. Soggin asks, if the Darius mentioned here was Darius I Hystaspes from the last quarter of the sixth century, king of Persia 521–486 B.C., how old would Daniel be? He says these are features which were already pointed out by the anti-Christian polemicist [[Celsus]] at the end of A.D. the second century. It is evident that they do not believe a prophet of God could live to the age of around 105 (about 17 years old, a "child/youth without blemish" (1:4) in the third year of Jehoiakim 607 B.C. and living to 519 B.C. the first year of Darius I Hystaspes: 607 – 519 = 88 years + 17 = 105 years old).<ref>"about 17 years old". Daniel 1:4 "children" Strong's number 3206 '''ילד ''yeled''''' : The [[King James Version]] of Genesis 21:14 and Daniel 1:4 translates '''ילד ''yeled''''' as "child". According to Strong's Concordance of the Bible ''Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament'' (Strong's number 3206) this word also means "young man", ''a lad''.</ref>

+

J. Alberto Soggin (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', p. 408) observes that the first difficulties in the historical classification of the book begin with the deportation of Daniel and his companions, because historians do not in fact know anything of a deportation which took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, in 607 B.C.. Allowing for its possibly basic historicity, he says the event might be connected with the conquest of Syria and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar II after the battle of Carchemish in 605–4 and his victory over Egypt. Soggin sees King Jehoiakim as taking this occasion to move out of the sphere of Egyptian influence and into that of Babylon (he refers his reader to [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_chronicles/36-5.htm 2 Chronicles 36:5], but his reference is of itself uninformative, vague, does not illustrate his point, and is of itself not complete, a pervasive general characteristic of modern liberal scholarship—see the fuller reference [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2chronicles%2036:1-7&version=KJV 2 Chronicles 36:1-7], and compare this usage to the far more explicit [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2kings%2023:31-24:7&version=KJV 2 Kings 23:31–24:7] which apparently was his intended reference). Complex problems of foreign policy followed, to which Soggin alludes in his discussion of Jeremiah. He points out that until recently this notation in the text of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 36:5 again?)was considered spurious, since there was no external historical point of comparison, but discoveries during the 1950s of various unedited fragments of the ''[[Babylonian Chronicle]]'' have, for historical-critical scholars, unexpectedly made sense of both this passage and 2 Kings 24:1ff. But even admitting the substantial historicity of the events narrated, Soggin emphasizes that there remains the problem of chronology. He finds other elements no less perplexing: in 5:11 Belshazzar is implicitly called the son of Nebuchadnezzar and in 7:1 he appears as king of Babylon. However, according to historical records he was neither one nor the other, but the son of Nabonidus, one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors who came to the throne as the result of a plot. (The only other possibility, according to Soggin, is that "''son of...''" is intended in a generic sense, as "''descendant of...''", a usage which is attested in [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]].) Alternatively, Soggin says the statement that Belshazzar was king may simply be imprecise wording: towards 553 B.C. he was resident in Babylon as a kind of lieutenant-general for the king during his numerous absences, and could therefore have been called king, at least by the people. Again, in 5:31 a certain Darius the Mede appears, who is considered by many readers to be king of Persia after the fall of Babylon. In 9:1 "Darius" appears as son of Xerxes, whereas in 6:29 Cyrus succeeds a "Darius". Soggin affirms that, if we are to be precise, the question arises regarding why Daniel is at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen, "always assuming that we take the term 'Mede' seriously". Soggin says this question has never been answered. He says we must therefore accept that Media in the Book of Daniel is in reality Persia. He does not appear to entertain the real possibility that Cyrus assigned to his own lieutenant and chief commander Darius the whole province of Babylon to govern as a subordinate ruler, and that the Babylonian empire fell when Darius "received" the kingdom. Conservative scholars can point out that he obviously "received the kingdom" from Cyrus (Aramaic '''קְבַל''' ''qĕbal'' "''received''"<ref>KJV says he "''took''" the kingdom. [http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6902&t=NASB Strong's number 6902 '''קְבַל''' ''qĕbal'']</ref>), that Darius is not called "king of the Medes", and therefore Daniel was not "at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen"—compare multiple versions of [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/5-31.htm 5:31]. But the genealogy of the kings of Persia is well known: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I Hystaspes, Xerxes. Soggin asks, if the Darius mentioned here was Darius I Hystaspes from the last quarter of the sixth century, king of Persia 521–486 B.C., how old would Daniel be? He says these are features which were already pointed out by the anti-Christian polemicist [[Celsus]] at the end of A.D. the second century. It is evident that they do not believe a prophet of God could live to the age of around 105 (about 17 years old, a "child/youth without blemish" (1:4) in the third year of Jehoiakim 607 B.C. and living to 519 B.C. the first year of Darius I Hystaspes: 607 – 519 = 88 years + 17 = 105 years old).<ref>"about 17 years old". Daniel 1:4 "children" Strong's number 3206 '''ילד ''yeled''''' : The [[King James Version]] of Genesis 21:14 and Daniel 1:4 translates '''ילד ''yeled''''' as "child". According to Strong's Concordance of the Bible ''Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament'' (Strong's number 3206) this word also means "young man", ''a lad''.</ref>

