Talk:Book of Daniel/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Book of Daniel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Date of composition

How can it possibly be written in the "2nd century bc" if the Septuagint translation, the (LXX), was created in 350 bc or around that time... and Daniel was already written to be translated... at that time... how could it have been written at a later date? you guys seriously dont have brains... and you gotta stop deleting the lxx thing, people deserve to know the truth... you guys only delete it because you know it is correct and you are wrong but you wanna sound smart.

see how you deleted it again? you guys need to get a life.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkorichard (talk • contribs) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Then explain how the Book of Maccabees(dated to the 2nd century) came to be included in the Septuagint if the Septuagint was completed by 350/270 BCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capsicumsp (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

the Maccabees were added later, and composed in Greek... NOT translated from Hebrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkorichard (talk • contribs) 10:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence H. Schiffman writes: "It is generally agreed that the First Book of Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew. Even though no manuscripts or fragments still exist in Hebrew, the Greek text of 1 Maccabees has the unmistakable style of a rather literal translation from the Hebrew. Moreover, the church father Origen (third century A.D.) claimed that the Hebrew title of 1 Maccabees was Sarbethsabaniel. This puzzling title is difficult to interpret but may be a somewhat corrupt rendering of Hebrew sar bet 'el ('Prince of the House of God') or of sfar bet sabanai 'el ('Book of the House of the Resisters of God'). Most Greek manuscripts simply term the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees Makkabaion A and Makkabaion B. By the second century A.D. To Makkabaika ('The things Maccabean' or 'Maccabean Histories') was the designation for both 1 and 2 Maccabees. The early church father Clement of Alexandria (second century A.D.) termed 1 Maccabees to Biblion ton Makkabaikon ('The Book of Thing Maccabean') and 2 Maccabees he ton Makkabaikon epitome ('The Epitome of Things Maccabean'). Although 'Maccabee' (meaning 'hammer') was originally the nickname of the hero Judah, the use of the title 'Maccabean Histories led to the custom of referring to all of the heroes of the book as 'Maccabees.'" (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 875)^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capsicumsp (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

lol, we disagree... and i do believe you've made it sound like its only those 2 "christian websites" that agree with me... but other then that, i actually like the new write up... i only wanted my point of view showed as well as yours... :) im happy now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.210.105 (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

traditional

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. Although this view continues to be held by traditionalist Christians and conservative Jews, it has been rejected by many of the scholarly community since the end of the nineteenth century. While a number of traditional scholars accept a sixth century date (Sir Robert Anderson, Dr. Gene Scott) "for mainline scholarship... these issues were decided at least a century ago" according to Dean Farrar. Some leading evangelical scholars have recently adopted this position^{[citation needed]}, while in the Roman Catholic community it has been the norm since World War II. [25] Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated and looted the Jerusalem Temple around 167 BC, outlawed the Jewish religion, massacred observant Jews and precipitated a national crisis that is commemorated to this day in the Feast of Hanukkah (which recalls the rededication of the temple). The Book of Daniel (in its final form) was written, according to the liberal view, in response to that crisis. Even when the fourth kingdom of chapters two and seven began to be reapplied to Rome in pre-Christian and early Christian times the memory of Antiochus was still vivid. This is evidenced by the fact that leading Jewish and patristic commentators such as Josephus, Hippolytus, and Jerome continued to apply sections of Daniel (especially chapter 8) to the activities of Antiochus.

Sir Robert Anderson DANIEL IN THE CRITICS DEN^[2]

Dr. Gene Scott www.drgenescott.com^[3]

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsmen (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Darius the Mede again

This article has certainly deteriorated since I last looked at it. The Darius the Mede section as it currently stands pushes the tired old and well debunked anti-Bible arguments about Darius the Mede not appearing in any other source. It does this despite clearly mentioning numerous sources outside the Bible mentioning such an indvidual and instead dismisses these as simply not counting because either they are other Jewish source e.g. Josephus or because they use a different name for the same individual e.g the Nabonidus Chronicle whose Gubaru is logically the same person as Darius the Mede. Attempts to present and make sense of the sources are dismissed as "apologetics". Come on people get real.

