Linguistic Gap Analysis: Daniel

0. Method and Scope

This analysis works doctrine-by-doctrine through the six Bible Doctrines assigned to this curriculum, cross-referencing every chapter of Daniel. For each doctrine it asks three questions of Brazilian Portuguese:

1. Does an adequate destination-language term already exist (inherited from the Almeida tradition / baseline Romans package), or is there a vocabulary gap requiring a newly coined or extended rendering?
2. Is the available term semantically crowded — i.e., does it sit inside a “semantic neighborhood” already densely populated by Kardecist Spiritism, Candomblé/Umbanda, or popular Catholic piety, such that a Brazilian reader’s default associative frame will pull against the intended biblical doctrine? If so, that neighborhood must be fenced (bounded with explicit, mandatory teaching notes) rather than merely translated.
3. Where a term has no natural Portuguese equivalent at all (a true gap, not a crowded neighborhood), is transliteration (retaining the source-language form) or descriptive paraphrase the safer strategy?

The core passage, Daniel 7:9-14 (the Ancient of Days, the Son of Man, the enthronement), is the theological anchor and receives the deepest treatment, but the analysis spans Daniel 1-14 in full per the PRD mandate.

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

1.1 God’s Sovereignty over Kings and Kingdoms

Doctrine element	Available PT term(s)	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
God as sovereign disposer of kings	Deus, Altíssimo, Deus dos céus	”Altíssimo” alone can drift toward Kardecism’s impersonal “Inteligência Suprema” / “Causa Primária”; “Deus dos céus” is under-used in devotional Portuguese and may read as merely poetic rather than a deliberate anti-polytheistic polemic	Retain all three baseline/glossary renderings distinctly per context; require a teaching note tying “Altíssimo” explicitly to personal agency (“ele muda os tempos e as estações… ele remove reis e estabelece reis,” Dan 2:21) every time it recurs in chs. 3-5, 7
Revocable earthly dominion vs. eternal divine dominion	domínio (שָׁלְטָן)	Portuguese “domínio” is semantically flat — it does not itself signal permanence or impermanence; the contrast must be carried by surrounding modifiers, not the noun itself	Always pair “domínio” with the explicit modifier present in the source (“eterno,” “que lhe será tirado,” “que jamais será destruído”) rather than let the bare noun carry theological weight alone; never vary the noun across the two uses
Heavenly judicial tribunal	o tribunal se assentou / o juízo	Risk of drifting toward an impersonal, mechanistic “balança cósmica” reading, reinforced by folk-astrological and Kardecist “lei de causa e efeito” (karma-adjacent) frameworks already well established in the baseline for “providence”	Render with an explicit personal subject and verb of decision (“Deus se assentou para julgar”), never a passive/impersonal construction; flag every Dan 7:9-10, 22, 26 occurrence for theologian review per baseline’s “providence” precedent
Four-kingdom succession schema	reino	Adequate lexically, but Brazilian readers may default to a generic “reino de Deus” (spiritual/interior) reading from the baseline Romans usage, missing Daniel’s specifically political-historical, successive, itemizable four-empire structure	Use “reino” consistently across chs. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 but require accompanying numerical/historical framing (“o primeiro reino… o segundo reino…”) in surrounding teaching text so the term is not flattened into purely abstract theology
Idol-worship contest narratives (implicit sovereignty polemic)	ídolo, imagem, deus(es) falso(s)	No lexical gap; the risk is cultural, not lexical — Brazil’s devotional-image culture (Catholic santos, Afro-Brazilian sacred objects) supplies a live rival frame for “image” language	See §2.2 below (fencing)

