Talk:Book of Daniel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Original research / Devoid of citations

Mr. Stevens,

I understand your editing of the information regarding the date of the book of Daniel. It was poorly worded. I do think you may have missed the point of the information. The intent of the information was not to elucidate the 70 week prophecy of Daniel but to show that the prophecy of Daniel was in use at the time of the Maccabaean revolt. Further that the Maccabaeans used this prophecy to further their moral claims for their actions. I have included below, direct historical citations by Josephus that substantiate the information I provided. The evidence shows that the 70 “week” prophecy profoundly influenced the historical record of both Jews and Christians. Sir Isaac Newton, in his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms stated regarding the influence of the 70 “weeks” prophecy: “Some of them took Herod for the Messiah, and Hence were called Herodians. ….. They seem to have grounded their opinion on the 70 weeks, which they reckoned from the 1st year of Cyrus. But afterwards, in applying the prophecy to Theudas, and Judas of Galilee, and at length to Bar Cochab, they seem to have shortened the reign of the Kingdom of Persia.”

I realize that you believe that this discussion does not belong to the topic regarding the dating of the book of Daniel. My intent was to show that Daniel 9 & 12 were used by the Maccabaeans in such a way as to prove they predated the events they supposedly fulfilled. In reading the other information on the dating of book of Daniel I did not see any other explanations that approached the problem from this angle. Hopefully you will at least leave a record of this information in this discussion thread so that others who have the desire may use this information to research this topic from a different perspective. This portion that you deleted regarding the Dating of the book of Daniel I have reproduced below. I have also included the full quotes from Josephus.

Sincerely,

William Struse

________________________________________________________________________ This section below deleted by Robert Stevens, October 19, 2006

Modern scholars not withstanding, some of the best evidence for the age of the book of Daniel centers around the early attempts to fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9. Josephus in his Antiquity of the Jews (Ant 12:319-323; Ant 10:276-281)directly relates the Maccabean revolt to the 70 "weeks" prophecy. Modern scholars claim the 70 weeks prophecy was written after the fact. An critical look at the attempted Maccabaean fulfillment of this prophecy will show that in fact the Maccabaeans attempted to fit the events of their lifetime to the already existing prophecy.

Early Hebrew attempts to fulfill this 70 week prophecy were not calculated on a solar year basis. The earliest attempts were based on a lunar cycle. Had the prophecy been written after the fact a much more workable calculation could have been created to fit their need. The fact that the Maccabaean used 9 lunar cycles in their attempt to show that Judas Maccabeaus was the messiah is evidence that the Maccabaeans did not invent this prophecy. Symbolically 12, 13 or 14 lunar cycles would have had much more Biblical symbolism than the number 9. 12, 13 or 14 lunar cycles would also have provided a much more realistic length for each prophetic “year”. A question that must be asked is why if they had written this prophecy after the fact did they make its calculation incongruent with the rest of the Scriptures?

The following is a brief overview of the Maccabeaus system of calculation regarding the 70 weeks prophecy and the cleansing of the temple in 1290 / 1335 days.

• 70 Hebdomad (“weeks”) = 490 prophetic “years”.
• Each “year” was equal to 9 lunar cycles or 265.77 days. ( 9 x 29.53 = 265.77 days )
• There were 69 “weeks” or 483 prophetic years until the messiah. ( 69 x 7 = 483 )
• 483 prophetic “years” of 265.77 days each were equal to 351.478 years. ( 483 x 265.77 / 365.22 )
• From the 2nd year of Darius ( Hystaspes) in 520 BC ( the Divine decree to restore and build; Daniel 9:25) until Judas Maccabeaus cleansed the Temple in 168 BC was aprox. 351.5 years.

The Maccabaeans then used the 1290 and the 1335 literal days of Daniel 12:11-13 to show how Judas Maccabeaus cleansed the temple in 3.5 years from the abomination of Antiochus Epiphanies in 168 BC. It is important to note that had the Maccabaeans or some other later Hebrew author written the prophecy of Daniel 9 or the prophecy of Daniel 12 they would have used the same measure of time for both prophecies instead of the 9 lunar cycles of Daniel 9 and the 1290 / 1335 literal days of Daniel 12.

• 69 “weeks” from 520 BC = 168 BC
• 70 “weeks” from 520 BC = 163 BC
• Antiochus defiles the Temple in 168 BC ( Josephus Ant 12:319-323; Ant 10:276-281)
• Judas Maccabeaus cleanses the temple aprox. 1290 days later in 165 BC.
• 70 “weeks” fulfilled in 163 BC

The available historical evidence does show that both the prophecies of Daniel 9 and Daniel 12 were written at some point prior to the events surrounding the Maccabaean era, i.e. 165 BC. Based on this evidence the Hebrew Daniel cannot be rejected as the author of the book that bears his name.

End of deleted section. ________________________________________________________________________

Ant 12:319-323 319 So on the five and twentieth day of the month of Chisleu, which the Macedonians call Apellaios, they lit the lamps that were on the lampstand, and offered incense upon the altar [of incense], and laid the loaves upon the table [of showbread], and offered burnt offerings upon the new altar [of burnt offering]. 320 Now it so happened, that these things were done on the very same day on which their divine worship had stopped, and was reduced to a profane and common use, after three years' time; for so it was, that the temple was made desolate by Antiochus, and so continued for three years. 321 This desolation happened to the temple in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of the month of Apellaios, and on the hundred fifty and third Olympiad: but it was dedicated anew, on the same day, the twenty-fifth of the month of Apellaios, on the hundred and forty-eighth year, and on the hundred and fifty-fourth Olympiad. 322 And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would stop that worship [for some time]. 323 Now Judas celebrated the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices of the temple for eight days; and omitted no sort of pleasures thereon: but he feasted them upon very rich and splendid sacrifices; and he honoured God, and delighted them by hymns and psalms.

Ant 10:276-281 276 And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. 277 All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch, that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honour wherewith God honoured Daniel; and may there discover how the Epicureans are in an error, 278 who cast Providence out of human life, and do not believe that God takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe is governed and continued in being by that blessed and immortal nature, but say that the world is carried along of its own accord, without a ruler and a curator; 279 which, were it destitute of a guide to conduct it, as they imagine, it would be like ships without pilots, which we see drowned by the winds, or like chariots without drivers, which are overturned; so would the world be dashed to pieces by its being carried without a Providence, and so perish, and come to nought. 280 So that, by the before mentioned predictions of Daniel, those men seem to me very much to err from the truth, who determine that God exercises no providence over human affairs; for if that were the case, that the world went on by mechanical necessity, we should not see that all things would come to pass according to his prophecy. 281 Now, as to myself, I have so described these matters as I have found them and read them; but if anyone is inclined to another opinion about them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me.

Suggest reorganization

I suggest that the WIkipedia board read some serious scholarly work, for example Gerge W.E. Nickelsburg's second edition of "Jewish Literature between the Bible and The Mishnah", and edit this entire section accordig to his clear exposition. Once this is done it should forbid religionists to edit the piece for their misplaced and indeed obscurantist theological positions that obfuscate knowledge and confuse readers. Thank you, concerned in Holland (unsigned)

I could just as justly suggest that you be banned, for trying to impose a single point of view, on an NPOV encyclopedia. Try reading WP:NPOV before you go making arguments like this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest reorganization

So, this is tangential but related to the ongoing discussion in the "POV in dating section". I think the way out of this controversy is to greatly expand the sections on Authorship and Dating, possibly adding "Intepretations". I kinda was trying to set things up for that a few weeks ago , but I was rushed, and didn't do a very good job of things, and ended up making things worse. So, let me take a better stab of it.

Daniel is such a fascinating book precisely because of the two completely different ways of looking at it. With almost every other biblical book, there's some _basic_ agreement about the fundamental characteristics of the book-- so, for example, the Gospel of Mark-- I think almost EVERYONE on the planet would agree about its date of composition to within a decade or two. While the exact identity of its author is disputed, there's agreement about his background and his worldview.

But with Daniel, there are (at least) two COMPLETELY different ways of looking at the book. They disagree by 400 years about when it was composed. They disagree about the author's identity, his background, and his motivations. Similarly, there are wildly different interpretations of the prophecies and what world events, past and future, the visions refer to. In essence, Daniel is two completely different books telling two completely different stories, but both of which just happen to have the exact same text, word for word.