James King West (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', pages 417–418) writes that the same persecutions which provoked the Maccabean uprising also stimulated the development of a new literary and theological form within Jewish circles, known as "apocalypse".<ref>"apocalypse". Ancient Greek: ἀποκάλυψις ''apocálypsis'', from ἀπό ''apo'' (from, remove) and καλύπτω ''kalupto'' (cover, concealment) meaning "un-covering".</ref> The name itself (Greek ἀποκάλυψις ''apokalypsis'') means "revelation" or "unveiling" ("''dis-closure''", "'''dis-close''"), in reference to the revealed truths which these writings purport to convey. West states that the book of Daniel, from this period, is the only true apocalypse in the old Testament, though he acknowledges some portions of other books share close affinities with its style (Isaiah 24–27; Ezekiel 38–39; Zechariah 1:7–6:8; Joel 2:1-11; 4:1-21). He notes that between the second century B.C. and the end of A.D. the first century, other books of this genre, both Jewish and Christian, became popular, the Revelation of John in the New Testament being one of its best-known representatives. West says the characteristic theology of the apocalypse form is an [[Eschatology|eschatological]] (end time) dualism which presents the present age of world history as about to give way to God's final age—a climactic intervention by God himself for judgment and deliverance. The marked literary form of apocalyptic message is couched in visions, bizarre imagery, cryptic numbers, and angelic interpreters. Authorship is generally pseudonymous, the works being consigned to some authoritative figure of the distant past, such as Enoch, Moses, Daniel, or Ezra. This makes them technically "''[[pseudepigrapha]]''". West (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', pages 458–459) says Daniel 14:1-22 is a satire on pagan divinities in the vein of Isaiah 44:9-20 and the ''Letter of Jeremiah'' (Baruch 6). King Cyrus of Babylon asks Daniel why he does not worship Cyrus' idol, "Bel", and Daniel denies the king's claim that Bel eats the food offered to him daily. When Bel's priests are challenged to prove it, they allow the king to place the food in the temple and seal the door. In the meantime Daniel has his servants sift ashes over the floor. The next day Daniel and the king find the food gone but the floor is covered with footprints. Discovering the secret doors by which he had been deceived, Cyrus is enraged and orders the execution of the priests and their families, while Daniel is permitted to destroy the temple and the idol. West writes that in the companion story (Daniel 14:23-42) the same motive of lampooning pagan deities is apparent, but that the issue is approached from the opposite angle. The fact that Bel is nothing more than a man-made statue is easily demonstrated by its inability to eat, but the dragon is obviously a living creature and does eat. Therefore, to prove that the dragon too is no god, Daniel must show that merely being big and alive and able to eat is not sufficient evidence to establish divinity. He offers to perform the apparently impossible feat of slaying the dragon "without sword or club" (14:26). The king's acceptance of Daniel's challenge is a tacit admission of the premise that if Daniel succeeds the dragon is no god. Having concocted some cakes of pitch, fat, and hair, "he feeds them to the witless beast which promptly explodes". James King West here uses the language of ridicule to make the account sound comical and absurd. In fact the text says here that Daniel fed the cakes to the dragon, "the dragon ate them, and burst open". It did not "explode". This liberalist technique is a form of the [[Straw man fallacy]].