1.2 The Son of Man and Messianic Kingship

Doctrine element	Available PT term(s)	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
”one like a son of man” (Dan 7:13)	um semelhante a um filho do homem	This is the curriculum’s single highest-stakes rendering decision. Portuguese Bible tradition (Almeida) already uses the capitalized fixed title “o Filho do Homem” throughout the Gospels for Jesus’ self-designation; if the Daniel 7:13 indefinite, comparative Aramaic construction is rendered with that same capitalized fixed form, the text’s own literary movement — from a simile in Daniel to a settled title in the Gospels — is erased before the lesson can teach it	Lowercase, indefinite rendering only in Daniel 7:13 itself (“um semelhante a um filho do homem” / “um como filho do homem”); reserve capitalized “o Filho do Homem” strictly for Gospel-quotation or explicit forward-typology sentences, clearly marked as such
Enthronement grant (dominion, glory, kingdom)	domínio, glória e um reino	”Glória” alone is stable (baseline reuse); the risk is in the combination reading as merely honorary/ceremonial rather than a formal, binding transfer of universal sovereign authority	Teaching apparatus must gloss the threefold formula as a single juridical act of investiture, not three separate honors
Everlasting, indestructible kingdom	domínio eterno / reino que jamais será destruído	No lexical gap, but this is the doctrine most starkly opposed by a live, organized Brazilian rival system: Kardecism’s entire soteriology is built on provisionality, cyclical progress, and open-endedness. There is no natural Portuguese phrase that “leans toward” Kardecism the way some other terms do — the risk is not linguistic crowding but insufficient force if translators soften absolute language into approximate language (“um reino muito duradouro”)	Absolute, unhedged translation required; forbid comparative softeners (“muito,” “bastante”) near this phrase; treat as Critical per glossary
Messiah (Dan 9:25-26)	Messias	Fully adequate; baseline reuse. No gap.	Reuse baseline exactly; no new decision required
”a man clothed in linen” (Dan 10:5-6)	um homem vestido de linho	Adequate literal rendering; the risk is conflation, not translation — readers may assume this is the same figure as the Dan 7 Son of Man given similar glorious imagery	Fence with an explicit note distinguishing the two theophanic appearances (see §3)
“son of the gods” (Dan 3:25, Nebuchadnezzar’s own words)	semelhante a um filho dos deuses	No lexical gap; the risk is that this phrase is superficially close in form to “Filho de Deus” (baseline Critical term for Christ’s eternal Sonship), inviting an unwarranted lexical/doctrinal identification	Render literally as the pagan king’s own polytheistic idiom; never substitute “Filho de Deus”; any homiletical Christological application must be explicitly framed as typology in teaching notes, never as a translation choice

1.3 Apocalyptic Prophecy and the End Times

Doctrine element	Available PT term(s)	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
Mystery unilaterally revealed by God	mistério	Adequate lexically, but “mistério” also carries strong associations in Brazilian esoteric/occult, Masonic, and Kardecist “revelações espirituais” registers	Anchor every occurrence to God as sole, sovereign discloser (Dan 2:28, “há um Deus nos céus que revela os mistérios”); never let the noun stand unqualified
Vision / dream as revelatory media	visão, sonho	These are the book’s single most exposed “crowded neighborhood” terms — see §2.1; Brazilian Spiritist and Umbanda practice treats visão/trance and dream-messaging as routine, mainstream channels of communication with discarnate spirits or orixás	Require the divine agent and specific recipient to be grammatically explicit in every occurrence (“Deus deu a Nabucodonosor um sonho,” not “Nabucodonosor teve um sonho”); flag for theologian review
Interpretation (peshar) vs. divination	interpretação	Adequate; the surrounding narrative (Dan 2:27) itself supplies the contrast with rejected divinatory arts, so the term itself carries lower risk than “vision/dream”	Preserve Daniel’s own explicit rejection-of-divination language in context; no additional fencing needed beyond what the text supplies
Time of the end / abomination that makes desolate / seventy weeks / time times half a time	o tempo do fim; abominação desoladora; setenta semanas; um tempo, tempos e meio tempo	These are true technical fixed phrases with no colloquial Portuguese equivalent risking confusion (unlike “vision/dream,” they are not “crowded” — they are simply unfamiliar)	Retain literally as fixed technical phrases; do not pre-resolve interpretively (e.g., do not convert “semanas” to “anos” in the translation itself); consistency required with eventual NT-curriculum quotation of “abominação desoladora” (Matthew 24:15)
Sealed until the time of the end	selado	Adequate; low crowding risk, moderate under-familiarity risk	Standard rendering sufficient
Resurrection to two everlasting destinies (Dan 12:2)	ressurreição; vida eterna / vergonha e desprezo eterno	No gap — baseline reuse of “ressurreição” is exact and forbidden-substitution rules (never “reencarnação”) already apply with full force; this is in fact Daniel’s own sharpest confrontation with the surrounding culture’s dominant alternative eschatology	Reuse baseline exactly; treat as Critical; this passage (12:2) should be flagged alongside Romans 6 and 8:11 for cross-curriculum consistency in any later comparative teaching material

