Changes

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

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

One of the books of the Old Testament. It 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. "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. "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, Bel, and the Dragon, found only in the Greek version, are edifying short stories with a didactic purpose (chaps. 13–14). The Greek version also includes a prayer and a hymn of praise, numbered in the NAB and the Greek, 3:24–90, between 3:23 and 3:24 in the shorter "Hebrew" (Aramaic) text.

The rabbinically added episodes of Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon, found only in the Greek version, are edifying short stories with a didactic purpose (chaps. 13–14). The Greek version also includes a prayer and a hymn of praise, numbered in the NAB and the Greek, 3:24–90, between 3:23 and 3:24 in the shorter "Hebrew" (Aramaic) text.

Chapters 7–12 present a series of visions promising deliverance and glory to the Jews in the days to come. The great nations of the ancient world have risen in vain against the Lord; his kingdom shall overthrow existing powers and last forever; in the end the dead will be raised for reward or punishment. Under this apocalyptic imagery some of the best elements of prophetic and [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom+literature sapiential teaching] are synthesized: insistence on right conduct (''works''), divine control over events, certainty that the kingdom of God will ultimately triumph and humanity will attain the fullness of the destiny intended for it at the beginning of creation. The arrival of the kingdom is a central theme of the Christian Gospel. Jesus is identified as the human figure ("Son of Man") who appears in Daniel’s vision in chapter 7 ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%209:35-38&version=DRA John 9:35-38]). The message in both parts of the first twelve chapters (1–6 and 7–12) is that history unfolds under the sovereign rule of God, who never abandons those who trust in him and will finally deliver and re-establish them. Chapters 2 and 7 present the same teaching in different symbolic forms; 2:31 also describes the dream of the king himself as a "vision", as Pharaoh's dream in the Book of Genesis (41) was a vision [http://biblehub.com/multi/genesis/41-8.htm Genesis 41:8].

Chapters 7–12 present a series of visions promising deliverance and glory to the Jews in the days to come. The great nations of the ancient world have risen in vain against the Lord; his kingdom shall overthrow existing powers and last forever; in the end the dead will be raised for reward or punishment. Under this apocalyptic imagery some of the best elements of prophetic and [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom+literature sapiential teaching] are synthesized: insistence on right conduct (''works''), divine control over events, certainty that the kingdom of God will ultimately triumph and humanity will attain the fullness of the destiny intended for it at the beginning of creation. The arrival of the kingdom is a central theme of the Christian Gospel. Jesus is identified as the human figure ("Son of Man") who appears in Daniel’s vision in chapter 7 ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%209:35-38&version=DRA John 9:35-38]). The message in both parts of the first twelve chapters (1–6 and 7–12) is that history unfolds under the sovereign rule of God, who never abandons those who trust in him and will finally deliver and re-establish them. Chapters 2 and 7 present the same teaching in different symbolic forms; 2:31 also describes the dream of the king himself as a "vision", as Pharaoh's dream in the Book of Genesis (41) was a vision [http://biblehub.com/multi/genesis/41-8.htm Genesis 41:8].

Form.

===Form===

In its form the book shows striking differences, for while ii. 4 to vii. 28 is written in Aramaic, the preceding and following portions are written in Hebrew. It is not easy to discover the reason for this peculiarity; it suggests, however, that the "Chaldeans" in this book are the Arameans or Syrians. A similar instance occurs in the Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Joh. Meyer), where the author gradually lapses into Aramaic in talking of personages of the Babylonian exile, but on p. 117 returns to Hebrew. The author may have meant to introduce the "Chaldeans" in their own language, and then inadvertently continued in the language that was familiar to him (see Driver, "Daniel," in "Cambridge Bible for Schools," p. xxii.). J. Böhmer (l.c. p. 150) maintains that the Aramaic portion was so written because its contents concerned all peoples; Prince 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. This opinion, however, does not weigh the fact that the Aramaic 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 (Marti, in his Commentary, 1901, p. ix.). But if its inclusion in the canon had depended on its Hebrew form, it would have been necessary to translate the whole into Hebrew. 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 (p. 262); for the Aramaic Book of Daniel could not have begun with ii. 4.

In its form the book shows striking differences, for while 2:4 to 7:28 is written in Aramaic, the preceding and following portions are written in Hebrew. It is not easy to discover the reason for this peculiarity; it suggests, however, that the "Chaldeans" in this book are the Arameans or Syrians. A similar instance occurs in the Seder 'Olam Zuṭa (ed. Joh. Meyer), where the author gradually lapses into Aramaic in talking of personages of the Babylonian exile, but on p. 117 returns to Hebrew. 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 p. 150 <ref name=Cambridge/> maintains that the Aramaic portion was so written because its contents concerned all peoples; Prince 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. This opinion, however, does not weigh the fact that the Aramaic 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, p. ix.</ref> But if its inclusion in the canon had depended on its Hebrew form, it would have been necessary to translate the whole into Hebrew. 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 (p. 262); for the Aramaic Book of Daniel could not have begun with 2:4.

Another difference in form is found in the fact that the political history forming the background of the first six chapters is absent in vii.-xii. This difference may be thus explained: The author thought it his first task to recount without a break the historical facts of Daniel's life; his second task being to record the revelations vouchsafed to Daniel which were not connected with the experiences of other people. In the first six chapters Daniel is introduced in the third person, while in the others he appears as the speaker. This is explicable on the ground that the second part of the book is concerned only with the presentation of Daniel's inner experiences to the exclusion of all objective relations. Such transitions are found in other books—compare, for example, Hosea i. and iii. The change of person therefore does not necessarily affect the unity of the book. (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 "Jour. Bib. Lit." 1898, pp. 62-86). Barton finds a contradiction between i. 1, 5, 18, and ii. 1; for Nebuchadnezzar is designated as "king" in i. 1, and, according to i. 5, 18, Daniel and his friends were to be prepared three years prior to appearing before the king, while in ii. 1 it is stated that this happened as early as the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Still it was not an unnatural prolepsis on first mentioning Nebuchadnezzar, who subsequently became king, to give 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" (i. 21) and "In the third year of Cyrus, kingof Persia, a thing was revealed unto Daniel" (x. 1). But i. 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, cols. 539 et seq. His conclusion that nine different and complete episodes follow the first chapter is therefore untenable. The book, however, may have included originally only i.-vii., an assumption that would explain the following three circumstances: the dropping of the Aramaic; the formula "Hitherto is the end of the matter" (vii. 28); and the juxtaposition of two materially identical narratives as found in vii. and viii. As events unfolded themselves, amplifications of the prophecy in the form of pamphlets, pointing even more clearly to the day of liberation, may have been added.

Another difference in form is found in the fact that the political history forming the background of the first six chapters is absent in 7–12. The author probably thought it his first task to recount without a break the historical facts of Daniel's life; his second task being to record the revelations vouchsafed to Daniel which were not connected with the experiences of other people. In the first six chapters Daniel is introduced in the third person, while in the others he appears as the speaker. This is explicable on the ground that the second part of the book is concerned only with the presentation of Daniel's inner experiences to the exclusion of all objective relations. Such transitions are found in other books—compare, for example, Hosea 1 and 3. The change of person therefore does not necessarily affect the unity of the book. (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 "Jour. Bib. Lit." 1898, pp. 62-86). 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. Still it was not an unnatural prolepsis on first mentioning Nebuchadnezzar, who subsequently became king, to give 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 "In the third year of Cyrus, kingof Persia, a thing was revealed unto Daniel" (10:1). But 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. His 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 circumstances: 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. As events unfolded themselves, amplifications of the prophecy in the form of pamphlets, pointing even more clearly to the day of liberation, may have been added.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The composition of Bel and the Dragon was inspired not by persecution but by the perennial problem of living as a minority, monolatrous culture in an idol-worshipping world. The attack on both idolatry and zoolatry makes Egypt the place where the stories would be most on target with regard to the religious alternatives encountered by God-fearing Jews (see the Egyptian Jewish texts Wis. 11:15-16; 15:18-19; Letter of Aristeas 138) (Roth 1975: 43), who could profit from some reinforcement of the unique truth of their own religious heritage despite the lavish expenditures and apparent devotion of their neighbors toward their gods. The main obstacle to this provenance is the fact that no known Egyptian Jewish text was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew (Collins 1993: 419). Thus, while this provenance is not impossible, since not all Egyptian Jews need to be supposed to have forgotten their ancestral language, it is more likely that the story originates in Palestine and that idolatry and zoolatry simply are attacked as two well-known forms of Gentile impiety.

