SOME LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE REGARDING ITS DATE. 247 



author's reference to the Heb. hammelsar, reproduced in the Gk. by 

 Abiesdn—BsigsteT's Septuagint, however, has the bad transcription 

 Amelsad, for Amelsar ; the rendering of ashshapJdm, " necromancers " 

 as philosophoi ; the translit&ration of gazrin, " fate-determiners," 

 etc.] These alone necessitate a much earlier date for Daniel than 

 167 B.C. With regard to the interchange in the Aramaic dialects 

 of d and z, it is to be noted that the latter is the natural outcome of 

 the former. In English the soft th, in the mouth of a foreigner 

 easily becomes z, and this is also the case in the Semitic languages, 

 [It was the case likewise in Assyrian, where iththi, with the sound of 

 sharp th, became, in the provinces, issi.] I hope that sufficient of 

 this important paper has been read to enable it to be discussed — 

 probably members of the audience have been able to read some of 

 the omitted portions in the intervals of waiting. 



Lieut. -Col. Mackinlay said : I have the greatest pleasure in 

 seconding this vote of thanks to our learned author, and I join with 

 our Chairman in sincere wishes for his speedy recovery. 



Our Chairman has piloted us skilfully through this somewhat 

 formidable but very valuable paper. I cannot pretend to any 

 knowledge of the linguistic questions involved, but, thanks to the 

 clearness of expression of our author, the main outline of his paper 

 seems to be simple. 



It appears that the Higher Critics have given an illustration of the 

 old saying that " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Misled 

 by some acquaintance with the ancient languages, they falsely 

 assumed that the inclusion of foreign words in the records of a nation 

 indicates that it has been conquered by that foreign country to 

 which the words belonged. A moment's consideration should 

 have assured the critic^ of the rashness of their assumption. As 

 well might it be assumed that because we adopt, for instance, the 

 words bazaar and hookah we have been conquered by the natives of 

 India. 



But Egypt contained, as our author has pointed out, plain evidences 

 which have thoroughly upset the confident assertion of more than 

 a quarter of a century that " no Old Testament scholar of any repute 

 now maintains that the book was written by Daniel." 



The evidences now produced by Dr. St. Clair Tisdall could have 



