Changes

Again, fundamentalist Christians insist that it is not necessary to dismiss these accounts as false, only to recognize they lack the authority of first person accounts, and therefore may be stories that were passed on without Godly inspiration or preservation of truth and detail. They maintain that indeed every part of the account of Bel is conceivable and believable, but that the account of the dragon is only conceivable and believable up to the point of the lion's den account. They say that given the credibility of these accounts, their one drawback is the degree of authority with which they present and support some revelation from God, and of God, saying that they fit better into a category of story that was passed outside the palaces emphasizing the craftiness of Daniel. They do not seem to them to present revelation from God, as preserved by God, to record His sovereign dealings with his prophet Daniel. Thus according to this view there is not any internal evidence that ''Bel and the Dragon'' should have been included at the end of the writings of Daniel, even if they were part of the Septuagint Old Testament of the Christian ''Greek Bible''. As far as the internal evidences are concerned, according to fundamentalist Christians, the Jewish scribes who left them out of the Jewish canon were certainly justified.

Again, fundamentalist Christians insist that it is not necessary to dismiss these accounts as false, only to recognize they lack the authority of first person accounts, and therefore may be stories that were passed on without Godly inspiration or preservation of truth and detail. They maintain that indeed every part of the account of Bel is conceivable and believable, but that the account of the dragon is only conceivable and believable up to the point of the lion's den account. They say that given the credibility of these accounts, their one drawback is the degree of authority with which they present and support some revelation from God, and of God, saying that they fit better into a category of story that was passed outside the palaces emphasizing the craftiness of Daniel. They do not seem to them to present revelation from God, as preserved by God, to record His sovereign dealings with his prophet Daniel. Thus according to this view there is not any internal evidence that ''Bel and the Dragon'' should have been included at the end of the writings of Daniel, even if they were part of the Septuagint Old Testament of the Christian ''Greek Bible''. As far as the internal evidences are concerned, according to fundamentalist Christians, the Jewish scribes who left them out of the Jewish canon were certainly justified.

===Lion's Den Contradictions===

====Lion's Den Contradictions====

The account of the lion's den experience is examined by fundamentalists as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6, although it is presented as a separate and much later event. The inclusion of this detail that first causes these accounts to be seen by fundamentalist scholars as stories passed on outside the palace walls. They point out that either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate, but that both cannot fit together into the same account, and that the idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So they conclude that one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. The Jewish scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. Fundamentalist Christian scholars find here no evidence to override such a decision, but instead that "in fact" a brief examination supports the Jews

The account of the lion's den in Daniel 14 is examined by fundamentalists as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6, although it is presented in the book as a separate and much later event. Inclusion of this detail first causes these accounts to be seen by fundamentalist scholars as stories passed on outside the palace walls. They point out that either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate, but that both cannot fit together into the same account, and that the idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So they conclude that one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. The Jewish scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. Fundamentalist Christian scholars find here no evidence to override such a decision, but instead that a brief examination "in fact" supports the Jews

' suspicions toward the ''Bel and the Dragon'' account. They contrast some of the differences in these accounts. In the fundamentalist view, within ''Bel and the Dragon'' the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful fairy tale, as a fable, than as an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habbacuc's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.

' suspicions toward the ''Bel and the Dragon'' account, and they contrast some of the differences in these accounts. In the fundamentalist view, within ''Bel and the Dragon'' the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful fairy tale, as a fable, rather than as an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habbacuc's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.

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

The miraculous transport of Habakkuk to the lions den with a "sack lunch" for Daniel is for them so beyond belief that some of them contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story" and that it is a "far more fanciful thing" than found elsewhere in the scriptures. However, they acknowledge that just being different does not warrant its exclusion, else they would eliminate the translation of Elijah (2 Kings 2), the snatching away of Enoch (Genesis 5:24) or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture. They maintain that there are no other similar accounts of such a transport of one prophet to assist or encourage another in any other Old Testament scripture. Thus the miraculous "zapping" of one person across time or space is not lightly regarded here. But on this basis every account of a miraculous occurrance having no similar parallel account elsewhere in the Old Testament would also be disqualified. So they emphasize that the downfall of the credibility of the transport of Habakkuk is what they see as its "total lack of authority, necessity, and significance". However, see Acts 8:26-40 where Philip was suddenly transported more than 40 miles from where he had baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and was found at Azotus.