The Book of Daniel was not written immediately after the Exile. The post-exilic prophets did not know it, for the four horns to which Israel's enemies are compared in Zech. i. 21, have a local meaning, representing the four points of the compass, and do not refer to the successive kingdoms, as in Dan. ii. 29 et seq. The same is the case with the four chariots in Zech. vi. 1 et seq. These passages are not exactly parallel with the predictions in Daniel, but it is also stated in Hag. ii. 6-9 et seq., that within "a little while" the Messianic time will come. And even Ben Sira says expressly (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlix. 15) that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph, a statement he could not have made had he known the extant Book of Daniel, since Daniel is there drawn as a man who, like Joseph, rose to be prime minister by virtue of his ability to interpret dreams.

Jay G. Williams writes (Understanding the Old Testament, page 316): "When the author of Daniel himself attempted to predict the future specifically, he, on the whole, proved to be incorrect. Antiochus did not die as he said nor did his kingdom come to a sudden end. The world still awaits the full manifestation of God's righteous rule upon earth. Still, he was right about one thing. Antiochus did not destroy Israel. On the contrary, the Maccabees (the "little help" mentioned in 11:34) even led the people to a few moments of glory before the Roman armies put an end to their semi-independent nation. Perhaps our author was wrong in attempting to predict so precisely what was to occur, for the course of history is never easily determined in advance, even by a visionary prophet. He knew, however, that what his people needed was not general platitudes but a specific hope to which to cling. This he provided even at the risk of being wrong. Furthermore, his central, motivating thesis is one which faithful men can hardly reject. Essentially the book of Daniel is an affirmation of the faith that the God of Israel has dominion over the world and that in the end he will save his people. Daniel teaches that the faithful man must live expectantly, with the hope that the Kingdom of God is indeed at hand."

Genesis of the Book of Daniel.

Robert Doran writes (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 868): "The narrative has been nicely welded together into a single plot. The LXX and Theodotion use different connectives, but in both versions the narrative coheres. The major actors remain the same throughout—Daniel, the king, and the Babylonians. Both Bel and the snake are characterized as objects that the Babylonians worship (vv. 3, 23). After the snake is destroyed, all those from the region (LXX v. 23; Theodotion: 'the Babylonians') came against Daniel to complain that the king had become a Jew, had overthrown Bel, and had killed the snake. The story of the threat to Daniel's life is thus strongly connected with the preceding narrative. The king's first confession of Bel's greatness (v. 18) and his final confession of Daniel's God (v. 41) use almost exactly the same formulas, even though LXX and Theodotion offer minor differences. This repitition is highly significant and helps unite the narrative. The LXX further connects the two episodes by the phrase 'in that place' in v. 23, but also by developing the motif of eating. This motif dominates the Bel episode (vv. 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 21). In the snake episode the king claims, 'You cannot say he is bronze. Look, he lives and eats and drinks.' Daniel then destroys the snake by offering it fatal food (v. 23). In the Theodotionic version the connection is made through the notion of life: Daniel worships the living God (v. 5), while Bel is not a living God (v. 6); the king asserts that Daniel cannot say that the snake is not a living God (v. 24), but Daniel insists that it is his God who lives (v. 25). The links between all the episodes in both versions are so pervasive that the narrative must be seen to be a whole. Such stories, of course, could theoretically have existed independently, but there is no evidence that they did."

Stories undoubtedly existed of a person by the name of Daniel, who was known to Ezekiel as a wise man. Tradition then ascribed to this wise man all the traits which Israel could attribute to its heroes. He was exalted as the pattern of piety and faithfulness; and it may also have been said that he interpreted dreams, read cryptograms, and foreshadowed the beginning of the Messianic kingdom. In any case his name may have played the same rôle in literature as that of Solomon or that of Enoch; and as one author ascribed his book, "Koheleth," to Solomon, so another author may have made Daniel responsible for his. As to the origin of his prophecies, it would probably be unjust to say that they were inventions. They may have been suggested by the author's enthusiastic study of the past history of God's people. He utilized the past to unlock the future. This is evident from ix. 2, where the author says that he had paid attention to the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years, which prophecy became the basis for a new prophecy. This shows that the author was merely a disciple of the Prophets, one who reproduced the prophecies of his masters. His book, indeed, is not included in the section Nebiim.

===Date of the Book===

This name (Hebrew dnyal or dnal; Septuagint Daniél), which is also that of two other persons in the Old Testament [cf. I Paral., iii, 1; I Esd., viii, 2, and II Esd. (Nehem.), x, 6], means "God is my judge", and is thus a fitting appellation for the writer of the Book of Daniel, wherein God's judgments are repeatedly pronounced upon the Gentile powers.

When was the book of Daniel written?

W. Sibley Towner writes (''Harper's Bible Commentary'', p. 696): "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize 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. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. 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 that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C."

According to current historical-critical opinion, the book of Daniel originated in its present form in the Antiochus Epiphanes crisis, that is, between 168/167–165/164 B.C.. It seems very difficult to perceive that one single desert community (Qumran) should have preserved such a significant number of Daniel manuscripts if this book had really been produced at so late a date. The large number of manuscripts in this community can be much better explained if one accepts an earlier origin of Daniel than the one proposed by the Maccabean hypothesis of historical-critical scholarship, which dates it to the second century B.C..

Louis F. Hartman writes (''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'', vol. 1, p. 448): "Having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing, until relatively recent years Jews and Christians have considered Dn to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. Inasmuch as chs. 7-12 are written in the first person, it was natural to assume that Daniel in chs. 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. An author living in the 6th cent. could hardly have written the late Hebrew used in Dn, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri, which date from the end of the 5th cent. 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 unescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. His 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, indicates the Hellenistic age. Finally, his detailed description of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35) contrasted with 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."

The date of the writing of the book may be inferred from the following considerations: It was not written by one of the exiles, for many portions of the text could not have been composed by a contemporary of 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" (Jer. 21:2 et seq. [26 times]; Ezek. 26:7, 29:18 et seq., 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 et seq.; 2 Chronicles 36:6 et seq.; Ezra 1:7; Esther 2:6; Daniel 1:18 et seq.; Soferim 14:7; Seder 'Olam R. 24 et seq.; and Septuagint, Ναβουχοδονόσορ).

J. Alberto Soggin writes (''Introduction to the Old Testament'', p. 408): "The first difficulties in the historical classification of the book begin with the deportation of Daniel and his companions. We do not in fact know anything of a deportation which took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, i.e. in 607 BC. If we allow its basic historicity, the event might be connected with the conquest of Syria and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar II a little later, after the battle of Carchemish in 605-4 and the victory over Egypt; it was on this occasion that Jehoiakim moved out of the sphere of Egyptian influence and into that of Babylon (cf. II Chron. 36.5). Complex problems of foreign policy followed, to which we alluded in our discussion of Jeremiah. Until recently the note in Chronicles was considered spurious, since there was no point of comparison, but discoveries during the 1950s of various unedited fragments of the Babylonian Chronicle have unexpectedly made sense of both this passage and II Kings 24.1ff. But even admitting the substantial historicity of the events narrated, there remains the problem of chronology, which is evidently some years out. Other elements are 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, 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 is that 'son of . . .' is intended in a generic sense, as 'descendant of . . .', a usage which is attested in Akkadian.) On the other hand, the statement that Belshazzar was king may simply be imprecise wording: towards 553 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, as we have seen, a certain Darius the Mede appears, who is considered to be king of Persia after the fall of Babylon. In 9.1 he appears as son of Xerxes, whereas in 6.29 Cyrus succeeds a Darius. If we are to be precise, the question arises what Daniel is doing at the court of the Medes before the Babylonian empire has fallen, always assuming that we take the term 'Mede' seriously. This question has never been answered. We must therefore accept that Media is in reality Persia. But the genealogy of the kings of Persia is well known: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I Hystaspes, Xerxes. If the Darius mentioned here was Darius I from the last quarter of the sixth century, how old would Daniel be? These are features which were already pointed out by the anti-Christian polemicist Celsus at the end of the second century AD."

