Jump to content

Talk:Book of Daniel/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

2nd century BCE

@יניב הורון and PiCo: If it is a minor opinion, then its place in the lead may be undue. If it's generally agreed by modern scolars, then I don't see a problem with inclusion in the lead, since it is part of the article's body (with lead being the summary of the important parts of the body per WP:LEAD) and this would also abide with WP:YESPOV. Since we so far appear to disagree, it's best to discuss it here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It's the consensus that the book dates from the 2nd century - I believe the body of the article has a source for this. It's important, so belongs in the lead.PiCo (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with PiCo. It has been basically universally agreed among scholars that the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC for over a century now. It was one of the first books in the Old Testament that was recognized as dating to a later period than the identity of its purported author would seem to suggest. Actually, the discussion itself dates all the way back to antiquity, since, if I remember correctly, the Greek Neoplatonist philosopher and controversialist Porphyry recognized the Book of Daniel as dating to a later period than its claimed author all the way back in the late third century AD, when the Book of Daniel was scarcely 500 years old. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
"minor opinion" Not at all. This is the mainstream opinion for quite a while. "Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous.[1]. The stories of the first half are considered legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC)[2] Although the entire book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel the seer, chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; only the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10.[3] The real author/editor of Daniel was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. ... [4][5]" Dimadick (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all, it seems that there's consensus to include it here. It's still contested by an IP address editor but because it's not the traditional view (and WP:ABIAS). —PaleoNeonate – 23:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but it is not universally accepted. The idea of the Macabean period is obsolete for some time. I will leave some sources, but to give an example the Book of Daniel scroll in the Dead Sea Scrolls is dated to the late 2nd century. That would give it a 50 year period to attain canonical status, which is not impossible but improbable. Also Darius the Mede is possibly Gobryas and Porphyry's reason for dating was the predictive prophecy so it becomes invalid. Also there is actually no evidence that Daniel was not cannonical. Some point the case of Wisdom of Sirach, but then a case had to be made for the book of Ezra which was also not mentioned but whose cannonical statue is not debated. Using the Ugaritic Daniel as a substitute to explain Ezekiel's reference is almost biased as the Ugaritic Daniel practiced idolatry which is extremely condemned in the same book of Ezekiel. Daniel was also considered a prophet by the jews in 1EC and also by the Dead Sea schoolars as evidences in 4QFlorilegium. About the completion of cannon Josephus stated that it was completed in time of Ezra. So stating that the book of Daniel is 2BC as it was a fact is completely preposterous as with all of these arguments in mind there is no factual evidence. As said by Eugene Ulrich Chief Editor of the Biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
From Cave 4 we now have overriding evidence on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or ‘canonical,’ including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms.. .. However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later explicitly termed ‘canonical,’ the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).
Sources:
Philip R. Davies says in 'The social world of apocalyptic writings', published in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (edited by R.E. Clements),page 256.
https://www.academia.edu/8671131/The_HEBREW_and_the_ARAMAIC_of_DANIEL
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/31/New-Light-on-the-Book-of-Daniel-from-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobryas
https://www.academia.edu/2518052/Ugbaru_is_Darius_the_Mede
http://www.attalus.org/translate/daniel.html
Awerey1 (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


All right, so we've got two things. First, we've got your argument for why you don't think Daniel was written in the second century, which is interesting but isn't going to be a deciding factor in what the Wikipedia article says, because of how Wikipedia works. Then you've got a list of sources. What we need to understand is -- do those sources just contain various supporting details for your argument, or do they contain clear statements that show scholars not thinking Daniel's visions date to the second century? And if they do contain those clear statements, which of the sources contain those statements?
Given that this is a perennial topic of discussion, it would help if you could give quotes, with page numbers, of scholars who say Daniel isn't a product of the second century. Alephb (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


Hello Alephb, it in fact contains both. But it also refutes the idea that Daniel was not cannonical. For preparing the quotes I will need more time, hope you understand.
Awerey1 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


Bart Ehrman quoted.

Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.