This makes Daniel an extremely memorable book, and while biblcal students may stumble over test questions about Ezekiel or Isiah, almost all remember Daniel easily and can write a good short answer essay about it, precisely because the story of the debates over its intepretation is so interesting. Right now, I don't feel like we're really "telling" this story in the article. We debate it, but we make reference to it, but we could do it better, I think, in expanding on this debate, rather than sort of mentioning it. I tend to think of things as:

Daniel as 6nd century BCE work

• Summary
• Evidence for date
• Author, his worldview, and his motivations
• Application of the visions to world events

Daniel as 2nd century BCE work

• Overview
• Evidence for date
• Author, his worldview, and his motivations
• Application of the visions to world events

Other views

• Multiple authors
• etc

I think going about it that way would be easier to follow. Daniel's still low on my wikipedia "thing to do" queue, but I'll try to give a more concrete example of what I mean in the future. --Alecmconroy 13:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

These are some good points. In response to In essence, Daniel is two completely different books telling two completely different stories, but both of which just happen to have the exact same text, word for word. - Actually, there are several old texts that are not exactly "word for word" by a long shot. More mention should be made of the rare original LXX Greek as opposed to the Theodotion version that later replaced it ca. 2nd century AD. Then there is the very old Dead Sea fragments in Hebrew / Aramaic, that tend to back up the earlier Greek version. Apparently by Theodotion's time a few wordings had changed in the MT. Most of the Septuagint was produced in Greek around 250 BC, well before the Maccabean story. In fact, there are even stories in primary sources (Josephus AotJ 11.8.5) that Alexander refrained from destroying Jerusalem in the 330's BC, because the Temple priests showed him a copy of the prophecy of Daniel and told him it meant he would be victorious. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reply made me smile, because yes, "word for word" is very far from the truth, as your username should remind us.  :) The Josephus quote [1] you mention is also really interesting-- I didn't know about that Alexander himself was reported to have been aware of the prophecy and his role in it, but it's a pretty cool tidbit. --Alecmconroy 15:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, most scholars do not think that most of the Septuagint was produced in 250 BC. The Books of Maccabees, for instance, are included in the Septuagint. The general understanding that I've always read is that only the Torah was translated in ca. 250 BC, and the rest was gradually translated in the following centuries. Obviously, Daniel existed by New Testament times, but that's really the extent of the direct evidence. In terms of Alec's suggestion, I agree, to a point. The thing I particularly want to emphasize is that we need to make it clear that, at present, and for the last 150 years or so, the standard viewpoint among mainstream scholars has been that Daniel is a work of the 2nd century BC. The traditional view should be presented as the traditional view, but not as a scholarly rival to the standard modern view. I'll mention once again the distinction between presenting traditional views on Biblical subjects (which we should definitely do) and presenting apologetics for traditional views on Biblical subjects (which I think we should avoid. It's fine (and, indeed, necessary) to describe the traditional view of Daniel as written in the 6th century BC, and the reasons that Christians believe this. I'd much prefer, though, that we avoid counterarguments presented by fundamentalist Christians to the scholarly view of 2nd century BC authorship. john k 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Even the Dead Sea fragments show it is older than "New Testament times". May I ask, is your approach to be neutral, or to be partial to one or the other of these disagreeing views? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is older than New Testament times. I believe it was written in the second century BC. My point was that the fact that it is in the Septuagint proves nothing, and that the Septuagint was not written in 250 BC in its entirety, which is a very misleading way of describing things.

As to my "approach", I'm not sure what you're asking. Obviously I don't believe the traditional Christian view, and I think that the evidence points to Daniel being written in the 2nd century BC, as skeptics since Porphyry have suggested. In terms of this article, my approach is to follow WP:NPOV and particularly the provisions with regard to "due weight." This means that while we should present the traditional Jewish and Christian view as being the traditional Jewish and Christian view, we should not present it as being a view which has any discernable support among real scholars, and we should not pretend that fundamentalist apologists are scholars. john k 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're asking that question of me, I absolutely think we should avoid "taking" either side in a debate like this. I think John K is probably right that most "scientific scholars" of the bible have chosen to cast their lot with the 2nd century theory. On the other hand, many (if not most) Jews and Christians believe the Book of Daniel is just what it appears to be-- a work of divine prophecy. So, I don't object to the labels "traditional" & "scholarly" as such. But we need to be very clear, and emphasize that the "traditional" view is in no way a tradition that has died out-- "it is quite alive and well, thank you very much," as an associate of mine once commented (speaking of the traditional view that Moses wrote the Torah).

Sure, but we n

In controversies, I'm a firm believer we don't need to "decide" for readers, we don't need to stack the deck in our favor in order to win a debate. We can afford to present things completely neutrally-- and on average, truth will win out.

--Alecmconroy 17:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "taking sides" means here. should we say straight out that the traditional Jewish and Christian view is wrong and the scholarly view is right? Of course not. But we should present the two views as the types of arguments that they actually are - the one is a traditional view, backed up by the words of ancient writers and the faith of traditional believers, while the other is a view formed by scholars based on evidence and the normal give and take of scholarly inquiry. I strongly object, furthermore, to the idea that "most" Christians and Jews believe the prophetic visions in the Book of Daniel to have been written in the 6th century BC. Most Christians and Jews, I would imagine, have not actually examined the cases on either side. Probably the best way to understand how particular religious movements view the thing is to look at what seminaries teach on the subject. I don't have any specific knowledge to back me up here, but my guess would be that no seminary for Reform and Conservative Jews, and no Catholic or mainline protestant seminar among Christians, teaches anything other than the mainstream scholarly view of the Book of Daniel. The view of an early date is one held by Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, by Orthodox Jews, and perhaps, given Codex's insistence here, by certain of the eastern churches, whose beliefs on the accuracy of the Bible I'm not terribly familiar with. This is not only a minority of the world as a whole, it's a great minority of Christians and Jews.

As a final exercise, let's look at what standard mainstream references say about the prophetic visions in Daniel. The Columbia Encyclopedia:

[Daniel] combines “court” tales, perhaps originating from the 6th cent. B.C., and a series of apocalyptic visions arising from the time of the Maccabean emergency (167–164 B.C.), which clearly presuppose the history of Palestine in the Hellenistic era after Alexander the Great (d.323 B.C.).

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica [yes, that's 1911!]:

It is now the general opinion of most modern scholars who study the Old Testament from a critical point of view that [Daniel] cannot possibly have originated, according to the traditional theory, at any time during the Babylonian monarchy, when the events recorded are supposed to have taken place...It is quite apparent that the predictions in the Book of Daniel centre on the period of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), when that Syrian prince was endeavouring to suppress the worship of Yarweh and substitute for it the Greek religion...The Book of Daniel loses none of its beauty and force because we are bound, in the light of modern criticism, to consider it as a production of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, nor should conservative Bible-readers lament because the historical accuracy of the work is thus destroyed.

Current Britannica:

The language of the book—part of which is Aramaic (2:4–7:28)—probably indicates a date of composition later than the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC). Numerous inaccuracies connected with the exilic period (no deportation occurred in 605 BC; Darius was a successor of Cyrus, not a predecessor; etc.) tend to confirm this judgment. Because its religious ideas do not belong to the 6th century BC, numerous scholars date Daniel in the first half of the 2nd century BC and relate the visions to the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164/163 BC).

The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia [yes, 1906, and Jewish]:

The Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes.

It is deeply embarrassing for Wikipedia to be more skewed towards backwards traditional views than encyclopedias published a century ago (although Britannica has obviously backslid a bit, as well). I don't mind describing the traditional view of the book's origins, but we ought to be clear that this view is not accepted by virtually any real scholar of the last 150 years, and is only defended today by fundamentalist apologists. john k 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is hardly neutral language... It gives me little confidence in your neutrality, when you immediately describe anyone who would take this scripture seriously as 'backwards' and 'apologists'!

With such determined opposition to this one work, it's a miracle the text has reached us still in the holy canon at all! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not neutral, and neither are you. Above I was in part, at least, expressing personal opinions. I hope those parts which were personal opinions were apparent and could clearly be distinguished from those parts that were my views on what the article should be. All remarks about backwardness should perhaps be taken for the former. But the issue is not who "takes the scripture seriously." Among other things, it's deeply obnoxious to describe scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of Biblical texts as people who don't "take scripture seriously" just because they don't accept fundamentalist views of the book. I have no "opposition" to the Book of Daniel, an idea that I don't even understand. i don't "oppose" the Book of Daniel any more than I oppose the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Song of Roland - one can't oppose a work of literature. I merely have come to the conclusion that the prophetic sections of Daniel were most likely written in the 2nd century BC around the time of the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. In this conclusion I merely join the vast majority of mainstream scholarship of the last two hundred years. I don't see what on earth this has to do with "opposing" the Book of Daniel, and the fact that you think this shows pretty clearly that you have no greater claim to neutrality than I do. At any rate, there are two ways to believe that the Book of Daniel is as old as tradition states. In the first place, you can be ignorant of, or fail to engage with, the modern scholarly opinion. This is more or less the situation of most traditionalists. They either simply accept Daniel at face value, without being aware of competing theories, or they ignore the competing theories as unimportant. I am perfectly fine with this viewpoint being represented in wikipedia, and with explaining the importance that many Christian groups place in the prophecies in Daniel. The other way, however, is to actively dispute with the scholarly account. This I think the article should not do. Writings trying to disprove the scholarly consensus on the date of the prophetic sections of Daniel are invariably fundamentalist polemics, rather than dispassionate scholarly works. They are not in the mainstream of scholarship, nor are they in the mainstream of traditional religious views, which simply ignore the scholarly view of the book. This material should not be discussed in this article. john k 04:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you are disqualifying evidence right off the bat and have begun scoffing even before hearing any actual evidence. That's hardly logical, and it immediately sets the bar impossibly high. So if it makes the so-called "accepted scholarly view" look bad, it's automatically inadmissible? There is one author already quoted in the article as saying there is nothing whatsoever in the text definitively indicative of a Maccabean era date, and I'm inclined to agree with him that what evidence has been presented, such as it is, seems awfully flimsy and forced to fit around the Maccabean story, and should bear thorough examination, rather than being accepted at face value.

