In your sacred discussion with Agnomon you referred to that prophecy of Daniel which is related of his youth. This at that time, as was meet, I accepted as genuine. Now, however, I cannot understand how it escaped you that this part of the book is spurious. For, in sooth, this section, although apart from this it is elegantly written, is plainly a more modern forgery. There are many proofs of this. When Susanna is condemned to die, the prophet is seized by the Spirit, and cries out that the sentence is unjust. Now, in the first place, it is always in some other way that Daniel prophesies -- by visions, and dreams, and an angel appearing to him, never by prophetic inspiration. Then, after crying out in this extraordinary fashion, he detects them in a way no less incredible, which not even Philistion the play-writer would have resorted to. For, not satisfied with rebuking them through the Spirit, he placed them apart, and asked them severally where they saw her committing adultery. And when the one said, "Under a holm-tree" (prinos), he answered that the angel would saw him asunder (prisein); and in a similar fashion menaced the other who said, "Under a mastich-tree" (schinos), with being rent asunder (schisthenai). Now, in Greek, it happens that "holm-tree" and "saw asunder," and "rend" and "mastich-tree" sound alike; but in Hebrew they are quite distinct. But all the books of the Old Testament have been translated from Hebrew into Greek.
2. Moreover, how is it that they who were captives among the Chaldæans, lost and won at play,  thrown out unburied on the streets, as was prophesied of the former captivity, their sons torn from them to be eunuchs, and their daughters to be concubines, as had been prophesied; how is it that such could pass sentence of death, and that on the wife of their king Joakim, whom the king of the Babylonians had made partner of his throne? Then if it was not this Joakim, but some other from the common people, whence had a captive such a mansion and spacious garden? But a more fatal objection is, that this section, along with the other two at the end of it, is not contained in the Daniel received among the Jews. And add that, among all the many prophets who had been before, there is no one who has quoted from another word for word. For they had no need to go a-begging for words, since their own were true; but this one, in rebuking one of those men, quotes the words of the Lord: "The innocent and righteous shalt thou not slay." From all this I infer that this section is a later addition. Moreover, the style is different. I have struck the blow; do you give the echo; answer, and instruct me. Salute all my masters. The learned all salute thee. With all my heart I pray for your and your circle's health.
 [See Routh's Reliquiæ, vol. ii. p. 115; also Euseb., i. 7, and Socrates, ii. 35. He ranks with the great pupils of the Alexandrian school, with which, however, he seems to have had only a slight personal relation. Concerning this Epistle to Origen, and the answer of the latter, consult Routh's very full annotations (ut supra, pp. 312-328). Concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus, the greatest of Origen's pupils, we shall know more when we come to vol. vi. of this series. He died circa 270.]  Nolte would change estragalomenoi (or astragalomenoi, as Wetsten. has it), which is a hapax eiremenon, into strangalomenoi or estrangalomenoi, "strangled." He compares Tob. ii. 3.
 Nolte would change estragalomenoi (or astragalomenoi, as Wetsten. has it), which is a hapax eiremenon, into strangalomenoi or estrangalomenoi, "strangled." He compares Tob. ii. 3.