(3, 4.) The next words referred to, are ―kâhroz (a herald), ch. iii. 4, and n-káraz, to cry out, to make proclamation, which it is alleged are the same as the Greek xp—kerux, and pros-kerussein. Of these words, also, Gesenius remarks, "The root is widely diffused in the Indo-European languages, e. g. Sansc. krus, to cry out; Zend, khresio, crying out, a herald; Pers. to cry out; Gr. xnpioow; also, xpišw, xpaw; Germ. kreischen, kreissen; Eng. to cry." Lex. Among the Christian Arabs, Gesenius remarks, it means to preach. Jahn and Dereser say that the word is related to the Zendish word khresio, which means to tread behind, and to scream out, to screech-kreischen. Hengstenberg (p. 13,) remarks of this word, that its use is spread abroad not only in Chaldee, but in Syriac, and that this circumstance makes it probable that it had a Semitish origin. The probability is, that this word and the Greek had a common origin, but its use is so far spread in the world that it cannot be argued from the fact that it is found in the Book of Daniel that the book had a later origin than the period of the exile.

(5.) The next word mentioned as of Greek origin is kitharos, (ch. iii. 5, 7, 10, 15,) cithara, harp, lyre, (rendered in each place, harp,) which it is said is the same as the Greek, zapis, citharis. In regard to this word, which is the name of a musical instrument, it must be admitted that it is the same as the Greek word. It occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament, and its origin is unknown. As a Greek word, it will be considered, in connection with the three others of the same class, in the sequel. It cannot be affirmed, indeed, that it has a Greek origin, but its origin cannot be found in the Chaldee, Persian, or Sanscrit languages. But, although it is admitted. that it is a Greek word, and denotes an instrument that was well known in Greece, this does not demonstrate a Greek origin. It is admitted on all hands that the names of Greek instruments of music were mostly of foreign derivation; and there is nothing to lead to the supposition that this was of Greek origin, unless it be that the word xiSapa or Sápos, means, in the Doric dialect, the breast, and that this instrument might have received its name either because it was played by being placed against the breast, like the violin with us, or because its form resembled the human breast. This is the opinion of Isidorus, Origg. i, 2, 21. But there is great uncertainty in regard to this.

(6.) The next word specified is 73, sabbeka (ch. iii. 5), and

the similar word at (ch. iii. 7, 10, 15), in each case rendered sackbut. Of this word it is alleged that it is the same as the Greek saußixn,-sambuca, a stringed instrument well known in Greece. But in regard to this word, also, the remark of Gesenius may be quoted:-"Strabo affirms," says he, "that the Greek word, auburn (sambuca) is of barbarian, i. e. of oriental origin, and if so, the name might have allusion to the interweaving of the strings-from the root "-to interweave, to_entwine, to plait. Gesenius, however, remarks, that in this place it is joined with a word (symphony) which is manifestly of Greek origin; and he seems to infer that this word, also, may have had a Greek origin. The direct affirmation of Strabo is (Lib. x.), that the names of the Greek instruments of music were of foreign origin, and in reference to this particular instrument, Athenæus (i. iv.) affirms, that it was of Syrian origin. So Clemens Alex. expressly declares that the sambuca had a foreign origin. Strom. L. i. p. 307. Even Bleek admits this in regard to this particular instrument. See Hengstenberg, p. 15.

(7.) The next word for which a Greek origin is claimed is MDD symphony, Greek ovupwna, ch. iii. 5, 10, 15, rendered in the text, in each place, dulcimer, and in the margin symphony, or singing. Gesenius remarks, in regard to this word, that "it is the Greek word adopted into the Chaldee tongue, just as at the present day the same instrument is called in Italy, zampogna, and in Asia Minor, zambouja." It cannot be denied that the word is the same as the Greek word; though it is to be remarked that among the Greeks it was not used to denote the name of an instrument of music. Yet, as it is compounded of two Greek words—oiv and pwn-its Greek origin cannot well be doubted. With the Greeks, the word meant properly harmony, or concert of sounds (Passow); and it was then readily given to an instrument that was fitted to produce harmony, or that was distinguished for its sweet sounds. The word is found in Syriac, as applied to a musical instrument, but the evidence seems to be strong that the word had a Greek origin, though there is no evidence that the Greeks ever applied it to a musical instrument.

(8.) The next word for which a Greek origin is claimed is 1-pesanterin, (ch. iii. 7, 5, 10, 15, rendered psaltery in each place,) which it is said, is the same as the Greek pov -psaltery. "This word," says Gesenius, (Lex.) "was adopted from the Greek into the Chaldee, and being interchanged."

The origin of the word is, however, wholly uncertain. That it is found in Greek is undoubtedly true; but, as has been before remarked, as it is admitted that the names of the Greek instruments of music had mostly a foreign origin, it is impossible to demonstrate that this may not have been true in regard to this word. Buxtorf (Lex. Chald.) says that it is a word "corrupted from the Greek."

(9.) The next word is, pattish, (ch. iii. 21, rendered hosen,) which it is said is the same as the Greek rágos-petasos. But there is no reason to believe that this word had an original Greek origin. It is found in Syriac, and the root, -pâtash, Gesenius remarks, "is widely found in the Indo-European languages. The primary form," says he, "is batt, patt, whence later Lat. battere; French, battre; Dutch, bot; Swed. batsch," &c. The Greek word has undoubtedly had the same origin, and it cannot be maintained that the Chaldee word is derived from the Greek.

