SOME LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE REGARDING ITS DATE. 249 



would be the more improbable that the Aramaic of " Daniel/* 

 showing the D form, was composed or written in Palestine. 

 (2) LXX rendering of ^^^SnH in Dan. i, 11, 16 (p. 243) : 

 What MS. authority there may be for the substitution of 

 A/SteaSpt', I do not know, but Carpzov's edition gives 'AjueXaac as 

 the reading of the Vatican Codex, and 'A/LLepffap as that of the 

 Alexandrian. Both these seem to be derivable from an original 

 'A/u.e\(Tap which would be the ordinary Greek transliteration of the 

 Hebrew letters, treating however the definite article as though 

 it were part of a proper name, an error found in other parts of 

 the LXX. 



Allusion was made by the last speaker to the transliterations and 

 mistranslations in the LXX version of the Psalms, especially in the 

 superscriptions. Precisely similar evidences of ignorance are to be 

 found even in the Pentateuch, and these seem to me to be clear 

 indications that the translators were dealing with documents that 

 were already of great antiquity. 



Mr. W. E. Leslie said : On p. 239 Dr. Tisdall suggests that there 

 has been an alteration of the Kthib (the Z-D change). On p. 241 

 a change is found in the Qrl only. If some changes were made 

 while the text was fluid and others after it had solidified, should not 

 this fact furnish additional material for the determination of the 

 date ? 



Mr. Theodore Roberts referred to Dr. Tisdall's point on p. 233, 

 that no Greek titles occurred in the Book of Daniel, which could 

 hardly have been avoided by one writing long after the conquest of 

 Palestine by the Greeks, as the Critics held was the case, while the 

 use of Persian titles by Daniel was quite likely, seeing he no doubt 

 wrote in his old age some years after the Persian conquest of 

 Babylon. 



The fact that foreign words did not appear in inscriptions and 

 legal instruments about the date of Daniel, while he made use of 

 them, proved nothing, as was seen to-day by the fact that French 

 terms occurred in the present-day literature while they were not 

 found either in the inscriptions or legal contracts of to-day which 

 were usually framed in purfer English of a somewhat archaic type. 

 He had recently noticed in reading some parts of Scott which he had 