Line 570: Line 582:

===Date===

−

Historical-critical analysis considers all of the textual evidence for inferring the date of the writing of the book. Many historical-critical researchers find that many portions of the extant text could not have been composed or written by one of the exiles contemporary with the second king of the Babylonian empire and his immediate successors. This is proved even by the form of that king's name as given in the book. His Assyrian name was "Nabu-kudurriuẓur" (Friedrich Delitzsch, "''Assyrische Lesestücke''", 1900, p. 192), which the Hebrews at first pronounced "Nebu-kadr-eẓẓar" (Jeremiah 21:2 and following [26 times]; Ezekiel 26:7, 29:18 and following, 30:10). The middle "r" was then dissimilated from the final "r," giving "Nebu-kadn-eẓẓar," a form which is found in Jeremiah only in 27:6–29:3, but which is the usual form in all later writings (2 Kings 24:1 and following; 2 Chronicles 36:6 and following; Ezra 1:7; Esther 2:6; Daniel 1:18 and following; ''Soferim'' 14:7; ''Seder 'Olam R.'' 24 et seq.; and Septuagint, Ναβουχοδονόσορ ''Nabuchodonosor'').

+

Historical-critical analysis considers all of the textual evidence for inferring the date of the writing of the book. Many historical-critical researchers find that many portions of the extant text could not have been composed or written by one of the exiles contemporary with the second king of the Babylonian empire and his immediate successors. This is proved even by the form of that king's name as given in the book. His Assyrian name was "Nabu-kudurriuẓur" (Friedrich Delitzsch, "''Assyrische Lesestücke''", 1900, p. 192), which the Hebrews at first pronounced "Nebu-kadr-eẓẓar" (Jeremiah 21:2 and following [26 times]; Ezekiel 26:7, 29:18 and following, 30:10). The middle "r" was then dissimilated from the final "r," giving "Nebu-kadn-eẓẓar," a form which is found in Jeremiah only in 27:6–29:3, but which is the usual form in all later writings (2 Kings 24:1 and following; 2 Chronicles 36:6 and following; Ezra 1:7; Esther 2:6; Daniel 1:18 and following; ''Soferim'' 14:7; ''Seder 'Olam R.'' 24 et seq.; and Septuagint, Ναβουχοδονόσορ ''Nabuchodonosor'').

===The time-conditioned historical milieu===

Line 586: Line 598:

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

−

+

The Qumran findings significantly curtailed the great freedom many liberalist scholars took in questioning the faithfulness of the Hebrew text and in amending, changing, and adjusting the Hebrew text before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.

Line 612: Line 624:

====The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and the [[Protocanonicals|Protocanonical]] Book of Daniel====

−

+

In 1955 when Professor D. Barthélemy published the first fragmentary Daniel manuscripts from Cave 1 of Qumran, 1QDana and 1QDanb, he put forth the opinion that "certain indications permit the thought that Daniel had perhaps not yet been considered at Qumran as a canonical book" (Barthélemy and Milik 1955:250). This idea perpetuated itself for years afterward among more liberal scholars who were in the majority. However, in 1964 F.F. Bruce stated that the book of Daniel "may well have enjoyed canonical status among them [the Qumran sectaries]" (Bruce 1964:57). John Goldingay stated in his 1989 Daniel commentary, written before the newest publications of the Qumran Daniel manuscripts were accessible, "There are no real grounds for suggesting that the form of the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel indicates that the book was not regarded as canonical there, though neither for affirming that it was [regarded as canonical] (Goldingay 1989:xxvii)." This is an example of [[Logical fallacy#Tautology|tautological reasoning]]. "There is no proof that it is, and no proof that it is not." It proves nothing and contributes nothing. It is similar to the fallacy of [[contradiction]].

Line 683: Line 695:

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

−

===An early date for the book of Daniel is unavoidable===

+

===An early date for the book of Daniel is unavoidable===

−

+

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

Line 805: Line 817:

===The Book of Daniel===

−

[http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Daniel&ch= Introduction to the Book of Daniel] (usccb.org)

+

* [http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Daniel&ch= Introduction to the Book of Daniel] (usccb.org)

−

+

* [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4874-daniel-book-of Jewish Encyclopedia. Daniel, book of]

−

[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4874-daniel-book-of Jewish Encyclopedia. Daniel, book of]

+

* [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/daniel.html Early Jewish Writings. Daniel] (earlyjewishwritings.com)

−

+

* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04620a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia. Daniel] (newadvent.org)

−

[http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/daniel.html Early Jewish Writings. Daniel] (earlyjewishwritings.com)

+

* [http://biblehub.com/topical/b/book_of_daniel.htm Topical Bible: Book of Daniel] (biblehub.com)

−

+

* [http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_01_intro.htm Jerome's Commentary on Daniel]

−

[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04620a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia. Daniel] (newadvent.org)

+

* [http://www.fourthcentury.com/jerome-commentary-on-daniel/ Wisconsin Lutheran. Fourth Century Christianity. Jerome – Commentary on Daniel (fourthcentury.com)] ''This commentary was largely aimed at the criticisms of Porphyry, who took the Book of Daniel as relating to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.''

