[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. [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.