The Book is in all respects unique, a writing _sui generis_; for the many imitations to which it led are but imitations. But, as the Jewish writer Dr. Joël truly says, the unveiling of the secret as to the real lateness of its date and origin, so far from causing any loss in its beauty and interest, enhance both in a remarkable degree. It is thus seen to be the work of a brave and gifted anonymous author about B.C. 167, who brought his piety and his patriotism to bear on the troubled fortunes of his people at an epoch in which such piety and patriotism were of priceless value. We have in its later sections no voice of enigmatic prediction, foretelling the minutest complications of a distant secular future, but mainly the review of contemporary events by a wise and an earnest writer whose faith and hope remained unquenchable in the deepest night of persecution and apostasy.[89] Many passages of the Book are dark, and will remain dark, owing partly perhaps to corruptions and uncertainties of the text, and partly to imitation of a style which had become archaic, as well as to the peculiarities of the apocalyptic form. But the general idea of the Book has now been thoroughly elucidated, and the interpretation of it in the following pages is accepted by the great majority of earnest and faithful students of the Scriptures.
[35] Kranichfeld, _Das Buch Daniel_, p. 4.
[36] See Ezra iv. 7, vi. 18, vii. 12-26.
[37] "The term 'Chaldee' for the Aramaic of either the Bible or the Targums is a misnomer, the use of which is only a source of confusion" (Driver, p. 471). A single verse of Jeremiah (x. 11) is in Aramaic: "Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods who made not heaven and earth shall perish from the earth and from under heaven." Perhaps Jeremiah gave the verse "to the Jews as an answer to the heathen among whom they were" (Pusey, p. 11).
[38] אֲרָמִית; LXX., Συριστι--_i.e._, in Aramaic. The word may be a gloss, as it is in Ezra iv. 7 (Lenormant). See, however, Kamphausen, p. 14. We cannot here enter into minor points, such as that in ii.-vi. we have אֲלוּ for "see," and in vii. 2, 3, אֲרוּ; which Meinhold takes to prove that the historic section is earlier than the prophetic.
[39] Driver, p. 471; Nöldeke, _Enc. Brit._, xxi. 647; Wright, _Grammar_, p. 16. Ad. Merx has a treatise on _Cur in lib. Dan. juxta Hebr. Aramaica sit adhibita dialectus_, 1865; but his solution, "Scriptorem omnia quæ rudioribus vulgi ingeniis apta viderentur Aramaice præposuisse" is wholly untenable.
[40] Auberlen, _Dan._, pp. 28, 29 (E. Tr.).
[41] _Einleit._, § 383.
[42] Cheyne, _Enc. Brit._, _s.v._ "Daniel."
[43] כתבו. See 2 Esdras xiv. 22-48: "In forty days they _wrote_ two hundred and four books."
[44] _Baba-Bathra_, f. 15, 6: comp. _Sanhedrin_, f. 83, 6.
[45] _Yaddayim_, iv.; _Mish._, 5.
[46] See Rau, _De Synag. Magna._, ii. 66 ff.; Kuenen, _Over de Mannen der Groote Synagoge_, 1876; Ewald, _Hist. of Israel_, v. 168-170 (E. Tr.); Westcott, _s.v._ "Canon" (Smith's _Dict._, i. 500).
[47] _Yaddayim_, iii.; _Mish._, 5; Hershon, _Treasures of the Talmud_, pp. 41-43.
[48] Hershon (_l.c._) refers to _Shabbath_, f. 14, 1.
[49] Herzog, _l.c._; so too König, _Einleit._, § 387: "Das Hebr. der B. Dan. ist nicht blos nachexilisch sondern auch nachchronistisch." He instances _ribbo_ (Dan. xi. 12) for _rebaba_, "myriads" (Ezek. xvi. 7); and _tamîd_, "the daily burnt offering" (Dan. viii. 11), as post-Biblical Hebrew for _'olath hatamîd_ (Neh. x. 34), etc. Margoliouth (_Expositor_, April 1890) thinks that the Hebrew proves a date before B.C. 168: on which view see Driver, p, 483.
[50] _Lit. of Old Test._, pp. 473-476.