246 rev. w. st. clair tisdall, d.d., on the book of daniel : 



Discussion. 



After reading the paper Professor Pinches then said : The paper 

 is now open for discussion. I have already, when reading it, spoken 

 of a few points which occurred to me, and these I will now repeat 

 with any others which may seem desirable. 



We all know that it is utterly impossible for two nations to be in 

 close connexion without borrowing from each other, and Dr. Tisdall 

 has rightly included in his paper all the philological arguments 

 which could possibly be brought forward. In opening the discussion, 

 I feel bound not only to refer to the arguments in favour of his 

 views, but also those against — absolute correctness is essential in 

 such a case as this, the date of the Book of Daniel. For this 

 reason the argument from the Sumerian ukkin, compared with the 

 Greek wKcauo^ is inadmissible. On the other hand, in the matter of 

 the date of the word for " elephant " in Assyrio-Babylonian, the 

 point is greatly strengthened when the real history of the word piru 

 is stated. This word does not occur spelled out in the wedge- 

 written characters of the Assyrian historical inscriptions, but is 

 there always given ideographically, expressed by the characters 

 AM-SI. It is from the bilingual lists that we get the Semitic 

 Babylonian pronunciation of piru. Now, the date of the dra wing-up 

 of these lists is doubtful, but a moderate estimate would fix their 

 compilation somewhere between 1500 and 2000 B.C. If the word 

 came from Persia, this would give an example of the introduction 

 of a Persian word at a much earlier date than the author indicates. 

 The question remains, however, whether the non-existence of I in 

 old Persian would argue against this. [The occurrence of / is conamon 

 enough in modern Persian, and it seems, therefore, exceedingly 

 unlikely that the ancient Persians were unable to pronounce that 

 sound.] 



It is needless to say that the wealth of philological material 

 which the author has collected to prove his argument is of the highest 

 importance, and forms in itself an exceedingly strong series of 

 arguments in favour of an early date for the composition of the Book. 

 To my mind, however, the strongest argument which he brings 

 forward is that to which I have already referred, namely, the ignorance 

 of the Septuagint translator of the meanings of certain doubtful 

 words in the Book of Daniel. [Among these may be mentioned the 