It should be obvious that the 'people in charge' had already succeeded in sigificantly altering the official text of Daniel in several places, sometime after the Dead Sea Scrolls, but before Theodotion. The opposition to the older form of the prophecy was so great, that a massive campaign was undertaken in the 300s to replace every single Greek Bible in the world with the Theodotion translation of Daniel, something not done for any other Bible book. In fact, to this day, nearly all English "translations" of the Septuagint follow Theodotion's 2nd century AD version for Daniel, and the older Greek LXX text of Daniel is difficult, though not impossible, to find anywhere nowadays, let alone an English rendering of it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't that the accepted scholarly view is unchallengeable. But we can only cite criticisms of it by reliable sources. Fundamentalist apologetics are not reliable sources on the subject of Bible criticism (although they are perhaps reliable sources on the subject of what fundamentalists believe). If an actual scholar has come forward to challenge this, it should be given due weight. John Collins, who I assume is the one you mention, seems to only be discussing the Court Tales portion in saying that he doesn't think a Maccabean date is correct, and even that is, as far as I know, a minority position. There has yet to be any actual scholar cites who believes that the visions portions of Daniel date from earlier than Maccabean times. Your whole later discussion is, so far as I can tell, OR. john k 17:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, OR? There are many scholars throughout history from the first century onward, who accept Daniel as older. Problem is, you refuse to dignify any of them with the name of scholars and seem determined to keep these sourced, attribuatble viewpoints out of discussion, in violation of npov. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you have been here this long and still not have the slightest understanding of what basic wikipedia policies mean. Of course many people have believed that Daniel is older. But the specific arguments you are making above, about the Theodotion text and so forth, appear to be OR. If they are not OR, you ought to cite your source. Beyond that, I am not determined to keep the beliefs of Christians (and Jews), and the historical teachings of Christian Churches (and Orthodox Jews) as to the age of Daniel out of the article. What I am determined about is that we not present these religious views as though they are scholarly views. If a conservative scholar has made a useful contribution to scholarship that has been published by an academic publishing house or a peer-reviewed journal, or something similar, that's fine. But fundamentalist polemics about the age of the Book of Daniel are not scholarly works any more than fundamentalist polemics about the age of the Grand Canyon are. Because the Book of Daniel, unlike the Grand Canyon, is a topic relating to religion, we have to present the religious views that people hold of it. But those views have no more place in a discussion of scholarly views of Daniel than works stating that the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old. john k 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What I said about Theodotion is not OR, it should be common knowledge to anyone who has ever heard of the name of Theodotion. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On what is taught in Catholic seminaries (referred to above), I have no direct knowledge. But I would be surprised if it differed appreciably, in the U.S. anyhow, from the article by Hartmann and Di Lella referred to in the The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, cited in the Dating section. That volume has the nihil obstat of the Catholic deputy censors (who were also the editors, including Raymond E. Brown) and the imprimatur of the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. In that 1,500 pp. tome (in double-columned dense typeset) respective articles were written by top Catholic Biblical scholars on their subject. Thomasmeeks 20:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am basically okay with describing the 2nd century theory as the view held by "most biblical scholars" or such, so long as we're crystal clear that "scholarly does not mean right or true". Similarly, you can't say that someone who disagrees with the 2nd century theory must not be a scholar, based solely on their disagreement. It's interesting that the view quoted by Thomas above seems to suggest the official catholic position is in line with the 2nd century theory-- I was just about to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Book of Daniel which supports the theory that the author was, in fact, the prophet Daniel.

In any case, I think we're having a debate we don't really need to be having. We're not going to decide when the book was written, or by whom. What remains for us is to describe each POV to the best of our ability, to describe who believes what, and why they believe that, and what insights they draw from be book based on that view. --Alecmconroy 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia found online at New Advent was put out in 1917. It does not represent current Catholic thinking on such subjects, which has changed a great deal in the last 90 years in the way of opening up to mainstream, non-Catholic scholarship. I doubt that the Church itself has taken any "official" position on the date of the book of Daniel, but I'd guess that nearly all scholars at mainstream Catholic institutions hold views indistinguishable from the "mainstream scholarly view" of 2nd century authorship.

I'd add that it is emphatically not my position that anyone who disagrees with the mainstream scholarly position is not a scholar. It is, however, my position that people who are not scholars and who differ from the 2nd century theory are not scholars. The reason I want to exclude fundamentalist polemic is because it's fundamentally unscholarly. These people have already decided what the answer is, and are merely cherry-picking evidence to support the view they already "know" is right, due to revelation. The reason such people believe that the Book of Daniel is from the 6th century is not because a dispassionate assessment of the evidence leads to that conclusion. It is because they have already derived that conclusion from faith. This is fundamentally contrary to scholarly endeavor.

As to your suggestions for where to go from here, I'm not sure. If by describing why people believe that the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BC, you mean that we should say that the book itself announces itself to be such, that centuries of Christian and Jewish interpreters accepted that claim, and that many today continue to accept it because of their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, and the specific importance of the prophecies of Daniel in particular, I'm right there with you. If you mean that we should engage in discussions of how apparent anachronisms in the court tales aren't actually anachronisms, and lengthy discussions of "evidence" that the prophecy sections were written before the 2nd century BC, then I'm not willing to go there. john k 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That would seriously handicap implementation of the neutral and even-handed outline proposed by Alecmconroy at the top of this section, if anything that might go under "evidence for 6th century date" were pre-disqualified without consideration. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The two positions should not be treated as equivalent. One is a position largely supported by scholars, the other one largely supported by religious believers. These are different kinds of views, and treating them as though they are the same is highly problematic. But discussion with you on this subject is obviously pointless. If Alec wants to go ahead and reorganize, he should feel free. It's hard to imagine his proposal turning out worse than the current article, and I don't have the patience or, at the moment, the resources, to do an actual thoroughgoing rewrite of this mess. john k 22:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The gist of WP:NPOV is that the two positions should be treated as equivalent, if they are equally significant to the topic. Neutrality means one side not asserting a priority over any other, when it comes to explaining the significance of Holy Writ. BTW It sounds like some of the Catholic bishops you mentioned would be grumbling about its continued canonicity...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What bishops? I haven't mentioned any bishops? What in the world are you talking about? The Catholic Church does not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, so there is no need to question the canonicity of a text simply because it is not exactly what it purports to be. I think the view of most non-fundamentalist groups is that the Book of Daniel has spiritual value even if it was written in the 2nd century BC, showing the importance of faith and bla bla bla. As to neutrality, neutrality does not require us to treat fundamentalist polemics as though they are equivalent to actual scholarship. That is ridiculous. Viewpoints that are equally important should be given equal treatment, but if the two viewpoints are essentially different in kind (e.g., one is a religious view, based on faith in the dogmas of a particular religious ect, the other is based on the tradition of critical scholarship) we should not treat them as though they are the same. This would be a violation of NPOV, in that it is misleading to readers. john k 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Codex, remember peer review. If someone claiming the book dates to the sixth century BC has written an article on it in a peer-reviewed publication, such as Journal of Biblical Literature, Vetus Testamentum, Anchor Bible Series or the like, then they can be cited here. John k's definition of who a "scholar" is means peer-reviewed.--Rob117 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, peer-reviewed. I should've been clearer on that. Not that this clarification will actually result in the article getting better. john k 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is claiming a higher authority for your position and and claiming that the Christian churches' authority to speak about how they interpret their own scripture is labelled as "apologetic" and somehow inferior to that of atheist scholars. "APologetic" eh??? This isn't the pagan Roman Empire anymore, those days are long gone, no need to resurrect polemicist, snotty words like "apologetic" from 200 AD. I don't see how you can do any of this without seriously violating WP:POV. The CHurches' views on scripture are significant, and must be trated as equally significant per WP:NPOV, instead of being given short shrift at the expense of atheist "experts" on scripture" ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop saying that only atheists believe in a late date for Daniel? This just isn't true. The vast majority of Christians (including, at least, Catholics and mainline Protestants), as well as all non-Orthodox (and perhaps even some modern Orthodox, I'm not sure) Jews, accept the later date of Daniel. Claiming the mantle of "religion," when what you really mean is "my particular religion," is very obnoxious. And, as I've repeatedly stated, I'm happy to discuss traditional views of the Book of Daniel in the article, and whatever churches may support such views. That is not at all what the argument is about. john k 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ himself appealed to the authority of Daniel (the pre-Theodotion version, presumably) in one of his very last messages to his followers, expressly telling them to be wary for the future last days. If some Christians and even Churches today choose to turn their back on these words, that can all be mentioned also, but what we cannot do is hold a second Council of Nicea on wikipedia, and determine which books must be regarded as uninspired. For those Churches that accept a canon, the decision on what books are inspired has already been made elsewhere. Also, in the year 200 AD, the people who adhered to and defended the word were called 'apologists' by the pagan intellectuals, because they were seen as apologizing for not worshipping Jupiter. It's an outdated term. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A) Your explanation of the origins of "apologists" is pretty obviously a folk etymology. "Apology" originally meant "defense". The "Apology of Socrates" was not Socrates apologizing in the modern sense, it was Socrates' defense of himself in his trial. Early Christian "apologists" were early defenders of Christianity. The idea that it has anything to do with Jupiter strikes me as ridiculous, and I'd love to see a source for that claim. B) Your initial points don't make any sense. That Christian and Jewish groups accept a Canon and accept that Biblical books are "inspired" does not tell us anything about how to interpret their content, because there's any number of ways to interpret the idea of inspiration. That it means that everything in the Bible is literally true is only one of those ways, and it is one that most mainstream Christians and Jews do not agree with. I have no idea what any of this has to do with a second Council of Nicea. The basic point is that you are not the guardian of what Christians believe, and Christians who don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible are no less Christians simply because you disagree with them. john k 18:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

John, I'm not trying to state anything about their Christianity here. I only intend to make sure the article adheres to WP:NPOV by accurately representing ALL significant viewpoints on the interpretation, and not just a one-sided opinion piece that deliberately excludes certain significant viewpoints. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Understandable frustration at possibility of article improving, john k, but if good cites stay and non-cites result in deletion (see Wikipedia:Attribution), the article could improve. Not-so-good cites will be evident to all. Thomasmeeks 14:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Rob117 leavens the evaluation of comments of his fierce critic with the principle of charity & a pinch of salt & that he continues his efforts, not to appease but to improve. If he can find the language to convey the state of scholarship on the subject (e.g. such as citing standard reference works), so much the better.

