[51] _Das Buch Dan._, iii.
[52] See Glassius, _Philol. Sacr._, p. 931; Ewald, _Die Proph. d. A. Bundes_, i. 48; De Wette, _Einleit._, § 347.
[53] Ezekiel always uses the correct form (xxvi. 7, xxix. 18, xxx. 10). Jeremiah uses the correct form except in passages which properly belong to the Book of Kings.
[54] Nöldeke, _Semit. Spr._, p. 30; Driver, p. 472; König, p. 387.
[55] Driver, p. 472, and the authorities there quoted; as against McGill and Pusey (_Daniel_, pp. 45 ff., 602 ff.). Dr. Pusey's is the fullest repertory of arguments in favour of the authenticity of Daniel, many of which have become more and more obviously untenable as criticism advances. But he and Keil add little or nothing to what had been ingeniously elaborated by Hengstenberg and Hävernick. For a sketch of the peculiarities in the Aramaic see Behrmann, _Daniel_, v.-x. Renan (_Hist. Gén. des Langues Sém._, p. 219) exaggerates when he says, "La langue des parties chaldénnes est beaucoup plus basse que celle des fragments chaldéens du Livre d'Esdras, et s'incline _beaucoup_ vers la langue du Talmud."
[56] Meinhold, _Beiträge_, pp. 30-32; Driver, p. 470.
[57] _Speaker's Commentary_, vi. 246-250.
[58] New Series, iii. 124.
[59] _E.g._, הדם, "limb"; רז, "secret"; פתגם, "message." There are no Persian words in Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, or Malachi; they are found in Ezra and Esther, which were written long after the establishment of the Persian Empire.
[60] The change of _n_ for _l_ is not uncommon: comp. βέντιον, φίντατος, etc.
[61] The word שָׂבֽכָא, _Sab'ka_, also bears a suspicious resemblance to σαμβύκη, but Athenæus says (_Deipnos._, iv. 173) that the instrument was invented by the Syrians. Some have seen in _kārôz_ (iii. 4, "herald") the Greek κήρυξ, and in _hamnîk_, "chain," the Greek μανιάκης: but these cannot be pressed.
[62] It is true that there was _some_ small intercourse between even the Assyrians and Ionians (Ja-am-na-a) as far back as the days of Sargon (B.C. 722-705); but not enough to account for such words.
[63] Sayce, _Contemp. Rev._, December 1878.
[64] Some argue that in this passage συμφωνία means "a concert" (comp. Luke xv. 25); but Polybius mentions it with "a horn" (κεράτιον). Behrmann (p. ix) connects it with σίφων, and makes it mean "a pipe."
[65] Pusey says all he can on the other side (pp. 23-28), and has not changed the opinion of scholars (pp. 27-33). Fabre d'Envieu (i. 101) also desperately denies the existence of any Greek words. On the other side see Derenbourg, _Les Mots grecs dans le Livre biblique de Daniel_ (Mélanges Graux, 1884).
[66] _Orient. u. Exeg. Bibliothek_, 1772, p. 141. This view was revived by Lagarde in the _Göttingen Gel. Anzeigen_, 1891.
[67] _Daniel neu Übersetz. u. Erklärt._, 1808; Köhler, _Lehrbuch_, ii. 577. The first who suspected the unity of the Book because of the two languages was Spinoza (_Tract-historicopol_, x. 130 ff.). Newton (_Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse_, i. 10) and Beausobre (_Remarques sur le Nouv. Test._, i. 70) shared the doubt because of the use of the first person in the prophetic (Dan. vii.-xii.) and the third in the historic section (Dan. i.-vi.). Michaelis, Bertholdt, and Reuss considered that its origin was fragmentary; and Lagarde (who dated the seventh chapter A.D. 69) calls it "a bundle of flyleaves." Meinhold and Strack, like Eichhorn, regard the historic section as older than the prophetic; and Cornill thinks that the Book was put together in great haste. Similarly, Graf (_Der Prophet Jeremia_) regards the Aramaic verse, Jer. x. 11, as a marginal gloss. Lagarde argues, from the silence of Josephus about many points, that he could not have had the present Book of Daniel before him (_e.g._, Dan. vii. or ix.-xii.); but the argument is unsafe. Josephus seems to have understood the Fourth Empire to be the Roman, and did not venture to write of its destruction. For this reason he does not explain "the stone" of Dan. ii. 45.