— Philip Davies, Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Im sorry but I fail to see the point. Is there anything refering directly about Antiochus in the book of Daniel? So you interpret a prophecy and then against all the references and facts you point out to a late date? Daniel 11 could be refering to someone else. About being cannonic the same people who reviewed the Dead Sea Scrolls said:
From Cave 4 we now have overriding evidence on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or ‘canonical,’ including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms.. .. However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later explicitly termed ‘canonical,’ the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).
Eugene Ulrich Chief Editor of the Biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Not all scholars agree with the 2nd century idea and many of them have tried to show how unreasonable that dating is. The point you brought above is true but in not
applicable on this context as it is not the case of a "letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United
States”".
And about minimalists point of view even William G. Dever does not agree. Not only him but I think his opinion makes a point. All this said if well referenced these points
should be also mentioned.
Awerey1 (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Eugene Ulrich dates the book between 168 and 164, although it includes some text dating from the Persian period. Ulrich, Eugene (2000). "Daniel, Book of". In Schiffman, Lawrence H. (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 2. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 171. ISBN 9780195137972. OCLC 42752367. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |author-name-separator=, |doi_brokendate=, |deadurl=, |laydate=, |subscription=, |nopp=, |trans_title=, |trans_chapter=, |laysource=, |laysummary=, |author-separator=, |lastauthoramp=, |registration=, and |separator= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) The WP:RS/AC in respect to the dating of Daniel is so for more than a century, so very unlikely to change, see WP:REDFLAG. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Antiochius became king at 174 b.c so was that scroll found in the Dead Sea Cave an original? And so did it became instantly cannonical?
Can you see why that is not possible?
Awerey1 (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
You have stated that you trust Ulrich, or wrote something to that extent. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Still, Finkelstein's theories strike an intellectually appealing middle ground between biblical literalists and minimalists.

— Robert Draper, David and Solomon, Kings of Controversy

The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.

In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.

— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The other pillar on which Finkelstein’s rediscovered northern kingdom rests is his vaunted “low chronology,” in which he down-dates the previously accepted dates for the origins of Israel by as much as a hundred years. Yet this, too, is regarded by most mainstream archaeologists as without substantial foundations. First suggested some 20 years ago, Finkelstein has tirelessly championed his “low chronology” ever since. Here he presents it without so much as a single reference to its numerous critiques, some ::::::of them devastating (as Kletter 2004; Ben Tor and Ben Ami 1998; Dever 1997; Mazar 2007; Stager 2003; and others).2 In numerous publications over 20 years, Finkelstein has relentlessly reworked the stratigraphy and chronology of site after site, not only in Israel and the West Bank, but even in Jordan, in order to defend his “low chronology.”
-William G. Dever https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/
Even if one adopts a more limited view of David’s accomplishments than the Bible gives him, he remains a foundational figure of the United Kingdom. Finkelstein’s analysis, both textual and archaeological, cannot be reconciled with a founding Biblical figure (David), whose existence is already corroborated by extra-Biblical inscriptional data, that is, the Tel Dan inscription.b This inscription evidences not only David’s existence but also the dynasty he established.
-Aaron Burke https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/
Using a quote that says we are all minimalists to justify Finklesteins standing is not coherent with mainstream scholar view.
As already proven he denies the truth as much as any other descredited biased scholar so he should not even be cited.
Awerey1 (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
If you are here to attack Finkelstein, we don't cater to you. This is called "the free encyclopedia", not the "let's not disturb the bigots encyclopedia". For Wikipedia fact is what they mostly teach as fact from Ivy Plus to US state universities. Take it or leave it, it is part of the package.
Coogan, Michael (2010). "4. Thou Shalt Not: Forbidden Sexual Relationships in the Bible". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved 5 May 2011. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
Coogan is a very distinguished OT scholar and he wrote a scathing review of Finkelstein's popular book. Yet according to Coogan, David's Jerusalem could easily fit upon five rugby fields. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Aren't I as part of the wikipedia as you? So why say we don't cater you? And if you don't cater me why are you pursuing the same argument. My point was given and I was asked to deliver quotes which I will prepare. I don't follow the point in your posts. What are you trying to prove?
Awerey1 (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Let me spell it out for you from the BAR link: "The first review is by William G. Dever, one of America’s leading archaeologists. Finkelstein is one of Israel’s leading archaeologists." See? Leading archaeologist, not WP:FRINGE. Besides, attacking Finkelstein at this article is extremely futile, since Finkelstein is generally speaking not an authority on the Book of Daniel and he is never quoted inside this article. So: character assassination + futile attack. Also, you quoted Davies and Ulrich first, so apparently you trust them to write reliable, unbiased sources. Now that I have offered you their thoughts you no longer consider them reliable and unbiased? You cannot eat your cake and still have it. Also, Wikipedia was never in the business of second-guessing the academic consensus, which has been firmly established for more than a hundred years. So, academically speaking, you are the revisionist and quite WP:FRINGE, I would say. Of course, fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals will never agree to what Ivy Plus teaches about the Bible, but we side with Ivy Plus, we don't cater to fundamentalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
First you are the one who mentioned minimalism and Finkelstein. I commented on the reliability of both so it was no futile attack. Second what do you mean by character assasination? Also when did I not consider Davies reliable and unbasied? The part you quoted was not even written by him. You should have read that more carefully instead of making accusations. About Ulrich it's my mistake, I thought you were refering to the dating of the manuscript. Also that date you are giving is a citation in the book of Ulrich[6] of Cross. Also being rude will not help I am not even evangelical and judging people like that is probably also agains Wikipedia rules. You are still talking as you were wikipedia, you are a user just like me, or am I wrong?
Awerey1 (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Just going to correct my comment. I didn't quote Davies as you said. I quoted Dever. So what i wanted to say is I never said Dever was unreliable. I think you also
wanted to mention Dever and we caught up in confusion. If you indeed wanted to mention Davies which I didn't quote, then that is another matter.
79.168.130.204 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
From what you wrote: Philip R. Davies says in 'The social world of apocalyptic writings', published in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (edited by R.E. Clements),page 256. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
My point wasn't Finkelstein. My point was the relationship between biblical literalists (WP:FRINGE) and minimalists (WP:MAINSTREAM). See character assassination for its definition. But this is what you seek: revising more than a century wherein major universities teach the dating of the Book of Daniel due to Antiochus Epiphanes as fact. Ulrich toes the line in that respect. What do you mean by Davies did not write that? See http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/moore1357926.shtml : Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now. It's a verbatim quote. I am very blunt, I don't beat around the bush, but generally speaking learning from what I tell you is a good advice for newbies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
No they don't teach it as a fact, I'm sorry. A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
"The most likely time of composition is somewhere..."
Peter W. Flint The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, Volume 2 page 341
Does it sound like they are teaching it as a fact? I mean fact as a scientific fact. Being blunt can be being rude.
Not beating around the bush does not mean making accusations and judging people. I will stop discussing with you as I am wasting too much time.
Awerey1 (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas. Besides, not all agree that history would be a science, more like part of humanities.

