Last 4 chapters of daniel

[Cashue]

could somebody tell me the earliest manuscripts and original source documents for chapters 13 and 14 of Daniel. Links appreciated.

thank you.

 

[Omyo12]

Daniel 13 and 14 are not found in any surviving Hebrew or Aramaic Scriptures. The earliest are in Greek, Syriac and Latin.

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Hope this helps.

 

[Cashue]

Daniel 13 and 14 are not found in any surviving Hebrew or Aramaic Scriptures. The earliest are in Greek, Syriac and Latin.

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Hope this helps.

yes, thank you very much

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Daniel 13 and 14 are not found in any surviving Hebrew or Aramaic Scriptures. The earliest are in Greek, Syriac and Latin.

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Hope this helps.

Bu-u-u-u-ut, Daniel 13 contains “Hebraisms” – word play based on Hebrew puns – suggesting that it was wreitten in Hebrew, originally.

 

[Omyo12]

Bu-u-u-u-ut, Daniel 13 contains “Hebraisms” – word play based on Hebrew puns – suggesting that it was wreitten in Hebrew, originally.

I never said they weren’t originally in Hebrew. The OP asked about the “earliest manuscripts” and there are no surviving Hebrew manuscripts.

If you read the article on Daniel 13 I provided, it makes an argument leaning more towards Hebrew

Our materials for judging of the language in which the author wrote are slender, and no great probability can at present be reached. The following scholars argue for a Greek original: Fritzsche, De Wette, Keil, Herzfeld, Graf, Holtzmann. The following are some of the grounds: (1) There are several paronomasias or word-plays, as in Susanna verses 54 f, schinon (“under a mastick tree”) … schisei (“will cut”); verses 58 f, prinon (“under a holm tree”) … prisai (“to cut”). But this last word (prisai) is absent from the true Septuagint, though it occurs in Theodotion (Swete’s text, verse 59, has kataprise from the same root). If the word-play in verses 58 f is due to a translation based on Septuagint, the first example (verses 54 f), found in Septuagint and Theodotion, is as likely to be the work of the translator of those verses from the Hebrew. (2) It is said that no trace of a Hebrew original has been discovered; but up to a few years ago the same statement could have been made of Sir.

There is a growing opinion that the author wrote in Hebrew (or Aramaic?); so Ball, J. T. Marshall, R. H. Charles. (1) The writer was almost certainly a Palestinian Jew, and he would be far more likely to write in his own language, especially as he seems to have belonged to the Pharisaic party, who were ardent nationalists (see preceding section, at end). (2) There is a goodly number of Hebraisms, rather more than one would expect had the writer composed in Hellenistic Greek.