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



substitute (it is hard to say why) the name Wfiiea-Bpt. In 

 Dan. V, 2, 23, they omit the words that mean " thy queens 

 and thy concubines," being unable to interpret them. So in 

 Dan. vi, 19, the word ]ini, which we have shewn probably 

 denotes food, is either rendered \virov [xevo^ or omitted. In 

 Dan. i, 5, a mistake of much less importance, but still an error, 

 occurs, when meaning royal delicacies, is represented 



by Tpdire^a. In Dan. iii, 2, 3, in one MS. Dr. Swete gives 

 6aj36aLov^ as representative of the term t^TlDJl? rather 

 a bad attempt at- transliteration. In Dan. i, 20, Q'^DXt^t^ 

 (the enchanters) is rendered ^fcX6o-o(/)ot. In Dan. ii, 5, 8, 

 b^"TT^^, which means " certain, fixed ; information," is 

 represented by 'airearr), which is evidently a bad guess 

 founded on the context. In Dan. ii, 27, the word is 

 merely transliterated, no attempt being made to translate it. 

 The explanation of this is clear. Dr. Swete* well says, " In 

 the majority of instances transliteration may be taken for a 

 frank confession of ignorance or doubt." But, if we for a 

 moment assume the Higher Critics' theory that Daniel was 

 composed about 167-5 B.C. in Palestine it is impossible to give 

 a satisfactory explanation of such ignorance. We do not know 

 who the translators of the Book of Da.niel into Greek were, 

 though for convenience' sake we speak of the LXX version of 

 Daniel in contradistinction to Theodotion's version. At any 

 rate they did their work very badly and carelessly. But at 

 latest it would be rash to date the translation later than about 

 100 B.C. In fact it is probably a score or so of years earlier. 

 If, then, the Critics' theory be correct, in the course of some 

 three score years a number of Aramaicised words used in Daniel 

 had become so completely forgotten in Egypt (where the LXX 

 version is supposed to have been made) that they had become 

 unintelligible, and had either to be (erroneously) guessed at 

 or merely transliterated. That some of these very words were 

 used in the papyri and intended to be understood both in Egypt 

 and Palestine not long before makes the matter still more 

 strange. But all difficulty is removed if we are right in con- 

 cluding that Daniel was composed in Babylonia, or by one who 

 had long lived there, not long after the Persian acquisition of 

 that country, who knew Babylonian and at least the Persian 

 words most likely to be in use in Babylon late in the sixth 



* Introduction to the O.T. in Greek, p. 324c 



