SOME LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE REGARDING ITS DATE. 253 



between the Jewish communities in Egypt and Palestine might lead to 

 the same explanatory note being added to the margin. Perhaps it is 

 better to assume the claim to be correct, but call upon the Critics to 

 recognise that musical terms pass easily from country to country. 



I have a somewhat higher estimate of the Chisian Daniel than 

 has Dr. TisdalL There has certainly been some carelessness in 

 translation, but in some cases I am under the impression that the 

 LXX translator had another Hebrew before him and that this explains 

 some of its difierences from the Massoretic text and also from 

 Theodotion. I think there is another thing to be considered. Is it 

 not probable that the several chapters of the Book of Daniel were 

 issued as separate tracts and that they continued separate for some 

 time and sustained separate treatment — the separate tracts — both in 

 Egypt and in Palestine ? We must remember that the text of 

 Daniel was not protected as was the Law and the Megilloth by 

 being read in the synagogue. May I remark I am puzzled by a state- 

 ment Dr. Tisdall makes in regard to Sarhdl (p. 216) : " The LXX 

 render it by anaxurides,'' adding in a note " In some MSS." 

 I understand that the Codex Chisimius was the sole exemplar of the 

 Hexaplaric text of Daniel. Schleusner quotes Symmachus as having 

 this rendering. 



I have already given too long an excursus on Dr. Tisdall's paper. 

 At the same time let me express a hope that he will give us further 

 results of his study of Daniel. Perhaps the Critics will listen to him. 

 Usually they ignore opponents. Mr. Sonnenschein, who wrote a 

 guide to readers in Dr. Williams' Library, condemns indiscriminately 

 all who defend the traditional date of Daniel and commends with 

 equal lack of discrimination all who assail it. He even commends 

 that blundering book of the late Dean Farrar, a book that blunders 

 even in arithmetic and founds arguments on these blunders. The 

 Critics are afraid of their opponents, they endeavour to hinder 

 publication of books or articles, and if published try to keep people 

 from reading them. It seems to me that the main obstacle to the 

 critical acceptance of the authenticity of Daniel is the presence in 

 it of the miraculous. But a Christianity without miracle would 

 have no salvation for man. Again let me thank Dr. Tisdall. 



Professor W. M. Flinders Petrie writes from the British School 

 of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, University 