1.4 Faithfulness under Persecution

Doctrine element	Available PT term(s)	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
Covenant faithfulness under coercion	fidelidade	No lexical gap; “fidelidade” is a stable, low-ambiguity Portuguese term	Anchor explicitly to trust in the one true God (per glossary), distinguishing from Kardecist “evolução moral” merit-accumulation, consistent with baseline grace framework
Refusal to defile oneself (dietary/covenant)	contaminar-se	Adequate; risk is under-theologizing into mere dietary legalism	Frame consistently as holiness/covenant distinctiveness, not ritual food law in isolation
Idol/golden image	imagem de ouro, ídolo	See §2.2 — crowded neighborhood given Brazil’s devotional-image culture	Fence per §2.2
Fiery furnace / den of lions	forno ardente, cova dos leões	No gap; concrete narrative images	Standard rendering; no fencing required
Dragon/serpent cult object (Dan 14)	dragão / serpente	Same lexical form as Revelation’s symbolic apocalyptic dragon — a genuine same-word-different-referent risk internal to the Bible corpus itself, not a rival-religion collision	Fence with explicit note that this is a literal, historical, killable temple animal exposed as a fraud, not the end-times symbolic beast

1.5 Prayer and Perseverance in Exile

Doctrine element	Available PT term(s)	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
Direct prayer to God alone	oração	This is the second most exposed crowded neighborhood in the entire book — see §2.3. Brazilian religious life offers at least three live, mainstream rival addressees for petitionary speech-acts: Catholic saints/Mary, Kardecist spirit guides, and Umbanda/Candomblé orixás and incorporated entities	Every occurrence of Daniel’s prayer scenes (6, 9, 13) must make God the explicit, sole grammatical addressee; teaching notes must state plainly that Daniel prays directly to God, modeling the pattern the curriculum commends, not intercession through any created being
Fasting	jejum	No gap; standard ascetic-discipline term shared across Catholic and Evangelical traditions	Standard rendering sufficient
Forgiveness granted by God	perdoar	No lexical gap; risk is doctrinal (merit vs. grace), already covered by baseline grace framework	Reuse baseline logic; flag when contrasted with guilt/debt language
God who reveals hidden things (judicial, Dan 13)	o Senhor que revela as coisas ocultas	Adequate; echoes the ch. 2 “mystery” theme in a judicial key	No new gap; cross-reference the mystery entry
Living God vs. lifeless idols	Deus vivo	Adequate lexically; the doctrinal force depends entirely on contrast with a “não-vivo” idol, present in Daniel’s own narrative (esp. ch. 14/Bel)	Preserve the narrative contrast structure intact; do not abbreviate the Bel narrative’s demonstration that the idol does not eat

1.6 Wisdom and Discernment from God

Doctrine element	Available PT term(s)	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
God-given wisdom	sabedoria	No lexical gap; crowded doctrinally (not lexically) by Kardecist “sabedoria espiritual” attained across reincarnations	Anchor to a single-lifetime, divinely-given gift (Dan 1:17); do not use language implying gradual accumulation across time that could echo the rival framework
Discernment	discernimento	Same crowding pattern as wisdom, intensified by the specifically Spiritist/esoteric idiom “desenvolvimento do discernimento espiritual” pursued through mediumship	Same fencing strategy as wisdom; flag High per glossary
The wise / the discerning ones (maskilim)	os sábios / entendidos	Adequate; same doctrinal crowding as wisdom/discernment, with the added element of teaching others (Dan 12:3)	Preserve the corporate-teaching dimension explicitly; do not let it collapse into private mystical attainment
Angelic princes / Michael	príncipe, príncipe do exército, Miguel	”Príncipe” alone is not crowded, but “Miguel” is — see §2.4. São Miguel is one of the most widely venerated figures in Brazilian folk Catholicism and is also syncretized in parts of Umbanda	Fence “Miguel” explicitly; see §2.4
Righteous/innocent (judicial, Dan 13)	justo / inocente	Adequate; risk is internal-corpus conflation with Pauline imputed righteousness (already flagged in glossary as Related, not identical)	Keep judicial-narrative sense distinct from soteriological doctrine in any comparative teaching notes
Covenant	aliança	No gap; baseline reuse exact	Reuse baseline exactly

