REV. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, D.D., ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 207 



entirely different from the Semitic tongues in which it was 

 composed. Even those critics who are willing to allow an earlier 

 date are convinced that its origin cannot be put back farther than 

 to a period considerably later than Alexander the Great's conquest 

 of Palestine in 332 B.C. 



It is not our duty to state the arguments brought forward in 

 support of this conclusion. They may be read in a multitude of 

 books which deal with the subject. Our purpose in the present 

 Paper is to consider only the question what light the language of 

 the original documents, illustrated by others of ancient and known 

 dates recently discovered, throws upon the matter. 



The late Professor Driver, in his well-known Introduction to 

 the Literature of the Old Testament, and again in his little work 

 on Daniel in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, 

 though admitting evidence from many other sources also, rightly 

 lays great stress on the information to be gained as to the date of 

 the Book from a careful study of its words in the original languages, 

 Hebrew and Aramaic. New evidence has been brought forward 

 since Dr. Driver wrote, which seems to me to necessitate an entire 

 reconsideration of the subject. This is drawn largely from the 

 facts learned from the Aramaic papyri discovered comparatively 

 recently in Egypt, and especially in the ruins of some houses 

 in the remains of ancient Syene (Assouan) and Elephantine. 



Do these new facts confirm the Critics' conclusions or confute 

 them ? In answering this question it will be well in the first 

 place to hear Dr. Driver's own words, and then see whether they 

 can any longer be maintained to be correct. 



Dr. Driver wrote in 1894 (I.L.O.T., pp. 467-476) : " In face 

 of the facts presented by the Book of Daniel, the opinion that it 

 is the work of Daniel himself cannot be sustained. Internal 

 evidence shews with a cogency that cannot be resisted that it 

 must have been written not earlier than circa 300 B.C., and in 

 Palestine ; and it is at least probable that it was composed under 

 the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 168 or 167." 

 Dealing with the evidence of language alone, he proceeds to sum 

 up his conclusions thus : " The Persian words presuppose a period 

 after the Persian Empire had been well established : the Greek 

 words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, 

 a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great 

 (B.C. 332). With our present knowledge, this is as much as the 

 language authorises us definitely to affirm ; though (JVficjxovLa 

 as the name of an instrument (considering the history of the term 



