Changes

2,259 bytes added , 19:08, August 14, 2025

→‎Author: Daniel himself has long been viewed as the author of the Book of Daniel, as it states or implies at Daniel 7:1, 8:1, 9:2, 9:20, 10:2, and 12:4.

Line 1: Line 1: −

The '''Book of Daniel''' [Hebrew: '''דניאל'''] has 14 chapters and is the book of the [[Bible]]

+

−

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

+

The '''Book of Daniel''' [Hebrew: '''דניאל'''] (written c. 530 B.C.) has 14 chapters and is the book of the [[Bible]]

+

that interested [[Isaac Newton]] the most. It contains the prophecy of the arrival of the "[[Son of Man]]" and other predictions. [[Jesus]], historians, biblical books, and many others cite [[Daniel (prophet)|Daniel]] by name.<ref>https://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/ot-difficulties/daniel-amos/authorship-of-daniel/</ref> The word length of the Book of Daniel is a relatively short 11,602.<ref>https://holyword.church/miscellaneous-resources/how-many-words-in-each-book-of-the-bible/</ref> Many manuscripts of this Book of Daniel were discovered as part of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], which added to controversies and revelations concerning this particular work.<ref>https://biblearchaeology.org/research/divided-kingdom/3193-new-light-on-the-book-of-daniel-from-the-dead-sea-scrolls?highlight=WyJoYXNlbCJd</ref>

−

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

+

The theme of this book is that [[God]] protects those who are [[faith]]ful to Him, and that God has complete authority over all, including non-believers. The name Daniel means "God is my judge," while the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar gave Daniel the name "Belteshazzar."

+

The first six or seven chapters of the Book of Daniel were originally written in [[Aramaic]],<ref>"The well-known fact remains that a great part of the book is written, not in Hebrew, but in Aramaic (2:415-7:28)." [https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1950/05/the-aramaic-problem-of-the-book-of-daniel-no-1]</ref> while its later chapters and entire translations were in [[Hebrew]].<ref name=OriginalHebrew>The '''Theta''', or ''Version of [[Theodotion]]'', Greek version of Daniel with all its parts including chapters 3 and 13 and 14 appears to be a revision of the Septuagint text, with the help of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, now lost. Catholic scholars in general and several Protestants (Eichhorn, Einleit., in ''das Altes Testament'', IV, 24 f; Einleit. in ''die apok. Schriften'', 419; Vatke; Delitzsch, ''De Habacuci'', 50; Zockler, Bissell, Ball, Rothstein, etc.) hold that Hebrew was the original language of ''Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susanna'', and ''Bel and the Dragon''. See the following: [http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/S/song-of-the-three-children.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: S: Song of the Three Children] [http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/S/susanna-the-history-of.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: S: Susanna, the History of (T. Witton Davies)] [http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/B/bel-and-the-dragon.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online: B: Bel and the Dragon (T. Witton Davies)] See also (''page'' 572) [https://books.google.com/books?id=axIMoFf-D5YC&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=Eugene+Ulrich,+1989,+%27%27Daniel+Manuscripts+from+Qumran%27%27&source=bl&ots=5jZxzoJW13&sig=W_29EGA0dmI8Yqt5ES4KOKiMe2A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qv7IVKi3G4aggwTA9YDoAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Eugene%20Ulrich%2C%201989%2C%20&f=false Professor Eugene Ulrich, 1989, ''Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran''] </ref> The Book of Daniel was part of the books of the [[Septuagint]], the Old Testament of the [[Apostles]] and the early Christian Church. This book is accepted as inspired and canonical by the [[Orthodox Church]] in the ''Greek Orthodox Bible'', and in the books of the Old Testament of the ''[[Vulgate]]'', and was included in the canon of inspired scripture by Pope [[Damasus I]] and the Synod of Rome (382),<ref>[http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible] [http://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon, by Dr Taylor Marshall] [http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture.html BlogSpot. Beggars All: Reformation & Apologetics. Pope Damasus and the Canon of Scripture (Part One)] (beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com) See also [http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/pope-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture_31.html (Part Two)] ''Both offer clear explanations and clarifications by one Protestant apologist of the rationale for the firm Protestant position that the decision by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome in 382 on the canon of the books of the Bible is invalid (includes discussions)''.</ref> and subsequent councils such as the Council of Hippo (393), the Third Council of Carthage (397), and reaffirmed at the Council of Florence of the (briefly reunited) Church of the east and west in 1442.<ref>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-council-of-florence-on-pope-church.html Saturday, October 26, 2013. The Council of Florence on the Pope, the Church and the Bible] [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia (1915) Canon of the Old Testament] "''During the deliberations of the Council'' [of Trent] ''there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers, they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod''" [of Florence]." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.iii.vii.html Christian Classics Ethereal Library. History of the Church, Vol. 6: § 18. The Council of Ferrara-Florence. 1438–1445.] [http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM Canons of the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)] (Basel/Ferrara/Florence/Rome)</ref> It is included in the canon of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church|Ethiopian Orthodox Bible]]. Since the [[Council of Trent]] it is [[dogma]]tically accepted as inspired and canonical "with all its parts" by the [[Catholic Church]] in the ''Catholic Bible''—books of the '''[[Bible]]''' accepted as divinely inspired by the majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world.<ref name=largest>The '''Catholic Church''' is the world's largest [[Christianity|Christian]] body comprised of several distinct [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm "Rites"]. The [[Catholic Church|Catholic Church (Latin Rite)]] is the largest religious body in the United States, with over 60 million adherents (4 times as large as the second largest church, the Orthodox). [http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/ “The Global Catholic Population,” © 2011, Pew Research Center.] [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html The Largest Catholic Communities]

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

Line 9: Line 12:

*[http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM Defending the Deuterocanonicals, James Akin] (ewtn.com)

*''See also'' [http://www.blackjews.org/Ethiopian%20Community/Ethiopian%20Chapter.htm (Beta Yisrael) A Historical Analysis by Rabbi S.B. Levy 2002] (blackjews.org) "Their Torah, written in the Geez language on parchment, contained all the books of the Old Testament and some from the Apocrypha, but none of the New Testament and no references to Jesus at all."