One way to approach the question is by reflecting for a moment on the ways in which historians engage in their craft in contrast say to the ways scientists engage in theirs. The natural sciences operate through repeated experimentation as they seek to establish predictive probabilities based on past occurrences. To illustrate on just the most simple level suppose I wanted to demonstrate that a bar of iron will sink in a tub of lukewarm water but a bar of ivory soap will float. I could prove my thesis simply by repeated experimentation with tubs of water and with bars of both iron and soap. Line up the tubs with water and the bars of iron will sink every time and the bars of ivory soap will float every time and this would provide an extremely high level of what we might call presumptive probability. Namely that if I keep repeating the same experiment I’m going to keep getting the same results so that we can predict that in the future that is probably what is going to happen. This is what natural science does it makes predictions about what is going to happen based on repeated experimentation of what already has happened. ... The historical disciplines are not like the natural sciences, in part, because they are concerned with establishing what has happened in the past as opposed to predicting what will happen in the future and in part because the historical disciplines cannot operate through repeated experimentation. An occurrence is a one-time proposition once it happened; it is over and done with.

— Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
So, yeah, by your definition there are no historical facts from the classical antiquity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

But getting back to business:

Conclusion: none of these sources could be used for our article. As for Davies and Ulrich, I highly doubt that they would disagree with the WP:RS/AC dating of the Book of Daniel, they are therefore futile for Awerey1's position, short of putting his own words in their mouths. Oh, yes, Bible and Spade is a totally laughable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This will be the last one. I think anyone can infer what I wanted to say. What you are doing is generalizing my point by ignoring the context and the quote I'm arguing. My point is simple, Flint said most likely and that is a synonym in the dictionary of probably. So without any doubt he was not confirming it as a fact but as a probable possibility. Easy inferation. What you are doing is faulty argumenting, misquoting and judging without proof. And thank you for answering all my posts in the wikipedia with the same comments you gave here, don't hold a grudge as that negates all the "learning from what I tell you is a good advice for newbies" talk you gave before. Thank you for reading all my sources as Alephb didn't do it and asked me to explain my position better while commenting my argument was interesting, maby you were to eager to prove something. Your conclusions are only your opinion as a wikipedia user, don't treat them as an absolute truth, as you have been doing for a while. I will answer Alephb as I accept his point that my sources where not explained correctly and he demonstrated a unbiased and educated attitude to which I am grateful for. Just so the next person does not misunderstand what I wanted to do my point was to move the concept of a factual 2nd century dating to a probable 2nd century dating and to prove that Daniel was considered cannonical. I remove the wording of obsolete in my first comment as its not true. The end.
79.168.130.204 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
"I am not even evangelical and judging people like that is probably also against Wikipedia rules. " Actually it is, as it is a personal attack. Wikipedia:No personal attacks:
  • "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable":
    • "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."
    • "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. (Speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing; see that policy for more detail.)"
  • "Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)"
  • "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki." Dimadick (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much Dimadick, I hope Tgeorgescu can learn from this.
79.168.130.204 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK there is nothing wrong with telling one that pushes a fringe POV which as a rule of thumb is associated with conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists that he/she is a fringe religious POV-pusher. In my editing experience I have often seen that such beliefs are the cause of much tendentious editing. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so I call a spade a spade. Did you notice that Gertoux complained that he is discriminated for holding apparently fundamentalist beliefs? His own POV put him on a collision course with the secular faculty he was doing historical research for. It is no different with editors whom their POV puts them on a collision course with the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. Same as if I were to troll Conservapedia with the POV that Jesus is the son of Virgin Mary and Satan. Also, fundamentalist does not necessarily mean Christian. Wikipedia does not deal in Absolute Truth, but it makes a difference between WP:RS/AC and WP:FRINGE. The POV that the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century is definitely WP:FRINGE, there is no way around saying that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
There is according to wikipedia, it seems you didn't read it, WP:PA: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. You are
in fact with a collision course with WP:PA. I might have a bad opinion of you, doesn't mean I need to express it. Gertoux paper on Ugbaru has nothing to do with his academic conflict. As before you use a generalization fallacy and then discredit someone because of their beliefs or or beliefs you with your rule of thumb judged they have, which is against WP:PA. According to you and you argumentation logic Christians are prohibited from making arguments in the talk page as are Muslims and Buddhists and all people with beliefs. I never imposed my view, as everyone can testify.
79.168.130.204 (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Nope, "a fringe POV-pusher is a fringe POV-pusher" isn't a fallacy, I would rather call it tautologically true. Do you understand that there is absolutely no reason why I should refrain from calling your a fringe POV-pusher (since this is actually the case, you are pushing a fringe POV, namely the Book of Daniel written in 6th century BCE)? You are a religious fringe POV-pusher and there is no way of stopping me saying that about you, as long as you edit Wikipedia and don't change your attitude. And, it is not just me, any competent editor will agree with calling you a WP:FRINGE POV-pusher. If you thought that you could pull the wool over our eyes through crying WP:NPA: we're not idiots and we will continue to call you a fringe POV-pusher. As the saying goes, I could be mad, but I'm definitely not stupid. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Drop the we, you are alone on this, you are not wikipedia. Nobody here is agreeing with you, even Dimadick disagrees with you. By your comment you are calling him incompetent which is also offensive. You are also calling me incompetent which is also offensive. You said: "as long as you edit Wikipedia". Did i edit this article? If i did not edit this article why are you saying I'm trying to pull wool over your eyes? Can I not be able to argument a case? Should I not be able to a least make a case in the talk page because you don't like me or for any reason else? If the case I am making does not pass the talk page then so be it but you don't have the authority to vet my arguments based on your opinion. I was not even able to make a case and I have received a full scale attack by you even on a personal level. You called me a fringe POV-pusher without letting me rest my case as Alephb asked me to do, are you trying to say you are aware of the whole truth and whatever I show will never matter? Very sad situation. Awerey1 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Trying to undo through your WP:ADVOCACY what is taught at major universities for more than a hundred years is WP:FRINGE/PS by our book. Besides that, don't put your words in my mouth, I did not say that Dimadick would be incompetent. You obviously twist what I say in order to make something appalling of it. It won't work. Regardless of making your case, I call you a religious fringe POV-pusher because, objectively speaking, by the WP:RULES, this is what you are and there is no reason to pamper you about this fact. This is the truth in this matter, even if you claim that it would be offensive. It is unwise to be appalled by the truth about your POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Although it's unfortunate this discussion has gotten so sidetracked, it is probably worth knowing, Awerey, that you're just the latest in a long, long, long string of likely well-meaning people who have repeatedly shown up at this article or other Daniel-related articles opposing the 2nd-century date. So far, none of the attempts to oppose the 2d-century date have been successful. Sometimes experienced editors find it frustrating to have to deal with the same questions over and over. I'll be honest -- I don't think you're going to get anywhere with this. But if you are successful, it will mostly likely require you to find a good reliable source that says, specifically and directly, on a specific page that you can share with us, that there really isn't a consensus of scholars around the 2d-century date. Alephb (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
These being said, there is nothing wrong with changing the academic consensus through the proper channels (this is, not through Wikipedia). Einstein could talk the talk and walk the walk and so did Wright and Kimura in respect to evolutionary theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Awerey1 I have nothing personal against you. It is just that we (the Wikipedia Community) have no reason of taking your word for it and plenty of reasons to disbelieve what you say, since it is contradicted by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, except for pseudohistorical apologetics. What you claim cannot be taught at WP:CHOPSY so this is where your WP:ACTIVISM stops. You cannot win this debate.

I'm talking people about the same old game

Their running them numbers and the winners never change The dice is loaded, the deck is stacked