Some guiding points for a rewrite:

Logically Darius the Mede and Gubaru are the same individual the ruler placed over Babylon by the Persians. The Nabonidus Chronicle confirms what the book of Daniel says viz. that the Persians placed a ruler over Babylon. The only debate that remains is whether the use of the name "Darius" for this ruler in Jewish sources reflects an actual name used at the time for this person or whether it is a name for him that arose by some error at a later date.
The distinction between Ugbaru and Gubaru is clear in the actual text of the chronicle, its is recognized that the original translation which confounded the two is simply wrong. The names are spelt and pronounced differently and moreover Ugbaru dies soon, Gubaru goes on ruling for years - this is not some sort of "apologetic" opinion.
Josephus and midrashic sources present statements about Darius the Mede which are not simply derived from Daniel - they show indepedent knowledge of him.
Given the extra-Biblical Jewish sources, Xenophon's Cyaxares is logically the same individual not some other person that "apologists" are trying to equate with Darius the Mede. Moreover Xenophon clearly mentions Cyaxares being given a palace and realm in Babylon which even without the Jewish sources makes him logically the same person as Gubaru of the Nabonidus chronicle ... hmmm oh I suppose pointing that out would be Greek paganism apologetics ;)

Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Daniel/Archive_3#Messy_Darius_the_Mede_section for a more comprehensive discussion of the pertinent issues.

Unfortunately the "tired old" apologetic arguments remain tired and unconvincing. The fact that conservative commentators propose so many alternative solutions to this question is telling in itself and might almost be said to represent a "bankruptcy of criticism". Two key questions that these solutions fail to answer are:

1. If Cyrus was king and Gubaru was the regional governor of Babylon how would Gubaru have the authority to appoint 120 satraps to rule "throughout the kingdom"?

2. Why do the huge number of Babylonian cuneiform records from this period contain no reference to any king apart from Cyrus and his son Cambyses (who held the title "King of Babylon" for around nine months after the city was captured) after references to Nabonidus cease (William Shea's argument)?

--Sineaste (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kuratowski, I'll have to agree with Sineaste on this one. I'm actually shocked that you have flagged this piece of the article for 'neutrality'. It is giving the best neutral historical evidence on a topic that is in dispute. If the fact that there is absolutely no contemporaneous source that asserts that Gubaru is the same person as 'Darius the Mede' has been 'debunked', your section of the article must have left out some things because I don't see anything that contradicts that fact.

Making historical judgments is based on evidence and probabilities. You make the argument that Gubaru and 'Darius the Mede' are 'logically' the same person. However, there is not one piece of historical evidence that I am aware of that says that Gubaru was called 'Darius the Mede' by anyone anywhere. Have I missed something? The 'counter-arguments' are a shot-gun approach. The thought process seems like this: "Let me just throw out one evidentially unsupported hypothesis after another and see if one sticks. Sineaste's arguments simply have better foundation. Without at least one contemporary source confirming that Gubaru is just another name for 'Darius the Mede', I'm afraid you cannot make a plausible historical argument to that effect and should drop the contention. I wish you all the best in your relationship with Jesus.

--virago81 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"I wish you all the best in your relationship with Jesus." <-- I don't see how that last comment was relevant, in any kind of way that isn't logically fallacious. Awayforawhile (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Expositor's Bible Commentary

This section seems irrelevant on a first read: it lacks substance, citing neither example nor source, and offering no explanation for its large-scale dismissal of the status quo. Leegee23 (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

four generation four choosing other Gods,deuteronomy32:(summary of the book of Daniel

the numbers of weeks mentioned in the book of daniel are 62*7 and 70*7 which totals 924 days or years and calculated to be four generations.the body of the dragon to 2310 days or years.1000 generations /4 generations.2310/924 10+10+10 for 30 sayings

11*70*3 for2310 years 7+7+7 for 21 which is wisdom. 21

70

1260(490+700+70)

2310(770+770+770)

21(7+7+7)

10+10+10(30)

10*10*10(1000)

Noble theme:Psalm 45, for King Solomon or the messiah.I will not take away my love from him as i did to Saul.king Solomon is not in the genealogy in the book of Luke.Yeshua(God) is a descendant of the servant of Solomon whom God gave the kingdom to(because king Solomon served other Gods) and only one tribe was accepted from his descendants.(Blessing to David and his descendants:psalm 18) 390 days + 40 days =430 days and years, the time it took for the Israelites to be in Egypt and the beginning of the first of the years.The rememberence of the plagues and four generations for choosing another God.Though shall not put any name of other Gods on your lips and it is said curse anyone who teaches outside of the book of Moses in the book of deuteronomy .And yet the Greeks say the months and the days according to other Gods. The book of Job which is four judgements and Job who lived 280 years or four generations.He saw his sons children up until the fourth generations(7 sons and 3 daughters)(700 wives and 300 concubines for King Solomon)7*3=21 924/4=231 and 2310/10=231 the book of job is a tale concerning the dragon who gives life of four generation instead of one thousand generations. A righteous man,whom nobody is like him, like king Solomon who wrote the tale and job who was considered having broils over his body,for having a wisdom contrary to the book of the laws. The twelve curses from the mountain written in the book of the laws chapter 27.which is what's going to happen all over the world.For the elect sake God is coming unless the world is cursed. If the world is cursed that means its unclean.red moon for unclean and white moon for clean. if the body is red it's called unclean and if it is white it's called clean. Because of idols(other Gods) the world is four generations. As Peter said for God one day is a thousand years and thousand years as ....contrary to the five book of moses.four generation and a thousand generation. Everything under heaven is mine said God who was talking about himslef in the name of a dragon in the book of Job.It is described in the scripture that the stars will fall and the world destroyed. Smoke from his nostrils and fire out of his mouth,the reason he is called a dragon.psalm 18 and job 41.