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

James King West writes (Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 417-418): "The same persecutions that provoked the Maccabean uprising also stimulated the development within Jewish circles of a new literary and theological form known as the apocalypse. The name itself (Greek apokalypsis) means 'revelation' or 'unveiling,' in reference to the revealed truths which such writings purport to convey. The book of Daniel, which comes from this period, is the only true apocalypse in the old Testament, though some portions of other books share close affinities with its style (Isa. 24-27; Ezek. 38-39; Zech. 1:7-6:8; Joel 2:1-11; 4:1-21). Between the second century B.C. and the end of the first century A.D., other books of this genre, both Jewish and Christian, became popular; the Revelation of John in the New Testament is one of its best-known representatives. The characteristic theology of the apocalypse is an eschatological dualism which depicts 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. This message is couched in a literary form marked by 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."

The Book of Daniel was not written immediately after the Exile. The post-exilic prophets did not know it, for the four horns to which Israel's enemies are compared in Zechariah 1:21, have a local meaning, representing the four points of the compass, and do not refer to the successive kingdoms, as in Daniel 2:29 and following. The same is the case with the four chariots in Zechariah 6:1 et seq. These passages are not exactly parallel with the predictions in Daniel, but it is also stated in Haggai 2:6-9 et seq., that within "a little while" the Messianic time will come. And even Ben Sira says expressly (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 49:15) that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph, a statement he could not have made had he known the extant Book of Daniel, since Daniel is there drawn as a man who, like Joseph, rose to be prime minister by virtue of his ability to interpret dreams.

Jay G. Williams writes (Understanding the Old Testament, p. 316): "When the author of Daniel himself attempted to predict the future specifically, he, on the whole, proved to be incorrect. Antiochus did not die as he said nor did his kingdom come to a sudden end. The world still awaits the full manifestation of God's righteous rule upon earth. Still, he was right about one thing. Antiochus did not destroy Israel. On the contrary, the Maccabees (the 'little help' mentioned in 11:34) even led the people to a few moments of glory before the Roman armies put an end to their semi-independent nation. Perhaps our author was wrong in attempting to predict so precisely what was to occur, for the course of history is never easily determined in advance, even by a visionary prophet. He knew, however, that what his people needed was not general platitudes but a specific hope to which to cling. This he provided even at the risk of being wrong. Furthermore, his central, motivating thesis is one which faithful men can hardly reject. Essentially the book of Daniel is an affirmation of the faith that the God of Israel has dominion over the world and that in the end he will save his people. Daniel teaches that the faithful man must live expectantly, with the hope that the Kingdom of God is indeed at hand."

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

With respect to the genuineness and authenticity of the book, there is the strongest evidence, both internal and external. We have the testimony of Christ himself, Matthew 24:15; of St. John and St. Paul, who have copied his prophecies; of the Jewish church and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish Targets and Talmuds, which frequently cite his authority. As to the internal evidence, the style, the language, the manner of writing, perfectly agree with the age; and especially, he is proved to have been a prophet by the exact fulfilment of his predictions. This book, like that of Ezra, is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee, the prevailing language of the Babylonians.

By using 165 B.C. as the date of authorship, any prophecy before that date would be considered to be like writing about past events. However, events foretold to happen that occur after 165 B.C. are truly prophetic. Objective evidence to confirm each event is all that is required.

In the 1980's, two articles of vital interest on the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the book of Daniel were published from among the Dead Sea scroll textual finds made originally in 1952 in Cave 4 at Qumran. The publication by Professor Eugene Ulrich, “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran” (1989), gives us full insight into these pivotal textual finds and follows the one published two years earlier on other parts of these finds (Ulrich 1987).

The Archangel Gabriel brings an answer to Daniel that foretells the future. Just as Daniel had prayed about the Jewish people and their return to Jerusalem, Gabriel gives Daniel a prophecy about the future of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. However, Gabriel links the Jewish people and their return to the coming of the Messiah.

 

Following is a quick overview of Gabriel’s prophecy, which centers on the coming Messiah.

 

Let me first briefly describe the outrageous delay that has occurred in the publication of many of the Dead Sea scrolls, discovered way back in 1947–1948. Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) has played a major role in pushing for publication in a number of articles over the past few years, especially in 1989 and 1990 (Shanks 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1989d, 1990). There have been charges of a scandal because there are about “400 separate unpublished texts arranged on 1,200 different [photographic] plates” hidden for some 40 years from the scrutiny of the scholars. Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR, says that “a reasonable guess is that 100 of these [unpublished texts] are Biblical texts on 200 plates” (1989c:20).

Christians accept Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks because the prophetic events fit Jesus’ life so well. In general, people understand the 70-weeks prophecy to be literally foretelling of the Messiah. There are three primary reasons why Christians take the view that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy literally.

 

The charges regarding the non-publication of these Dead Sea scroll texts were taken up in the summer of 1989 by the public press. For example, the New York Times in a July 9, 1989, editorial, “The Vanity of Scholars,” complained that “the scrolls were discovered in 1947, but many that are in fragments remain unpublished. More than 40 years later a coterie of dawdling scholars is still spinning out the work while the world waits and the precious pieces lapse into dust.”

First and foremost, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah would be killed at Jerusalem.

Second, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah had to appear at Jerusalem before its destruction. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, which fits Jesus’ lifetime.

Fortunately, various encouraging developments have taken place since the summer of 1991, and we can look forward to a speedy publication of the remaining scroll fragments and texts.

Third, the purpose of the 70-weeks prophecy as described by verse 24 is mirrored by the basic teachings of the New Testament. Many Christians take the view that verse 24 is a summary of the gospel story, based on the Messiah’s death foretold in verse 26. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold.

The significance of the Daniel fragments of the Dead Sea scrolls was voiced first in 1958 when professor Frank M. Cross of Harvard University published The Ancient Library of Qumran, a comprehensive survey of the scrolls. In the second edition of the book (1961), Professor Cross refers to the fragments of the Daniel scrolls: “One copy of Daniel is inscribed in the script of the late second century BC; in some ways it is more striking than that of the oldest manuscripts from Qumran” (43).

This was fantastic news from a scholarly point of view, for the text of Daniel has long been considered suspect by many scholars on various grounds we’ll be discussing below. The question now was: How much of the book of Daniel is on this scroll, and precisely what sections are preserved and how does it compare with the rest of the Hebrew text of the book of Daniel?

In November 1989, more than 35 years after its discovery and more than 25 years after Cross made his astounding declaration, this text, along with others from Cave 4 on the book of Daniel, were finally published. Only a few scraps of fragments from Cave 4, which contain but “five tiny fragments, all from the prayer in chapter 9 but none with more than one complete word” (Ulrich 1989:3), remain to be published (i.e., the fragments of the scroll designated 4QDane).

The fragments of the Daniel scrolls from Cave 4 were assigned for publication to Cross (Cross 1956:86) as long ago as 1951 (Benoit 1956:76). He was a member of the original group of editors of the Dead Sea scrolls appointed in 1953 (Shanks 1989c:18). But some time ago Cross entrusted the Daniel materials from Cave 4 to Eugene Ulrich of the University of Notre Dame (Shanks 1989a:57), a former student of his. In 1987 Ulrich published the materials from one scroll of Cave 4, namely, 4QDana. Now he has published the materials of the two other major scrolls, 4QDanb and 4QDanc.

While these exciting new publications will have our major attention in this paper, we need to mention the other previously published Qumran materials on Daniel.

The most extensively preserved scroll of the book of Daniel from Qumran is one from Cave 4: 4QDana, which contains large portions of Daniel. Preserved are parts of Daniel 1:16–20; 2:9–11, 19–49; 3:1, 2; 4:29, 30; 5:5–7, 12–14, 16–19; 7:5–7, 25–28; 8:1–5; 10:16–20; 11:13–16. Scroll 4QDanb contains Daniel 5:10–12, 14–16, 19–22; 6:8–22, 27–29; 7:1–6, 11(?), 26–28; 8:1–8, 13–16; and 4QDanc has Daniel 10:5–9, 11–16, 21; 11:1, 2, 13–17, 25–29 (Ulrich 1987:18).