The game itself will hold you back

— Thievery Corporation, The Numbers Game
Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC
In sum, the plethora of archaeological and textual evidence surrounding the book of Daniel constitutes a powerful cumulative case that cries out for authorship by the historical prophet Daniel c. 530 BC. [7] Is this not a valid case made by a scholar? This paper is pretty recent. He also seems to be well respected by the scholar community [8]. At least by the WP:POV it shoudl be mentioned. And also as said by WP:FRINGE "all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately." This is for Tgeorgescu. Even if it is a minority view it should be fairly and proportionately.
Awerey1 (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I see no problem with stating "According to the traditional Christian view, the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE." Or something to that extent. But WP:RULES strongly oppose stating it as objective historical fact: it is a subjective religious belief, not a fact. So it has to be made very clear that it is a subjective belief and it should not be stated in the voice of Wikipedia. About the author: that is a college, not a university and by no way a major research institution; the author is an associate professor, not a full professor; Church of the Brethren, which is associated with the college, professes biblical inerrancy, which is an outright anti-historical belief: no historian worth his/her salt works with inerrant sources, but he/she is required to critically analyze all his/her sources. And you have to be kidding me: that paper has not been published in any respectable historical journal, it has been published in a journal of apologetics (aka lying for Jesus). So, no: it isn't reliable for that claim. It is nothing more than preaching to the choir. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
You are judging him with your own opinion. That is ok, but as you said if you want to refute him it is not in wikipedia. The point that matters is that:
"He is the author of over twenty peer-reviewed journal articles, his scholarship has appeared in such prominent forums as the Harvard Theological Review, the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Church History and Religious Culture, Religious Studies and Theology, Philosophia Christi, the Westminster Theological Journal, Bibliotheca Sacra, and the Heythrop Journal. He also taught at James Madison University, Radford University, the University of Northern Iowa, Western Illinois University, and Quincy University."
He did teach in universities, by only telling part of the story shows you have an agenda. Now what you are doing by declaring that the college to where he is an assistant professor is associated with a Church that believes in Biblical inerrancy is reason outright to say he is not worth his salt is plain character assassination. Now you are doing what you accused me of doing and that is very ironic. You are judging him by pointing out a possibility of his faith, which you are assuming by making that relation just to find a reason to decredibilize him, what a long way to go for a neutral point of view. So Harvard Theological Review is not a prestigious forum? Does that not speak that they accepted him as a credbile source even if there was the relationship you mentioned above? Now you decide who is credible and not credible according to his/hers beliefs even if they are credited scholars, you have a higher pedigree then prominent forums to credibilize scholars? Resuming what your saying is no Christian can be credible scholar even if his papers are published in respectable historical journals. All arguments and papers that go against your view will always be rejected by you without fault.
Awerey1 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed.

The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism.

The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus.

I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Alephb, I understand your point. What Tgeorgescu meant and said became very different things. I am not advocating for changing the 2nd century date in this article to a 6th century as I would need to make a very strong point for that with mainstream sources. But due to the references I left I think it is fair that the 6th century dating should be better explained and not almost completely ignored in this article.
02:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awerey1 (talk • contribs)
The point was: the 6th century BCE date cannot be taught in any major university, so why should it be "taught" by Wikipedia? Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Hammer 1976, p. 2.
  2. ^ Collins 2002, p. 2.
  3. ^ Wesselius 2002, p. 295.
  4. ^ Grabbe 2002b, pp. 229–230, 243.
  5. ^ Davies 2006, p. 340.
  6. ^ Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran. Part 1: A Preliminary Edition of 4 QDan page 1
  7. ^ A Contemporary Defense of the Authenticity of Daniel | Kirk R. MacGregor
  8. ^ https://www.mcpherson.edu/philosophy-religion/faculty/name/kirk-macgregor/


Book of daniel

There is an error in the history section in the book of Daniel. The writer says..the predicted war between the Syrians and the Egyptians (11:40–43) never took place, ... But these verse are not talking about war between syrians and Egyptians, but rather what the Antichrist will do during his reign. And no one knows what country the Antichrist will come from. The major problem is the book of Daniel page is locked on wikipedia so no one can correct this incorrect section. It seems to me that the writer of the book of Daniel article is an atheist trying to discredit the Bible. Because reading this shows he doesn't know very much about the Book. Robertball118 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Robertball118: which of the 1,227 editors was the atheist? Doug Weller talk 18:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Robertball118: First, so everyone knows, the topic here is Book of Daniel#Historical background. To give a more detailed answer to your commentary, there's a couple problems that are hard for me personally to solve here. The reference for that information seems to be from a book by Choon-Leong Seow, so without the source, I can't really say whether or not the information is in the book, though likely it is because the source is used several times (see Book of Daniel#Citations). Unfortunately, I don't have enough historical knowledge, including about this prophecy specifically, to know what exactly it's talking about, or whether the war took place. Probably, some time in history, there has been war between Syria and Egypt, but it's like Biblical prophecy about "wars and rumours of wars" — it's likely that the prophecy will be true sometime. Actually, you should now have enough editing time to be able to make edits, but first could you try to find some sources the back up your view as to what is being referred to in the prophecy? Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
"Probably, some time in history, there has been war between Syria and Egypt" There were a number of wars between the Egypt-based Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Syria-based Seleucid Empire. See Syrian Wars (274-168 BC). They were fighting over control of Coele-Syria. Dimadick (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

