the same, LeHoM, but also v. 2, 3, gives LeHoN. In Daniel the latter form LeHoN habitually occurs, e.g. vi. 3 (comp. v. 2, 3, 23), while the former, whatever may be the reason, has vanished. Now in the Targum of Onkelos on Genesis xl. 22, it is LeHoN, the latter form, the one current in Daniel, which is characteristic, while the former, if ever, does not normally occur. This implies something. More decidedly, the pronoun for to You in the proportion of five times to one throughout Ezra, as in chap. v. 3, and vii. 24, is LeCHOM, whereas in Daniel iii. 4 (comp. ii. 5-9) it is LeCHON. It is difficult to explain this particular variation otherwise than by supposing Daniel the later book. Turn to Onkelos on Genesis ix. 3; the word by which he expresses To You is LeCHON. This is his normal, I believe his invariable usage. The first six verses of the 43rd chapter of Genesis give several instances for comparison of both pronouns. (b). Again, in Ezra, the words This house of God, are expressed Beith Eloho DeCH, and This city Kiriathah DaCH; the forms DeCH and DaCH representing the Hebrew ZeH and ZoTH. It is not denied that the form DeNah also occurs in Ezra. The point is, that on turning to Daniel the forms DeCH and DaCH are no longer found; but are replaced by DA or DeNah, commonly the latter, as in ii. 18; v. 24, 25, and often (not to urge on either side a quasi-adverbial usage). I have no wish to strain out of this, the most disputable of the differences, more than I fairly ought, but still must adhere to those who see in it a later tendency of language. For how do the Targums, alike of Onkelos and of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, on Genesis v. 1, express This Book, Hebr. ZeH SePHER? They use the form DeyN SePHaR. Similarly on Genesis xxviii. 16, 17, they express This Place by ATHRa HaDeyN, or ITHRA HaDeyN. The form is even reduplicated into a sort of plural, DeNaN (Gen. xxxi. 38). Let any one accustomed to weigh such transitions say, whether the cardinal letters in the Targums do not retain what is more characteristic of Daniel than of Ezra. It is a partial, but not a complete, answer, that

on Gen. xxiv. 65, Onkelos expresses That man by Gavra Deychi. (c). Once more, the Hebrew word for These is ELeH. So in Jer. x. 11, and in Ezra v. 15, we read for These, ELeH (for Those we read in Ezra v. 9, ILLECH). Whereas in Daniel we actually find for These the form ILLeN, vi. 7, and its still later equivalent ILLeyN (chaps. ii. 44; vi. 3: vii. 17), with which may be compared INNON in ii. 44, and vi. 25. This is a most remarkable variation, the nature of which is placed beyond reasonable doubt by the form ILLeyN in Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on Gen. ii. 4; ix. 19; x. 1, and wherever, otherwise than by Denan, the word These is expressed. The reader will have the pith of the argument before him, if he imagine himself opening a Rabbinical Bible, and observing this:

This juxtaposition of forms weighs with my idiosyncrasy more than any multiplication of possibilities, or hard words. It is an exact analogy, that the Hebrew for What is MeH or MaH, but the Chaldee is MaN; and it is a less obvious illustration that the Hebrew for Mouth is PeH, but the Chaldee PouM. If any one contends, that in their own homes the Chaldee forms may have been the older, and that here is no euphonical change, nor necessary affinity, but only correspondence, my argument1 makes no objection, provided it be allowed that in the Hebrew Scriptures, of which our enquiry is, the Chaldee forms (with

1 Little as my argument needs it, I might suggest a hope of mercy for a philologer who should doubt the doctrine that the singular DeN and the plurals DeNaN and ILLeyN have the same element in their termination; even if he appealed with dubious success to such forms as Mah and Man, Dagah and Dagan, Nadah and Nadan, Gachah (?) and Gechan, for a different explanation. The question of Daniel and Ezra does not turn on euphonic mutation, but on Biblical priority. If James I. spoke ever so old Scotch, it might be late English. But viri docti sententiæ ut assentiar, a me non impetro..

the disputed exception of Manna) appear later, and furnish criteria of a book's lateness. The transition from Eleh in the earlier Scriptures and Ezra, to Illeyn in Daniel and the Targums, is complete; whatever its analogies, fancied or real, in external dialects.

Enough of these variations here to show that they are not insignificant; they may not, apart from all other circumstances, have a force approaching to demonstration; their tendency is to indicate in Daniel a stage of language subsequent to Ezra, and advancing in the direction of the Targums. The greater the differences are, the more favourably shall we be able hereafter to judge of the author's directness in writing suitably to his time; whereas, on the less favourable supposition of his designedly imitating Ezra, we might find no differences.