−

*''See video on the canon, including the canon of the Ethiopian Jews'' : —[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt7WQYK7OfY The Septuagint] (youtube.com)</ref> The Christian Church has always ranked Daniel among the books of the [[Major Prophets]] of the Bible, according to its traditional placement immediately following the [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Book of Ezekiel]] in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate Old Testament.

+

*''See video on the canon, including the canon of the Ethiopian Jews'': —[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt7WQYK7OfY The Septuagint] (youtube.com)</ref> The Christian Church has always ranked Daniel among the books of the [[Major Prophets]] of the Bible, according to its traditional placement immediately following the [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Book of Ezekiel]] in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate Old Testament.

−

A major portion of the 3rd chapter and the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel were first removed from the Christian Old Testament and placed in the [[Apocrypha]] as separate books by Martin Luther in the 16th century. These separated texts are regarded as apocryphal by less than one-third of Christian believers, most of whom have never read them.<ref name=Prot/> In printed editions of the [[King James Bible]] in the 16th through early 20th centuries these separated texts of the Apocrypha are given the following titles:<ref>''A. D. 1611 King James Version and Revised Version of A. D. 1881 arranged in parallel columns'', O. A. Browning & Co., Toledo, Ohio, Potter, Chase & Co., Kansas City, MO, J. H. Buckmaster, Toledo, Ohio, 1881.</ref>

+

A major portion of the 3rd chapter and the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel were first removed from the Christian Old Testament and placed in the [[Apocrypha]] as separate books by Martin Luther in the 16th century. These separated texts are regarded as apocryphal by less than one-third of Christian believers, most of whom have never read them.<ref name=Prot/> In printed editions of the [[King James Bible]] in the 16th through early 20th centuries these separated texts of the Apocrypha are given the following titles:<ref>''A.D. 1611 King James Version and Revised Version of A.D. 1881 arranged in parallel columns'', O. A. Browning & Co., Toledo, Ohio, Potter, Chase & Co., Kansas City, MO, J. H. Buckmaster, Toledo, Ohio, 1881.</ref>

−

*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children|"'''The Song of the Three Holy Children'''. Which followeth in the third Chapter of Daniel after this place—''fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.'' That which followeth is not in the Hebrew, to wit, ''and they walked....'' unto these words, ''Then Nebuchadnezzar...'' verse 24."]] (62 verses) <ref name=notHebrew>"not in the Hebrew" —A major portion of the canonical Book of Daniel—which is accepted as inspired and canonical in the Protestant Bible—is also not in the [[Hebrew]], but in [[Aramaic]]: Daniel 2:4–7:28. —Major portions of the canonical Book of Ezra—which are accepted as inspired and canonical in the Protestant Bible—are also not in ~~the~~ Hebrew, but in Aramaic: Ezra 4:7–6:18; 7:12-26. —Other minor portions of the Old Testament—which are accepted as inspired and canonical in the Protestant Bible—were penned in Aramaic, not Hebrew: Jeremiah 10:11; and two words in Genesis 31:47. See the following:

+

*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children|"'''The Song of the Three Holy Children'''. Which followeth in the third Chapter of Daniel after this place—''fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.'' That which followeth is not in the Hebrew, to wit, ''and they walked....'' unto these words, ''Then Nebuchadnezzar...'' verse 24."]] (62 verses) <ref name=notHebrew>"not in the Hebrew" —A major portion of the canonical Book of Daniel—which is accepted as inspired and canonical in the Protestant Bible—is also not in the [[Hebrew]], but in [[Aramaic]]: Daniel 2:4–7:28. —Major portions of the canonical Book of Ezra—which are accepted as inspired and canonical in the Protestant Bible—are also not in Hebrew, but in Aramaic: Ezra 4:7–6:18; 7:12-26. —Other minor portions of the Old Testament—which are accepted as inspired and canonical in the Protestant Bible—were penned in Aramaic, not Hebrew: Jeremiah 10:11; and two words in Genesis 31:47. See the following:

*[http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/in-what-language-was-the-bible-first-written/ Biblica: Transforming lives through God's Word. In what language was the Bible first written?] (biblica.com)

*[http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5217/why-is-daniel-chapter-24-728-written-in-aramaic Why is Daniel chapter 2:4–7:28 written in Aramaic?] (hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions)

*[https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/200-languages-of-the-bible Christian Courier : Languages of the Bible] (christiancourier.com)

*[http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/language/languages.htm Languages of the Bible] (bible.gen.nz)</ref>

−

*[[Story of Susanna|"'''The History of Susanna'''. Set apart from the Beginning of ''Daniel'', because it is not in ~~the~~ Hebrew, as neither the Narration of ''Bel and the Dragon''"]] <ref name=notHebrew/>

+

*[[Story of Susanna|"'''The History of Susanna'''. Set apart from the Beginning of ''Daniel'', because it is not in Hebrew, as neither the Narration of ''Bel and the Dragon''"]] <ref name=notHebrew/>

*[[Bel and the Dragon|"'''The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon''', cut off from the end of Daniel"]]

−

Some late 20th century and early 21st century Ecumenical editions of the Bible have restored these to their original places in the Book of Daniel according to their placement by [[Jerome]] in the Vulgate Bible.<ref>See [[Essay: How to choose a Bible#Parallel Bibles: English translations in parallel columns|Parallel Bibles: English translations in parallel columns]]</ref>

+

Some late 20th-century and early 21st-century Ecumenical editions of the Bible have restored these to their original places in the Book of Daniel according to their placement by [[Jerome]] in the Vulgate Bible.<ref>See [[Essay: How to choose a Bible#Parallel Bibles: English translations in parallel columns|Parallel Bibles: English translations in parallel columns]]</ref>

==Contents==

Line 34: Line 37:

The Masoretic Hebrew Book of Daniel consists of two distinct parts.<ref name="d"/> The first part, consisting of the first six chapters, is chiefly historical; and the second part, consisting of the remaining six chapters, is chiefly prophetical.<ref name="d"/>

−

The historical part of the book treats of the period of the Captivity, written around 530 B.C.<ref name="d"/> Daniel is <blockquote>"the historian of the Captivity, the writer who alone furnishes any series of events for that dark and dismal period during which the harp of Israel hung on the trees that grew by the Euphrates.<ref name="d"/> His narrative may be said in general to intervene between Kings and Chronicles on the one hand and Ezra on the other, or (more strictly) to fill out the sketch which the author of the Chronicles gives in a single verse in his last chapter: 'And them that had escaped from the sword carried he [i.e., Nebuchadnezzar] away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia'." (2 Chronicles 36:20).<ref name="d"/></blockquote>