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

Examination of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' reveals to fundamentalist scholars and commentators that this writing "does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man", dismissing the fact that Daniel's "craftiness" is an expression of divine wisdom. The writing "even contradicts the Daniel-given account of the lion's den", and the miraculous transport of Habakkuk to the den's mouth "is not in the first person nor authoritative", and is thus "fanciful" and "more a presentation of legend than a historical event". They state that the Book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. They insist that to include such a narration as ''Bel and the Dragon'' at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be "certain folly", folly that was "avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity". This examination of the internal evidences of ''Bel and the Dragon'' reveals to them little credibility for overriding what they see as the initial Jewish decision to "hide" this section from the temple books they considered as Holy Scripture and classify this chapter of Daniel as an apocryphal book, even while Jewish scribes included it in their translation of the Holy Scriptures into Greek.

Fundamentalists also look at external evidences for the rejection of ''Bel and the Dragon'' as Holy Scripture. The external evidences against this chapter include its language, its authenticity, assurance of its author, and date of writing, and manuscript evidence that would include evidence of how it was treated by early collectors of the scriptures. These evidences primarily give indications of how it was treated by those closest to the author who wrote the accounts, and its earliest acceptance or rejection. They acknowledge that the problem of looking at these external evidences is generally a subjective evaluation. Some of these evidences, however subjective, appear to them to clearly support the Jewish suspicions that this writing has been subjected to ever since the scriptures of the captivity period were first collected and considered holy, similar to the suspicions cast on the books of ''Esther, Ecclesiastes'' and the ''Song of Solomon''.

 

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

The Language of the Manuscripts.

The Language of the Manuscripts.

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

Another fundamentalist argument against all the portions called additions to Daniel being considered Scripture is found in the language of the manuscripts. The shorter more abbreviated Daniel written in both Hebrew and Aramaic is distinct from the fuller text including the parts that are not found in either Hebrew nor Aramaic thus appear as clearly separate entities. The original language of the additions has been in dispute. There are no extant Hebrew or Aramaic 'versions'. Only Greek 'versions' were ever found.<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with introductions and critical explanatory notes to the several books, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 655</ref> Although, it has been strongly attested by eminent scholars in the Catholic Church that the original book was Hebrew, fundamentalists assert that they attest to this largely because it supported their doctrine that the apocryphal books are Scripture, rather than for any manuscript reasons. They point out that in fact "some word plays in the Greek make it very unlikely that the additions to Daniel were translated from Hebrew".<ref name=Charles>These Greek word plays show up in ''Susanna'' rather than in ''Bel and the Dragon'', but the argument follows for all the additions to Daniel, Charles, R.H., ''The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English'', Page 655 Footnote #3</ref> [[R.H. Charles]] contends that the additions were "written originally almost certainly in Hebrew" <ref name=Charles/> but fundamentalists say this is a subjective view with little evidence, and that should an argument be proven for a Hebrew original, it still stands clear the text for the ''Bel and the Dragon'' was not preserved in the Temple with the book of Daniel as were the Holy Scriptures, and this fanciful account was not considered scripture by the 5th century B.C. Hebrew Scribes. Regardless of whether it was originally written in Hebrew or not, the lack of any extant Hebrew manuscript of ''Bel and the Dragon'' is for fundamentalists a strong indication that it never was regarded as scripture, even if it was a part of the Greek Bible of the early Christian Church in the 1st through 5th centuries.

Its Treatment in Ancient Versions

Its Treatment in Ancient Versions

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

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

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

It is clear that Origen, the Alexandrine 2nd century biblical scholar (c. A.D. 185-254 ) clearly separates the canonical books of the OT from the apocryphal books,<ref>15 Ellis, E.Earle, Mikra, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church, Chapter 18, pg.. 661 "While still at Alexandria, and therefor before A.D. 231, the eminent biblical scholar Origen (c. A.D. 185-254) wrote an exposition of Psalm 1 in which he included 'a catalogue of the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament'. He comments that 'there are twenty-two canonical books as the Hebrews tradition them, the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet'. He proceeds to give the titles in Greek, followed by a transliteration of the Hebrew names:" This, however, is evidence only of the usage of the Jews after the time of Christ, and after the beginning of the 3rd century. Origen did not here list the Holy Scriptures of the Christian Bible.</ref> however he does defend the Septuagint additions to Daniel, i.e. Susanna.<ref>Origen, Ad Africanum 9: The Hebrew copies lack the Septuagint readings because the elders 'hid from the knowledge of the people' passages that might bring discredit on them, e.g. The story of Susanna. Some of the passages 'have been preserved in their non-canonical writings'. For an ET of ''Ad Africanum'' cf. Roberts-Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4, 386-392.</ref> In this defense he infers that these additions were kept out because of embarrassment of the scholars (elders) who determined which books were to be canonical. This defense is seen by him as clearly unjust and plainly opposed to the great care and careful selection of writings considered to be Holy Scriptures. Fundamentalists say this process of canonization is greatly exaggerated and misused by scholars who are bent on defaming the Bible. They make as though it were a council that convened, debated and voted about whether a book was acceptable, discarding some and including others. But they assert that in actuality the acceptance and authenticity of a writing was done by the actual author who wrote, then turned the work over to the scribes for preservation as the Word of the LORD.<ref>Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. Ezekiel 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house,... and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.</ref>

