either to IIA~ert Ezra l11te, or to Bssert tb11t the langnage was stat.irn<try for srimethin-:,: lilte three centuries. If the lBtter hypothesis is assumed, we might assert th11t it hari been etBtionruy for II couple of centnries before the days of Rzrn. The conclusion we come to with regard to the Aramaic of D:i.niel is that, taking al the fncte into coneider&tion, the Aramaic is eBrly, but how early it is impossible to say. But the date of the Arnmilio is not tbe only question on which critics of Daniel 1ue at Issue. There are two di11lects of Aram11ic-a Western, formerly callerl Chaldee, now sometimes called Palestinian; nnd an Eastern, still called incorrectly Syriac. Although there is the Mandre&n sub-dialect, which does not agree in all points with the di&lect of the Peshitta, it is indubitable that Biblical Aramaic, as we see it now, has a predominant Western character. This, it is argued, militates against the :i.uthor being the historic Daniel, who is alleged, when he wrote, to h:i.ve been aa inhabitant of Babylon. In the first place, as has already been pointed out in the older Aramaic, even of the East, the distinction between Eastern and Western forms is not so marked M it became later. In the next place, a process analogous to that we have just referred to, which obliterated indications of age, occurred, by which Eastern peculiarities were removed when it could be done, and their place supplied by those that were Western ; just as Scotch songs, when published in London, become Anglicized. And it seems to us that there are evidences that the Book of Daniel has undergone this procees. The ~ost prominent trace of this which we see is the form of the imperfect in ~ as 111~,1, for third person singular. This is certainly an Eastern form of the imperfect, and still is found in the Mandrean. Professor Bevan supplies an ingenious explanation. He maintains that it was to avoid a form which would be very like the sacred n'\me rn;,,, that the scribes, in the case of Daniel and Ezra., adopted this form of the imperfect third person. Like many other ingenious interpretations, it proves nothing, because it proves too much. If this explanation were true, we should find, on the one hand, no examples of the third person imperfect of tnn beginning with : in the Targum.s, and sbould find instances of the third person imperfect beginning with~; but in the Targum of Onkelos, Gen. xviii.17, we find the third singular of the imperfect with : used without an.y thought of the Divine name. Further, there are no instances of the third person in ~- A much more natural explanation is that these third persons are surviva,3, in Mandrean only some verbs have this form of the third imperfect, in other cases the ordinary Syriao form with l occurs. While • (yod) and l (nun) have in the older Aramaic script a considerable resemblance, so that nun might be read yod, by one who was accustomed to yod not nun in a given case, lamed was very different from yod. Further, the resemblance to the sacred name which resulted from the change might act as a deterrent from ch&nge, though it could Bcarcely act as an incentive to it. Further, the K'thib often represents a Syriac form, while the K'ri is pointed according to the Chaldee usage. Thus in the fifth verse of the second chapter we have H•iti,:, instead of •Hilt':,. There are further Manda,an forms still surviving, as 11:i,r:i (Dan. iv. 23). If we tum from the text before us, and try to rediscover the text that must have been before the trnnsl&tor of the Septuagint when he made his version, we find further traces of Eastern forms. The most common preformative of the third person singular and plural imperfect in Eastern Aramaic is l (nun). It seems to us that there are traces that the transl&tor had a text of this kind before him. Thus the last clause of ,the fifth verse of the second chapter, "And your house shall be mBde a dunghill," is rendered by the Septuagint, 'Avc,>.,i4>8~<1<T<u ~µwv T4 vwcipxovn .:, T~ /3c,cT!A11c&v, which may br paraphrased," And your goods be escheat to the crown." '!'bis version is not due u, xxiv IN'fRODUCTION TO
any shrinking from the meaning of the phl'l\se, for when it occurs in the next chapter· (ver. 29) it is corrrctly translated. It is cll'ar the tr11nslator read l~ll instend of •~ll. The other changes would easily follow from this. So too in the seventh verse, "Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation," Is rendered in the Septuagint, "0 king, tt>ll the dream, and bis servants will decide [as to the intupretation]." Here the text is translatt>d as if it were the third person instead of the first pel'llOn plural-a translation only possible to one with a manuscript before him in which there was an admixture of Eastern forms. Naturally, the cases are few where any such is recogniz11ble, but still even one or two cases render. the probability oon- sidcrablr. 'When we bear in mind thn.t the peculiarity of the Syriao imperfect is not impos~ibly a development of Aramaic that may in its fulness have been later than the Captivity, the rarity of traces of it becomes also the n1ore intelligible. At all events, this is clear-no conclusion against the authenticity of Daniel can be based on the want of Eastern forms in the present Massoretic text. This may be due to the modification introduced by copyists, or may even be a proof of antiquity. There are certain names and titles which are alleged to have a Persinn origio. In the first place, the names may have been altered. This may be held to be as good as proved by Ashpenaz appearing as Abiesdri in the Septllllgint. We know that the Jews had an objection to writing the names of heathen gods, and had an espeeial objection to npresenting any Israelite as having the name of a heathen god embedded in his namP.. The titles might be modified to something more intelligible, and, further, glosses and interpretations might get into the text. The lengthened list of officials in the third chapter suggests something of this sort. Further, if the tradition that Nebuchadnezzar married a Median princess had any truth in it, as the language of Media and Persia was the same, officials might, in some cases, receive Persian, that is, Median, desig- nations ; and yet again, not unfrequently designations that have been declared to be Persian have been found to be really of Assyrian origin. It is farther alleged that there are words of Greek origin present. It can be proved that these words are either not Greek or have no right to be in the text. For a complete examination of this part of the sul'.iect, we must refer the reader to the excursllll on that subject subjoined to the third chapter.