+

The historical part of the book treats the period of the Captivity, written around 530 B.C.<ref name="d"/> Daniel is <blockquote>"the historian of the Captivity, the writer who alone furnishes any series of events for that dark and dismal period during which the harp of Israel hung on the trees that grew by the Euphrates.<ref name="d"/> His narrative may be said in general to intervene between Kings and Chronicles on the one hand and Ezra on the other, or (more strictly) to fill out the sketch which the author of the Chronicles gives in a single verse in his last chapter: 'And them that had escaped from the sword carried he [i.e., Nebuchadnezzar] away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia'." (2 Chronicles 36:20).<ref name="d"/></blockquote>

The prophetical part consists of three visions and one lengthened prophetical communication.<ref name="d">{{Easton|Daniel}}</ref> Some suggest that the second part was written hundreds of years later, perhaps based on an oral tradition, but it was nevertheless certainly written well before Christ.

Line 40: Line 43:

===Septuagint and Vulgate===

−

The Christian Old Testament Book of Daniel in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate consists of two distinct kinds of narrative, historical and prophetic, in three parts.

+

The [[Christian]] [[Old Testament]] Book of Daniel in both the [[Septuagint]] and the [[Vulgate]] consists of two distinct kinds of narrative, historical and prophetic, in three parts.

In the Septuagint, the first part begins with the first chapter narrative of Daniel, a youth, saving Susanna from the death sentence of the two corrupt judges, followed by six chapters of chiefly historical narrative, with the first part of the book thus consisting of the first seven chapters; the second part, consisting of six chapters, primarily relating visions sent to Daniel and interpreted by [[Gabriel (archangel)|Gabriel]], is chiefly prophetical; and the third part, consisting of one chapter, is chiefly historical.

Line 48: Line 51:

===Chapter summaries===

+

''See also:'' [[The Writing on the Wall]]

+

[[File:The Writing on the Wall - Book of Daniel.png|thumbnail|300px|right|The prophet Daniel was able to interpret [[The Writing on the Wall]] mentioned in [https://www.bible.com/bible/406/DAN.5.5-29.ERV Daniel 5:5-29 ESV] ]]

The following chapter summaries are from the Douay-Rheims Bible.

Part one, historical narratives:

:(1) Daniel and his companions are taken into the palace of the king of Babylon: they abstain from his meat and wine, and succeed better with pulse and water. Their excellence and wisdom.

−

:(2) Daniel, by divine revelation, declares the dream of Nabuchodonosor, and the interpretation of it. He is highly ~~honoured~~ by the king.

+

:(2) Daniel, by divine revelation, declares the dream of Nabuchodonosor, and the interpretation of it. He is highly honored by the king.

:(3) Nabuchodonosor sets up a golden statue; which he commands all to adore: the three children for refusing to do it are cast into the fiery furnace; but are not hurt by the flames. Their prayer and canticle of praise. (''the 3rd chapter of Daniel is 100 verses'')

:(4) Nabuchodonosor's dream, by which the judgments of God are denounced against him for his pride, is interpreted by Daniel, and verified by the event.

−

:(5) Baltasar's profane banquet: his sentence is denounced by a handwriting on the wall, which Daniel reads and interprets.

+

:(5) Baltasar's profane banquet: his sentence is denounced by handwriting on the wall, which Daniel reads and interprets ([https://www.bible.com/bible/406/DAN.5.5-29.ERV Daniel 5:5-29 ESV]). See: [[The Writing on the Wall]]

−

:(6) Daniel is promoted by Darius: his enemies procure a law forbidding prayer; for the transgression of this law Daniel is cast into the lions' den: but miraculously delivered.

+

:(6) Daniel is promoted by Darius: his enemies procure a law forbidding prayer; for the transgression of this law Daniel is cast into the lions' den: but miraculously delivered.<ref>Although this scene is commonly found in the children's area of church buildings, it often portrays Daniel as a younger man. In reality, Daniel was quite old (possibly 70-80) at the time the event took place.</ref>

Part two, prophesies:

:(7) Daniel's vision of the four beasts, signifying four kingdoms: of God sitting on his throne: and of the opposite kingdoms of Christ and Antichrist.

Line 82: Line 88:

When the "prince of the covenant" is interpreted as Onias the high priest, then the kingdoms foreseen by Daniel are viewed as:

−

*Ancient Babylon, the head of gold, represented by ~~Nebuchanezzar~~,<ref>See [http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/meru/hd_meru.htm List of Rulers of Mesopotamia] (metmuseum.org)</ref>

+

*Ancient Babylon, the head of gold, represented by Nebuchadnezzar,<ref>See [http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/meru/hd_meru.htm List of Rulers of Mesopotamia] (metmuseum.org)</ref>

*the Kingdom of the Medes (silver),<ref name=Medes>Kingdom of the Medes. See the following articles:

*[http://www.livius.org/mea-mem/media/media.html Media] (livius.org)

Line 122: Line 128:

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

−

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

−

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

−

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

−

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

+

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

==Dispute on Canonicity==

Line 146: Line 140:

The Christian Holy Bible, received in its entirety as inspired and canonical by Orthodox and Catholic Christians, contains texts which are rejected by Protestant Christians as spurious and apocryphal additions of men. In the early Christian church all three "additions to Daniel" are quoted as integral parts of the Book of Daniel by Greek and Latin Fathers, as for example by Irenaeus (''Adversus Haereses'' IV, 5, 2f) (early 2nd century – c. A.D. 202), Tertullian (''De idolatria'' c. 18) (A.D. 160 – 220), and Cyprian (''Ad fortunatum'', c. 11) (c. 200 – September 14, 258).

−

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

+

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

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

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

Line 190: Line 184:

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

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

−

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

+

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

:the book should conform to the Torah;

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

:it was written in Hebrew;

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

−

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

+

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

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

Line 253: Line 247:

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

:

−

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

+

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

:

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

Line 266: Line 260:

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

−

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

+

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

:

It is evident from the facts cited above that those portions of the Book of Daniel called ''The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Story of Susanna,'' and ''Bel and the Dragon,'' cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of Jewish rejection, apparent lack of evidence of an original Hebrew text, and ''subjective assessment of content'' according to what ''seems to the reader'' to be marks of inspired writing.