Moved from User talk:PiCo

All of the concerns with this were discussed at User talk:SelfieCity#A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful. I think it was settled that although this view does not match scholarly consensus, since it fits WP:Reliable sources it is appropriate for inclusion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Selfie City - it's a reliable source, bnut so far outside the scholarly consensus that it can't be included due to weight considerations.PiCo (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I see you've just reverted. You haven't given me any policy yet. And, what are "weight considerations"? I'm not arguing for the Moon landing hoax theory.
This is not WP:FALSEBALANCE because there were more paragraphs arguing for a recent creation of Daniel than for an old one. Also see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.
My apologies for Gish galloping, but you understand my point? As I see it from policy, a fairly short paragraph about a non-standard view is not an excuse for deletion of the entire paragraph. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Selfie City: Due/undue weight is an important policy which you can find outlined here.
The first few sentences say: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
The current scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly that Daniel was written in the 2nd century: the idea that it was written earlier is put forward only by the "tiny minority" which the policy mentions.
For the consensus (meaning the fact that it is the consensus), see Sim in Ryker and Longman: "The modern consensus ... determines a date ... between 167 and 163 BC" (listed incorrectly in the bibliography to the Book of Daniel article as by being authored by Ryker and Longman, but it's actually a contribution to an edited volume).
Discussions about article content belong on article talk pages, not personal pages: if you want to continue, this should be moved to the appropriate place.PiCo (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll move the discussion, as long as you're sure you'll still be able to see and read the content there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
How do we know this is a tiny minority? Any groups who take all the Scriptures literally (to be clear, not me) would argue that the Book of Daniel must have been written in the 6th century BC. Assuming that all Evangelicals hold to that view, we're talking about 619 million people, including many scholars. When I look online through searches of "when was the book of daniel written", I see a few sources saying around 164 BC, a couple saying an earlier date, but not really much, especially in terms of WP:Reliable sources. I don't think there's the consensus you make out. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Side point to mention, per the policy page you linked to (numbering options for easy communication):