This means that we have at our disposal from the Dead Sea scrolls parts of all chapters, except Daniel 9 and 12. Of course, the unpublished 4QDane is to have a few words of various parts of Daniel 9. There is also an overlap of a number of passages in Daniel 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Reference to Daniel 12 is made in 4QFlorilegium, an anthology of midrashic materials [rabbinical commentaries] on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1, 2.

It is a highly surprising phenomenon that no fewer than eight manuscripts of Daniel have been identified among the materials discovered in three of the 11 caves of Qumran. In order to appreciate the significance of this fact, we need to compare it with the manuscript finds of other Biblical books from the same caves.

To my knowledge, the most recent listing of published materials (as of 1992) from the Dead Sea scrolls appeared in 1977. The listing speaks of 13 fragments of scrolls from the Psalms; nine from Exodus; eight from Deuteronomy; five from Leviticus; four each from Genesis and Isaiah (Fitzmyer 1977:11–39); and no fewer than eight scrolls representing Daniel. Although we have no sure knowledge yet of the total scrolls that have been preserved from the Bible at Qumran, it is evident from this comparison that the book of Daniel was a favorite book among the Qumran covenantors.

At this juncture we need to make another point. According to current historical-critical opinion, the book of Daniel originated in its present form in the Antiochus Epiphanes crisis, that is, between 168/167–165/164 BC. It seems very difficult to perceive that one single desert community should have preserved such a significant number of Daniel manuscripts if this book had really been produced at so late a date. The large number of manuscripts in this community can be much better explained if one accepts an earlier origin of Daniel than the one proposed by the Maccabean hypothesis of historical-critical scholarship, which dates it to the second century BC.

Dates for the Daniel scrolls, published in 1955, were given by John C. Trever as the Herodian period for 1QDana and late Herodian period for 1QDanb (1964-1966:323–36). In other words, these manuscripts could come from about 60 AD or earlier (Hartman and Di Lella 1978:72).

This date is still very significant because the Masoretic text (MT) from which our Bibles are translated comes from a major manuscript that is dated to 1008 AD (Wurthwein 1979:35). In other words, we are able to compare for the first time in history the Hebrew and Aramaic of the book of Daniel with manuscripts of the same book that are about 1,000 years older. A comparison between the MT and the earlier manuscripts contained in 1QDana, 1QDanb, and 6QDan, based upon a careful study of the variants and relationships with the MT, reveals that “the Daniel fragments from Caves 1 and 6 reveal, on the whole, that the later Masoretic text is preserved in a good, hardly changed form. They are thus a valuable witness to the great faithfulness with which the sacred text has been transmitted” (Mertens 1971:31).

These textual witnesses demonstrate that the MT was faithfully preserved and confirm that the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel is reliable.

The date for the three Daniel manuscripts published by 1989 is also of great importance, along with those of the earlier publications. 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 BC and 4QDanb to about 60 AD (Ulrich 1987:17). The oldest manuscript of Daniel by far is 4QDanc, which Cross dated in 1961 to the “late second century BC” (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 BC will be able to say that 4QDanc is “only a half century later than the composition of the book of Daniel” (Ulrich 1987:17). This means for supporters of this dating that the manuscript evidence for Daniel is as close to the autograph as the Rylands Papyrus is to the Gospel of John. I quote: “It is thus, for the Hebrew Bible, comparable to the Rylands manuscript of the Johannine Gospel for the New Testament” (Ulrich 1989:3). The latter comparison means that the papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, published in 1935, that is, Rylands 457, which was dated in the first half of the second century AD, effectively refuted claims of scholars who had attempted to date the Gospel of John to the latter part of the second century AD. The Rylands papyrus was within 25 to 50 years of the writing of the Gospel of John.

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

Dead Sea Scrolls and the Original Hebrew/Aramaic Text of Daniel

   

   

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, many scholars questioned the faithfulness of the Hebrew text and took great freedom in amending, changing, and adjusting the Hebrew text. This freedom has been significantly curtailed by the Qumran findings.

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, many scholars questioned the faithfulness of the Hebrew text and took great freedom in amending, changing, and adjusting the Hebrew text. This freedom has been significantly curtailed by the Qumran findings.

Moreover, the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel, available in only two ancient manuscripts, is said to be periphrastic [use of many words] and expansionistic, containing considerably more material than the MT, aside from such deuterocanonical additions as the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, and the Song of the Three Young Men (Moore 1977).

Moreover, the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel, available in only two ancient manuscripts, is said to be periphrastic [use of many words] and expansionistic, containing considerably more material than the MT, aside from such deuterocanonical additions as the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, and the Song of the Three Young Men (Moore 1977).

   

   

The official Greek translation of Daniel used in ancient times was that of Theodotion, an Ephesian (ca. 180 AD). His translation, which has antecedents (Schmitt 1966), has “the distinction of having supplanted the current version of the book of Daniel” (Jellicoe 1968:84). Further, around 400 AD Jerome ventured the opinion that the Septuagint “differs widely from the original [Hebrew], and is rightly rejected.”

The official Greek translation of Daniel used in ancient times was that of Theodotion, an Ephesian (ca. 180 AD). His translation, which has antecedents (Schmitt 1966), has "the distinction of having supplanted the current version of the book of Daniel" (Jellicoe 1968:84). Further, around 400 AD Jerome ventured the opinion that the Septuagint "differs widely from the original [Hebrew], and is rightly rejected."

   

   

Thus we have two ancient Greek versions of Daniel, and only the one by Theodotion has a close affinity with the MT. These, along with some other considerations, have caused leading modern scholars to have little confidence in the MT. Professor Klaus Koch is a supporter of the hypothesis that there is no authoritative, original text for the book of Daniel available. He suggests that while we have a Hebrew/Aramaic text and two Greek versions, none of these three is original, and that an original text is to be reconstructed with the best tools available (Koch et al. 1980:22, 23; Koch 1986:16–21). This essentially is also the view of L. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella, who point out that there are “no iron rules or golden rules” in this 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.

Thus we have two ancient Greek versions of Daniel, and only the one by Theodotion has a close affinity with the MT. These, along with some other considerations, have caused leading modern scholars to have little confidence in the MT. Professor Klaus Koch is a supporter of the hypothesis that there is no authoritative, original text for the book of Daniel available. He suggests that while we have a Hebrew/Aramaic text and two Greek versions, none of these three is original, and that an original text is to be reconstructed with the best tools available (Koch et al. 1980:22, 23; Koch 1986:16–21). This essentially is also the view of L. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella, who point out that there are “no iron rules or golden rules” in this 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.

Based on the overwhelming conformity of these Qumran Daniel manuscripts with each other and with the MT, despite the few insignificant variants that agree with the Septuagint, it is evident that the MT is the well-preserved key text for the book of Daniel. An eclectic approach, using the Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Greek, and other versions as if they were all on the same level without giving priority to the Hebrew text is no longer supportable, if it ever was previously. The Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text of the book of Daniel now has stronger support than at any other time in the history of the interpretation of the book of Daniel.

Based on the overwhelming conformity of these Qumran Daniel manuscripts with each other and with the MT, despite the few insignificant variants that agree with the Septuagint, it is evident that the MT is the well-preserved key text for the book of Daniel. An eclectic approach, using the Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Greek, and other versions as if they were all on the same level without giving priority to the Hebrew text is no longer supportable, if it ever was previously. The Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text of the book of Daniel now has stronger support than at any other time in the history of the interpretation of the book of Daniel.

   

   

The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and Canonical Book of Daniel

The Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls and Protocanonical Book of Daniel

   

   

When Professor D. Barthélemy published in 1955 the first fragmentary Daniel manuscripts from Cave 1 of Qumran, that is, 1QDana and 1QDanb, he ventured 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. In 1964, however, F.F. Bruce stated that the book of Daniel “may well have enjoyed canonical status among them [the Qumran sectaries]” (Bruce 1964:57). In his 1989 Daniel commentary, written before the newest publications of the Qumran Daniel manuscripts were accessible, John Goldingay stated, “There are no real grounds for suggesting that the form of the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel indicates that the book was not regarded as canonical there, though neither for affirming that it was (Goldingay 1989:xxvii).

