Wilson deals at some length with this and the preceding point , though he omits to inform his readers that while the Papyri agree with one of the usages of Ezra , they disagree with Daniel .sx He suggests that the does not really belong to Western Aramaic , but was borrowed from Babylonian , Daniel borrowing it regularly , and Ezra more sparingly .sx He does not suggest how it came into Palmyrene , and is more concerned that we should know that Samaritan still uses alongside than that we should ask why the Targums have .sx He draws our attention to the fact that late Eastern Aramaic , i.e. , Syriac , Mandaean , and the Talmud , has , as well as Palmyrene .sx That it is found in both East and West in later times would not so much suggest that it was of Eastern origin , as that it was of later origin .sx Its earliest known occurrence , apart from Biblical Aramaic , is in Palmyrene in the West , that is and in the absence of any indication that it was due to Babylonian influence there , either directly , or through the influence of Daniel and Ezra , we should naturally conclude that this usage more probably developed in the West .sx That Ezra uses it sometimes only , while Daniel uses it regularly , is in perfect harmony with that conclusion , if Daniel is a Palestinian production , of later origin than Ezra , while we should expect to find it in the Targums .sx The early Zenjirli inscriptions have the Papyri have , and,still more significant , the Assyrian Aramaic of the time of Ashurbanipal also has .sx All of this is in full accord with that conclusion .sx Nor is it in any way more surprising that the should later spread also to the East , until it became the almost universal Aramaic form , than that it should have spread from the East to the West .sx The only surprising element is that Nabataean still has .sx Wilson himself , however , draws our attention to the fact that even when was universally used elsewhere , in both East and West , Samaritan for some reason still retained beside , and we are therefore the less surprised to find that at an earlier date Nabataean should not have employed the .sx The evidence is once more , therefore , highly inconvenient for the traditional theory which Wilson champions .sx We have positive evidence that the usage in the East a century before the alleged date of the book of Daniel was , while in the book of Ezra we find that in what purports to be a royal letter from the East , dispatched a century after the date of Daniel , and stand side by side .sx Yet the book of Daniel consistently uses .sx It is much more natural to suppose that first took its rise in Palestinian Aramaic , not earlier than the fourth century B. C. , and that the Aramaic portions of Ezra , where it appears irregularly , are the earliest writings now extant in which it appears .sx By the time when the Aramaic sections of the book of Daniel were written , the had completely displaced the in Palestinian Aramaic .sx By the beginning of the Christian era , the had penetrated to the neighbouring Palmyrenes , though the Nabataeans still followed the older orthography .sx At a still later date we find that the newer usage had spread yet farther , and become the ordinary usage in both East and West .sx ( 11 ) Ezra employs = this ( e. g. , 5 :sx 16 ) , while the Papyri and Cappadocian Aramaic have ( e. g. , AP 30 :sx 6 , ESE i. p. 67 t :sx 7) .sx Daniel has the form ( 2 :sx 31 ) , and the Papyri , alongside , have also the form ( e. g. , AP 9 :sx 2 , and twice else) .sx For the .sx feminine , Ezra has ( e. g. , 4 :sx 13 ) , and the Papyri ( e. g. , AP .sx 5 :sx 4 ) , ( AP 1 :sx 4 , and twice else ) , ( AP 14 :sx 6 ) and ( AP 14 :sx 9) .sx The form is found in the inscription from India ( Tax :sx 7) .sx Daniel has the form , as in the masculine ( 7 :sx 20 .sx 21) .sx The forms we find in the Targums are ( masc .sx ) and ( ) .sx Biblical Aramaic , the Papyri , and Nabataean inscriptions have = these ( e.g. , Ezr 4 :sx 21 , Dn 3 :sx 12 , AP 16 :sx 4 ( EP ) , NPF 90 :sx I ( N ) ) , while the Papyri have also once ( AP 14 :sx 8) .sx The Targumic form is here .sx Biblical Aramaic , Nabataean , and Palmyrene all use the demonstrative = this , which is also found once in the Papyri .sx Elsewhere the Papyri have , and this occurs too in the ZKR inscription and those from Zenjirli , Nerab , Arabia , India , and Asia Minor .sx The form is found also once in an early Nabataean inscription .sx Daniel and Nabataean , in agreement with the Targums , have = this ( ) .sx Palmyrene normally has , but twice has , while is found in the Aramaic of Zenjirli , Nerab , Arabia , Assyria , and of the Papyri .sx Daniel and Palmyrene employ = these ( e. g. , Dn 2 :sx 44 , 6 :sx 7 , NSI 110 :sx 1 ) , and this form is found also in Persia ( CIS ii .sx 111 :sx 5 ) , while Daniel has also ( 2 :sx 40 , 6 :sx 3 , 7 :sx 17) .sx The form is found in the inscription of ZKR ( a :sx 9 .sx 16 , b :sx 8 ) , and possibly in one of the Zenjirli inscriptions ( NSI 61 :sx 29 ?sx ) , while appears in Jer 10 :sx 11 , Ezra and Assyrian , Cappadocian and Nabataean inscriptions , together with the Papyri ( e. g. , Ezr 5 :sx 15 , AUA i. :sx 12 .sx 13 ( Ass ) , ESE i. p. 323 A :sx 4 ( Capp ) , NSI 94 :sx 3 ( N ) , AP 2 :sx 13 ( EP)) .sx The form is found on an ostrakon from Elephantine ( NSI 74 A :sx 2 .sx 5) .sx ( 16 ) Biblical Aramaic , Nabataean and Palmyrene , again agreeing with the Targums , have the relative pronoun , while the inscription of ZKR , and those of Zenjirli , Nerab , Assyria , Babylonia , Arabia , Egypt , and Asia Minor , together with the Papyri , have .sx It should also be noted that the relative is found at Nerab ( NSI 64 :sx 1 , 65 :sx 1 ) , while Torrey regards in the ZKR inscription ( a :sx 2 ) as the relative .sx A further form appears in Assyrian Aramaic ( AUA i.: 14 bis) .sx Deferring for a moment the consideration of the eleventh of these points , it will be instructive to examine more closely the differences which the remaining points reveal between Biblical Aramaic and some other groups of inscriptions and the Papyri .sx Thus we find that the Zenjirli inscriptions provide us with instances in but nine of these cases .sx In each of these nine cases the usage of the Zenjirli inscriptions is different from that of the book of Daniel .sx In two cases the Zenjirli usage is paralleled by an alternative usage in the book of Ezra , and in a third case the difference from the form used in Ezra is but slight , and is perhaps merely a case of defective writing ( = ) .sx Thus we have :sx The inscriptions from Nerab provide examples of but five of these usages .sx In not a single one of these is the usage of Nerab in agreement with that of Biblical Aramaic .sx Thus we find :sx The inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia illustrate the usage on seven of the points above enumerated .sx In every one their usage is different from that of Daniel , but in three the usage may be paralleled in Ezra .sx Thus we have :sx When we compare the usage of the Papyri with that of the book of Daniel , however , we find that , apart from the rare instances we have noted where the Papyri have in the demonstrative and relative pronouns , and the rare and not very sure instances of the suffix for the 3rd pers .sx masc .sx plur .sx , the usage of Daniel differs from that of the Papyri on no less than thirteen of the fifteen points at present under examination , and agrees in two points only .sx These two points of agreement are :sx while the points of disagreement are :sx The Papyri differ from the book of Ezra on six of these points , and agree with Ezra on seven points .sx In four of these seven , however , Ezra also has forms differing from those of the Papyri .sx The agreements are :sx while the diagreements are :sx When we compare the usage of the Papyri with that of the book of Daniel , however , we find that , apart from the rare instances we have noted where the Papyri have in the demonstrative and relative pronouns , and the rare and not very sure instances of the suffix for the 3rd pers .sx masc .sx plur .sx , the usage of Daniel differs from that of the Papyri on no less than thirteen of the fifteen points at present under examination , and agrees in two points only .sx These two points of agreement are :sx while the points of disagreement are :sx Comparing now the usage of the Nabataean inscriptions with that of the book of Ezra , we find material for comparison on ten only of these points .sx On three only is there disagreement between them , but on one other point we find forms in Ezra differing from those of Nabataean , as well as forms agreeing with the Nabataean usage .sx Thus , apart from the differences :sx we find the following agreements :sx Daniel , on the other hand , differs from Nabataean in five of these points , and agrees in six points .sx Thus we have :sx and the following agreements :sx Passing to Palmyrene , we find material for comparison with Ezra on nine points only , and in the case of five of these the usages differ , while in one of the remaining cases Ezra has forms agreeing with , and differing from , those of Palmyrene .sx Thus we find :sx we find the following agreements :sx and the following agreements :sx The book of Daniel , however , while showing five points of disagreement with Palmyrene , has five points of complete agreement .sx The points of disagreement are :sx Daniel , on the other hand , differs from Nabataean in five of these points , and agrees in six points .sx Thus we have :sx while the points of agreement are :sx and the following agreements :sx It should also be noted that Daniel agrees with the later usage of the Targums in every respect , save in the use of , , , and , while in the case of one of these we find in Daniel .sx the Targumic alongside .sx Moreover , Ezra differs from the Targums in the use of , , , , , , and .sx In Ezra again , however , we find the Targumic forms .sx , , , and alongside , , , and .sx We may now turn to examine the statement of R. D. Wilson , above referred to , for which , however , he does not furnish any evidence .sx He says , 'With regard to the Pronouns of Daniel , it may be said , that with the exception that dh is written with Dolath instead of with Zayin , they agree more closely in writing , form , and inflection with those of the old Aramaic dialects found in the Papyri and in the inscriptions of Syria than they do with those of the later inscriptions and Targums , or with those of the Syriac , Mandean and Samaritan documents .sx ' This surprising statement is at direct variance with the facts , as may be seen by a glance at the above tables of differences .sx More disagreements can be established between Daniel and the Papyri than between Daniel and any other group of texts , nor are these offset by many points of agreement , while , on the contrary , more agreements and fewer disagreements can be established between Daniel and the Targums than between Daniel and any of the early Aramaic dialects represented in the Papyri and inscriptions .sx Even when the points excluded by Wilson , which involve only the interchange of and , are eliminated , and to Daniel's disagreements with the Targums is added the first personal Pronoun singular which does not appear amongst the above tabulated points , since is found throughout the whole literature of Early Aramaic , where examples are preserved , save in two of the Zenjirli inscriptions the case is still unaltered .sx Nor is it affected , if Daniel's use of , which will be considered below , be added , since that usage is equally unparalleled in the Papyri .sx