King Solomon wrote his proverbs with confusion: A bear with three ribs it's the woman,a woman with twelve stars it's the twelve curses from the mountain relating to Job's curse,a leopard with four wings it's the woman again.Deuteronomy chapter 27 and 28.Apocrypha the book.(cloud and wind without rain)

The dragon following the woman in a strange dream and strange sights,Proverbs 23 it's the woman again.I don't know about yeshua but God doesn't see a woman but only men prophets.Twentythreethousand (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Literary Structure Again

I feel that it is only fair to give notice that I intend to replace the section on literary structure with a rewritten version. As previously discussed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Daniel/Archive_3#Update )the position represented in the main article is a tiny minority view that seems to have been abandoned by its original author, William Shea. Moreover it is structurally absurd, balancing individual verses against whole chapters, and suggesting themes for chapters that bear no relation to their content in order to fit a predetermined scheme. By way of contrast, the widely accepted chiasm originally identified by Lenglet (1972) in chapters 2-7 (MT) balances clearly marked literary units (in this case whole chapters) against each other. Furthermore, the correspondence in theme between these units is self evident.

The fact that the view expressed in the main article originally appeared in an in-house Seventh Day Adventist publication, as an ad hoc argument to support a Christological interpretation of chapter nine, detracts from its reliability. Consequently, it is difficult to argue that it has been properly peer reviewed and certainly no commentary on Daniel that I know of seems to be aware of it. In fairness to the author of this section I intend to maintain the hyperlink to "Daniel Prophecy Literary Parallels" that promotes Shea's position, and to include Shea in a list of four scholars who have proposed differing chiastic structures for the full book of Daniel.

The question of literary structure in Daniel is much larger than the question of whether or not the book is arranged in chiastic fashion. In fact the once popular practice of "discovering" chiasms everywhere in the Bible has come in for a great deal of criticism recently in scholarly literature. Consequently, I intend to highlight three, widely acknowledged structural features of Daniel: the genre division between court tales and visions, the Hebrew-Aramaic language division, and the chiasm identified by Lenglet (along with other proposed architectural schemes).

If there are any objections to this proposal I am more than willing to discuss and consider them.

--Sineaste (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced balance is correct

I feel that there is still too much weight given to the traditionalists apologetics here, still a lot of OR and unsourced statements. I'm going to work to clean some of this up. Auntie E. 07:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Darius the Mede section seems unbalanced. At the least, it's undersourced. Auntie E. 07:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of composition in introduction

The section about the date of composition states "While traditionally, the Book of Daniel is believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC, modern critical biblical scholarship dates it to the 2nd century BC (ca.165).[1] There is general agreement among scholars that Daniel's revelations are actually vaticinia ex eventu or prophecies after the event.[28]".