Line 295: Line 289:

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

−

*[~~http~~://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?] —gotquestions.org

+

*[https://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?] —gotquestions.org

*[http://thechristianwatershed.com/2007/12/10/eisegesis-vs-exegesis/ Eisegesis vs. Exegesis] —thechristianwatershed.com

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

Line 304: Line 298:

===Apostolic authority===

−

Churches in [[Apostolic succession]] see in their doctrine and practice a sure and biblical means of receiving and perpetuating the Faith from one generation to another. Apostolic Succession requires a "tactile," person to person, conferring of authority from the Apostles onward. The practice originated in the late first century ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2013:2-3&version=KJV Acts 13:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2timothy%201:6-7&version=KJV 2 Timothy 1:6-7]). It requires the most heightened responsibility in ~~the~~ giving and receiving. It is believed that the grace of the Holy Spirit is transmitted by the laying on of hands at the time of ordination, but not all Christians have the gift of discernment or of leadership "''are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?''". [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/13-1.htm Romans 13:1] [http://biblehub.com/multi/hebrews/13-17.htm Hebrews 13:17] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_timothy/1-14.htm 2 Timothy 1:14] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_peter/1-19.htm 2 Peter 1:19], also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:3&version=KJV Jude 3] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:17-19&version=KJV 17-19]. See also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:4-11&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 12:4-11] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:28-30&version=KJV 28-30]

+

Churches in [[Apostolic succession]] see in their doctrine and practice a sure and biblical means of receiving and perpetuating the Faith from one generation to another. Apostolic Succession requires a "tactile," person to person, conferring of authority from the Apostles onward. The practice originated in the late first century ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2013:2-3&version=KJV Acts 13:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2timothy%201:6-7&version=KJV 2 Timothy 1:6-7]). It requires the most heightened responsibility in giving and receiving. It is believed that the grace of the Holy Spirit is transmitted by the laying on of hands at the time of ordination, but not all Christians have the gift of discernment or of leadership "''are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?''". [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/13-1.htm Romans 13:1] [http://biblehub.com/multi/hebrews/13-17.htm Hebrews 13:17] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_timothy/1-14.htm 2 Timothy 1:14] [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_peter/1-19.htm 2 Peter 1:19], also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:3&version=KJV Jude 3] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:17-19&version=KJV 17-19]. See also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:4-11&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 12:4-11] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%2012:28-30&version=KJV 28-30]

See [[Biblical Canon#Authority to determine the Biblical Canon|Authority to determine the Biblical Canon]].

Line 310: Line 304:

==Historical-grammatical analysis: Historical setting==

−

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

+

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

===The Prophet Daniel===

Line 320: Line 314:

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

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

−

After the death of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor (561 B.C.), the book simply intimates in Daniel, 5:11 and following, that he lost his high position at the court and lived long in retirement. But afterward, at the scene of revelry in Belshazzar/Baltasar's palace, on the eve of Cyrus's conquest of Babylon (538 B.C.), while Baltasar (Hebrew ''Belsh’aççar'', corresponding to Babylonian ''Balâtsu-usur'', "Bel protect the king") and his lords feasted, impiously drinking their wine from precious vessels which had been taken from the Temple at Jerusalem, there appeared the fingers of a man writing on the wall: "Mane, Thecel, Phares". None of the king's wise men was able to interpret these mysterious words, which Daniel, who at length had been summoned, translated and explained. For his reward Belshazzar, the second in the kingdom ([[Nabonidus]] was first in rank), made Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/5-29.htm Daniel 5:29.] That night Cyrus the Persian entered Babylon without resistance, Belshazzar was killed (probably assassinated), and Darius the Mede (whom some believe was Cyrus' second in command) was given the kingdom. The prophet, now at least eighty years of age, retained his exalted position under Darius the Mede, possibly to be identified with Darius I Hystaspes (485 B.C.) though some disagree. When Darius thought of setting Daniel over all the kingdom (6:4), Daniel's fellow-ministers of state, fearing such an elevation, sought his ruin by convicting him of disloyalty to the Crown. They secured from the king a decree forbidding anyone to ask any petition of either god or man, except the monarch, for thirty days, under penalty of being cast into the lions' den. Daniel nevertheless prayed, three times a day, at his open window, towards Jerusalem. They reported this to the king, and coerced him into applying the threatened punishment for violation of the decree. Daniel was thrown into the den, and it was sealed. The next morning he was still alive and unharmed. When Darius saw Daniel's miraculous preservation in the lions' den, he commanded that the conspirators with their wives and children be immediately thrown into the den, and they were attacked and crushed before they reached the bottom. He published a decree that all in his realm should ~~honour~~ and revere the God of Daniel, proclaiming that He is "the living and eternal God". Daniel continued to prosper through the rest of the reign of Darius, and in that of his successor, Cyrus the Persian (chapter 6). As a mere youth (14? 17?) when he first arrived in Babylon, he had first manifested an extraordinary gift of divine wisdom and authority in convicting of perjury out of their own mouths the two judges among the exiles who were plotting the death of Susanna. In his advanced old age (100+?) Daniel is no less acute in his wisdom in demonstrating how the priests of Bel were deceiving and defrauding the king and the fact that the idol does not eat all the food offered to it. The king destroys the priests and consigns the idol to Daniel, who destroys it. Daniel also manifests brilliant wisdom in his insistence on worshiping only the living God and destroying "without sword or club" a large living "dragon" worshiped as a living god by the Babylonians, by feeding the greedy animal cakes made of an indigestible blend of tar, fat and hair, which caused an extreme bowel blockage and a herniated abdominal rupture, which burst, killing it, and thus demonstrating that it was no god. The outraged Babylonian ministers of state accuse the king of becoming a Jew and coerce him, with threats of assassination of him and all his family, into condemning Daniel to 7 days in the lion's den with no food or water. On the sixth day an angel from God transports Daniel's fellow prophet Habakkuk from Judea to the den with bread and stew in a bowl for Daniel which revives him and Habakkuk is immediately returned to Judea. When the king on the 7th day finds Daniel alive, he praises the Lord God of Daniel, pulls him out, and throws those who attempted to destroy him into the den where they were immediately devoured.