User:Codex Sinaiticus (immediately above) might do well to observe Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (which also pertains to use of vulgar and offensive slang). As for "atheist scholars," surely Codex Sinaiticus cannot be referring to standard references by scholars across a spectrum of religious denominations, many of whom teach in seminaries or denominational schools. And surely he can't mean that most agnostic, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant Biblical scholars can't agree on Daniel. They can and largely do agree. And surely Codex Sinaiticus is aware of the technical use of apologetics, which I agree has a place but which should be held to the same Wikipedia:Attribution standards as non-apolegitic scholarship. --Thomasmeeks 15:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

From that article: Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Codex Sinaiticus (immediately above) cites a colloquial use of apologetics (&} ignores the technical use of the same term which I referred to above & to which I believe Rob117 was referring. --15:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "technical use" with the apologetics link in the context of an article on the Book of Daniel article I believe would be clear enough to anyone previously unacquainted with that usage. --Thomasmeeks 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything could be potentially offensive to someone inclined to be offended to impute bad faith. The latter violates Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Thomasmeeks 18:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could choose a less ambiguous and more neutral term then? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So for starters are you going to insist on using nuanced language that is potentially offensive, when a more neutral synonym would do better? This does not bode well for finding any compromise ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Codex, you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to do. No one is trying to decide whether or not Daniel should be considered "inspired". Regarding a book as inspired is solely a matter of faith that the article does not, and should not, directly attempt to suport or refute. It should (and does) say that some religious interpretations see the book is inspired. The issue is not inspiration, but historical accuracy.

Remember the concept of undue weight from WP:NPOV:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

   From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

       * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
       * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
       * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:Attribution

I can name commonly accepted non-specialist reference books that cite a second-century date for Daniel as fact: Encarta, Britannica, Jewish Encyclopedia. You can't accuse these sources (especially the last one) as having "atheistic agendas" unless you wish to accuse the Western academic tradition as a whole of having an atheistic agenda. Then there are specialist publications such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, any non-sectarian commentaries (Anchor Bible, Hermeneia, etc.), and theologically liberal sectarian commentaries (Jewish Publication Society, etc.). Articles written in non-sectarian specialist journals accept the second-century date as a given. (see this one, for example, written by an author form Acadia Divinity College, and published in the Society of Biblical Literature Periodical). And how about the Jerusalem Bible, officially endorsed by the Catholic Church? In its introduction to Daniel, it states: "The Book of Daniel was written by a pious Jew in the second century BC in order to give his co-religionists hope during the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes." Why would an expressly Catholic writing, whose author still sees the book as inspired, and who 90 years ago would not dare to make such a statement, acknowledge this unless there was an overwhelming scholarly consensus as to the date and provenance of the writing?

What I can't accept is your lack of respect for historical-critical scholarship. Yes it has naturalistic presuppositions. By this I mean that it does not start by regarding the Bible as Holy Writ, but as a textual artifact that has come down to us from antiquity and must be analyzed in the same manner as all other such texts. The foundation of the Enlightenment tradition of scholarship was the jettisoning of all previous presuppositions about all topics and studying them anew without being constrained by unquestionable starting points. Fundamentalist publications such as you cite do not work in this tradition: they are not peer-reviewed (such as SBL or Anchor Bible), nor are they non-sectarian reference books whose information is at least derived from peer-reviewed sources, like Encarta or Britannica. They have an explicit sectarian agenda, and only address peer-reviewed material for the purpose of refuting it. Their arguments pay no attention to the principle of Occam's Razor; they start with the assumption that there can be no inaccuracies, and that apparent inaccuracies must have explanations. Their attempt to provide such explanations uses reasoning which would not be acceptable in either a court of law or a peer-reviewed publication.--Rob117 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think a viewpoint espoused by Jesus himself according to the Gospels, and adhered to by millions of his faithful followers who cherish his words, can be brushed aside as "insignificant" by any manipulation or spindoctoring of the "Undue weight" policy. The weight is very, very due. This viewpoint deserves its place alongside all the others. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Read my whole post. It doesn't matter how many people believe a certain thing. The editors of Britannica don't consult the world for their information, they consult recognized experts who know the peer-reviewed literature. The viewpoint does get its place in the article- as a traditional view held by many believers. It does not get equal weight with the publications of professional researchers.--Rob117 02:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, indeed you are attempting to manipulate the WP:NPOV and Undue weight policy in order to prevent the Christian viewpoint from even being mentioned on a par with all of your dry, soulless scholars and self-proclaimed "experts" who like to tell people what they are supposed to be thinking about scripture, no matter how many sources disagree, because they don't want any interference from what various Churches themselves might have to say about theiw own canon, so to get rid of it you employ the tactic of labelling it as "insignificant". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think can be any doubt that the 6th century authorship theory is not an "extreme minority viewpoint". It's a toss up as to whether it could realistically be called a minority viewpoint. In general, we just have to describe the debate, we don't have to decide it. The consensus of secular historians and scholars, and those who share their worldview, is always going to be 2nd century authorship. The consensus of theologians who believe in biblical inerrancy is always goinb to be 6th century authorship. People in the middle are going to be split. So long as we don't characterize the 6th century authorship as a the secular scholarly POV, and so long as we don't characterize the 2nd century authorship as the biblical inerrancy POV-- we'll be fine. --Alecmconroy 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Believing in 6th century authorship is not an "extreme minority viewpoint." Actually making arguments in defense of 6th century authorship, however, is. And can we please not say "secular scholarly POV"? It is an ecumenical scholarly POV, held by secular, protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars alike. john k 03:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should be more careful in the article itself. It's not _only_ secular scholars who are in the 2nd century camp. One of those: all secular scholars think 2nd century, but not all 2nd century thinkers are secular scholars. :) --Alecmconroy 03:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But the apologetics used by believers in biblical inerrancy to attack the secular viewpoint have no place in the article. They are apologetics, and come with the usual misrepresentation and flawed logic. There is no problem saying what the position of inerrantists is; but we are not obliged to defend them. That's the difference- the secular consensus was arrived at after the evaluation of evidence; proponents of the inerrantist viewpoint use evidence only to defend their original position. In doing so, they selectively and misquote supportors of the opposing viewpoint (when Rowley said Daniel was "a first class historical source for the period in question", I suspect he meant the Hellenistic period; this incomplete quote is integrated into the article to make it seem like he meant the Babylonian period) and cite interpretations of the evidence that are in no way straightforward (why would we think "Darius the Mede" is supposed to be someone who is never called Darius in the contemporary sources other than under the presupposition that the book cannot be wrong?). This is not presenting opposing evidence that supports a viewpoint. This is polemic, using the same evidence but interpreting it in non-straightforward ways and deliberately misquoting supporters of an opposing view.--Rob117 03:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And Codex, I would stop these personal attacks. These are not "self-proclaimed" experts. They go throug 5+ years of Ph.D training and publish dozens of articles that can be rejected if they don't meet rigorous standards of evidence in order to be recognized as such.--Rob117 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you say their view is significant, I would agree with you. But when you say it is so significant that Jesus words cannot even be mentioned next to it, I have to reply that you are pushing for a one-sided article, one that only gives one side of the debate, without presenting the other sides at all unless in the most condescending and POV terms. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping Jesus' words from being mentioned in the article, as long as they are acknowledged to be part of the \traditional views. The fact that half the world believes Jesus was divine does not change the fact that he accepted the book of Daniel uncritically and that his views predate modern standards of evidence and rigor.--Rob117 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of turning a blind eye to the actual evidence, why not mention that the document Jesus referred to woul have been much closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the pre-THeodotion LXX Daniel, a far cry from the Theodotion and Masoretic text found in Bibles today? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the reason so many, probably most Christians adhere to the 6th century BC date (aside from Jesus words) is the fact that the 2nd century BC crowd has yet to come up with any actual evidence of Maccabean authorship that stands the test of reason. It's just not convincing to argue "We have determined it is Maccabean, and so you should not believe in it, but we can't tell you why, you just have to take our expertise for it". All of the arguments have been attacked and refuted, and WP:NPOV demands that the article not become the one-sided opinion piece you are trying to foist on it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, stop with the rhetoric. The evidence is presented in the article; most non-conservative Christians do accept the 2nd century dating, and the alleged refutations have not been submitted for peer review, because they would not pass it Read my post right above yours.

