The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 40

Since the above Introduction was not only in type, but stereotyped, the question of the Hebrew of Daniel has entered into a new phase-Mrs. Gibson and Mrs. Lewis have added to the debt which Biblical science owes them by discovering a fragment of the Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus. It is a portion of the thirty-ninth chapter of that book. This discovery, important in itself, ha.e led to the rurther discovery a.t Oxford of nine more leaves of the ea.me man1.15cript a.s that to which this fragment belongs, aad almost continuous with it. 'l'he importance of the character of the Hebrew in which the Book of Ben Sira was written cannot be minimized, a.ltbough the critics, who will have it that Daniel is late, have maintained a discreet silence on the question, not- withstanding the numerous quotations from it in rabbinic literature. The fragment adds a great deal to our knowledge of the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, aDd I would venture to add a few words on the bearing it bas on the discussion above of the same question in the light only of the rabbinic quotations. In doing so, I hope my readers will consider my situation-in Palestine, away from public libraries, and liable always to have books, periodicals, a.nd newspapers from Europe delayed, if not seized, by the Turkish postal authorities. I am thus very much handicapped in my study of this question. Through the kindness of Mrs. Gibson, I received a copy of the proof-sheets of Dr. Scbechter's article in the Expositor of July, 1896, with his edition of the text a.nd translation; she kindly also enclosed Canon Driver's article in the Guardian, July 1, 1896. I had also forwarded to me the August number of the Expositor for 1896, with the article of Professor Margoliouth. I understand Professor Neubauer will shortly publish the nine leaves which he discovered in Oxford; but, unfortunately, I cannot wait till it reaches me, and must draw my information from what Canon Driver has said in the Guardian. The date of tbe manuscript cannot, according to Dr. Schechter, be later than the beginning of the twelfth century. This was the time when Hebrew learning was most flourishing-the age of Rasbi and Aben Ezra. The firot thing that strikes the reader is that many of the later peculiarities which are present in all the Talmudic quotations, are absent-a fact that is noted by Canon Driver. The Hebrew of the fragment is thus liker classical Hebrew than the Hebrew of the quotations, The question that must be decided, then, really is-Which is the better evidence? In considering this, we must bear in mind the late date of this manuscript, and the comparatively early do.ta of the Talmudic quotations. Further, we must take account of the habits of the Talmudists in quotation. When they quote with the formula, 11 As it is written in the book of," they are usually scrupu- lously accurate, however flagrantly iaaccurate they may be in other matters. .A.bove, l restricted my study of the Hebrew of Ben Sira. to such passages, It is perfectly true  _____...,,.._________________________ :id viii INTRODUCTION TO