1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

3. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Bible.org is a notable and important source, and considering the qualifications of D. Malick who authored the "introduction to the Book of Daniel", I think the view that Daniel is a 6th century BC work falls under #2, "significant minority" group, at least, so therefore one paragraph is appropriate in the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll be clear on one more point: I do not intend to debate here when Daniel was written, only whether the paragraph is worth including. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Academically speaking (i.e. from Ivy Plus to US state universities, and top research universities from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the EU), the claim that the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE is WP:FRINGE. This is only problematic for fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, most of other Christians belong to the liberal theology camp, which includes mainline Protestants, most Catholics and most Eastern-Orthodox. So, yes, most Christians do no think that just because it is written in the Bible it has to be true when literally interpreted or that just because it is written in the Bible it would be mandatory for them to obey it. Oh, yes, for the majority of Christians Sola Scriptura is heresy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
1) While that may be true currently (again, we're speaking academic circles, not the general public), keep in mind that historically scholars were probably (my knowledge in this fact is limited) more willing to accept the Bible literally, due most likely to religious upbringing and background. 2) What's your view on including the paragraph here, considering the discussion we had on my user talk page a little while ago? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
It's worth noting, though, that Sola scriptura says that "Sola Scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations" so according to the article itself it's not heresy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I have advised you to use high-quality sources and since the view is attributed to the person who claims it, it is not a gross violations of WP:RULES. Now, I don't say that it would be no violation, but I will defer that judgment to others. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for the response. Do you have any ideas for a different way (organization, perhaps) the paragraph could be written so that it's clearly not — that is, without a doubt — in violation of the rules? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
AFAIK, a brief mention that before the advent of modern scholarship (i.e. historical criticism) it has been dated to 6th century BCE would be enough. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Our article already says that it's traditionally ascribed to Daniel, which should be enough. Selfie City, you raise these points re due weight:
1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
3. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Bible.org is a notable and important source, and considering the qualifications of D. Malick who authored the "introduction to the Book of Daniel", I think the view that Daniel is a 6th century BC work falls under #2, "significant minority" group, at least, so therefore one paragraph is appropriate in the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
On 1, we have Sim stating that the consensus is a 2nd century date. (Seow and Collins also state this). On 2, Malick is not a prominent scholar. That leaves us with point 3, "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia..."
Incidentally, bible.org is not a notable source in Wikipedia terms - for articles on biblical scholarship we use academic books and sometimes articles. PiCo (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I solidly agree with Tgeorgescu‘s way of putting it. 6th century BC was generally accepted until the beginning of historical criticism and since then support of this view has become limited to individuals who literally believe all the Bible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @PiCo and Tgeorgescu: To wrap up this discussion, would you guys agree to the following statement being added to the article in place of the one about D. Malick's view of the Daniel authorship date (roughly based on Tgeorgescu's suggestion):
"Before scholars began commonly using historical criticism of Biblical texts in more recent times, scholars dated the Book of Daniel to the 6th century BCE."
Following this, hopefully we can be settled on the text and no longer have controversies over this section of the article. Thanks, all, for your input. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: If others don't accept it as WP:BLUE, you will need a source to verify that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, but it's pretty clear — if higher criticism didn't reach the mainstream of Christianity until at least the 1800s (according to the historical criticism article) then, without historical criticism, people wouldn't have had any choice but believed the traditional date, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
That's kind of true. As Nietzsche said "We killed God", meaning "the Enlightenment has killed God", i.e. all theses about God have been relegated to subjective belief. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I see your point. What's central is that, in the case of each individual's life (each individual, that is, who believes in the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/other religion's God), do they see God as a concept or as a person with whom they can have a relationship? Of course, however, it's worth considering that throughout all history, views have been either subjective belief or professed belief with no depth, but in a more free, democratic society, the fact that opinions are beliefs, and vice versa, has been revealed and encouraged in each individual. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I see no need for the article to add yet another sentence to the effect that the book is pseudonymous and dates from the 2nd century - the Composition section covers this in what I believe is adequate detail. PiCo (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