Codex, I want to ask you a very pointed question: do you or do you not believe that academia is composed largely of people who are biased against Christianity and are deliberately trying to suppress your views?--Rob117 03:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Academia is entitled to their views, but not to pretend they are the only views. I don't see academia doing this, since most authors are cautious enough to concede that other views than their own do exist. What I see happening here is just a small number of wikipedia editors trying to take sides with one view and squelch out / suppress all the others, resulting in a one-sided and POV-pushing article that does not do justice to all significant viewpoints. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have access to a university library, I suggest you go over all non-sectarian commentaries of Daniel that you find. You will not find any that disputes a second-century authorship. Most of them simply accept it as a given. Non-sectarian does not mean "atheist"; the editors of these commentaries more often than not profess either Judaism or Christianity.--Rob117 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The peer review crowd might have very definite motives for casting aspersions on a document that Jesus said should be carefully studied in the last days. The vision of the statue in Chapter 2 is most telling about the difference between Babylonian government (and her successors), and God's prophesied kingdom; It usually doesn't take too long to listen to the sermon of someone claiming to be Christian, to tell which "side" they are really rooting for in that struggle. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, remember that the Council of Nicea was most certainly a "peer reviewed" body that made the decision for the (then unified) Church about what books are to be regarded as canonical. No other peer review can have as much weight to the creeds of believers who profess these creeds. But you say your peer review is so weighty it is the only one that derserves mention. What bias. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How are the differences between the MT and OG relevant?--Rob117 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, don't turn a blind eye to the evidence. The OG differs widely from the MT, it reveals a much rearlier state of the text, and interestingly, it has the names 'Darius' and 'Cyrus' switched in a number of places, among other things. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet this does not imply they are the same person. It implies scribes didn't think changing the order they were mentioned in would change the meaning of the text.--Rob117 03:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So what you end up with is a document that is far removed from what Daniel would have written in the 6th century, so attacking that "revised" document for being "Maccabean" is actually a kind of strawman. I did mention about Josephus' testimony that the Jews showed Daniel to Alexander in 333 BC, didn;t I? I suppose you have some clever reason for suppressing that primary source too? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And your comment about peer-review and the "struggle" reveals that you do believe that academia is biased against Christianity. And that you reject peer review as legitemate.--Rob117 03:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, but the bottom line is, by any means necessary I am going to resist your attempt to sweep one of the significant POVS under the carpet and present a one-sided biased article with only one POV presented. WP:NPOV demands that ALL significant POVs be presented without taking sides. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus among believers within a creed does not constitute peer review in an academic sense. It constitutes theology, which is a wholly differenct realm from what we're discussing here.

And all significant POV's held by experts.--Rob117 04:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any source who does not agree with you , you are going to claim that is not an "expert" because he doesn't agree with you. So that is circular reasoning, and raising the bar impossibly high. Why not just allow all sides of the story to be presented fairly instead of just your own?? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Josephus was writing 400 years after the fact and simply repeating tradition uncritically. That hardly counts as a primary source.--Rob117 04:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually just state that Josephus doesn't count as a primary source, because you disagree with what he said??? You really should spend less time being a spin doctor and more time being an editor. We are not supposed to be judging the merit of primary sources, only reporting what they say. Oh yeah, I forgot, you just revoked Josephus' 'primary surce card', so I guess we can't use him./ ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you put way too much confidence in recieved tradition. I can find you some articles on the 200-year limit of folk memory if you like.

Distinction between primary and secondary sources is a fundamental of historical research. Someone writing 400 years after the fact can't be considered a primary source. Josephus would be a primary source for the Jewish war and the century or so before it; a secondary source for anything beyond that. This doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, but we have to start looking at him critically beyond that point.--Rob117 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to look at any ancient historian critically for just about everything he says. But even more critically for events almost 400 years before his birth which have no corroboration in any other source. john k 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And what makes anyone today, over 2000 years or more after the events, capable of criticizing an author only 400 years after the events. Especially since we do not have any other 'primary' or 'secondary' sources earlier than that. Are we somehow "smarter" than they were? Are we somehow better educated? What makes what we think history should any better than what they wrote? Does being an atheist, or skeptic, or modern/liberal Christian make our viewpoint better than theirs? The next time you go back in your time machine to see what really happened be sure to take me along. Allenroyboy 06:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Allen, the real issue here is that since they don't have any compelling proof whatsoever for Maccabean authorship, the only way they feel they can make their point is by resorting to these classically Goebbels-ian tactics of 1) discrediting all opposing views as 'insignificant', no matter how significant they really are (even when they are sourced in Matthew 24), and then 2) gaming the rules with strength of numbers in order to prevent these opposing viewpoints' evidence, and the fact that it is still regarded as canonical today, from even being mentioned. It's as though this tiny wikipedia board has declared the canon null and void and declared that their scholars' opinion, unproven theories and conjecture have now superceded the canon for everyone, because it is 'insignificant' in their estimation. You see, it's because they're really afraid of any evidence that opposes them being mentioned. If they had nothing to fear from Josephus being mentioned because they didn't think it mattered, trust me, they would have no problem with it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I bother with this, but are you really suggesting that modern scholars have no right to engage in critical scholarship of ancient authors, and to try to determine which of their claims a re credible or not? This kind of attitude is one basically hostile to the very idea of scholarship. Codex - are you really comparing us to Goebbels? That's outrageous. john k 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you've got it all wrong. It's a pity that as many times as I have explained my position clearly, you still seem to have it twisted. ONE... MORE... TIME... I am NOT questioning any modern scholars right to engage in critical scholarship, I just want ALL siginificant sides on scripture to be represented, not leaving ANY out for ANY reason. ANd the traditional view is significant, so wikipedia cannot take sides, even if you personally choose to. Isn't that simple enough? And yes actually , I do question a wikipedian editor's right to engage in research here on wikipedia. If you want to critically question a specific statement of Josephus or any primary source, please don't do it in your own name - find the same criticism in print somewhere. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Codex, my comment about questioning the right to engage in critical scholarship was directed at Allenroyboy, not at you. Beyond that, this whole discussion is pointless, this article is never going to change unless you're banned from it, and I'm not going to bother with this any further. john k 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion was going sooo well. A pity that it should end here. If john k were construed as ending the discussion, indeed it might have ended. But I think it's appropriate to put things in perspective. Any Talk page consensus (or possibly Wiki arbitration) could block a revert by Codex Sinaiticus (with the blocked characters above). That's not overly demanding. Mechanisms are available for making progress. It only takes time, patience, and close attention to what is disputed and what is not. E.g., I believe that describing an argument in Biblical apologetics can be appropriate in a Wiki article. It can have cognitive value. Its quantity can be disputed in a particular article, but that's a different matter. It's not necessarily a matter of all or nothing. Someone else might dispute my belief. Maybe I'd persuade or be persuaded. Either way, it is possible to get a consensus that allows no single person to determine the outcome. --Thomasmeeks 01:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry to burst your bubble, but the traditional view is not significant in the realm of serious scholarship. And no, Josephus is not a primary source in this case.

He is, however, a primary source for the Jewish War.

Concerning the statement immediately below of User:Codex Sinaiticus (dated 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)), fortunately the "if" premise is obviously wrong (much more wrong than the misspelling of 'Goebbels' below). I was not trying to ban dissenting viewpoints but to maintain that apologetical arguments should not be banned. How much clearer could that be put? As to my preceding statement above, if any one or any group were in violation of Wikipedia policy, that would be wrong & I'd oppose it. Codex Sinaiticus must have misunderstood my intent. I hope that CS would reconsider the his comment below with my attempted clarification in mind. --Thomasmeeks 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are seriously trying to ban dissenting viewpoints in order to do your dirty work on this article and make it one-sided, it only shows my comparison with Goebbals was 100% on target, because he would have employed precisely the same tactic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Codex, you have to get away from the concept of "canon" or "not canon". What you say implies that if the Church says it's canon, it has some special status that must be respected by people who are not members of that Church. We have no say on what is canon, but neither do you have the right to use the book's status as canon to cite research that falls outside the realm of peer-reviewed literature.

And Thomasmeeks, the answer is yes. We are more educated than people were 2000 years ago. We have the tools of archaeological research, historical-critical textual analysis, historical method, and scientific method at our disposal. The ancients did not. If you read the ancient Greek and Roman historians, you'll find that they have no concept of the difference between a primary and secondary source. If their predecessor said it, they either believe it or not purely on whether they think it sounds plausible. The ancients had a respect for the authority of tradition that most people today do not, and that is inherently contradictory to the scientific method and other foundations of modern research methods.--Rob117 04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "compromise" is completely unacceptable because it only mentions "Some conservative scholars" who believe Daniel wrote the book, and mentions nothing at all about the fact that the Christian churches who hold it canonical also unequivocally state that Daniel wrote the Book. This includes the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church that have many sources and scholars stating that Daniel wrote the book, with evidence. Some Western scholars may have stated otherwise, but even their Churches have as yet not dropped the book from their canons. And no, I am certainly not going to, as you said, "get away from the concept of 'canon' and 'not canon'. This is a vital concept, sorry you do not appreciate what it means, which clearly you do not. I am certainly not arguing that this means non-Christians are bound to respect the canon. But I am arguing that this is a crucial point that a neutral, balanced article cannot overlook while taking all significant sides and positions into account, and still claim to remain "neutral" (not taking any sides). So if you think the issue of canonicity is going to magically "go away" because you just told it to, you're dreaming. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. "Conservative scholars and many Protestant and Eastern Churches, and some Orthodox Jews." I never had the word "some" in there. The issue of evidence won't be addressed because what you think constitutes evidence would be laughed at if you sent it in for peer review and you refuse to let us put in evidence for the other position unless we put in yours.

And the Catholic Church has no position on the authorship of Daniel. It will not drop the book from the canon because historical accuracy is no longer necessary for it to maintain a book in the canon. Its position on infallibility refers to doctinal matters only; it has explicitly stated that the first chapter of Genesis, for example, is not literally true.