This means that there are not two "opposing" views, but one view, the one supported by modern scholars, and a traditional, i.e. old, one. While it is important to present the old dating, it must be clear that the text has been composed in the 2nd century BC, not four centuries before. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What you are describing is conflicting points of view. We have to stick to NPOV. There is no compelling proof it was composed in the 2nd C. BC, that is one hypothesis; in fact personally I find it a rather weak hypothesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What about "modern critical biblical scholarship" opinion? --TakenakaN (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still a debate between two points of view exactly as the intro states... with no solid proof when it was composed, only hypothesis. If you find their bald assertions of 2nd C. BC convincing, good for you, but no reason why everyone must. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You claim it is a "debate", the source states that there is a consensus. Can you present a source for your position? --TakenakaN (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't just me claiming, it's the introduction itself: The dating and authorship of Daniel has become a matter of debate between mainstream scholars and traditionalists. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That sentence has no source. Apart for one that claims that "most Biblical scholars maintain[1] that the book was written or redacted in the mid-second century BC"... --TakenakaN (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't recommend changing it, we don't need to make the article less neutral by pushing an unproven, baseless hypothesis that was never accepted by many. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, the source talks about "most Biblical scholars", how can you call this "unproven, baseless hypothesis [...] never accepted by many"? What are your sources? --TakenakaN (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has proven when the book was written, I'd like to see it. I'm saying it's unproven, I cannot prove a ngeative. There is only various conjecture about the date, and the traditional view is still widespread, as you ought to easily be able to confirm. Or perhaps not since you may have thought "Jewish" is the name of a language...([1]) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, we must report the consensus about the date of composition, not my or your opinion. The article already has several sources to support the claim that there is consensus among Biblical scholars; either you provide sources supporting the opposite view, that is no consensus among Biblical scholars has been reached, or you accept the modification. The burden of the proof is now on you. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what possible relevance does TakenakaN's possibly having thought that '"Jewish" is the name of a language' have? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Only that it would suggest something about his depth of resaarch. It should be child's play with modern technology to find evidence that the traditional view of Daniel's composition is widespread today, so I think I'll wait and see who else can get it up here first. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. The burden of sourcing falls upon the person who wants particular things in the article, not random editors. If you *have* sources, then post them. Don't make other wikipedians do your donkeywork. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 16:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, tell ya what. I'll add the "fact" tag myself to the sentence he apparently wants a citation to, and we'll see if we can't replace it with a ref in reasonably short order. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There. Now if nobody else gets it in a day or so, I'll replace the cite tag myself with the best ref I can find. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Per WP:OR, TakenakaN is correct that a well-sourced consensus among Biblical scholars must take precedence over unsourced alternative views. At the very least, if there *is* debate or holdouts for the traditional view (neither of which I can find), those *must* have cite needed templates if they are to be in the article unsourced.— --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No proof that there is no scholarly consensus about dating the BoD has been presented. If Til is not going to produce it, is it correct to rewrite the introduction according to scholarly consensus? --TakenakaN (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Be patient, TakanakaN... I just said I would produce it in a day or so if nobody else has... Hence the temporary "fact" tag... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to produce a source stating that there is no consensus among Biblical scholars about BoD dating? And why are you going to wait some days or someone else, instead to provide that source now? --TakenakaN (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To state it clearer: the point is the Biblical scholarly consensus, the source you requested does not affect this matter. --TakenakaN (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

POV in Scholarship section

A NPOV problem I have with the scholarship section is that it suggests that the mainstream view within Protestant and Catholic churches is for a strictly conjectural 2nd C BC date, meaning these churches would effectively consider it a pseudepigrapha not written by Daniel. If this is so, why then can they not declare Daniel a pseudepigrapha and remove it from the canon? (As well as strike those parts of Matthew quoting Jesus as stating that it was written by Daniel?) You know why they cannot: it's because it isn't really such a "mainstream" view in those churches as this article would have us believe. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is another problem. What about the introduction matter? --TakenakaN (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, broke it off to a new header subsection Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to add, that because there is a scholarly opinion or "consensus', that doesn't mean that that settles the issue. There are a lot of conservative Christians who don't give a rats ass what the scholarly opinion might be. Scholars represent a very small minority of those who have interest in the Bible. And they typically represent a very "liberal" position. Again, this is a very small minority and possibly verges on lack of notoriety. They just like to talk big and publish big books and articles and impress everyone with their amazing learning. Yet somehow, this minority is considered to be reliable, while the majority is considered to be suspicious and unreliable. go figure. Allenroyboy (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are to state when the Book of Daniel was written, the opinion of the scholars in that field is to be taken into account. --TakenakaN (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean this page going to get into another argument about the definition of the word "scholar"? After sources are provided verifying that other POVs exist, the POV pushers often tend to presume they can then discredit the schools of thought they don't like, with the old "Only our scholars are the true scholars" fallacy. There have been Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars (among others) for thousands of years. Apparently in some minimalist or militant atheist fantasy out there, as I've repeatedly encountered on wikipedia, these schools of thought, and their scholars have all suddenly disappeared overnight and are no longer valid, significant or worthy of mention or even the name "scholar". (in other words, the precise antithesis of neutrality - presenting only one side of the debate - with the additional hypocrisy of being dressed up as "neutrality".) And the pretexts they use for taking this ludicrous position are every bit as flimsy as the supposed "evidence" that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC and not earlier: "Because we say so!". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus among Biblical scholars must be taken into account. That you, personally, agree with them or that you think they have other "agendas" is irrelevant: we must take into account (modern) scholarly consensus. --TakenakaN (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of WHICH scholars. Scholars within the last 20 years? Scholars within the last 50 years? Scholars within the last 100 years? Scholars within the last 200 years? Scholars within the last 500 years? Scholars within the last 1000 years? Scholars within the last 2000 years? Scholars within the last 4000 years?