So, first, I'm not saying that we add another sentence saying "the book is pseudonymous and dates from the 2nd century" or anything remotely like it. My sentence above is mentioning what scholars believed before historical criticism was widespread — so why would the sentence I'm proposing to add say that the book dates from the 2nd century?
Second, if it's mentioned absolutely nowhere in the article that the traditional date is the 6th century BC and that this date was used until relatively recent times, it's true that we are missing a very important detail which is therefore missing from the composition section. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
We can't actually be certain what they believed, unless we get specific examples for the chronology they used. The Canon of Kings by Ptolemy does provide regnal dates for a group of Babylonian kings, but it only starts counting them from year 1 of Nabonassar's reign in 747 BC. Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Any ideas as to where you could find a source for this? I’ve searched a lot and an Ussher chronology of the history of Israel, for example, would be useful but I haven’t found that yet. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Let’s also make two things clear. 1, believing that a book was written 400 years earlier isn’t WP:FRINGE because it is simply assigning a different date to a piece of writing, not making extreme claims. 2, there is no evidence that belief in a 6th century BC date is a tiny minority view, in fact to the contrary. Many Christians take the whole Bible literally, and those are probably just as many as the Liberal Christians who say you shouldn’t. Scholars may be different, but I have already cited a scholarly view. How do we know for sure that there is scholarly consensus on the issue? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
For all that you are unfailingly polite (which is good), you show a marked inability to listen to more experienced editors. I suggest you read the section on Composition. Every statement in that section is sourced, and I suggest you also read those sources. Then you can make your suggestions with a solid background in modern scholarship.PiCo (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
They're all books, which I'll get when I can. I've read through comments above and responded to them accordingly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I've told you it, but you chose to ignore it: our allegiance isn't to public opinion, but to scholarly opinion. If we emulate what gets taught at WP:CHOPSY, we have done a great job. Otherwise we're not a WP:DEMOCRACY and in general it does not interest us how the large masses see a subject, but how it gets taught at Ivy Plus. We side with Ivy Plus, not with the masses. That's our identity, which made Wikipedia one of the top 10 websites. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
"I’ve searched a lot and an Ussher chronology of the history of Israel, for example, would be useful but I haven’t found that yet." Where are you searching? We already have an article on the Ussher chronology. Though it is not a chronology of Israel, but a chronology of world history as Ussher understood it.: "Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world, the chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian matters together produced from the beginning of historical time up to the beginnings of Maccabees" "Dimadick (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I’ll be blunt here: I’m done with this, because what’s clear is that, 1: you do not go one bit by the views of the general public, which is completely irrational, and 2: you are determined to make sure only your own views are distributed around the world. If that’s how this part of WP works, I don’t want to be a part of it. There are plenty of other fair, neutral articles on Wikipedia which I can edit without criticism. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Collins

Here is a review of Collins' book from 1986: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature:

  • "Collins disagrees with those who see the origin of apocalyptic in the late 6th century B.C. and maintains that the genre as defined by him emerged in Judaism during the Hellenistic age. "
  • ... "he throws scholarly caution to the wind and attempts to elevate a hypothesis to the level of demonstrable fact by stating "We are relatively well-informed about the situation in which Daniel was composed. Despite the persistent objections of conservatives, the composition of the visions (chaps 7-12) between the years 167 and 164 B.C. is established beyond reasonable doubt." Dimadick (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The first point concerns the origins of the apocalyptic genre, not the origin of the Book of Daniel - I don't think the question is relevant to our article. On the second point the author is addressing Collin's 1984 book "Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature", which we use extensively. I'd be more concerned by this criticism if it were not for two points: first, the review dates from the 1980s (it's from 1986) is therefore not a guide to the current status of Collins' book; and second, it's from Seminary Studies, a journal published by Andrews University, which is a Seventh Day Adventist seminary - given the importance of Daniel to the SDA movement, an enthusiastic welcome would be as unexpected as a pregnancy in the Vatican. Still, what would you like us to do in our article as a result of this review? PiCo (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To not remove Collins dating of the Book of Daniel, which was recently removed from the Lede because the link to Collins' book was broken. The review summarized Collins' dating estimates. Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