When Professor D. Barthélemy published in 1955 the first fragmentary Daniel manuscripts from Cave 1 of Qumran, that is, 1QDana and 1QDanb, he ventured 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. In 1964, however, F.F. Bruce stated that the book of Daniel “may well have enjoyed canonical status among them [the Qumran sectaries]” (Bruce 1964:57). In his 1989 Daniel commentary, written before the newest publications of the Qumran Daniel manuscripts were accessible, John Goldingay stated, “There are no real grounds for suggesting that the form of the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel indicates that the book was not regarded as canonical there, though neither for affirming that it was (Goldingay 1989:xxvii).

From Cave 4 we now have overriding evidence on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or ‘canonical,’ including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms.. .. However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later explicitly termed ‘canonical,’ the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).

From Cave 4 we now have overriding evidence on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or ‘canonical,’ including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms.. .. However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later explicitly termed ‘canonical,’ the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).

   

   

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

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

   

   

Inasmuch as Daniel was already canonical at Qumran at about 100 BC, how could it have become so quickly canonical if it had just been produced a mere half century before? While we do not know exactly how long it took for books to become canonical, it may be surmised that insofar as Daniel was reckoned to belong to the canonical books, it had a longer existence than a mere five decades, as the Maccabean dating hypothesis suggests. Both the canonical status and the fact that Daniel was considered a “prophet” speak for the antiquity of the book of Daniel. An existence of a mere five decades between the production of a Biblical book in its final form and canonization does not seem reasonable.

Inasmuch as Daniel was already canonical at Qumran at about 100 BC, how could it have become so quickly canonical if it had just been produced a mere half century before? While we do not know exactly how long it took for books to become canonical, it may be surmised that insofar as Daniel was reckoned to belong to the canonical books, it had a longer existence than a mere five decades, as the Maccabean dating hypothesis suggests. Both the canonical status and the fact that Daniel was considered a “prophet” speak for the antiquity of the book of Daniel. An existence of a mere five decades between the production of a Biblical book in its final form and canonization does not seem reasonable.

   

   

Thus the canonical acceptance of the book of Daniel at Qumran suggests an earlier origin of the book than the second century BC. In 1969, based on the evidence available at that time regarding the Qumran Daniel texts, Roland K. Harrison had already concluded that the second century dating of the book of Daniel was “absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumran, partly because there are no indications whatever that the sectaries compiled any of the Biblical manuscripts recovered from the site, and partly because there would, in the latter event, have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect” (Harrison 1969:1127).

Thus the canonical acceptance of the book of Daniel at Qumran suggests an earlier origin of the book than the second century BC. In 1969, based on the evidence available at that time regarding the Qumran Daniel texts, Roland K. Harrison had already concluded that the second century dating of the book of Daniel was "absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumran, partly because there are no indications whatever that the sectaries compiled any of the Biblical manuscripts recovered from the site, and partly because there would, in the latter event, have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect" (Harrison 1969:1127).

   

   

Subsequent to this, he stated that based on the Qumran manuscripts, “there can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product” (Harrison 1979:862). The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.

Subsequent to this, he stated that based on the Qumran manuscripts, "there can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product" (Harrison 1979:862). The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.

Carbon dating techniques using two independent systems that agree. These are the AMS Laboratory at the University of Arizona and the ETH laboratory in Zurich, Switzerland. [AMS means Accelerator Mass Spectrometry]

When was the book of Daniel written?

The date for when the book of Daniel was written is somewhat controversial. For conservative Christians, the earliest date is about 530 BCE. For liberal scholars (Naturalists), the latest data is about 165 BCE. This study uses the late date of 165 BCE as the time stamp for when the book of Daniel was written. By taking this position, bias based on this study is removed. It is the "worst case" position to be taken.

The carbon dating techniques were verified to be accurate based on dating three scrolls with known dates {the known written dates are from the post Dead Sea Scrolls era of Bar Kokhba, dated A.D. April 16, 128, A.D. Sept 11, 130, and A.D. 135}. (If you want to learn about the methods and supporting evidence, you will have to download the pdf file at the referenced site).

Physical evidence supporting the 165 BCE date comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eight copies of Daniel were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The oldest copy has been scientifically dated to 125 BCE using carbon dating techniques. Since it is a copy, the original was written long before 125 BCE. But how do we know that the Dead Sea Scrolls are credible?

The style of the text (think of various FONTs you can use on a computer) used by Scribes to copy the scrolls permits Paleographers to date when the scrolls were copied. Carbon dating techniques agreed with the paleographic dates.

Four trustworthy methods have been used to unerringly date when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written. These methods are:

Silver coins found at the Dead Sea Scrolls Community were minted between 136 B.C. to 9 B.C..

Carbon Dating Techniques from Two Systems Agree

Carbon Dating Techniques from Two Systems Agree

The University of Arizona used advanced methods to carbon date various Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, researchers concluded at the 95% confidence level that the Habakkuk scroll was written between 150 BCE to 5 BCE. Other Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts analyzed by the University of Arizona agree with the dating done at a lab in Zurich, Switzerland.

The University of Arizona used advanced methods to carbon date various Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, researchers concluded at the 95% confidence level that the Habakkuk scroll was written between 150 B.C. to 5 B.C.. Other Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts analyzed by the University of Arizona agree with the dating done at a lab in Zurich, Switzerland.

Before doing any tests, the University of Arizona lab was given a scroll piece that had previously been dated by the Zurich lab. The University of Arizona lab arrived at the same date as the Zurich lab without knowing the date achieved at the Zurich lab. So independent verification corroborates the age of the scrolls.

Before doing any tests, the University of Arizona lab was given a scroll piece that had previously been dated by the Zurich lab. The University of Arizona lab arrived at the same date as the Zurich lab without knowing the date achieved at the Zurich lab. So independent verification corroborates the age of the scrolls.

Dates from Coins at the Dead Sea Scrolls

Dates from Coins at the Dead Sea Scrolls

More than 550 silver coins were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The coins were used to date when people lived at the site. The silver coins were minted between 136 BCE to 9 BCE.

More than 550 silver coins were found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site. The coins were used to date when people lived at the site. The silver coins were minted between 136 B.C. to 9 B.C..

Foretold Events after 165 BCE

In November 1989, more than 35 years after its discovery and more than 25 years after Cross made his astounding declaration, this text, along with others from Cave 4 on the book of Daniel, were finally published. Only a few scraps of fragments from Cave 4, which contain but “five tiny fragments, all from the prayer in chapter 9 but none with more than one complete word” (Ulrich 1989:3), remain to be published (i.e., the fragments of the scroll designated 4QDane).

By using 165 BCE as the date of authorship, any prophecy before that date would be considered to be like writing about past events. However, events foretold to happen that occur after 165 BCE are truly prophetic. Objective evidence to confirm each event is all that is required.

 

 

 

 

 

By using 165 B.C. as the date of authorship, any prophecy before that date would be considered to be like writing about past events. However, events foretold to happen that occur after 165 B.C. are truly prophetic. Objective evidence to confirm each event is all that is required.

To compare Daniel to the Qur’an requires that the study be limited to words claimed to be from the Archangel Gabriel. The 9th chapter of Daniel claims to be from Gabriel, making it an ideal choice to compare to the Qur’an.

To compare Daniel to the Qur’an requires that the study be limited to words claimed to be from the Archangel Gabriel. The 9th chapter of Daniel claims to be from Gabriel, making it an ideal choice to compare to the Qur’an.

Daniel’s prophecy recorded in chapter 9 is called the prophecy of the 70-weeks. The Hebrew word for "weeks" means a period of 7-years [refer to Strong's Concordance Number 7620]. Therefore, the 70-weeks is based on multiplying 70 time 7-years, which equals 490 years. At various stages during this time, specific human events are expected to occur. The prophetic events are about the Jewish people, Jerusalem, and the coming Messiah. Christians logically accept this prophecy as being fulfilled by Jesus. We will soon understand why.