And which schools of thought are allowed to be reliable scholars? and who makes the decision as to who are reliable, you, me, or qualified scholars? As soon as someone starts only allowing this or that sources as qualified they are automatically pushing their POV. The point of a wiki article is to inform the reader what has been the thinking of mankind over the years, not just the opinion of a few who think they know best. 75.231.60.167 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Current scholars, who publish in peer-review, academical-level publications. --TakenakaN (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a load of crap. The book of Daniel has a far richer history of publications for over at least 2 millinia. To limit this to just 'current' is nonsense and POV. Take for instance, the noted scholar Sir Issac Newton. He wrote more than twice as much about the book of Daniel than he ever did on math and science. And you choose to exclude him simply because he isn't current. Who the hell do you think you are? Obviously you know nothing about this topic. 75.231.103.222 (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, we are not supposed to describe something as a "consensus" unless there indeed is a consensus (no opposition) among sources. If it is an open question, or a matter of dispute, we are supposed to say that it is a matter of dispute, which the intro currently does, rather than pretend there is some kind of artificial consensus by ignoring all opposing voices. I'm sure it won't be too hard to find better sources to indicate that there is still a significant difference of opinion and conjecture between various groups of Christians, Jews and Muslims regarding this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not mean unanimity, it means "most of scholars agree".

"I'm sure it won't be too hard to find better sources to indicate that there is still a significant difference of opinion and conjecture between various groups of Christians, Jews and Muslims regarding this." This is wrong twice: either you have sources and you add them, or you can't claim they exist; regarding the date of composition, the consensus is to be looked for among (I repeat, as you seem to overlook what you do not like to read) "current scholars, who publish in peer-review, academical-level publications", whose religion is not relevant. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to remember what we are talking about:

Fundamentalist readings of Daniel continue to flourish in the popular culture, as can be seen from the best-selling writings of Hal Lindsey, and conservative scholars have continued to fight rear-guard actions in defence of the reliability of the book. In mainline scholarship, however, the great issues that made Daniel the focus of controversy for centuries were laid to rest in the late 19th and early 20th century. A broad consensus on several key issues has existed since then. It is agreed that Daniel is pseudoepigraphic: the stories in chapters 1-6 are legendary in character and the visions in chapters 7-12 were composed by persons unknown in the Maccabean era.
— John J. Collins, The book of Daniel: composition and reception, p. 2

--TakenakaN (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To me this is clear-cut. The field of biblical scholarship is overwhelming in its view that the BoD has a later origin than traditionally ascribed, a fact that is highly germane to our understanding of its content and its role in the Hebraic tradition. For this fact to be missing from the lede itself constitutes POV, since it unfairly and unjustifiably censors a mainstream view that, in the context of critical scriptural understanding, is highly germane and important for the reader to know. There is simply no argument here not to include it; at this point, Editor Til Eulenspiegel is engaging in Lustige Streiche rather than actual debate. Eusebeus (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider that 80% of the US population are Christains who believe that the Bible is inspired. What part of the population do these "scholars" make up?--less that 1%. These "scholars" are not notable for they have very little position and are a very, very small minority. And yet you want to make them the know all and end all on this topic. That is pure POV pushing. Your bias is showing. 75.231.103.222 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very serious POV pushing matter that I can promise will move up the arbitration process for as long as it takes if the self-described "atheist" editors attempt any sort of POV hijack. (btw We should mention historiographic thought, but should also distinguish it from current thought — which clearly and verifiably shows that any claims that the tradiional view has vanished overnight are mere "wistful thinking." Please do not resort to logical fallacies with cracks about Lustige Streich, that is utterly sidestepping the question at hand in favor of a personal attack, which I hope isn't typical of your logical capacities. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing a point here. What is "Biblical scholarship"? Biblical criticism is not the only sort of scholarship. The is also traditional Jewish scholarship; it is after all a Jewish book. Traditional Jewish scholarship, all of it (or just about) considers Daniel prophecy. For that matter, it considers that there was one Issiah, and the the entire Torah was given to Moses (possible 12 verses to Joshua). There is a tremendous amount of material, particularly here in Israel. For example, on the left-wing end, we have Da'at Mikrah. There is no need to state this, because it has not changed. One does not need to state the obvious. Can someone pull out a Da'at Mikrah and get a reference? If not, I suppose I could go to yutorah.com and get something. And remember, we aren't even dealing with the right-wing here.Mzk1 (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mzk1, I can't see anyone on this page disagreeing that we should include the views of traditionalist scholars, if said views are appropriately scourced. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