Rob117 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

THis page is for discussing changes to the article, what church I belong to, if any, will not make any difference to a neutrally-worded article that will read the same in any case. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be very interested to see exactly where the Roman Catholic Church 'explicitly stated that the first chapter of Genesis... is not literally true'... Not that I'm doubting your claim, I would just find the actual text of where they stated this very useful, if you have it... We seem to be getting somewhere with your compromise wording, but the past tense ("The traditional view WAS") is clearly wishful thinking, do you think maybe you could change that to "is"? Also since there is a lot of evidence, instead of running from it, I would not object to having a subarticle dedicated to the Dating of Daniel to explore all the evidence, as long as it is fair and not exclusive to one pov. Many people have debated the authorship and dating of this book over the centuries, but nobody has really proved anything conclusively, so we can't have a litmus test like 'Only those who agree with theory X are the true Bible scholars, because they all agree with each other and so they are peer reviewed, but those who hold to theory Y are just a bunch of cranks outside of true biblical scholarship.' That is the very meaning of forcing a partisan, non-neutral view on the article. We cannot take any sides, we just present everybody's view and most importantly, we don't exclude evidence that we don't like, just because it does not support our position. That will go a long way to solving this POV travesty. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a "long-held view is that . . ." . . . "Contemporary biblical commentary has expanded examination of the historical, literary, religious, scientific content of Daniel . . ." (rewriting some words from the cover leaf of a standard reference-- that's the point above: uae and reference authoritative, standard sources). If it isn't standard and reliable, it isn't Wiki.

Codex Sinaiticus, to echo john k, there's a difference between the Canon and the interpretation of that Canon, which is affected by background information and interopetive tools.

Rob117, I'm glad we're agreed on the first 4 sentences of para. 2 above (04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC) edit). If the ancients did not distinguish between primary & 2ndary sources, this would not be a big disadvantage with only one source (or many sources all of which they reported). If you're saying they relied only on authority or plausibility, what's changed today is only what is factored into those terms (such as primary vs, 2ndary). One reason we have their accounts might be that they survived. To have survived they may have had good survival instincts, possibly the same instincts at work in Wiki edits. --Thomasmeeks 02:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

BC/BCE

A recent IP editor changed some dates from BC to BCE and added in an editorial on why BCE is "better". I changed it back per the manual of style. If there is consensus to change over related to the subject matter we should record that here and do so throughout the article. But an editorial on why (especially the one that was there) is inappropriate on the article page. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC - Yet another POV dispute

We need to work out a compromise so that the article is not one-sided and presents all significant points of view. This is not negotiable, WP:NPOV is a cornerstone of policy. Here is the way the section formerly read before it was hacked:

Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC. A significant number, though far from all, in the Judeo-Christian tradition continue to believe this today. In this point of view, the book is a work of divinely-inspired prophecy which correctly predicts book's content and world events for at least 400 years after its original composition.

While Orthodox Jewish and some Christian scholars still assert this as a realistic date, a considerably later writing or redaction is widely held on the basis of historical and textual analysis. In this view, except for possible minor glosses, the book reached its final form around 164 BC (Hartman and Di Lella, 1990, p. 408; Towner, 1993, p. 151). This gave the events that had already occurred during the fifth to second centuries BC the appearance of prophecies. The later date of composition explains why from 11:39 on, the prophecies fail to track accurately later events in the reign of Antiochus IV.

John Collins finds it impossible for the "court tales" portion of Daniel to have been written in second Century BC due to textual analysis. In his 1992 Anchor Bible Dictionary entry for the Book of Daniel, he states "it is clear that the court-tales in chapters 1-6 were not 'written in Maccabean times'. It is not even possible to isolate a single verse which betrays an editorial insertion from that period."

Just because you hold the opposite POV does not give anyone license to cut it out of the article. That is called "POV pushing" and will not be tolerated. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A brief chronology may help here:

1. The above good person Codex Sinaiticus after a long series of exchanges chronicled in section 19 above (Talk:Book of Daniel#POV in "Dating" section) posted an NPOV template for Section 5 Book of Daniel#Dating of the article on Nov. 5, 2006.
2. An article revision pertaining only to Section 5 appears today with the following Edit summary: tried to clean this up to remove the pov - revert if you think it's no better than the original
3. I post a suggested change at bottom of Section 19 on this page above.
4. Six sucessive reverts of the article follow by the above person and me (with Edit summaries indicated at the history tab for the article).
5. The above person posts a NPOV template for the article.

The title of this section might be misunderstood, in that this is a continuation of an existing dispute pertaining to exactly one section of the article, section 5.

I believe that the posting of the NPOV template at top of the article today by the above gentle person is an unnecessary escalation of the dispute, in that above person had already posted a template for the disputed section 5.

I do agree that the dispute is worth resolving on this page. One way of resolving it is to require a reliable source for a disputed revision. (Making a claim in an Edit summary would not meet that criterion.) That way any necessary qualifications are incorporated into what is already there. Everyone should be satisfied if anyone making an edit provides a reliable verifiable source. --Thomasmeeks 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC) correction to section 19 for (3) above. --Thomasmeeks 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to dating and content section

I've done some pretty extensive edits to this section, and, since my intentions are bound to be misunderstood, I want to make it clear that my sole purpose has been to improve both the style of the prose and the structure of the section. I've tried not to edit out anything major and substantive. I have no axe to grind, no point of view (or if I do, I try to keep it under control), but I do like good English and well-written analytical prose. So please, if you don't like what I've done to your favourite point, let me know, here, and I'll try to accommodate you. (Even you, Codex).PiCo 12:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)(Fixed typos PiCo 02:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

The Merchant of Venice

I was wondering if this is the right page to have some sort of reference to Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice"; maybe I should go to "Daniel" instead? The name is mentioned for the first time in this passage (spoken by Shylock. Act IV, i, 221):

"A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a Daniel!
O wise young judge, how I do honour thee!"

And again by Gratiano (IV, i, 331)

"A second Daniel! a Daniel, Jew!
Now, infidel, I have you on the hip!"

IV, i, 338 (Gratiano)

"A Daniel still say I, a second Daniel!
I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word."

24.108.189.244 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

How about this...

In the authorship and date section, we simply state:

"Traditionally the book was believed to have been written by its namesake in the sixth century BC; conservative scholars accept this dating. Non-confessional scholars and liberal religious scholars, however, date it to the second century BC." Then no arguments for either side are presented, the books relevance to modern religious groups is presented, and all links are clarified as to what viewpoint they come from, i.e. conservative Christian, liberal Jewish, non-confessional, explicitly secular, liberal Christian, etc.--Rob117 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Clever of your friend to orphan this section from your friend's reply to it. Still, it concedes more than is necessary. Coming at it from other side, a problem with the above is that most (small-m) "mainstream" scholars who might not accept the liberal label agree with the above. "Many mainline Protestant and Catholic scholars" would have the advantage of accuracy and specificity especially with cited references. 2ndarily, this is mostly agreed to in sections 26 and 19, bottoms. Best is to eliminate labels in favor describing arguments, evidence, and Wikipedia:Attribution. --Thomasmeeks 03:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, although I'd like a mention of mainstream Jewish scholarship supporting 2nd century authorship, as well. john k 07:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of scholars in "Unity of Daniel"

The long-standing wording is "Whereas almost all scholars conclude a second century dating of the book..." or minor variations thereof. This was recently changed by an anonymous IP to "...many scholars...", without discussion. I reverted this, whereupon I was reverted in turn by user "Codex Sinaiticus". This new wording fails to convey the fact that 2nd-century authorship is the mainstream scholarly position. I'd settle for "most", but "many" seems insufficient. The previous text did not deny the fact that other views exist, so why change it? --Robert Stevens 14:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is already a serious pov-pushing issue with this article, the more neutral and less pov-pushing wording would be preferable. Most is fair enough, though, no need for 'almost all'. The fact is that this is such a hot Christian topic there are entire e-mailing lists, books, magazines, websites, any media you care to name, devoted entirely to various modern interpretations of the words in Daniel. The article is eventually going to have to aknowledge this reality. The so-called 'mainstream scholarly' view is one of the significant views, but it cannot claim a monopoly. As with other important Biblical articles, the views of all the various significant denominations on this topic should be alloted space, and labeling them 'sectarian' here just to exclude them is not productive and does not follow the pattern of other articles on wikipedia eg Abraham. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article already does acknowledge that there are Christians who disagree with the later dating. However, this particular sentence refers specifically to the opinions of scholars, before discussing a rather technical subject (the unity, or otherwise, of its authorship). The comparison with Abraham doesn't seem relevant, as there isn't a "Book of Abraham" that has been dated by scholars to several centuries after its claimed date. A better comparison would be with Book of Isaiah, or the various Gospel articles, where the critical mainstream scholarly positions are described. --Robert Stevens 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A total rewrite is the only thing that's going to make this article work

Okay, I've calmed down a bit. Basically, the problem with this article is that it doesn't actually describe the Book of Daniel at all, or, at least, that this is only done incidentally. It's just a series of arguments and counterarguments between conservatives and mainstream scholars. This is absurd. The whole thing needs to be rewritten, and the w hole business should have a less prominent position.