−

+

* [http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/31/New-Light-on-the-Book-of-Daniel-from-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls.aspx#Article Associates for Biblical Research. New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls Technical - Jul 31, 2012 - by Gerhard Hasel PhD] (biblearchaeology.org)

−

[http://biblehub.com/topical/b/book_of_daniel.htm Topical Bible: Book of Daniel] (biblehub.com)

+

* [https://books.google.com/books?id=XJo3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=oldest+Greek+text+of+Daniel&source=bl&ots=Cl97CDho6C&sig=QxvLLBPvRY2cqfh9fpNeDlG_5hk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZS_QVMv-DqTHsQSG5YLYDg&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=oldest%20Greek%20text%20of%20Daniel&f=false The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel, by F. F. Bruce, Manchester ''the earliest Greek manuscripts of Daniel have the apocrypha'' A.D. 140] —''Instruction and Interpretation: Studies in Hebrew Language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis'' : Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Louvain, 1976, from 30 August to 2 September, Hendrik Antonie Brongers. Brill Archive, 1977. 129 pages.

−

+

* [http://www.harvardhouse.com/Gabriel-to-Daniel_Einstein_Method.htm Time-Stamp for the Book of Daniel. Worst Case view of the Book of Daniel. Evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. ''When was the book of Daniel written?''] (harvardhouse.com)

−

[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_01_intro.htm Jerome's Commentary on Daniel]

+

* [http://www.forerunner.com/churchfathers/X0111_06._Letter_to_Origen.html A Letter to Origen from Africanus About the History of Susanna.] (forerunner.com) Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160 – c. 240) was a Christian traveller and historian of A.D. the late 2nd and early 3rd century

−

+

* [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0414.htm Catholic Encyclopedia. Letter to Africanus] (newadvent.org) Origen Adamantius (Ὠριγένης Ἀδαμάντιος, Ōrigénēs Adamántios; 184/185 – 253/254) was a scholar and early Christian theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. He was a prolific writer in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, philosophical theology, preaching, and spirituality.

−

[http://www.fourthcentury.com/jerome-commentary-on-daniel/ Wisconsin Lutheran. Fourth Century Christianity. Jerome – Commentary on Daniel (fourthcentury.com)] ''This commentary was largely aimed at the criticisms of Porphyry, who took the Book of Daniel as relating to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.''

+

* [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Prayer_of_the_Three_Holy_Children OrthodoxWiki. Prayer of the Three Holy Children] (orthodoxwiki.org)

−

+

* [http://evidenceforchristianity.org/are-the-additions-to-daniel-prayer-of-azariah-suzannah-bel-and-dragon-inspired-and-reliable/ Evidence for Christianity. Are the additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah, Suzannah, Bel and Dragon) inspired and reliable? Posted on March 18, 2013 by John Oakes PhD] (evidenceforchristianity.org)

−

[http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/31/New-Light-on-the-Book-of-Daniel-from-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls.aspx#Article Associates for Biblical Research. New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls Technical - Jul 31, 2012 - by Gerhard Hasel PhD] (biblearchaeology.org)

−

[https://books.google.com/books?id=XJo3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=oldest+Greek+text+of+Daniel&source=bl&ots=Cl97CDho6C&sig=QxvLLBPvRY2cqfh9fpNeDlG_5hk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZS_QVMv-DqTHsQSG5YLYDg&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=oldest%20Greek%20text%20of%20Daniel&f=false The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel, by F. F. Bruce, Manchester ''the earliest Greek manuscripts of Daniel have the apocrypha'' A.D. 140] —''Instruction and Interpretation: Studies in Hebrew Language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis'' : Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Louvain, 1976, from 30 August to 2 September, Hendrik Antonie Brongers. Brill Archive, 1977. 129 pages.