Daniel’s prophecy recorded in chapter 9 is called the prophecy of the 70-weeks. The Hebrew word for "weeks" means a period of 7-years [refer to Strong's Concordance Number 7620]. Therefore, the 70-weeks is based on multiplying 70 time 7-years, which equals 490 years. At various stages during this time, specific human events are expected to occur. The prophetic events are about the Jewish people, Jerusalem, and the coming Messiah. Christians logically accept this prophecy as being fulfilled by Jesus. We will soon understand why.

It is important to note that conservative Christian scholars do not accept the 165 BCE date for when Daniel was written. As we move into verifying the individual prophecies contained in the 70-weeks prophecy, we will begin to understand why conservative scholars hold to the position that Daniel was authored as early as 530 BCE. Although modern scholars (Naturalist) may not agree with the conservative dating, evidence exits to support the traditional Christian view. For now, we will use the 165 BCE date.

It is important to note that conservative Christian scholars do not accept the 165 B.C. date for when Daniel was written. As we move into verifying the individual prophecies contained in the 70-weeks prophecy, we will begin to understand why conservative scholars hold to the position that Daniel was authored as early as 530 B/C.. Although modern scholars (Naturalist) may not agree with the conservative dating, evidence exits to support the traditional Christian view. For now, we will use the 165 B.C. date.

What does the 70-weeks prophecy foretell?

What does the 70-weeks prophecy foretell?

Following is a quick overview of Gabriel’s prophecy, which centers on the coming Messiah.

Following is a quick overview of Gabriel’s prophecy, which centers on the coming Messiah.

Christians accept Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks because the prophetic events fit Jesus’ life so well. In general, people understand the 70-weeks prophecy to be literally foretelling of the Messiah. There are three primary reasons why Christians take the view that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy literally.

Christians accept Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks because the prophetic events fit Jesus’ life so well. In general, people understand the 70-weeks prophecy to be literally foretelling of the Messiah. There are three primary reasons why Christians take the view that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy literally.

First and foremost, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah would be killed at Jerusalem.

First and foremost, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah would be killed at Jerusalem.

Second, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah had to appear at Jerusalem before its destruction. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 CE, which fits Jesus’ lifetime.

Second, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah had to appear at Jerusalem before its destruction. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, which fits Jesus’ lifetime.

Third, the purpose of the 70-weeks prophecy as described by verse 24 is mirrored by the basic teachings of the New Testament. Many Christians take the view that verse 24 is a summary of the gospel story, based on the Messiah’s death foretold in verse 26. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold.

Third, the purpose of the 70-weeks prophecy as described by verse 24 is mirrored by the basic teachings of the New Testament. Many Christians take the view that verse 24 is a summary of the gospel story, based on the Messiah’s death foretold in verse 26. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold.

considered an approved text. They said no to the additions to Daniel. I  

considered an approved text. They said no to the additions to Daniel. I  

agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one  

agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one  

were to ask my opinion, these texts to do not appear inspired. Of course,

were to ask my opinion, these texts to do not appear inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted  

God did not consult me in this decision. The Jews, by consensus, accepted  

Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?..,Ecclesiastes,?. But they did not accept 2  

Gen-Deut, Josh, Jud,?..,Ecclesiastes,?. But they did not accept 2  

Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc into their canon. Now, I  

Macabees, Jubilee, 3 Enoch, addns to Daniel, etc into their canon. Now, I  

will admit that I accept this by faith (that God influenced the final  

will admit that I accept this by faith (that God influenced the final  

canon of the OT as selected by the consensus of the Jews), which may not  

canon of the OT as selected by the consensus of the Jews), which may not  

include these texts. The LXX did not either, although it is true that  

include these texts. The LXX did not either, although it is true that  

when Jerome translated the OT he was forced (against his will, I might  

when Jerome translated the OT he was forced (against his will, I might  

add) to include the “Apocrypha” in the Vulgate translation. The  

add) to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The  

Masoretic text is clear on this. What is to be included in the LXX is not  

Masoretic text is clear on this. What is to be included in the LXX is not  

clear. Some say anything which was translated into Greek BC which  

clear. Some say anything which was translated into Greek B.C. which  

eventually made it into the Vulgate is, by definition, part of the LXX. I  

eventually made it into the Vulgate is, by definition, part of the LXX. I  

do not agree at all. This is proof by definition, which is not a good  

do not agree at all. This is proof by definition, which is not a good  

form of proof. The parts of the Greek/Jewish literature which are to be  

form of proof. The parts of the Greek/Jewish literature which are to be  

accepted are the parts of the Greek Bible (and therefore the LXX) which  

accepted are the parts of the Greek Bible (and therefore the LXX) which  

were accepted by the Jews, for example, at the Council of Jamnia. Now, I

were accepted by the Jews, for example, at the Council of Jamnia. There is no absolutely clear cut list that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of A.D. the first centuries is  

will admit that it is not simple. There is no absolutely clear cut list  

that Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon etc. are not inspired. Neither Jesus nor the NT writers ever quoted even a single time from Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, Tobit, Bel and  

that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of the first centuries AD is  

the Dragon, yet they quoted extensively from virtually every OT book. The only exception is a possible quote or at least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude.

that Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon etc. are not inspired. That is

the canon. What can I say? Neither Jesus not the NT writers ever  

quoted even a single time from Ecclesiasticus, 1 Macabees, Tobit, Bel and  

the Dragon, yet they quoted extensively from virtually every OT book.

This tells me something. The only exception is a possible quote or at  

least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude. That is it. There is a lot

doubt is relatively quite small.

Books quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers do not include Ezra Nehemiah Esther and Song of Songs. But this does not mean they are not inspired scripture.

Books quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers do not include Ezra Nehemiah Esther and Song of Songs. But this does not mean they are not inspired scripture.

James King West writes of Daniel 14:1-22: "The second story is a satire on pagan divinities in the vein of Isaiah 44:9-20 and the Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6). In a discussion with King Cyrus of Babylon as to why he does not worship Cyrus' idol called Bel, 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 ashes sifted 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." (Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 458)

There is ample evidence to justify the omission of these writings from our Bible despite the adoption of them by the Roman Catholic Church. Despite the misjudgment of those who made versions of the Old Testament and included the apocryphal books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite the error made by the students of these versions who began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are clearly not on that plane. The examination of the content of the book Bel and the Dragon and the examination of the external evidences surrounding the book boldly justify the exclusion of this work from the collection of books that have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. This apocryphal book was considered by some as an addition to the book of Daniel but it was not included in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. The writing itself does not have the authoritative style of Daniel, the accounts contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and the third person style of a prophet's transport across time and space all make the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, a non inspired of God. The questionable authorship, date of writing, language and preservation clearly indicate that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book now called Bel and the Dragon. The simple evidences presented in this work clearly justify the conclusion that was made 2400 years ago, that Bel and the Dragon is not Holy Scripture.

Although this is obvious to me because of my faith in God and His providence to preserve His Word, (Psalm 12:6-7 ''The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.'') this concept should be explored with the detailed manuscript evidence uncovered in the last 100 years. I must point out here, that scholars often say we know more now than we ever have about the transmittal of the Bible. This is not true. The scholars and scribes of the 1st through the 3rd century A.D. knew far more than any modern scholar is willing to give them credit for. After the turn of the century we have been overtly influenced by the philosophy of evolution to where we consider these as ignorant cave men, and us as highly evolved intellectuals. There is still an inbred reluctance in modern scholarship to acknowledge that these were holy men of God writing as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God, and not bumbling editors evolving a book that developed over thousands of years into a Bible. The latter begin the over-developed and prejudice theory of infidels over the past 150 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although this is obvious to me because of my faith in God and His providence to preserve His Word, (PSA 12:6-7 ''The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.'') this concept should be explored with the detailed manuscript evidence uncovered in the last 100 years. I must point out here, that scholars often say we know more now than we ever have about the transmittal of the Bible. This is not true. The scholars and scribes of the 1st through the 3rd century AD knew far more than any modern scholar is willing to give them credit for. After the turn of the century we have been overtly influenced by the philosophy of evolution to where we consider these as ignorant cave men, and us as highly evolved intellectuals. There is still an inbred reluctance in modern scholarship to acknowledge that these were holy men of God writing as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God, and not bumbling editors evolving a book that developed over thousands of years into a Bible. The latter begin the over-developed and prejudice theory of infidels over the past 150 years.

