[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. [68] By De Wette, Schrader, Hitzig, Ewald, Gesenius, Bleek, Delitzsch, Von Lengerke, Stähelin, Kamphausen, Wellhausen, etc. Reuss, however, says (_Heil. Schrift._, p. 575), "Man könnte auf die Vorstellung kommen das Buch habe mehr als einen Verfasser"; and König thinks that the original form of the book may have ended with chap. vii. (_Einleit._, § 384). [69] _Beiträge_, 1888. See too Kranichfeld, _Das Buch Daniel_, p. 4. The view is refuted by Budde, _Theol. Lit. Zeitung_, 1888, No. 26. The conjecture has often occurred to critics. Thus Sir Isaac Newton, believing that Daniel wrote the last six chapters, thought that the six first "are a collection of historical papers written by others" (_Observations_, i. 10). [70] _Einleit._, p. 6. [71] Other critics who incline to one or other modification of this view of the _two_ Daniels are Tholuck, _d. A.T. in N.T._, 1872; C. v. Orelli, _Alttest. Weissag._, 1882; and Strack.