A more striking, and for general readers available, characteristic of style as indicating age, may be found in the numerous Iranian, or Indo-European, words which occur in the book under consideration. An useful list of these has been appended, with the assistance of Professor Müller, to Dr. Pusey's recent lectures. In order however that the student may derive from this list all the instruction which it is capable of affording, he should remember a circumstance of which neither the divine nor the philologer has informed him, that Persian would have been as strange to Nebuchadnezzar, as Greek. We are not dealing with Ezra, who lived under Artaxerxes, but with an author supposed to represent the SyroChaldean age of Babylon. If anything is known of the distribution of languages and races, we know for certain, that the indigenous Babylonians of Nebuchadnezzar's age (if not of all ages, for Mr. Rawlinson's supposed discovery would not here affect us) were of that Syro-Arabian race, at the head of which the Bible places Chesed, father of the Chasdim or Chaldæans, and whose patriarch is Shem. So the priests or astrologers

1 This is fully discussed in 1 Vater's Adelung, with which may be compared Rosenmüller's Note on Habbacuc i., the opinion in Layard's Nineveh, ii. p. 237,

(chap. ii. v. 4) are made to address the king Aramith, or upisi, and (not to dwell on Strabo's identification (lib. xvi.) of the terms Syrian and Assyrian) the existence of our Aramaic Chaldee in large portions of this book is both significantly dramatic and conclusive as to the author's conception of Chaldæan ethnology. The supposition of an intrusive warrior caste of Kurds, though it has had an occasional place among the conjectures of scholars, and though it is now convenient to a class of writers who lately called it "infidel," is on wider grounds more justly set aside. Those who hold it, can least explain, how a position like that of the Turkish troops under the Arabian Caliphs could be that of a learned caste of astronomers.

How then are we to explain the occurrence of Iranian, i.e. Indo-European, words in Daniel? The opening verses give, in connexion with a decree of Nebuchadnezzar's, partemim (i.e. nobles), akin to the Sanscrit prathama, Pehlvi pardom. There are many others, an explanation of which was attempted by Dr. Jahn in his excellent Introduction to the Old Testament, and gently criticised by his episcopal editor in America. It was taken from Dr. Jahn by Dr. Mill in his publication as "Christian Advocate," and is taken from Dr. Mill by Bishop Cotton,1 of Calcutta, who now sends it from Asia to Europe as a novel

1

and the Article by Mr. Bevan on Tongues, Dispersion of, in Smith's Bibl. Dict. The most recent philologer on the Kurdish side seems to be M. Rénan, whom I might hesitate to contradict, if I had not observed (Lang. Sém., p. 66), that he quotes among his authorities Mr. Layard, who has expressly summed up for the Semitic theory; while the difficulty, to my own mind very great, of making Abraham a Kurd, and the weight of the Mosaic genealogies, which I am not neologist enough to desert with Dr. Pusey, unless much graver reason compelled me, confirmed too, as these are by the Aramaic of Daniel, almost conclude the question. In truth, M. Rénan's undoubted accomplishments as an Orientalist do not preserve him from a proneness to conjecture in more provinces than one. He does not make the Chaldees priests; so that his alliance with Dr. Pusey is imperfect.

I prefer a glance at Bishop Cotton's philological discoveries to one at his personal judgments; though the latter, especially in so far as they blame a clergyman for imputing to "the great body of believers" certain exaggerations, which the clergyman had complained of as exceptionally exacted from himself, in an age when the great body of educated believers had expressly or tacitly surrendered them, exemplify in a memorable measure what the good bishop justly calls "the guilt of misrepresentation."

discovery, which it is only wonderful should not be known to an essayist who had considered and, out of respect for some of its advocates, passed it over in silence. No chronology brings Cyrus to Babylon before 540. Suppose him there in 536. Daniel would be at least eighty, approaching ninety years of age (i. 1-3). If he equalled the highest historical instances of longevity, it would be a strange employment for one on the brink of the grave, first to learn Persian, then to translate into it portions of his former work, and the edicts of Nebuchadnezzar. Would such a procedure be even consistent with inspiration? Without wearying the reader on this point, I trust a moment's reflexion will show him, that Iranian words, e.g. Partemim, Sagan, Sarbal, (i.e. bracca, Gr. capáßapa), Achashdarpenim (satraps), etc., etc., tend greatly to strengthen any previous presumption in favour of the later date assigned to the book of Daniel.

We have not yet exhausted our linguistic indications. Having never myself consented to vote for depriving the word kitharas of its Greek citizenship, I rejoice to see Professor Müller set aside the desperate attempts to make it Persian. Here the question is not, whether a stray Greek term might float from Ionia to Babylon; but how came other books of the Bible, even those written at Babylon, to call a harp by its Hebrew name kinnor (comp. Cinyras), and only the one which external evidence places after Alexander's conquest, to use the Greek word kithara (in what was probably its genitive form, though punctuated caythros)? Ezekiel, captive by Chebar's stream, wrote kinoraych, thy harp; those daughters of Zion who remembered their past tears at Babylon, had hung, they say, kinorotheynou, our harps," upon the trees that were there. In Daniel the Hebrew word has vanished; a Greek substitute appears. If this were not enough, we find the word pesanteeryn, or psanteryon, which, whether its peculiar form be certainly, or but probably, connected by Gesenius with the Macedonian use of N for L (mentioned by Gregory of Corinth)