anon IP, Til Eulenspiegel, Eusebeus, please refrain from WP:PA. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Traditional Jewish scholarship, all of it (or just about) considers Daniel prophecy." So what? It is already written that traditional dating is the 6th century, the problem is that it is not clearly stated that academic Biblical scholarship consensus is for 2nd century dating. --TakenakaN (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My reference to ´´lustige Streiche´´ was quite obviously intended light-heartedly. I cannot see how it can be construed as a personal attack. Anyway, none was intended. The point still stands that nothing in the above refutes the view that scholarly consensus should be represented in the lede of the article and identified clearly as such. I think it is reasonable to keep the fact that there are certainly those who are unmoved by those arguments and maintain belief in the scriptural authorial tradition. But this is an encyclopedia, and as such it must give prominence to scholarship and scholarly consensus. And that consensus, by virtue of the dating of the text, incidentally refutes the Talmudic tradition, although that tradition, as it pertains to BoD, should also be noted - only not as a serious source for the dating of the text as observed by TakenakaN. Eusebeus (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the "Traditional date" Biblical scholars are Biblical scholars, every bit as much as your "minimalist date" Biblical scholars. There is no "cosensus", school of thought with a monopoly, in this controversy, no proof of which scholars are right beyond mere assertions and counter-assertions, nor is there such a litmus test to be considered "academic" -- that is mere POV pushing once again. The source I have already added is Biblical scholarship, and it sums up both sides of the story in a balanced way (as many other available sources will also, if that's not enough). That's exactly what this article is supposed to do too - sum up both sides of the controversy in a balanced way -- not hypocritically pretend that one side is simply "right" and there is no controversy or debate involved. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, once again, nobody claims that there are no scholars supporting the 6th century dating. The problem is that one side is numerically larger than the other, and presenting the two of them on the same level is giving undue weight to the numerically smaller side. As I said, "consensus" does not mean "unanimity". Could you please answer to this? Thanks. --TakenakaN (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Takenaka, once again, you have utterly failed to prove that "one side is numerically larger than the other". I don't have to tell you what "consensus" means in the dictionary. What we have here is a longstanding dispute and a controversy, the very antithesis of "consensus". Please stop pushing your POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the proof that you are wrong about the non existence of a consensus among scholars:

Fundamentalist readings of Daniel continue to flourish in the popular culture, as can be seen from the best-selling writings of Hal Lindsey, and conservative scholars have continued to fight rear-guard actions in defence of the reliability of the book. In mainline scholarship, however, the great issues that made Daniel the focus of controversy for centuries were laid to rest in the late 19th and early 20th century. A broad consensus on several key issues has existed since then. It is agreed that Daniel is pseudoepigraphic: the stories in chapters 1-6 are legendary in character and the visions in chapters 7-12 were composed by persons unknown in the Maccabean era.
— John J. Collins, The book of Daniel: composition and reception, p. 2

Now, can we move on, or you insist that this matter is to be presented in front of an arbcom? --TakenakaN (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to go all the way to arbcom. Many sources telling the truth can be found contradicting your POV source can also easily be found, and have already been found. Claims of a :consensus" are pure propaganda, congratulations on finding some propaganda there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, you are verging on disruption. That is from a work published by Brill which was very widely reviewed in academic journals and contains contributions from leading biblical scholars. To dismiss that as propaganda is simply a way of targeting yourself for ridicule and (rather worse) casts a pall on your edits since your attitude would suggest that you are aggressively promoting a fringe theory and then using wikilawyering to defend yourself. There's no need for this to go to arbcom until it is shown that an equal number of editors are divided on the issue. As it stands, I am happy to revert any changes to the text that misleadingly claim that there is no consensus for the date of composition, and I am confident that many other editors who are capable of rational consideration of extant commentary on the topic will back me up. Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And here’s another non-ambiguous statement: "it is widely held that it [=MT] was not composed during the time of its sixth-century bce setting in the Babylonian Exile, but rather reached its present form around the year 164 bce, sometime around the end of the crisis precipitated by the actions of the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes." From DiTommaso, The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel literature (2005), p. 3. So if you smell any stinky POV, Tilly, I'm afraid it's you. Cavila (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(Answered here so as not to get lost.)