The article should aim to first describe the content of the Book - what it says, the story provided, the prophecies made. Only once this is accomplished should it get into historical analysis. At that point, the traditional understanding of Daniel should be made clear, but there's no need to discuss it at length, because the traditional understanding is basically to take the Book's stories and claims as given. This can be followed by a discussion of modern scholarly understandings, including the reasons why the prophecies are generally considered to be from the Maccabean period, the intepretation generally given by scholars to the prophecies, any debates that may exist over the dating of the "court tales" portion of the book, and so forth. The issue of supposed historical inaccuracies in the court tales portion should only be touched on briefly - for instance, all we should say about Darius the Mede is that there is no clear reference to such a figure outside of Daniel, that traditionalists have generally tried to identify him with various other figures, and that scholars tend to view his presence as evidence of a relatively late date of the book. And such like. john k 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a reference to Darius the Mede in Josephus though... Actually I am not opposed to a rewrite, but let's continue to refine it slowly, one edit at a time and not cut out the whole thing in one swoop edit... Thanks ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Josephus doesn't count as an independent source when he's discussing stuff from the Persian era and before. He's just following the Bible. At least, this is the consensus of most scholars that I'm aware of. So I should have said, "there is no clear independent reference to such a figure outside of Daniel." john k 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting template for change suggested by john k above, though as noted, hard to do without consensus. One start would be to flag all challenged statements to meet Wikipedia:Attribution policy. Wikipedia:Summary style has tips for shortening and maintaining balance. Unreferenced, challenged statements would be subject to closer scrutiny & tougher standards. Key is listening hard to whatever is said, no matter who says it. If one can't see something through someone else's eyes, it may come down to counting heads, but one hopes that proposing acceptable standards (if only implicitly after the fact) would be sufficient. Proposing standards, such as above for peer reviewed research has merit. The sources should reliable, authoritative, etc. Right now IMHO 40KB, though long, is not excessive iff it is all meaty and beautifully written. One should aim to be as precise as supporting materials allow but not more so (a kind of POV). Consulting standard sources IMHO is an excellent control. --Thomasmeeks 01:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem as it currently stands is that there's a lot of arguments being made that are essentially, so far as I can tell, Codex's own interpretations of primary sources. For instance, on the claim about Astyages, my fact tag was replaced by a reference to Bible verses. But the issue isn't what the Septuagint says (at least, that isn't the main issue). The issue is whether anyone has actually made this argument to demonstrate an early date for the Book of Daniel. There's tons of stuff like this in the article. Basically, I'm not so concerned if the article mentions the fact that traditional Christian and orthodox Jewish writers continue to hold to an early date for Daniel. Any specific arguments they have made that are specific to issues relating to the historical accuracy of Daniel are maybe worth mentioning, if they are particularly significant (I'm not sure how this is to be determined). What I really want out of here are a) original arguments for an early date made on the basis of Codex's (or whoever's - if anyone else did it, it would be just as bad) understanding of the Biblical text; b) inclusion of arguments for inerrancy that don't really pertain to Daniel specifically, but are just kind of generic arguments that could be applied to anything; and c) attempts to pretend that the broad consensus of mainstream secular, Jewish, protestant, and Catholic scholars that the book was written in the Maccabean period is in fact a phenomenon of "secular" scholars, and, generally, any attempt to claim the mantle of "Christianity" for what is, in fact, a rather small subset of Christian denominations. john k 07:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You still don't seem to recognize that there is a vast, vast body of published opinion out there on this, the secondary sources are not few on interpretation of Daniel, and many defenses have been made of the 6th century BC date, even up to the present time. You can't just dismiss the massive historiography of this, or insinuate that I am making it up myself, just because you think that only the (relatively recent) authors who have decided on a 2nd century date, with scant to no evidence, are the only ones who "count"; and the other ones you seem to think don;t count, and should not even be mentioned, see damnatio memoriae. That damnatio memoriae mentality is the enemy of building a neutral encyclopedia, and building a neutral encyclopedia is the enemy of that mentality. We don't just present those sources that back up our own position, and declare all the others "invalid". We present ALL the sources. ALL of them. And they ARE significant, even if you don't like the fact that they use real evidence instead of peer pressure. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

the distaste for "recent" scholarship is one of the real issues here. You seem to think that St. Jerome and Martin Luther, or whoever, are appropriate sources on Biblical scholarship. Somehow, this kind of argument only comes up in religious examples. We don't consider Ptolemy or Galileo to be reliable sources on astronomy, we don't consider Aristotle or Darwin to be reliable sources on biology, we don't consider Leopold von Ranke or Edward Gibbon to be reliable sources on history. The whole point of this endeavor is to provide the most accurate account of a modern understanding of a subject, not to quote obsolete authorities. The arguments made by obsolete authorities may or may not be significant to an article, but they are not to be treated in the same way as the writings of present day scholars. In terms of the defenses of the 6th century date made at the present time, I think an analysis of the qualifications of those making the claim is in order. As yet, Codex hasn't really brought forward any specific examples of people outright defending a 6th century date. Or, at least, if he has, I don't recall what they are, and it was a long time ago. The material I have encountered is all from Biblical inerrantist polemicists - pastors of fundamentalist churches, teachers at fundamentalist seminaries, and the like. I don't see how the fact that such people defend an early date for Daniel is particularly significant in its own right to a discussion of Daniel. These people are Biblical inerrantists. They believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. That they believe this also of Daniel hardly seems that significant. I will leave aside for now the question of whether the specific arguments they make should be in the article. john k 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You've still got it all wrong, my alleged "distaste for recent scholarship" is NOT the real issue, because I'm not the one trying to keep any material out of the article; I want the complete story (both sides) to be told, not just half. The one with the 'distate' would be the party trying to exclude certain established viewpoints for solely prejudicial reasons ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You really ought to review the NPOV guidelines with respect to "undue weight." john k 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I know all about the guidelines, but I reject and dispute your prejudicial, biased, and one-sided assertions of weight. If only the sources that meet the litmus test of agreeing with your POV are admissible, it's purely circular reasoning in the absence of any real scholarly debate or evidence. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A peer reviewed article that argued for an early date for the Book of Daniel would of course be acceptable. I'm sure other sources could be imagined. If you would actually present some sources, perhaps we could get somewhere in evaluating if they are appropriate or not. As it stands, no sources are provided for the argument that the book comes from the 6th century. There've been some sources cited on the identity of Darius the Mede, but their qualifications remain unclear. I would suggest that anyone commenting on the subject would have to, at the very least, be competent in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic to be considered a worthwhile source. john k 18:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That should be no problem! Haven't you even looked any of this stuff up? I can't believe how many pro-6th century sources I just found that discuss the question of Xenophon's "Cyaxares II" alone! There is a vast literature out there, this is one of the most studied books in history and many positions has been taken by scholars of many stripes; questions of prophecy interpretation are tricky and are rarely a matter of 'unified consensus' as much as you might wish. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Codex, two points. Firstly, it is not enough for you to simply state that there is a vast literature out there. You have to actually tell us what it is. Secondly, just because a book has been written, that does not mean it is necessarily an appropriate source for us to cite, so some details on the publisher, the credentials of the author, and so forth, are also useful. john k 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am finding so many scholarly sources written about this very point to choose from, all I will need is a little time to sort through them all and find out which scholars would be the most appropriate ones to cite. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some hope that going about it this way may clarify things. One problem has seemed to be that the lack of specific examples has made it so that we are arguing about abstractions, which makes it much easier to be extreme and unequivocal. john k 20:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus (immediately above) is recycling material that IMHO might be subject to challenge as to Wikipedia:Attribution policy.

There is this qualification on john k's comment, on which I believe there might be agreement. What matters is not who made an Edit but the merits of the Edit. That includes conciseness, attribution, etc. It is not the responsibility of the disputer to clean up but anyone defending a disputed passage if there is a Wiki-warranted dispute, esp. where there is a consensus otherwise. (There is also a process of redress if a consensus is challenged, namely arbitration, which should normally not be necessary.) All should agree that specificity of Edits is a key for avoiding disputes. --Thomasmeeks 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

God I am so fucking drunk right now.

Maybe that'll put this all into perspective.--Rob117 09:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment above shows the importance of not drinking and editing. Highly amusing. john k 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

At least I didn't edit anything, thank God.--Rob117 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It does have the advantage of explaining what can only be suspected elsewhere on Wiki. Still, might consideration be given to deleting or editing the above, if not otherwise forbidden? --Thomasmeeks 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with dating seems to have a life of it's own, hopefully the same arguments don't apply to the content of Daniel, otherwise we are all missing the point. Take a poll, You might be suprised to see how many people could care less...Radical man 7 23:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

John K, whether or not someone is an inerrantist doesnot change the fact that they could be doing valid scholarly work on the subject. If an article from an inerrantist is presented that gives a certain point of view, it should be treated with the same amount of respect as that of an article from a "mainstream" scholar.

Inerrantists have already decided what the answer is, and are merely engaging in sophistry to "prove" that the evidence supports information that they've already decided is true for other reasons. This is just about the opposite of valid scholarship. We don't accept such nonsense in our articles about biology - I don't see why we should accept it in articles about Biblical criticism. john k 03:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement that inerrantists "are merely engaging in sophistry to "prove"" what they already believe needs to be back up with evidence. Else it is just your biased, bigoted opinion. Allenroyboy 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You can get that "evidence" from any of the various "statements of faith" that creationist organizations such as AiG, or fundamentalist seminaries, require their members to pledge (e.g. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp ). They have an openly-declared ideological committment that will not allow them to accept any evidence that contradicts their worldview: "The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches..." No genuine scholar can be bound by such dogma: they must go wherever the evidence leads. And as genuine scholarship has long since discovered that the Bible is errant, inerrancy-belief requires rejection of genuine scholarship. Frankly, inerrantists don't understand the Bible: they are required to be oblivious to the cultural/historical contexts that shaped it over the centuries. --Robert Stevens 15:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The scientific method can only function within a paradigm which supplies the assumptions required in order to do the scientific method. Within in Naturalism, abiogenesis and Evolutionism are facts. They are not, and have never been, hypotheses. The only thing that naturalistic scientists discuss is HOW evolution [or abiogenesis] happened, never IF it happened. Creationary scientists also start with a set of assumptions. Creation and Noah's flood are not hypotheses. They are facts of Creationism. Creationary geologists discuss HOW the flood happened, never IF it happened.