---

2. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Daniel presents a different risk profile from Romans: where Romans’ highest risks clustered tightly around a handful of soteriological terms (salvação, graça, justificação), Daniel’s risks are more evenly distributed across revelatory-experience vocabulary (visão, sonho, mistério), devotional-object vocabulary (ídolo, imagem), petition vocabulary (oração), and one venerated angelic name (Miguel). This reflects Daniel’s genre: a court narrative and apocalypse rich in dreams, visions, images, and named heavenly beings — precisely the vocabulary space most densely populated by Brazil’s other major religious systems.

2.1 Visão / Sonho (vision / dream)

Neighboring systems: Kardecist Spiritism (mediumistic trance-vision, psicografia-adjacent dream-messaging), Umbanda/Candomblé (visões and sonhos as routine channels for orixá or entity communication), broad Brazilian folk-Catholic devotional dream interpretation. Fence: Every occurrence must retain an explicit divine agent and named human recipient in the sentence itself, not merely in surrounding commentary (e.g., “Deus deu a Daniel uma visão,” never an agentless “Daniel teve uma visão”). Flag High; require theologian review per glossary.

2.2 Ídolo / Imagem de ouro (idol / golden image)

Neighboring systems: Popular Luso-Brazilian Catholic devotional-image piety (santos, ex-votos), Afro-Brazilian sacred objects (assentamentos, representations of orixás). Fence: Context must make unmistakable that Daniel 3 and 14 condemn a specific historical act — state-coerced worship of a lifeless manufactured object as though it were divine — and is not a general commentary on devotional images or material religious culture. This is the same caution the baseline applies to “santos”; here it runs in the opposite direction (guarding against unintended offense/over-application rather than under-application). Recommend a brief translator’s teaching note distinguishing “idolatria condenada no texto” from “arte devocional” as separate categories entirely outside the term’s scope.

2.3 Oração (prayer)

Neighboring systems: Kardecist/Umbanda prayer or consultation directed toward spirit guides, orixás, or the deceased; Catholic-piety default of praying primarily through the intercession of saints or Mary rather than directly to God. Fence: Daniel’s prayer scenes (6, 9, 13) must retain God as sole explicit addressee in every rendering (“orou… ao Senhor seu Deus,” never an ambiguous unaddressed “orou”). This directly extends the baseline’s “intercession” caution (Romans 8:26-27, 8:34) into narrative rather than doctrinal-exposition material, and is arguably more exposed here because Daniel 6 and 9 are extended first-person prayer models the curriculum invites learners to imitate.

2.4 Miguel (Michael)

Neighboring systems: São Miguel Arcanjo is one of the most popularly venerated saints in Brazilian folk Catholicism (widely petitioned for spiritual protection); some Umbanda lines syncretize protective entities with his iconography. Fence: Every occurrence (Dan 10, 12) must include or be paired with a teaching note affirming Michael as a created, subordinate angelic servant sent by God — never an independently invocable protector-figure. This is a doctrinal fence around a proper name, a category the baseline package did not need for Romans but which recurs in Daniel due to its rich angelology.

2.5 Ancião de Dias / Altíssimo (Ancient of Days / Most High)

Neighboring systems: Umbanda’s Pretos Velhos (venerated, gentle, wise elderly spirit guides), Kardecism’s “espíritos superiores” and impersonal “Inteligência Suprema.” Fence: Already flagged High in the glossary; this analysis confirms the fence is necessary at the first occurrence in Daniel 7:9 specifically, since this is the core passage’s opening image and sets the interpretive frame for the entire chapter. Recommend the translator note appear in the teaching material accompanying 7:9, not deferred to a later verse.

2.6 Besta (beast)

Neighboring systems: Generic Brazilian pop-apocalyptic and occult “energia negativa” framings, detached from Daniel’s specific four-kingdoms historical schema. Fence: Lower priority than 2.1-2.5 (Medium, not High/Critical) but still requires grounding: each occurrence should be tied explicitly to its specific historical referent (a real empire) rather than left as a free-floating symbol of generalized evil.

