SOME LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE REGARDING ITS DATE. 



255 



Author's Reply. 



I am very grateful to those Members of the Victoria Institute 

 who have so kindly criticised my paper, and specially so to Dr. Pinches, 

 who has communicated to me certain suggestions in writing. These 

 I have incorporated in the revised edition of the paper. To this 

 fact I owe the excision of my suggested derivation of wKemw^, 

 referred to in Dr. Pinches' remarks on p. 246. Of course, the ancient 

 Persians may have been able to pronounce the letter I, which occurs 

 so frequently in modern Persian ; but neither the Achaemenian nor the 

 Avestic alphabet contains any sign for that letter. I am glad to 

 find that my arguments as to the antiquity of the Book of Daniel 

 are confirmed by such scholars as Dr. Pinches and Prof. Flinders 

 Petrie. 



I should perhaps add that my references to the Septuagint are 

 to Dr. Swete's edition of the LXX, as published at the Cambridge 

 University Press in 1912 (Vol. III). The Editor informs us that in 

 this edition " The Septuagint text has been derived from Cozza's 

 transcript of the Chigi MS., but it has been thought desirable to 

 follow Tischendorf's example and to give at the foot of the page 

 the readings of the Syro-hexaplaric version, our only other authority.'* 

 But in Dan. i, 3, 11, 16, Swete does not note any reading but 

 \\(3iea^pt. Hence, though aware that other editions have 

 'A/iieXadd and 'A/iiepaup, I did not mention them. Dr. Thomson 

 has not noticed my reference to Jer. x, 11 , in p. 229, No. 32. I take 

 this opportunity of thanking all the scholars who have dealt so 

 kindly with my paper. 