−

[http://www.harvardhouse.com/Gabriel-to-Daniel_Einstein_Method.htm Time-Stamp for the Book of Daniel. Worst Case view of the Book of Daniel. Evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. ''When was the book of Daniel written?''] (harvardhouse.com)

−

[http://www.forerunner.com/churchfathers/X0111_06._Letter_to_Origen.html A Letter to Origen from Africanus About the History of Susanna.] (forerunner.com) Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160 – c. 240) was a Christian traveller and historian of A.D. the late 2nd and early 3rd century

−

[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0414.htm Catholic Encyclopedia. Letter to Africanus] (newadvent.org) Origen Adamantius (Ὠριγένης Ἀδαμάντιος, Ōrigénēs Adamántios; 184/185 – 253/254) was a scholar and early Christian theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. He was a prolific writer in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, philosophical theology, preaching, and spirituality.

−

[http://orthodoxwiki.org/Prayer_of_the_Three_Holy_Children OrthodoxWiki. Prayer of the Three Holy Children] (orthodoxwiki.org)

−

[http://evidenceforchristianity.org/are-the-additions-to-daniel-prayer-of-azariah-suzannah-bel-and-dragon-inspired-and-reliable/ Evidence for Christianity. Are the additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah, Suzannah, Bel and Dragon) inspired and reliable? Posted on March 18, 2013 by John Oakes PhD] (evidenceforchristianity.org)

*[http://evidenceforchristianity.org/how-then-do-you-explain-the-lxx-mt-versions-of-daniel-the-story-of-bel-the-dragonr/ How then do you explain the LXX & MT versions of Daniel & the story of Bel & the Dragon? Posted on March 6, 2008 by John Oakes PhD] (evidenceforchristianity.org)

−

+

* [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/bel.html Early Jewish Writings. Bel and the Dragon] (earlyjewishwritings.com)

−

[http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/bel.html Early Jewish Writings. Bel and the Dragon] (earlyjewishwritings.com)

+

* [http://www.gsbaptistchurch.com/seminary/old-testament-introduction/danbel2b.sam/odyframe.htm The Apocrypha Book 'Bel and the Dragon' Justifiably not Considered Scripture. By Edward G. Rice 13 Sep 1998. Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the course Old Testament Introduction #208 Video Studies Program (based on fall semester 94), Professor Charles E. McLain, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary] (gsbaptistchurch.com)

−

+

* [https://archive.org/details/apocryphapseudep01charuoft Davies, Witton. 1913. "Bel and the Dragon", in ''APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English'', vol. I, Oxford, 1913. online archive link] (archive.org)

−

[http://www.gsbaptistchurch.com/seminary/old-testament-introduction/danbel2b.sam/odyframe.htm The Apocrypha Book 'Bel and the Dragon' Justifiably not Considered Scripture. By Edward G. Rice 13 Sep 1998. Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the course Old Testament Introduction #208 Video Studies Program (based on fall semester 94), Professor Charles E. McLain, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary] (gsbaptistchurch.com)

−

[https://archive.org/details/apocryphapseudep01charuoft Davies, Witton. 1913. "Bel and the Dragon", in ''APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English'', vol. I, Oxford, 1913. online archive link] (archive.org)

===Old Testament Canon===

−

[http://www.wmcarey.edu/browning/Classes/HOB/BibleD-OTText.pdf The Old Testament Text. (wmcarey.edu/browning/Classes)]

+

* [http://www.wmcarey.edu/browning/Classes/HOB/BibleD-OTText.pdf The Old Testament Text. (wmcarey.edu/browning/Classes)]

*[http://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Vaticanus Codex Vaticanus] (orthodoxwiki.org)

Line 872: Line 868:

===Access to Septuagint, Vulgate, and the King James Apocrypha===

−

[http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/default.asp Greek and English Septuagint] [http://vulgate.org/ Latin and English Vulgate] [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Kings James Apocrypha Online]

+

* [http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/default.asp Greek and English Septuagint] [http://vulgate.org/ Latin and English Vulgate] [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Kings James Apocrypha Online]

[[Category:Biblical Books| b7]]

[[Category:Old Testament Books| b7]]

DavidB4-bot

Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt

58,343

edits

Changes

Book of Daniel (view source)

Revision as of 07:19, July 13, 2016

Navigation menu

Search