Again, what are you looking for? There are different sorts of Biblical scholarship. What type of "clear statement" would you like? I do not know of anything like a "Traditional Biblical Encyclopedia". You will not find books or articles on the subject because there is nothing to discuss. The traditional view of the dating of Daniel is what is always was, and is never goingto change. The only discussion you will find that is close to this issue is whether the First Temple was destroyed in 590 or 420. (There is a Wikipedia article on that.) You can't make numerical comparisions when you are talking about two completely different fields, with different assumptions. Would you accept a widely used High School textbook? An extremely widely used left-wing traditional scholarly Jewish Biblical commentary?Mzk1 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about academic-level, peer-reviewed publication-based scholarship. If you want to say that, according to Protestant theologians, the BoD is to be dated at the 6th century, nobody is going to stop you. But "academic-level, peer-reviewed publication-based scholarship" consensus is for dating this book at 2nd century, and hiding this fact is POV. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, this is the opinion according to that school. But this is not the only way to look at the book. And I am talking about the people who wrote the book, not any sort of Christians. I am not asking that you not say that, only that the traditional school (which has its own studies and scholarship) be mentioned as well. And, by the way, I question that any sort of literary criticism is "scientific". We are talking about a religious book studied in a way that denies the religion itself. Perhaps the article on the Koran should say. "the scholarly consensus is the Mohammod was not a prophet". (Just to be clear, I am talking about the header of the article, not the scholarship section. If the header is left as it is now, I have no problem with it.)Mzk1 (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mzk1, I do not know how to tell that more clearly, but I shall try. When you deal with astronomical matters, the relevant opinion is that of the astronomers; when you deal with history, the relevant opinion is that of the historians, and so on. When you deal with the dating of a text, the relevant opinion is that of those scholars who date the text, not of those scholars who use that text as a religious foundation for their theologies.

The existence of theologians that consider the BoD a 6th century work is not denied. The problem with their position is that they are a minority among academic-level scholars with peer-reviewed publications in literary criticism or history. And this is a fact that nobody, until now, has disproved. --TakenakaN (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Chief of magicians?

With all of the talk about scholarly versus traditional viewpoints, I find another troubling part in the header. It says that Daniel is the "chief of the magicians (4:9)". I found this a few verses earlier in the Aramaic. (It uses the Egyptian word there, by the way.) But earlier he is appointed head of Babylon (either the province or the empire; it is not clear), and head of the wise men. Wouldn't it make more sense to just say "an important official", and add Media or Persia?

Also, for a "book of the Hebrew Bible", the article appears to be entirely Christian. Even the supposedly Jewish part at the end appears this way, with a slanted reference to the Talmud, and a quotation attributed to Maimonides that is actually a famous quotation from the Talmud. (This is really strange, as any edition of Maimonides would have footnoted it.)

Recently it was been suggested in the Judaism project that there be separate Jewish and Christian Bible articles for the same books. This is beginning to look like a good idea.Mzk1 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to take this article to the next level...

This whole mainstream/traditionalist, academic/theological dichotomy is totally artificial, but for some reason, it seems to have taken hold in the wiki theological community like nowhere else. The early and the late dating of Daniel are both mainstream positions, and theology is very much an academic field of study. Where are you people getting these ideas? Have you any notion how diverse the worlds of Theology and Biblical Studies really are? Apparently not, because you're reading publications that tell you that their position is the only one that's worth taking seriously. Don't believe it, guys! In the world of Biblical scholarship, it's never that black and white. Instead of quibbling about who's right and who's wrong, we have a perfect opportunity here to present multiple positions in an objective and neutral way, and without using these loaded and biased terms which, quite frankly, are completely irrelevant. Let's rise above this pettiness and give readers the chance to make up their own minds, having been given an objective presentation of all the facts. We have recently learned this lesson on the Revelation page, and I see that it still needs to be learned here. Take my word for it, a fair and broad-minded approach makes wiki a much happier and more productive environment. In closing, here's a little quote for you:

"A critic has no right to the narrowness of the creative artist. He has to have a wide outlook or he has not anything at all" (E.M. Forster).

Best of luck! --gdm (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you whole-heartedly, this is exactly what I and many others have been trying to get across. Marxist dialectic, which calls for struggles to be fomented, just won't work too well on wikipedia in the long run. Here, alternate POVs need to COEXIST. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The only lack of consensus is in your head. You are now being rather disruptive, because many editors have taken the time to quote extensive sources that attest to the views of mainstream biblical scholarship. Stating as much is hardly POV pushing and you are now placing yourself at risk of sanction for your continued obstreperousness and lack of good faith. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@gdm: As I said, in historically dating the book, the relevant scholarship is history, not theology. Nobody says that theologi should be removed from the article. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the only "consensus" is in your head. I see several other editors beside myself (like Gmasterman immediately above) who favor taking a more balanced and neutral approach of not giving one POV priority over another, or pretending that one POV doesn't exist, doesn't count or is illegitimate or inferior to your sources POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem of your position is that "balanced and neutral" is not a blanket term you can use to push your POV in the article. "Neutral" requires "due weight to scholarly opinion", and relevant scholarly about the dating of the BoD is not found in theological faculties. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem is that we're using two different definitions of the word "scholarly". Your definition seems to be, anyone who agrees with you is "scholarly", and everyone who disagrees with you isn't. My definition is that a "scholar" is anyone who represents a widespread and significant school of thought on a given subject. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Your definition seems to be, anyone who agrees with you is "scholarly", and everyone who disagrees with you isn't."