+

After the death of Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor (561 B.C.), the book simply intimates in Daniel, 5:11 and following, that he lost his high position at the court and lived long in retirement. But afterward, at the scene of revelry in Belshazzar/Baltasar's palace, on the eve of Cyrus's conquest of Babylon (538 B.C.), while Baltasar (Hebrew ''Belsh’aççar'', corresponding to Babylonian ''Balâtsu-usur'', "Bel protect the king") and his lords feasted, impiously drinking their wine from precious vessels which had been taken from the Temple at Jerusalem, there appeared the fingers of a man writing on the wall: "Mane, Thecel, Phares". None of the king's wise men was able to interpret these mysterious words, which Daniel, who at length had been summoned, translated and explained. For his reward Belshazzar, the second in the kingdom ([[Nabonidus]] was first in rank), made Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/5-29.htm Daniel 5:29.] That night Cyrus the Persian entered Babylon without resistance, Belshazzar was killed (probably assassinated), and Darius the Mede (whom some believe was Cyrus' second in command) was given the kingdom. The prophet, now at least eighty years of age, retained his exalted position under Darius the Mede, possibly to be identified with Darius I Hystaspes (485 B.C.) though some disagree. When Darius thought of setting Daniel over all the kingdom (6:4), Daniel's fellow-ministers of state, fearing such an elevation, sought his ruin by convicting him of disloyalty to the Crown. They secured from the king a decree forbidding anyone to ask any petition of either god or man, except the monarch, for thirty days, under penalty of being cast into the lions' den. Daniel nevertheless prayed, three times a day, at his open window, towards Jerusalem. They reported this to the king, and coerced him into applying the threatened punishment for violation of the decree. Daniel was thrown into the den, and it was sealed. The next morning he was still alive and unharmed. When Darius saw Daniel's miraculous preservation in the lions' den, he commanded that the conspirators with their wives and children be immediately thrown into the den, and they were attacked and crushed before they reached the bottom. He published a decree that all in his realm should honor and revere the God of Daniel, proclaiming that He is "the living and eternal God". Daniel continued to prosper through the rest of the reign of Darius, and in that of his successor, Cyrus the Persian (chapter 6). As a mere youth (14? 17?) when he first arrived in Babylon, he had first manifested an extraordinary gift of divine wisdom and authority in convicting of perjury out of their own mouths the two judges among the exiles who were plotting the death of Susanna. In his advanced old age (100+?) Daniel is no less acute in his wisdom in demonstrating how the priests of Bel were deceiving and defrauding the king and the fact that the idol does not eat all the food offered to it. The king destroys the priests and consigns the idol to Daniel, who destroys it. Daniel also manifests brilliant wisdom in his insistence on worshiping only the living God and destroying "without sword or club" a large living "dragon" worshiped as a living god by the Babylonians, by feeding the greedy animal cakes made of an indigestible blend of tar, fat and hair, which caused an extreme bowel blockage and a herniated abdominal rupture, which burst, killing it, and thus demonstrating that it was no god. The outraged Babylonian ministers of state accuse the king of becoming a Jew and coerce him, with threats of assassination of him and all his family, into condemning Daniel to 7 days in the lion's den with no food or water. On the sixth day an angel from God transports Daniel's fellow prophet Habakkuk from Judea to the den with bread and stew in a bowl for Daniel which revives him and Habakkuk is immediately returned to Judea. When the king on the 7th day finds Daniel alive, he praises the Lord God of Daniel, pulls him out, and throws those who attempted to destroy him into the den where they were immediately devoured.

−

These are the only facts ~~which~~ may be gathered for a biography of the Prophet Daniel from the narrative portions of the book (1–6, 13–14). Few other facts can be drawn from the second, distinctly apocalyptic, portion of the book (7–12), written in the first-person by Daniel himself. The visions there represent him chiefly as a seer favored with divine communications about the future punishment of the Gentile powers and the ultimate setting up of the Messianic Kingdom. These revelations are given (out of chronological sequence) in the reigns of Darius, Belshazzar/Baltasar, and Cyrus, and are explained to him by the Angel [[Gabriel (archangel)|Gabriel]] in increasingly clearer disclosures of what is to happen in "the time of the end". In the deuterocanonical appendix to the book (13–14), Daniel reappears in the same general character as in the first part of the work (1–6). Chapter 13 (originally the first chapter of Daniel in the Septuagint) sets him forth as an inspired youth whose superior wisdom puts to shame and secures the punishment of the false accusers of the chaste Susanna. The concluding chapter (14) represents Daniel as a fearless and most successful champion of the true and living God, telling the history of the destruction of two Babylonian idols, Bel and the dragon.

+

These are the only facts that may be gathered for a biography of the Prophet Daniel from the narrative portions of the book (1–6, 13–14). Few other facts can be drawn from the second, distinctly apocalyptic, portion of the book (7–12), written in the first-person by Daniel himself. The visions there represent him chiefly as a seer favored with divine communications about the future punishment of the Gentile powers and the ultimate setting up of the Messianic Kingdom. These revelations are given (out of chronological sequence) in the reigns of Darius, Belshazzar/Baltasar, and Cyrus, and are explained to him by the Angel [[Gabriel (archangel)|Gabriel]] in increasingly clearer disclosures of what is to happen in "the time of the end". In the deuterocanonical appendix to the book (13–14), Daniel reappears in the same general character as in the first part of the work (1–6). Chapter 13 (originally the first chapter of Daniel in the Septuagint) sets him forth as an inspired youth whose superior wisdom puts to shame and secures the punishment of the false accusers of the chaste Susanna. The concluding chapter (14) represents Daniel as a fearless and most successful champion of the true and living God, telling the history of the destruction of two Babylonian idols, Bel and the dragon.