The accounts emphasize the craftiness of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. This in itself is permissible as it often occurs in other accounts of Bible characters. The concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, certainly not authored by Daniel, (although it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in third person.) . The story has as its theme the craftiness of Daniel to expose false idol worship. There is no need here to reject the events as fable or fiction. Indeed it is very likely that many instances of Daniel's wisdom, wit and ability were not recorded by Daniel himself, but were told and retold outside the palaces of the Babylonian kingdom and likely recorded in writing. Daniel did not likely exist day to day with a tremendous miracle of deliverance to account each week. However the passing on of his less miraculous, more crafty daily existence was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. If the scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing, we certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding that decision.

The accounts emphasize the craftiness of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. This in itself is permissible as it often occurs in other accounts of Bible characters. The concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, certainly not authored by Daniel, (although it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in third person.) . The story has as its theme the craftiness of Daniel to expose false idol worship. There is no need here to reject the events as fable or fiction. Indeed it is very likely that many instances of Daniel's wisdom, wit and ability were not recorded by Daniel himself, but were told and retold outside the palaces of the Babylonian kingdom and likely recorded in writing. Daniel did not likely exist day to day with a tremendous miracle of deliverance to account each week. However the passing on of his less miraculous, more crafty daily existence was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. If the scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing, we certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding that decision.

Thirdly within Bel and the Dragon the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful, fairy tale, fable than an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habbacuc's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.

Thirdly within Bel and the Dragon the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful, fairy tale, fable than an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habbacuc's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.

The miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the lions den with a sack lunch for Daniel is so beyond belief that some contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story"  it is a far more fanciful thing than found elsewhere in scriptures, however just being different does not warrant its exclusion. (else we would eliminate the translation Elijah, the snatching away of Enoch or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture.) There are no other similar accounts of such a transport of one prophet to assist or encourage another in any other old testament scripture. Thus the miraculous zapping of one person across time or space is not lightly regarded here. So the downfall of the transport of Habbacoc is its total lack of authority, necessity, and significance. ***[However, see Acts 8:26-40 Where Philip was suddenly transported more than 40 miles from where he had baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and was found at Azotus.]

The miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the lions den with a sack lunch for Daniel is so beyond belief that some contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story"  it is a far more fanciful thing than found elsewhere in scriptures, however just being different does not warrant its exclusion. (else we would eliminate the translation Elijah, the snatching away of Enoch or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture.) There are no other similar accounts of such a transport of one prophet to assist or encourage another in any other old testament scripture. Thus the miraculous zapping of one person across time or space is not lightly regarded here. So the downfall of the transport of Habbacoc is its total lack of authority, necessity, and significance. [However, see Acts 8:26-40 Where Philip was suddenly transported more than 40 miles from where he had baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and was found at Azotus.]

Examination of the book Bel and the Dragon reveals that this writing does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man. The writing even contradicts the Daniel given account of the lion's den, and the miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the den's mouth is not in the first person nor authoritative, and thus fanciful and more presentation of legend then a historical event. The book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. To include such a narration as Bel and the Dragon at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be certain folly. Folly that was avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity. This examination of the internal evidences of Bel and the Dragon reveal little credibility to override the initial decision to 'hide' this section from the temple books considered Holy Scripture and classify it as an apocryphal book. This initial decision and the treatment of this writing through history will now be more closely examined as we look at external evidences for the rejection of Bel and the Dragon as Holy Scripture.

Examination of the book Bel and the Dragon reveals that this writing does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man. The writing even contradicts the Daniel given account of the lion's den, and the miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the den's mouth is not in the first person nor authoritative, and thus fanciful and more presentation of legend then a historical event. The book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. To include such a narration as Bel and the Dragon at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be certain folly. Folly that was avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity. This examination of the internal evidences of Bel and the Dragon reveal little credibility to override the initial decision to 'hide' this section from the temple books considered Holy Scripture and classify it as an apocryphal book. This initial decision and the treatment of this writing through history will now be more closely examined as we look at external evidences for the rejection of Bel and the Dragon as Holy Scripture.

External Evidences

External Evidences

The external evidences against the inclusion of Bel and the Dragon as scripture include its language, its authenticity, assurance of its author, and date of writing, and manuscript evidence that would include evidence of how it was treated by early collectors of the scriptures. These evidences primarily give indications of how it was treated by those closest to the author who wrote the accounts, and its earliest acceptance or rejection. The problem of looking at these external evidences is that this will generally be a subjective look, *** We know the beginning and the end but to say we can accurately unfold all the moves that were made is purely fictional. Some of these evidences, however subjective, clearly support the suspicions that this writing has been subjected to ever since the scriptures of the captivity period were first collected and considered holy.

The external evidences against the inclusion of Bel and the Dragon as scripture include its language, its authenticity, assurance of its author, and date of writing, and manuscript evidence that would include evidence of how it was treated by early collectors of the scriptures. These evidences primarily give indications of how it was treated by those closest to the author who wrote the accounts, and its earliest acceptance or rejection. The problem of looking at these external evidences is that this will generally be a subjective look. We know the beginning and the end but to say we can accurately unfold all the moves that were made is purely fictional. Some of these evidences, however subjective, clearly support the suspicions that this writing has been subjected to ever since the scriptures of the captivity period were first collected and considered holy.

The Language of the Manuscripts.

The Language of the Manuscripts.

Another argument against all the additions to Daniel being considered Scripture is found in the language of the manuscripts. Daniel written in both Hebrew and Aramaic is distinct from the additions that are not found in either Hebrew nor Aramaic thus are clearly separate entities. The original language of the additions has been in dispute. There is no existent Hebrew or Aramaic 'versions' only Greek 'versions' were ever found.<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with introductions and critical explanatory notes to the several books, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 655</ref> Although, it has been strongly attested by the Catholic Church that the original was Hebrew, they attest to this largely because it supported their doctrine that the apocryphal books are Scripture, rather than for any manuscript reasons. In fact some word plays in the Greek make it very unlikely that the additions to Daniel were translated from Hebrew.<ref>These Greek word plays show up in Susanna rather than in Bel and the Dragon, but the argument follows for all the additions to Daniel, Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Pg. 655 Foot note #3</ref> R.H. Charles contends that the additions were "written originally almost certainly in Hebrew" <ref>Ibid. Page 655</ref> but this is a subjective view with little evidence. Should an argument be proven for a Hebrew original, it still stands clear the text for the Bel and the Dragon was not preserved in the Temple with the book of Daniel as were the Holy Scriptures, and this fanciful account was not considered scripture by the 5th century B.C. Hebrew Scribes. Regardless of whether it was originally written in Hebrew or not, the lack of any Hebrew manuscript of Bel and the Dragon is a strong indication that it never was regarded as scripture.

Another argument against all the additions to Daniel being considered Scripture is found in the language of the manuscripts. Daniel written in both Hebrew and Aramaic is distinct from the additions that are not found in either Hebrew nor Aramaic thus are clearly separate entities. The original language of the additions has been in dispute. There is no existant Hebrew or Aramaic 'versions' only Greek 'versions' were ever found.<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with introductions and critical explanatory notes to the several books, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 655</ref> Although, it has been strongly attested by the Catholic Church that the original was Hebrew, they attest to this largely because it supported their doctrine that the apocryphal books are Scripture, rather than for any manuscript reasons. In fact some word plays in the Greek make it very unlikely that the additions to Daniel were translated from Hebrew.<ref>These Greek word plays show up in Susanna rather than in Bel and the Dragon, but the argument follows for all the additions to Daniel, Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Pg. 655 Foot note #3</ref> R.H. Charles contends that the additions were "written originally almost certainly in Hebrew" <ref>Ibid. Page 655</ref> but this is a subjective view with little evidence. Should an argument be proven for a Hebrew original, it still stands clear the text for the Bel and the Dragon was not preserved in the Temple with the book of Daniel as were the Holy Scriptures, and this fanciful account was not considered scripture by the 5th century B.C. Hebrew Scribes. Regardless of whether it was originally written in Hebrew or not, the lack of any Hebrew manuscript of Bel and the Dragon is a strong indication that it never was regarded as scripture.