---

3. Distinguishing Similar Figures Within Daniel Itself (Internal Fencing)

Beyond collisions with rival religious systems, Daniel’s own internal cast of glorious figures creates a risk of intra-textual conflation that must be fenced independently of any external religion:

• Son of Man (Dan 7:13) vs. man clothed in linen (Dan 10:5-6) vs. son of the gods (Dan 3:25): three distinct figures, three distinct Portuguese renderings, none of which should casually borrow the others’ vocabulary. A single shared rendering strategy (“uma figura gloriosa”) would erase distinctions the text itself maintains.
• Dragão/serpente (Dan 14, a literal temple animal) vs. the symbolic apocalyptic dragão anticipated in later Revelation-curriculum material: same Portuguese word, different referent, requires an explicit disambiguating note wherever both may be taught in proximity.

---

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Item	Decision	Rationale
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin	Transliterate (“Mene, Mene, Tequel, Ufarsin”), followed by Daniel’s own interpretation rendered in running Portuguese	Established convention across virtually all Bible translation traditions including Almeida; the text itself supplies the interpretation, so paraphrasing the formula itself would pre-empt the narrative’s own reveal
Abba (cf. baseline, Romans 8:15)	N/A to Daniel directly, but confirms the general principle: preserve source-language terms of unique liturgical/idiomatic weight	Precedent carried forward for any future Aramaic idiom encountered in Daniel’s court-narrative sections
Ancião de Dias	Paraphrase-as-title (established compound phrase), not transliteration	Aramaic “attiq yomin” has no liturgical transliteration tradition in Portuguese Bible history, unlike “Abba” or “Amém”; a descriptive title-phrase is the correct strategy and is already the universal convention across Portuguese Bible traditions
Seventy weeks / time, times, and half a time	Literal retention of the idiom, not paraphrase into resolved calendar units	Daniel’s apocalyptic numbers are deliberately symbolic and disputed in interpretation; resolving them interpretively within the translation itself would smuggle a specific eschatological position into the text
Peoples, nations, and languages (fixed triadic formula)	Literal, consistent retention across all six occurrences	Not a transliteration question but a consistency question; treated here because it is the book’s other major fixed-formula decision alongside Mene Mene and time-times-half-time
Michael, Gabriel-adjacent angelic names	Established Portuguese Bible-tradition forms (“Miguel”), not transliteration of the Hebrew	Consistent with baseline’s proper-name convention (Davi, Isaías, etc.)
Amém, Aleluia (general baseline precedent)	Not present in Daniel’s core text but retained as a standing convention for any doxological material introduced in surrounding curriculum framing	Carried forward from baseline for consistency

General principle established: transliterate only (a) proper names in their settled Portuguese Bible-tradition form, and (b) the one instance of a divinely-coded verbal formula (Mene Mene Tekel) whose meaning the text itself unpacks. Paraphrase-as-fixed-compound-phrase is the strategy for theological titles with no existing transliteration tradition (Ancião de Dias) and for apocalyptic technical units whose numeric/temporal ambiguity must be preserved rather than resolved (seventy weeks; time, times, and half a time).

---

5. Ranked List: Highest-Risk Ambiguities for This Curriculum

Ranked by combined severity (doctrinal centrality × cultural collision force × likelihood of translator/reviewer error):

1. “One like a son of man” (Dan 7:13) — capitalization/definiteness collapse. The single highest risk in this Language Package extension. If rendered with the Gospels’ fixed capitalized title instead of the indefinite comparative form, the core passage’s own theological movement (simile → title, fulfilled in Christ) is destroyed before the lesson can teach it. Every Phase 2 segment containing this verse requires theologian review with an explicit capitalization/definiteness check, not merely a glossary-term check.

2. Ancient of Days / Most High — Pretos Velhos / espíritos superiores collision. Because this figure opens the core passage (7:9), an inadequate fence here compromises the interpretive frame for the entire anchor text, not just an isolated verse.

3. Visão / Sonho — mediumistic/trance collision. The most pervasive risk by occurrence count (chs. 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11), since Daniel is structurally built around revelatory dreams and visions; a single missed occurrence anywhere in this run of chapters reopens the collision.