3RR exemption

User:GoogleMeNowPlease engages in block evasion. Per WP:DENY his edits may be reverted without pardon. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Explain

@Tgeorgescu: why are you reverting properly cited edits? --2605:8D80:607:1923:8FBF:A159:ACA7:1318 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You have been banned from, err, indeffed at English Wikipedia. You may not edit any article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Aramaic

The language a book is written in, is, in any conceivable universe...a notable factor about that book. What should be the most uncontroversial edit I can imagine was reverted because it was "original research". Since when is the language a book is written in "original research"? Or needs to be cited. It's as though I would need to cite the fact that the sky is blue. The only reason I could imagine anyone would not want the language a book is written in, in the lead of an article is because there is a bias or prejudice against that language. This simply must be the case here cause I don't know anywhere else on wikipedia someone would ever consider reverted an edit in the lead of a text because they think the language a book is written in isn't considered relevant. What is your prejudice towards aramaic? Shabidoo | Talk 13:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Calm down. You're being asked to explain why you think the language of the book is important enough to be mentioned in the lead.Achar Sva (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
How is the language a book is written in NOT highly notable information? I don't know any other section of wikipedia where it wouldn't be. Even the way you mention Aramaic is in a passive way. You don't even say it's written in Aramaic just that there is an "Aramaic section". You don't even say it's mostly written in Hebrew just that it's in the Hebrew bible. So what is your prejudice against Aramaic? Why are you so resistant to being inclusive enough to acknowledge it was written in two languages? I cannot think of a less controversial content to add to the lead. Shabidoo | Talk 07:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that a substantial portion of Daniel is in Aramaic is uncontroversial. The question is, does it matter, and if so, why? Our article says it functions structurally and that it may be a relic of the construction history of the book (original Aramaic folktales expanded with Hebrew additions). That's mildly interesting, but is it important enough to put in the lead?Achar Sva (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Date of story vs date of writing

PeterParslow (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC): Whatever your view on the date the book was written, I think the opening paragraph would benefit from a simple statement like "The story is set in about 600-540 BC".

Agreed, although I can’t find much supporting the 2nd century BC date for when it was written, many reliable sources point to 6th century BC. Will add disputed tag to the date for now Jacket2018 (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. The statement that the 2nd century is a consensus is sourced (the source is given at the end of the sentence). If you have a source saying this is not the consensus, then you can reopen this discussion, but for now we can consider it closed.Achar Sva (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Start has a problem and is one sided

There are 2 points of view on the Book of Daniel. Only 1 is mentioned.

The traditional view is that is a book about a prophet who lived around 600 BC and was authored around that time as well.

The other view which is represented in the opening, is that it is a work of fiction about such a prophet and was authored around 150 BC.

Portions of Daniel were found among the Dead sea Scrolls discoveries, some of which have been dated before 300 BC. I don't claim to know where all those documents were carbon dated, but if parts of Daniel were dated prior to 150-200 BC, then they can't be authored in that time period.

Also Jews consider Daniel to be prophetic in nature. Why would a work of fiction be included as part of this category? 71.174.129.190 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't have a problem with Wikipedia, you have a problem with Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, and Yale. Convince them and Wikipedia will follow suit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Do You have a problem with a Harvard professor who stated that one version of Daniel, found as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, was written in the text of the late second century BC? He disagrees with the others.
see middle of the second page of the following document - https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1541&context=jats 71.174.129.190 (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
That document actually says "written in the script" of the late 2nd century, not the text - a script is an alphabet, a text is what's written on a piece of paper. It also talks about a copy, not a version (there's a difference). Nit-picking aside, I don't see your point - the late 2nd century BC is the period 150-100 BC, which is pretty much what everyone says regarding the date of Daniel, i.e. about 160 BC (a bit earlier, actually). What Cross, the scholar involved, is saying, is that the discovery of a a copy of Daniel in late 2nd century BC script (handwriting) means that the text (the wording) of Daniel as we have it now seems to be pretty much the same as it was in the late 2nd century. Achar Sva (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
nitpicking aside a copy is more recent than the original that was copied. So the original is older than the copies found which you dated as 150-100 BC. The original has to be older. You took a shotgun to your own foot and blew it away! 71.174.128.111 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
If you had bothered to read the article - it states that if the Book of Daniel was written around 175 BC it would have somehow became a religious canon in a short period of less than 50 years. How can a book of fiction do so? It is like saying the book "Animal Farm" can become a part of modern religious doctrine.
All the other documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls were religious in nature, and yet included in almost all the caves (I don't think parts of it were found in all the caves) was part of a recent work of fiction? Pull the other one!71.174.128.111 (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Daniel/Archive_10&oldid=1136300255"