−

Outside of the Book of Daniel, the Bible has few references to the prophet of that name. Ezechiel (14:14) speaks of Daniel, together with Noah and Job, as a pattern of righteousness and, in chapter 28:3, as the representative of perfect wisdom. The writer of the First Book of Maccabees (2:60) refers to his deliverance out of the mouth of the lions, and St. Matthew (24:15) to "the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet". 1st century Jewish tradition had been attempting to complete the ~~meagre~~ account of Daniel's life as supplied by the Sacred Scriptures. The tradition of the Jews, accepted by many Fathers of the Church, states that he was made a eunuch in Babylon. Other Jewish traditions later included in the [[Talmud]] represent him as refusing divine honors proffered to him by Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor; they explain that the reason why he was not forced with his three friends to worship that prince's statue in the plain of Dura (Daniel 3), was that he had been sent away by the king, who wanted to spare Daniel's life, for he knew full well that the prophet would never agree to commit such an act of idolatry; they also give many fanciful details, as for instance concerning what happened to Daniel while he was in the lions' den. Others try to account for what they assume to be a fact, that Yahweh's devout prophet apparently did not return to God's land and city after the decree of restoration issued by Cyrus; while others again assert that he actually went back to Judea and died there. Although Daniel's name is not mentioned in the Koran, legends concerning his life and place of burial are found in Arabic literature, all equally incredible and conflicting. During the Middle Ages a widespread and persistent tradition held that Daniel was buried at Susa, the modern Shuster, in the Persian province of Khuzistan. In the account of his visit to Susa in A.D. 1165, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela narrates that Daniel's tomb was shown him in the façade of one of the synagogues of that city; and it is shown there to this day.<ref>[http://www.advantour.com/uzbekistan/samarkand/daniil.htm Mausoleum of St. Daniel in Samarkand]</ref>

+

Outside of the Book of Daniel, the Bible has few references to the prophet of that name. Ezechiel (14:14) speaks of Daniel, together with Noah and Job, as a pattern of righteousness and, in chapter 28:3, as the representative of perfect wisdom. The writer of the First Book of Maccabees (2:60) refers to his deliverance out of the mouth of the lions, and St. Matthew (24:15) to "the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet". 1st-century Jewish tradition had been attempting to complete the meager account of Daniel's life as supplied by the Sacred Scriptures. The tradition of the Jews, accepted by many Fathers of the Church, states that he was made a eunuch in Babylon. Other Jewish traditions later included in the [[Talmud]] represent him as refusing divine honors proffered to him by Nebuchadnezzar/Nabuchodonosor; they explain that the reason why he was not forced with his three friends to worship that prince's statue in the plain of Dura (Daniel 3), was that he had been sent away by the king, who wanted to spare Daniel's life, for he knew full well that the prophet would never agree to commit such an act of idolatry; they also give many fanciful details, as for instance concerning what happened to Daniel while he was in the lions' den. Others try to account for what they assume to be a fact, that Yahweh's devout prophet apparently did not return to God's land and city after the decree of restoration issued by Cyrus; while others again assert that he actually went back to Judea and died there. Although Daniel's name is not mentioned in the Koran, legends concerning his life and place of burial are found in Arabic literature, all equally incredible and conflicting. During the Middle Ages a widespread and persistent tradition held that Daniel was buried at Susa, the modern Shuster, in the Persian province of Khuzistan. In the account of his visit to Susa in A.D. 1165, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela narrates that Daniel's tomb was shown him in the façade of one of the synagogues of that city; and it is shown there to this day.<ref>[http://www.advantour.com/uzbekistan/samarkand/daniil.htm Mausoleum of St. Daniel in Samarkand]</ref>

===The text===

Line 337: Line 331:

Theories abound about the date of writing but most of these entangle themselves in the liberalist scholarly dating of the book of Daniel well into the 2nd Century B.C. rather than its stated dating as being from the hand of Daniel himself, c. 534 B.C..

−

Scholars with a [[liberal bias]] do not acknowledge the supernatural foreknowledge of any written prophecy, presumptively dating each book as having been written after the prophecy was fulfilled. Conservative responses to these pointed dating theories take Proverbs 26:4 above Proverbs 26:5 in the case of such outspoken one-sided opinions <ref>Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." This is held to be a better counsel than Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. See also [http://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-15.htm 1 Peter 3:15]</ref> In Hill and Waltons ''Survey of the Old Testament: Introduction to the book of Daniel'' (and throughout their whole survey) excessive weight is given to those "scholars" who support the latest possible speculative dating of Bible books.<ref>Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. ''A Survey of the Old Testament'' page 349.</ref> When extensive argument is given to refute their dating and critical treatment of the Bible it seems to lend them more credence than they are due.<ref>See [http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/protest+too+much TheFreeDicionary: idioms: protest too much] (thefreedictionary.com), [~~http~~://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thou+doth+protest+too+much Urban Dictionary: "thou doth protest too much"], [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_lady_doth_protest_too_much wiktionary: the lady doth protest too much] (wiktionary.org)</ref> Many modern scholars have a preconceived notion of a bible that evolved from the creative imagination of man. As evolution of a species requires the fabrication of ''millions of years'' of evolution, so the premise of evolution of a bible requires that the scholars similarly manufacture hundreds of years of pagan folklore and legend as being prior to, and the foundation of, the written Biblical record. In support of their opinions they stretch out dates and propose compounded multiple authorship. This is the [[Logical fallacy#Manufacturing facts from a theory|fallacy of manufacturing facts from a theory]]. The proposed conclusions constructed from such abuse of legitimate historical-critical dating methods by some "modern scholars" on any manuscript can be treated as suspect, as subjective and as having little substantive credibility, based on the long, documented history, by peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies, of evidential findings of slanted scholarship by many researchers.<ref>Documented evidence of a long history of biased scholarly research findings—see the following:

+

Scholars with a [[liberal bias]] do not acknowledge the supernatural foreknowledge of any written prophecy, presumptively dating each book as having been written after the prophecy was fulfilled. Conservative responses to these pointed dating theories take Proverbs 26:4 above Proverbs 26:5 in the case of such outspoken one-sided opinions <ref>Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." This is held to be a better counsel than Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. See also [http://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-15.htm 1 Peter 3:15]</ref> In Hill and Waltons ''Survey of the Old Testament: Introduction to the book of Daniel'' (and throughout their whole survey) excessive weight is given to those "scholars" who support the latest possible speculative dating of Bible books.<ref>Hill, Andrew E. and Walton, John H. ''A Survey of the Old Testament'' page 349.</ref> When extensive argument is given to refute their dating and critical treatment of the Bible it seems to lend them more credence than they are due.<ref>See [http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/protest+too+much TheFreeDicionary: idioms: protest too much] (thefreedictionary.com), [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thou+doth+protest+too+much Urban Dictionary: "thou doth protest too much"], [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_lady_doth_protest_too_much wiktionary: the lady doth protest too much] (wiktionary.org)</ref> Many modern scholars have a preconceived notion of a bible that evolved from the creative imagination of man. As evolution of a species requires the fabrication of ''millions of years'' of evolution, so the premise of evolution of a bible requires that the scholars similarly manufacture hundreds of years of pagan folklore and legend as being prior to, and the foundation of, the written Biblical record. In support of their opinions they stretch out dates and propose compounded multiple authorship. This is the [[Logical fallacy#Manufacturing facts from a theory|fallacy of manufacturing facts from a theory]]. The proposed conclusions constructed from such abuse of legitimate historical-critical dating methods by some "modern scholars" on any manuscript can be treated as suspect, as subjective and as having little substantive credibility, based on the long, documented history, by peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies, of evidential findings of slanted scholarship by many researchers.<ref>Documented evidence of a long history of biased scholarly research findings—see the following:

*[https://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/bias.html Approaching history: Bias] (umass.edu)

*[http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html Biases in the Interpretation and use of Research Results—Robert J. MacCoun. Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-7320, maccoun@socrates.berkeley.edu]—<blockquote>"The first prototype is fraud-intentional, conscious efforts to fabricate, conceal, or distort evidence, for whatever reason-material gain, enhancing one's professional reputation, protecting one's theories, or influencing a political debate. There is a growing literature on such cases (see Fuchs & Westervelt, 1996; Woodward & Goodstein, 1996), though we still lack good estimates of their prevalence. At a macro level, they are often explicable from sociological, economic, or historical perspectives (Cole, 1992; Zuckerman, 1988). At a micro level, they are sometimes explicable in terms of individual psychopathology. These cases are extremely serious..."</blockquote></ref> (See [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#"illegitimate historical-critical findings".|Historical-critical method: "illegitimate historical-critical findings"]]) It is entirely reasonable and quite logical that the Book of Daniel was composed and written during the captivity and during the reign of Darius and Cyrus of Persia, and that no cheating trick was used to make it look ancient. The major contention among scholars is not when the Book of Daniel was written, even if it was written the day Daniel got out of the lions den. The problem with the account for the scholar is its authenticity, and/or its authority: was it written by Daniel, was it written by one in the know, and was it written by one in the control of God? The continuous collective witness of the whole Christian church and the majority of well-educated and highly trained Christian scholars since the 1st century is that it is wholly authentic, written by Daniel, and by one in the know, and under the control and inspiration of God.

Line 351: Line 345:

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

−

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

+

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

===Date of the Book c. 530 B.C. and c. 165 B.C.===

Line 361: Line 355:

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

−

~~Daniel’s~~ prophecy recorded in chapter 9 has frequently been called ''the Prophecy of the 70 weeks''. The Hebrew word for "weeks" means a period of 7-years (see [http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7620.htm Strong's Concordance Number 7620]). The 70 weeks is a multiplication of 70 times 7 years, equaling 490 years. During this period, at various stages, specific human events are expected, relating to the Jewish people, to Jerusalem, and to the coming Messiah. Christians logically accept this prophecy of an everlasting kingdom as being fulfilled by Jesus.

+

Daniel's prophecy recorded in chapter 9 has frequently been called ''the Prophecy of the 70 weeks''. The Hebrew word for "weeks" means a period of 7-years (see [http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7620.htm Strong's Concordance Number 7620]). The 70 weeks is a multiplication of 70 times 7 years, equaling 490 years. During this period, at various stages, specific human events are expected, relating to the Jewish people, to Jerusalem, and to the coming Messiah. Christians logically accept this prophecy of an everlasting kingdom as being fulfilled by Jesus.

Conservative Christian scholars do not accept the proposed 165 B.C. as the date when the Book of Daniel was written. Verification of the individual prophecies in the 70 weeks period as corresponding to historical events does offer an explanation of 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 exists to support the traditional conservative Christian view. The 165 B.C. date proposed by most Biblical scholars can be used to substantiate the conservative view that the Book of Daniel is genuine prophesy.

Line 373: Line 367:

The [[Angel|Archangel]] [[Gabriel (archangel)|Gabriel]] brings an answer to Daniel from God, giving Daniel a prophecy that foretells the future of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. And according to Christian reading of the scripture, Gabriel's message links the Jewish people and their return to the coming of the Messiah (anointed one). And as Daniel was not alive during the ministry of Jesus, the description of Jesus' life and ministry as foreshadowed in the prophesy given to Daniel establishes and vindicates the claim that the book contains genuinely accurate prophesy of the future.

−

Most Christians accept that the prophetic events of ~~Daniel’s~~ prophecy of the 70-weeks fit Jesus’ life and ministry, generally understanding the 70-weeks prophecy to be a literal foretelling of the Messiah. Three primary reasons are usually presented as to why Christians take the view that Jesus literally fulfilled this prophecy, though some disagree.

+

Most Christians accept that the prophetic events of Daniel's prophecy of the 70-weeks fit Jesus’ life and ministry, generally understanding the 70-weeks prophecy to be a literal foretelling of the Messiah. Three primary reasons are usually presented as to why Christians take the view that Jesus literally fulfilled this prophecy, though some disagree.

First and foremost, according to this view, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah (an anointed one) would be killed at Jerusalem.

Line 379: Line 373:

Second, according to this view, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah (an anointed one) had to appear at Jerusalem before its destruction. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, which fits Jesus’ lifetime.

−

Third, many Christians take the view that [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:20-22&version=KJV Daniel 11:20-22] is a summary of the gospel story, based on the interpretation that the purpose of the ~~Messiah’s~~ death is foretold in the 70-weeks prophecy as described by [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:31-35&version=KJV verses 31-35] which mirrors the basic teachings of the New Testament. There is purpose in the ~~Messiah’s~~ death based on what Gabriel foretold [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2012:1-3&version=KJV Daniel 12:1-3].

+

Third, many Christians take the view that [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:20-22&version=KJV Daniel 11:20-22] is a summary of the gospel story, based on the interpretation that the purpose of the Messiah's death is foretold in the 70-weeks prophecy as described by [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:31-35&version=KJV verses 31-35] which mirrors the basic teachings of the New Testament. There is purpose in the Messiah's death based on what Gabriel foretold [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2012:1-3&version=KJV Daniel 12:1-3].