(10.) The remaining word which is alleged to be of Greek origin is, , nebizbah (ch. ii. 6, v. 17), rendered in both cases in the text, rewards, and in the margin, fee. It does not elsewhere occur in the Old Testament. It is maintained by Bertholdt and others, that this is the same word as the Greek soup money. But there is no evidence that the word is of Greek origin. Gesenius says (Lex.), that the word may have a Chaldee origin, though he prefers to assign to it a Persian origin, and he says that the idea of money (implied in the Greek word) is foreign to the context here. Bohlen, Winer, and Hengstenberg, agree in assigning the word to a Persian origin. See Hengs. Authen. p. 12.

The result, then, to which we have come in regard to the objection that words of Greek origin, and indicating an age later than the time of the exile, are found in Daniel, is, that the number alleged to be of such an origin is very few at best, and that of those which have been referred to, there are not more than four (marked 5, 6, 7, and 8, in the enumeration above,) to which the objection can be supposed to apply with any degree of probability. These are the words actually selected by De Wette, (p. 386,) as those on which he relies.

In regard to these four words, then, we may make the following general observations:

(a) They are all names of musical instruments said to have been used in Babylon.

(b) The general remark of Strabo above referred to may be

called to recollection here, that the names of musical instruments among the Greeks were mostly of foreign origin. In itself considered, therefore, there is no improbability in the supposition that the same words should be applied to musical instruments in Greece and in Chaldea.

(c) The languages in which these words are found belong to the same great family of languages; the Indo-European; that is, the Persian, the Greek, the Latin, &c. They had a common origin, and it is not strange if we find the same words spread extensively through these languages.

(d) There was sufficient intercourse between Persia, Chaldea, Asia Minor, and Greece, before and at the time of the Hebrew captivity, to make it not improbable that the names of musical instruments, and the instruments themselves, should be borne from one to the other. There is, therefore, no improbability in supposing that such instruments may have been carried to Babylon from Greece, and may have retained their Greek names in Babylon. Curtius (b. iv. c. 12) says, that in the Persian host that came out to meet Alexander the Great, there were many persons found of Greek origin, who had become subject to the authority of Media. For farther historical proofs on this subject, see Hengs. Authen. pp. 16, 17. Indeed, little proof is needed. It is known that the Greeks were in the habit of visiting foreign lands, and particularly of travelling into the region of the East, for the purpose of obtaining knowledge; and nothing is, in itself, more probable than that in this way the names of a few musical instruments, in common use among themselves, should have been made known to the people among whom they travelled, and that those names should have been incorporated into the languages spoken there.

V. A fifth objection, or class of objections, is derived from the alleged reference to usages, opinions, and customs, later than the time of the exile. This objection, which embraces several subordinate points, is thus summed up by De Wette: "The remarkable later representations on the subject of angels (der Angelologie,) iv. 14, ix. 21, x. 13, 21; of Christology, vii. 13, f. xii. 1-3; of dogmatics [or doctrines, Dogmatik], xii. 2, f.; of morals [Sittenlehre] or customs, iv. 24, comp. Tobit. iv. 11, xii. 9; and of asceticism [Askese], i. 8-16, comp. Esther iv. 17, 2 Mac. v. 27, vi. 11, furnish at least an additional argument [einen Hülfsbeweis], against the genuineness of the book." § 255, c. (5).

This objection, it will be observed, divides itself into several

parts or portions, though coming under the same general deseription. The general statement is, that there is an allusion to customs and opinions which were found among the Jews only at a later period than the captivity, and that, therefore, the book could not have been composed at the time alleged. The specifications relate to angelology, or the representations respecting angels; to Christology, or the views of the Messiah; to the doctrines stated, particularly to those respecting the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment; to the customs that prevailed, and to the ascetic views expressed, particularly on the effect of abstinence from rich kinds of diet. It will be convenient to notice them in their order, so far as to furnish a general answer. For a full and complete answer the reader may be referred, in general, to Hengstenberg, Authentie des Daniel, pp. 137-173.

A. The first specification is derived from the statements which occur respecting angels, ch. iv. 14, ix. 21, x. 13, 21. These, it is affirmed, indicate a state of opinion which prevailed among the Hebrews, only at a later age than the time of the exile, and consequently the book could not have been written. at that time. This objection, as urged by Bertholdt and others, refers to two points; first, that the statements respecting the opinions of the Chaldeans on the subject, are not in accordance with the opinions in the time when the book is said to have been written; and second, that the statements respecting angels, considered as Hebrew opinions, are those which belong to a later age. It will be proper to notice these in their order.

I. The first is, that the statements which occur as representing the opinions of the Chaldeans, express sentiments which did. not prevail among them. The objections on this point relate. to two statements in the book; one, that the Son of God, or a Son of God, is spoken of by Nebuchadnezzar; the other, to what is said (ch. iv. 14,) of the "decree of the Watchers."

The former objection is thus stated by Bertholdt: In ch. iii. 25, "Nebuchadnezzar speaks of a Son of God ['and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God'], and although the Chaldeans, and most of the dwellers in Upper Asia, were polytheists, yet there is no evidence that anything was known at the time of the views which prevailed among the Greeks on this subject, but that such views became known in the time of Seleucus Nicator." p. 29. It is hence inferred that the book could not have been written before the time of Seleucus.