 

External Evidence Summary

External Evidence Summary

Although some manuscript version of the Old Testament treated the apocryphal books on a parallel plane with Holy Scripture, it is clear that their predecessors did not. The external evidences apparent around Bel and the Dragon clearly, yet subjectively point to a conclusion that this work was not highly regarded by those who were close to the prophets and scribes of the exile. The questions and suspicions about its authorship, date and original language indicate that those who wanted it included with the book of Daniel were acting more on other motivations than on the evidences on hand. This error was swallowed by a whole universal (Catholic) church, but the evidence to support this addition to the book of Daniel is just not there.

Although some manuscript versions of the Old Testament treated the apocryphal books on a parallel plane with Holy Scripture, it is clear to fundamentalists that their predecessors did not. The external evidences apparent around ''Bel and the Dragon' clearly, yet subjectively point to a conclusion that this work was not highly regarded by those who were close to the prophets and scribes of the exile. The questions and suspicions about its authorship, date and original language indicate to them that those who wanted it included with the book of Daniel were acting more on other motivations than on the evidences on hand. They conclude that this error was swallowed by a whole universal (Catholic) church, but the evidence to support this addition to the book of Daniel is just not there.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The book is a mixture of history and prophecy. The wonders related have a peculiar and striking character, designed to show the people of God that, amid their degradation, the Lord's hand is not so shortened that it cannot save; also to exhibit to their enemies that there is an essential difference between יהוה L<small>ORD</small> and idols, between the people of God and the world. The prophecies of the latter part of the book extend from the days of Daniel to the general resurrection. The Assyrian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman empires, or the Babylonian, the Medan, the Persian and the Grecian empires (the "little horn" as Antiochus IV) are described under appropriate imagery. The precise time of Christ's coming is told; the rise and the fall of antichrist, and the duration of his power, are accurately determined; the victory of Christ over his enemies, and the universal prevalence of his religion are clearly pointed out. The book is filled with the most exalted sentiments of piety and devout gratitude. Its style is simple, clear, and concise, and many of the prophecies are delivered in language so plain and circumstantial, that some radical scholars have asserted that they were written after the events they described had taken place, since it is obvious that no one can accurately predict the future (the [[fallacy of exclusion]], also called "[[cherry picking]]" <ref>[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/66-cherry-picking Logical Fallacies: cherry picking] (logicallyfallacious.com)</ref>). Sir Isaac Newton regards Daniel as the most distinct and plain of all the prophets, and most easy to be understood; and therefore considers that in things relating to the last times, he is to be regarded as the key to the other prophets.

The book is a mixture of history and prophecy. The wonders related have a peculiar and striking character, designed to show the people of God that, amid their degradation, the Lord's hand is not so shortened that it cannot save; also to exhibit to their enemies that there is an essential difference between יהוה L<small>ORD</small> and idols, between the people of God and the world. The prophecies of the latter part of the book extend from the days of Daniel to the general resurrection. The Assyrian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman empires, or the Babylonian, the Medan, the Persian and the Grecian empires (the "little horn" as Antiochus IV) are described under appropriate imagery. The precise time of Christ's coming is told; the rise and the fall of antichrist, and the duration of his power, are accurately determined; the victory of Christ over his enemies, and the universal prevalence of his religion are clearly pointed out. The book is filled with the most exalted sentiments of piety and devout gratitude. Its style is simple, clear, and concise, and many of the prophecies are delivered in language so plain and circumstantial, that some radical scholars have asserted that they were written after the events they described had taken place, since it is obvious that no one can accurately predict the future (the [[fallacy of exclusion]], also called "[[cherry picking]]" <ref>[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/66-cherry-picking Logical Fallacies: cherry picking] (logicallyfallacious.com)</ref>). Sir Isaac Newton regards Daniel as the most distinct and plain of all the prophets, and most easy to be understood; and therefore considers that in things relating to the last times, he is to be regarded as the key to the other prophets.