Naturalism automatically excludes Creation and Noah's Flood. Creationism automatically excludes abiogenesis and evolutionism. One's accepted paradigm determines how one sees the natural world. The results of the scientific method has nothing to do with which paradigm one chooses. Naturalists see the Bible as just a fairy tale because there can be no God. Creationists see the Bible as the word of God in whom they believe. Many times what Naturalists see as absolute proof that the bible is wrong and that evolution is true, Creationists find completely irrelevant. It is a battle of paradigms, not a battle of the scientific method. Allenroyboy 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think I even need to add anything. You stand convicted by your own words. I'll just say that your analogies are entirely tendentious, and leave it at that. john k 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! That screed is totally incorrect and an excellent example of why inerrancy-belief is incompatible with scholarship! As the saying goes, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not enitled to your own facts". Facts are independent of opinions. It is a fact that an American-led military force invaded Iraq, regardless of anyone's opinions regarding that action: anyone doubting that it happened can study the evidence and form a conclusion that is entirely independent of whether they thought it was good, bad or whatever. It is certainly a ludicrous falsehood to state that "naturalists see the Bible as just a fairy tale because there can be no God". It is a fact that the Earth is old, there was no global Flood in recent times, and so on... these beliefs are falsehoods, discoverable as such by those who seek the facts, regardless of what their desires regarding them might be. That's why Biblical creationism was debunked by Christian creationists, who discovered that it was false. And this is why an inerrantist, unable to make such discoveries of inconvenient facts, can never be a successful scholar (except perhaps in a very limited capacity: translating an uncontroversial document, maybe).--Robert Stevens 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Although certainly not translating a controversial document. Give me the Revised Standard Version over, say, the New International any day for trying to figure out what the authors of the Bible were actually saying, as opposed to what fundamentalist dogma insists they must have been saying. Beyond that, I'll just add that I hadn't even noticed the "Naturalists see the Bible as just a fairy tale because there can be no God" piece of nonsense, which is just complete hogwash. Lots and lots of mainstream scholars believe in God. Some of them are even relatively conservative theologically. They just aren't (and can't be) Biblical inerrantists. To actually study the Bible in a scholarly way, one has to accept that it is a document written in historical times by historical people. This isn't necessarily incompatible with the idea that it was also, in some sense, inspired by God, and many Biblical scholars have held to both beliefs at the same time. The question of when the Book of Daniel was written is a question of fact. It was either written in the 6th century, as it purports, or in the 2nd century, as most scholars believe, or some combination of the two. Scholars use textual evidence and context and the like to try to determine what is most likely. Inerrantists simply assume the purported claims are true, and then try to massage evidence to fit that claim. There is nothing about believing the Bible to be possibly errant which compels one to believe that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. The very same scholars who believe that Daniel was written late also generally believe that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were written in the 6th century. `john k 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC

To expand on what I said previously: we don't have solid conclusive evidence of the date of origin for this book. Whether or not someone is trying to prove the Bible errant or inerrant is not the point. They are trying to find explanations for what the book says. For you this may be just another ancient book. For them it is the foundation of their worldview and they want to understand it better just as much as you do, just for a different reason. If there was definitive proof that Daniel was written at one point and not another, then most would agree with it. Robert Stevens, just because someone attends or teaches at a seminary with a "Statement of Faith" does not mean that they agree with such statements. Most of those statements are there because the seminary is sponsored by a certain denomination which is seeking to both enhance the biblical knowledge behind the pulpit and in scholarship. And so you know, I attended a Christian college with a Statement even though I disagreed with it on several points.

Maybe this is true !

Daniel and Ezekiel probably resided at the same time of their lives. Their messages were about to make a distinction between man and beast from worshipping idols or wealth. Since the king was about to make the people worship the image of a man he was thrown into the field to eat grass and be treated as a beast. The four judgements described on three of the books(the book of daniel, the book of ezekiel chapter fourteen and the book of revelation chapter six) are of the same God. For three of these books a time has been given(in the book of revelation 1260 days,in the book of daniel 1290 days and in the book of ezekiel 390+40 days on the right and left hand in which 430*3=1290 days).The three beasts described in the book of revelation exist in the book of Daniel as well, in the book of ezekiel. For the first beast with 7 heads,10 horns and 7 crowns is described as the strange God in the book of Daniel.The second beast with 7 heads, 10 horns and 10 crowns is said to be the king of the north that arises from the sea and the third beast with 7 heads,10 horns is described as the king of the South in the book of Daniel and the woman that sits on the beast is reffered as the daughter of the south. All of theses three beasts sum up to a time of 1260 days or the time of the end that is upon them.

Ten horns as ten generations in the book of Moses.

7*10*7=490,7*10*10=700,7*10=70,Isaiah23

490+700+70=1260

One Generation equals 70 years; life span of a king equals 70 years.

user:twentythreethousand07:54, 1 July 2007

Inappropriate use of "weasel words" tag

There seems to be an edit war in progress, with one user continually adding the "weal" (weasel words) tag throughout the article wherever phrases such as "many historians" occur, and then being repeatedly reverted.

The Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words page clarifies the sort of behaviour that the "weasel words" tag is intended to address: a statement that "Montreal is the best city in the world" is clearly unacceptable, and modifying it to read "some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world" does not make the statement acceptable. In this case, it's clearly an attempt to smuggle in a point-of-view by attributing it to conveniently anonymous "some people".

But this does not mean that it's appropriate to tag every occurrence of "some", "many" etc. Quoting from the "weasel words" policy:

Follow the spirit, not the letter

As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. While ideally every assertion and assumption that is not necessarily true would have the various positions on it detailed and referenced, in practice much of human knowledge relies on the probably true rather than the necessarily true, and actually doing this would result in the article devolving into an incoherent jumble of backtracking explanations and justifications.

This means that opting for or against explicit citation ought not be an automatic process, but rather a judgment call. How controversial is the statement being made? How prominent are alternative views? How relevant would introducing the controversy be to the progression of this specific article — relevant enough to be worth whatever strain on the narrative that will result? These are the important questions to be asking when dealing with citation issues. (See also: Ignore All rules).

In this case, it is a fact that most scholars accept a 2nd-century date for the composition of the Book of Daniel (even if some consider that parts of the book may be older). It's not even a particulary controversial fact: some may disagree with the assessment of those scholars, but who disagrees that this is their view? It is NOT an attempt to smuggle in a baseless POV such as "Montreal is the best city in the world"!

Placing a tag is supposed to be a temporary solution: it should only be used where there is an intention to change the article to eliminate the "problem". But what change is appropriate, or even possible, in this case? If there IS a detailed survey of qualified Biblical scholars on this issue, giving percentages on how many of them share each viewpoint: great, let's cite it! (...but who decides whether a "scholar" is qualified?). But without such a survey, how else can the authors of this article convey what is widely agreed to be the general scholarly consensus on this issue? Nothing controversial is being stated here (regardless of where the reader may stand on the issue of the date of authorship of Daniel), and nobody has suggested any way of removing such words without removing information from the article. If no improvement is possible or warranted, tagging is inappropriate. --Robert Stevens 09:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the phrase you use as an example is simple: We don't know whether or not most scholars agree. We can assume that they do, but we don't know for sure. A simple way of changing this is saying "Many scholars" or by presenting the two points as equal. I understand that "mainstream" scholars accept one more than the other in your point of view, but it is in fact that, a point of view. Until we have absolute scientific proof of the time of authorship for Daniel, or a survey of every Biblical scholar across the globe, saying "Most Scholars agree" is inappropriate. Even if one point of view seems to you to be impossible, until scientific evidence proves otherwise it is just what I called it: A point of view

We don't need "absolute scientific proof of the time of authorship for Daniel", because this dispute isn't about the authorship of Daniel: it's about what scholars believe regarding the authorship of Daniel. This can be checked easily enough. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for instance, states late-authorship as fact: because it's the mainstream scholarly view. However, it appears that the guy who put the tags in even objects to "many scholars". --Robert Stevens 16:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

     Odd, as "many scholars" doesn't necessarily imply a majority.

Edited "Apocalyptic visions in Daniel"

In the section entitled "Apocalyptic visions in Daniel," I replaced "seven heads and 10 crowns/horns, that is, six heads with one crown and one with four crowns" with "ten horns representing ten kings" in the description of the fourth beast (from Chapter 7). The description of that beast (see Daniel 7:7 and subsequent verses in Daniel) does not include any reference to it having more than one head.

Daniel 7:7

"After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns." (NASB)

Furthermore, in Daniel 7:20 it is indicated that the ten horns are on one head, not seven.

Daniel 7:20

"and the meaning of the ten horns that were on its head and the other horn which came up, and before which three of them fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth uttering great boasts and which was larger in appearance than its associates." (NASB)