[2] Dan. ii. 48. [3] Dan. v. 29, vi. 2. [4] Dan. vi. 28. There is a Daniel of the sons of Ithamar in Ezra viii. 2, and among those who sealed the covenant in Neh. x. 6. [5] For a full account of the _Agada_ (also called _Agadtha_ and _Haggada_), I must refer the reader to Hamburger's _Real-Encyklopädie für Bibel und Talmud_, ii. 19-27, 921-934. The first two forms of the words are Aramaic; the third was a Hebrew form in use among the Jews in Babylonia. The word is derived from נָגַד, "to say" or "explain." _Halacha_ was the rule of religious praxis, a sort of Directorium Judaicum: _Haggada_ was the result of free religious reflection. See further Strack, _Einl. in den Thalmud_, iv. 122. [6] Fabricius, _Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test._, i. 1124. [7] Jos., _Antt._, X. xi. 7. But Pseudo-Epiphanius (_De Vit. Dan._, x.) says: Γέγονε τῶν ἐξόχων τῆς βασιλικῆς ὑπηρεσίας. So too the _Midrash_ on Ruth, 7. [8] Jos., _Antt._, X. x. 6. [9] _Yoma_, f. 77. [10] _Berachôth_, f. 31. [11] _Sanhedrin_, f. 93. _Midrash Rabba_ on Ruth, 7, etc., quoted by Hamburger, _Real-Encyclopädie_, i. 225. [12] _Kiddushin_, f. 72, 6; Hershon, _Genesis acc. to the Talmud_, p. 471. [13] Bel and the Dragon, 33-39. It seems to be an old Midrashic legend. It is quoted by Dorotheus and Pseudo-Epiphanius, and referred to by some of the Fathers. Eusebius supposes another Habakkuk and another Daniel; but "anachronisms, literary extravagances, or legendary character are obvious on the face of such narratives. Such faults as these, though valid against any pretensions to the rank of authentic history, do not render the stories less effective as pieces of Haggadic satire, or less interesting as preserving vestiges of a cycle of popular legends relating to Daniel" (Rev. C. J. Ball, _Speaker's Commentary_, on Apocrypha, ii. 350). [14] Höttinger, _Hist. Orientalis_, p. 92. [15] Ezra viii. 2; Neh. x. 6. In 1 Chron. iii. 1 Daniel is an alternative name for David's son Chileab--perhaps a clerical error. If so, the names Daniel, Mishael, Azariah, and Hananiah are only found in the two post-exilic books, whence Kamphausen supposes them to have been borrowed by the writer. [16] No valid arguments can be adduced in favour of Winckler's suggestion that Ezek. xxviii. 1-10, xiv. 14-20, are late interpolations. In these passages the name is spelt דָּנִּאֵל; not, as in our Book, דָנִיֵאל. [17] Isa. xxxix. 7. [18] See Rosenmüller, _Scholia_, _ad loc._ [19] _Ezek._, p. 207. [20] Herzog, _R. E._, _s.v._ [21] Ewald, _Proph. d. Alt. Bund._, ii. 560; De Wette, _Einleit._, § 253. [22] So Von Lengerke, _Dan._, xciii. ff.; Hitzig, _Dan._, viii. [23] He is followed by Bunsen, _Gott in der Gesch._, i. 514. [24] Reuss, _Heil. Schrift._, p. 570. [25] Ignat., _Ad Magnes_, 3 (Long Revision: see Lightfoot, ii., § ii., p. 749). So too in _Ps. Mar. ad Ignat._, 3. Lightfoot thinks that this is a transference from Solomon (_l.c._, p. 727). [26] See Ezek. xxix. 17.