Christians have seen in the person of Daniel himself a foreshadowing of the career of the Messiah confronting the powers of the world with the truth of God. The ultimately futile plotting against him by magicians, enchanters and political ministers of state and their casting of the condemned prophet into the den of lions and his coming out alive is a foreshadowing of Jesus' passion, death and resurrection, and the destruction of the idol and the dragon is a foreshadowing of Jesus' exposure and destruction of false religion and his defeat of the dragon "the ancient serpent, the Devil".

Line 434: Line 428:

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

−

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

+

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

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

Line 466: Line 460:

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

Line 539: Line 533:

Historical critics suggest that the book does not belong strictly to the prophetic writings but is rather an early specimen of a distinctive type of literature called "apocalyptic". Apocalyptic literature first appeared about 200 B.C. and flourished among Jews and Christians down to the Middle Ages, especially in times of persecution. The genre has its roots in the older teaching of the prophets, who often pointed ahead to the consummation of history, the [[End Times|Day of the Lord]]. Both prophet and apocalyptist testify to one Lord of history, who will repeatedly and also ultimately vindicate his chosen people. Apocalyptic also has roots in the wisdom tradition. Daniel's gift of discerning wisdom is from God alone. By contrast the pagan wisdom of the gentiles (represented by the Babylonian "magicians and enchanters") is worthy of ridicule (see especially chapters 2 and 5), whereas God reveals hidden things to his faithful servants that cannot be known by reason alone.

−

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=NABRE 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 are read as presenting 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 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=NABRE 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 are read as presenting 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 was a vision [http://biblehub.com/multi/genesis/41-8.htm Genesis 41:8].

===Form===

Line 549: Line 543:

===Author===

−

~~Genesis~~ of the Book of Daniel: ~~The hero~~ and ~~traditional author of the book which bears his name~~.

+

Daniel himself has long been viewed as the author of the Book of Daniel, as it states or implies at Daniel 7:1, 8:1, 9:2, 9:20, 10:2, and 12:4.

Historical-critical analysts point out that stories undoubtedly existed of a person by the name of Daniel, who was known to Ezekiel as a wise man (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3). 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. They propose that his name may have played the same rôle in literature as that of Solomon or Enoch. As one anonymous author ascribed his book, "Koheleth" (Ecclesiastes), to Solomon, so another likewise may have ascribed his book to Daniel. Historical critics acknowledge that it would probably be unjust to say that the origin of his prophecies was creative invention. They may have been suggested by the author's enthusiastic study of the past history of God's people, then utilized to unlock the future. They see this as evident from 9:2, where the author says that he had pondered the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years, and the earlier prophecy provided the basis for a new prophecy. The author according to this reading is seen as merely a disciple of the Prophets, one who reproduced the prophecies of his masters, and suggests to them why it is not included in the section Nebiim in the Palestinian canon. However, this speculative reading does not suggest why the book is included among the Major Prophets in the Septuagint.

Line 732: Line 726:

==Classic Commentaries on Daniel online==

−

===[[Cornelius à Lapide|à Lapede]] Great Commentary on the Bible 1681 Online (Latin)===

+

===[[Cornelius a Lapide|à Lapede]] Great Commentary on the Bible 1681 Online (Latin)===

−

The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide (8 vols.) by Cornelius à Lapide • John Hodges, John Grant 1887–1908<ref>[~~http~~://www.academia.edu/7080496/Cornelius_a_Lapide_and_Catholic_Hebrew_Studies_after_Trent Cornelius a Lapide and Catholic Hebrew studies after Trent. An Essay Presented at the Renaissance Society of American Annual Meeting, March 27, 2014. New York, NY.]</ref>

+

The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide (8 vols.) by Cornelius à Lapide • John Hodges, John Grant 1887–1908<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/7080496/Cornelius_a_Lapide_and_Catholic_Hebrew_Studies_after_Trent Cornelius a Lapide and Catholic Hebrew studies after Trent. An Essay Presented at the Renaissance Society of American Annual Meeting, March 27, 2014. New York, NY.]</ref>

−

Cornelius à Lapide wrote commentaries on all the books of the Canon of Scripture (including the Deuterocanon), with the exception only of the Book of Job and the Psalms. The complete series, with Job and the Psalms added by other hands, appeared at Antwerp, '''1681, 1714'''; at Venice, '''1717, 1740, 1798'''; at Cologne, '''1732'''; at Turin, '''1838'''; at Lyons, '''1839-42, 1865''' and '''1866'''; at Malta, '''1843-46'''; at Naples, '''1854'''; at Lyons and Paris, '''1855''' and '''1856'''; at Milan, '''1857'''; at Paris, '''1859-63'''. The best-mentioned edition has been enriched by Crampon and Péronne with annotations from more recent interpreters. All these commentaries are on a very large scale. They explain not only the literal, but also the allegorical, tropological, and anagogical sense of the sacred text, and furnish a large number of quotations from the Fathers and the later interpreters of Holy Writ during the Middle Ages.

+

[[Cornelius a Lapide|Cornelius à Lapide]] wrote commentaries on all the books of the Canon of Scripture (including the Deuterocanon), with the exception only of the Book of Job and the Psalms. The complete series, with Job and the Psalms added by other hands, appeared at Antwerp, '''1681, 1714'''; at Venice, '''1717, 1740, 1798'''; at Cologne, '''1732'''; at Turin, '''1838'''; at Lyons, '''1839-42, 1865''' and '''1866'''; at Malta, '''1843-46'''; at Naples, '''1854'''; at Lyons and Paris, '''1855''' and '''1856'''; at Milan, '''1857'''; at Paris, '''1859-63'''. The best-mentioned edition has been enriched by Crampon and Péronne with annotations from more recent interpreters. All these commentaries are on a very large scale. They explain not only the literal, but also the allegorical, tropological, and [[anagogical]] sense of the sacred text, and furnish a large number of quotations from the Fathers and the later interpreters of Holy Writ during the Middle Ages.

See [http://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/guide-to-cornelius-lapides-great.html Guide to Cornelius à Lapide’s Great Commentary, by Dr Taylor Marshall] (''guide with links to entire à Lapede Commentary'')

Line 821: Line 815:

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

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

Line 852: Line 846:

*[http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html Jerome on the Canon] translation of Jerome's ''Prologus Galeatus'' to 1 Kings (bible-researcher.com)

−

*[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). 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). See also [https://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)

Aschlafly

Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators

126,530

edits

Changes

Book of Daniel (view source)

Revision as of 19:08, August 14, 2025