Its Treatment in Ancient Versions

Its Treatment in Ancient Versions

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

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

It is clear that Origen, the Alexandrine 2nd century biblical scholar (c. A.D. 185-254 ) clearly separates the canonical books of the OT from the apocryphal books,<ref>15 Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefor before 231 AD, the eminent biblical scholar Origen (c. 185-254 AD) wrote an exposition of Psalm 1 in which he included 'a catalogue of the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament'. He comments that 'there are twenty-two canonical books as the Hebrews tradition them, the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet'. He proceeds to give the titles in Greek, followed by a transliteration of the Hebrew names:"</ref> however he does defend the Septuagint additions to Daniel, i.e. Susanna.<ref>Origen, Ad Africanum 9: The Hebrew copies lack the Septuagint readings because the elders 'hid from the knowledge of the people' passages that might bring discredit on them, e.g. The story of Susanna. Some of the passages 'have been preserved in their non-canonical writings'. For an ET of Ad Africanum cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.</ref> In this defense he infers that these additions were kept out because of embarrassment of the scholars (elders) who determined which books were to be canonical. This defense is clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. This process of canonization is greatly exaggerated and misused by scholars who are bent on defaming the Bible. They make as though it were a council that convened, debated and voted about whether a book was acceptable, discarding some and including others. In actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<ref>EXO 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. ISA 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. ISA 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: JER 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. EZE 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house,... and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.</ref>

It is clear that Origen, the Alexandrine 2nd century biblical scholar (c. A.D. 185-254 ) clearly separates the canonical books of the OT from the apocryphal books,<ref>15 Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefor before A.D. 231, the eminent biblical scholar Origen (c. A.D. 185-254) wrote an exposition of Psalm 1 in which he included 'a catalogue of the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament'. He comments that 'there are twenty-two canonical books as the Hebrews tradition them, the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet'. He proceeds to give the titles in Greek, followed by a transliteration of the Hebrew names:"</ref> however he does defend the Septuagint additions to Daniel, i.e. Susanna.<ref>Origen, Ad Africanum 9: The Hebrew copies lack the Septuagint readings because the elders 'hid from the knowledge of the people' passages that might bring discredit on them, e.g. The story of Susanna. Some of the passages 'have been preserved in their non-canonical writings'. For an ET of Ad Africanum cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.</ref> In this defense he infers that these additions were kept out because of embarrassment of the scholars (elders) who determined which books were to be canonical. This defense is clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. This process of canonization is greatly exaggerated and misused by scholars who are bent on defaming the Bible. They make as though it were a council that convened, debated and voted about whether a book was acceptable, discarding some and including others. In actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<ref>Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house,... and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.</ref>

External Evidence Summary

External Evidence Summary

Despite the misjudgment of those who made versions of the Old Testament and included the apocryphal books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite the error made by the students of these versions who began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are clearly not on that plane. The examination of the content of the book Bel and the Dragon and the examination of the external evidences surrounding the book boldly justify the exclusion of this work from the collection of books which have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. The writing itself does not have the authoritative style of Daniel, the accounts contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and the third person style of a prophets transport across time and space all make the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, an non inspired of God. The questionable authorship, date of writing, language and preservation clearly indicate the those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book now called Bel and the Dragon. The simple evidences presented in this work clearly justify the conclusion that was made 2400 years ago, that Bel and the Dragon is not Holy Scripture, but an account of events in Daniel's life, made by those outside the inner circle of God. 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 1998. This authority and preservation are clearly missing from the account of Bel and the Dragon.

Despite the misjudgment of those who made versions of the Old Testament and included the apocryphal books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite the error made by the students of these versions who began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are clearly not on that plane. The examination of the content of the book Bel and the Dragon and the examination of the external evidences surrounding the book boldly justify the exclusion of this work from the collection of books which have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. The writing itself does not have the authoritative style of Daniel, the accounts contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and the third person style of a prophets transport across time and space all make the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, an non inspired of God. The questionable authorship, date of writing, language and preservation clearly indicate the those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book now called Bel and the Dragon. The simple evidences presented in this work clearly justify the conclusion that was made 2400 years ago, that Bel and the Dragon is not Holy Scripture, but an account of events in Daniel's life, made by those outside the inner circle of God. 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 1998. This authority and preservation are clearly missing from the account of Bel and the Dragon.

==Message==

==Message==

 

The book contains traditional stories (chapters 1–6), which tell of the trials and triumphs of the wise Daniel and his three companions. The moral is that people of faith can resist temptation and conquer adversity.

The book contains traditional stories (chaps. 1–6), which tell of the trials and triumphs of the wise Daniel and his three companions. The moral is that people of faith can resist temptation and conquer adversity.

==Church traditions==

==Church traditions==

In Orthodox Christian worship, the prayer is the basis of the seventh and eighth biblical canticles sung at Orthros. Although the text of the canticles are generally not read in contemporary practice, the hymns sung as part of the canon reference the theme of the Three Holy Children. At Vespers of Holy Saturday, the text of the prayer is heard as part of one of the fifteen Old Testament readings prescribed for that day. In Byzantine practice, the closing refrains to each verse "bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever" are chanted elaborately. The Roman Catholic Church considers this text to be part of the deuterocanonical collection which was defined at the Council of Trent in 1546 as "sacred" and "canonical." The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England includes the text as the canticle Benedicite omnia Opera.

In Orthodox Christian worship, the prayer is the basis of the seventh and eighth biblical canticles sung at Orthros. Although the text of the canticles are generally not read in contemporary practice, the hymns sung as part of the canon reference the theme of the Three Holy Children. At Vespers of Holy Saturday, the text of the prayer is heard as part of one of the fifteen Old Testament readings prescribed for that day. In Byzantine practice, the closing refrains to each verse "bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever" are chanted elaborately. The Roman Catholic Church considers this text to be part of the deuterocanonical collection which was defined at the Council of Trent in 1546 as "sacred" and "canonical." The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England includes the text as the canticle Benedicite omnia Opera.

{{Old Testament Books}}

{{Old Testament Books}}

==Bibliography==

==Bibliography==

Behrmann, Handkommentar zum Buche Daniel, 1894.

Behrmann, Handkommentar zum Buche Daniel, 1894.

==External links==

==External links==

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

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

[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://oxfordpatristics.blogspot.com/2011/06/edmon-gallagher-jeromes-prologus.html Edmon Gallagher on Jerome's ''Prologus'' and the Council of Hippo regarding the Canon] (oxfordpatristics.blogspot.com).<br/>See also [http://www.academia.edu/4307125/_Jeromes_Prologus_Galeatus_and_the_OT_Canon_of_North_Africa_Studia_Patristica_69_2013_ Jerome's Prologus Galeatus and the Old Testament Canon of North Africa, ''Studia Patristica'' 69: 2013]

*[http://oxfordpatristics.blogspot.com/2011/06/edmon-gallagher-jeromes-prologus.html Edmon Gallagher on Jerome's ''Prologus'' and the Council of Hippo regarding the Canon] (oxfordpatristics.blogspot.com).<br/>See also [http://www.academia.edu/4307125/_Jeromes_Prologus_Galeatus_and_the_OT_Canon_of_North_Africa_Studia_Patristica_69_2013_ Jerome's Prologus Galeatus and the Old Testament Canon of North Africa, ''Studia Patristica'' 69: 2013]

*[http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation. William Webster] (christiantruth.com)

*[http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation. William Webster] (christiantruth.com)

*[http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter2.html Reasoning From the Scriptures with Ron Rhodes Critique of Chapter 2, Does the Apocrypha Belong in the Bible?, by Matt1618]

*[http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter2.html Reasoning From the Scriptures with Ron Rhodes Critique of Chapter 2, Does the Apocrypha Belong in the Bible?, by Matt1618]

*[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 (churchsociety.org)

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

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

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