4. Everlasting dominion / kingdom that shall not be destroyed — insufficient absoluteness. Unlike most entries on this list, the danger is not a rival term pulling the reader toward a wrong meaning, but translator-side softening (hedging modifiers) diluting the very absoluteness that makes this doctrine confront Kardecist provisionality at all.

5. Oração — intercessory-substitution collision. High occurrence count in exactly the passages (Dan 6, 9) the curriculum is most likely to hold up as a devotional prayer model for learners to imitate personally, raising the stakes of getting the sole-addressee framing right.

6. “Son of the gods” (Dan 3:25) vs. “Filho de Deus” — false lexical bridge. Lower occurrence count (one verse) but high doctrinal danger if a preacher or teacher, working from the translation alone without the note, assumes lexical equivalence with the baseline’s Critical Christological term.

7. Everlasting life / everlasting contempt (Dan 12:2) — finality softening. Structurally similar risk to #4: the danger is hedged translation diluting Daniel’s binary, final destinies into something that could be read as provisional, echoing reincarnation’s open-endedness.

8. Miguel — venerated-intercessor collision. Confined to two chapters (10, 12) but carries a distinctive Brazilian folk-Catholic devotional pull (São Miguel) not present in the baseline Romans package at all, making it a genuinely new risk category for this curriculum rather than an extension of an existing one.

9. Ídolo / imagem de ouro — devotional-image overreach. Risk here runs opposite most others on this list: the danger is unintended offense or over-application to legitimate devotional practice rather than under-translation of the doctrine, requiring a different kind of fence (scope-limiting note) than the collision-fences above.

10. Dragão/serpente (Dan 14) vs. Revelation’s symbolic dragão — internal corpus conflation. Lowest-ranked Critical/High-adjacent risk; the collision is with another biblical book rather than a rival religious system, and is resolved by a single clear note rather than sustained doctrinal fencing.

---

6. Full-Book Coverage Confirmation

Every chapter of Daniel (1-14, Portuguese Catholic Bible tradition numbering) is addressed above, either as a primary source of new vocabulary risk or as explicitly reviewed with no new risk beyond what is already logged:

• Ch. 1: wisdom, understanding, defilement, “the Lord gave” sovereignty formula — reviewed, §1.4/1.6.
• Ch. 2: mystery, dream, interpretation, image/statue, stone not cut by hands, God of heaven — reviewed, §1.3/1.6.
• Ch. 3: golden image, bow down/worship, fiery furnace, son of the gods, peoples/nations/languages — reviewed, §1.2/1.4.
• Ch. 4: Most High, dominion, seven times — reviewed, §1.1.
• Ch. 5: weighed in the balances, Mene Mene Tekel, peoples/nations/languages — reviewed, §1.1/§4.
• Ch. 6: den of lions, prayer, living God, peoples/nations/languages — reviewed, §1.4/1.5.
• Ch. 7 (core passage): Ancient of Days, Son of Man, dominion/glory/kingdom, everlasting dominion, court of judgment, beast, clouds of heaven, saints of the Most High, little horn, time-times-half-time, books opened — reviewed in depth throughout §1.1-1.3, ranked list items 1, 2, 4.
• Ch. 8: vision, time of the end, little horn, prince/prince of the host — reviewed, §1.3/1.6.
• Ch. 9: Messiah, seventy weeks, abomination of desolation, forgiveness, covenant, prayer/fasting — reviewed, §1.2/1.3/1.5.
• Ch. 10: man clothed in linen, vision, prince (angelic), Michael, fasting — reviewed, §1.2/1.6, ranked list item 8.
• Ch. 11: king of north/south, abomination of desolation (recurring), time of the end (recurring) — reviewed explicitly; no new terms beyond what is logged in chs. 8-9.
• Ch. 12: resurrection, everlasting life/contempt, the wise, time of the end (recurring), time-times-half-time (recurring), sealed, Michael (recurring) — reviewed, §1.3/1.6, ranked list item 7.
• Ch. 13 (Susanna): righteous/innocent, discernment, wisdom (recurring), the Lord who reveals hidden things, prayer (recurring) — reviewed, §1.5/1.6.
• Ch. 14 (Bel and the Dragon): idol (recurring), den of lions (recurring), dragon/serpent, living God (recurring) — reviewed, §1.4/1.5, ranked list item 10.

End of 06 — Linguistic Gap Analysis: Daniel.