Wrong. My definition is that relevant scholarship for dating a book does not include theologians.

"My definition is that a "scholar" is anyone who represents a widespread and significant school of thought on a given subject."

So the opinion of astrologers should be as relevant as that of astronomers, right? --TakenakaN (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On what subject? Astrology? You picked an example of something that is almost universally discredited, but to insinuate that religion is in the same category sounds like your wishful thinking again. The metaphor is not apt, because religion is far more widespread in terms of adherents, and significant to the subject of a book that Churches and synagogues officially call the word of God. We don't declare any other religions' sacred books "false writings", and you're not going to do an end-run around neutrality and tilt this article either, without arbitration steps being taken to remedy this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"religion is far more widespread in terms of adherents, and significant to the subject of a book that Churches and synagogues officially call the word of God." This is not relevant to our discussion, as we are talking about dating the BoD. And in this field, the BoD being the word of God or not is irrelevant. --TakenakaN (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Takenaka, this is pure sophistry. Nobody has proved the date of Daniel's composition. You cannot use wikipedia to force acceptance of a hypothesis on adherents that they do not accept. When the 165 date was first proposed in scholarship, everyone was clear that it was only a hypothesis. But here on wikipedia, we see that hypothesis calcifying and turning into established doctrine that editors can even be threatened banning if they challege, by means of a minority of pushy militant atheist editors who will settle for nothing less. This is the most Orwellian "neutrality" imaginable, but thank God it's only the English wikipedia making itself look bad among other languages once again. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed you can read all those languages, Til. I just looked at the French version and it is probably more emphatic on this point that the English one. --FormerIP (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel, the only thing that is to be accepted here is that modern scholarship puts a certain date to a certain text, just like wikipedia "forces acceptance of a hypothesis on adherents that they do not accept" where it concerns the age of the Earth exceeding 6000 years in spite of some that do not accept it. If you don't like a source then feel free to take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. And please stop accusing people of being "pushy militant atheist editors". These personal attacks are disruptive. Please stop. DVdm (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The big lie here is that "scholarship" consists entirely of the scholars who swallow this weak hypothesis. I have already found sources for other scholarship disputing the 2nd C date, and it is also modern, and it is also scholarship. Thus there is no consensus in scholarship, there is only consensus within the school of thought. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Right above here we see pushy, militant personal attacks against me saying things like The only lack of consensus is in your head. You are now being rather disruptive, After I have found SOURCES IN PRINT stating in BLACK AND WHITE that there is NO CONSENSUS on the date of Daniel, you still want to say it is all in my head. Because I have found sources in scholarship proving it's not just in my head, and you still want to single me out for personal attacks, once again the question of whether a few select editors editors can ignore these sources, pretend they didn't see them, and insist they are in my head, will only be resolved thru arbitration. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

First, that is hardly a personal attack - it is a statement of fact, amply demonstrated by the pattern of your response above. Second, your insistence that somehow you have refuted through the adduction of incidental sources what is an incontestably true statement regarding the consensus of biblical scholars is a disruptive version of WP:IDHT in the context of this discussion and the sources that have been patiently placed before you. I strongly urge you to disengage here. Eusebeus (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Continued POV pushing

User:Eusebius, despite recent discussion and lack of consensus, is continuing to push the fiction that "Modern" "scholars" are all in universal undisputed and uncontroversial agreement that Daniel is a Maccabean document and describes events that had already happened.

This has been demonstrated to be a fiction already with reliable sources. Those who say otherwise are also scholars, and they are also modern. They haven't suddenly disappeared just because you personally consider their POV illegitimate. This is still more evidence of the uncompromising and POV pushing problem going on for when this gets arbitrated. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment For an up to date mainstream view of this turn to some tertiary reference sources from top quality publishers. One I have easy access to is the Oxford Companion to the Bible, which has a small section on dating this book. I'll copy the entire text here so that there is no question about taking something out of context:

The book of Daniel is one of the few books of the Bible that can be dated with precision. That dating makes it the latest of all the books of the Hebrew Bible, and yet it is still early enough to have been known by the sectarian community at Qumran, which flourished between the second century BCE and 68 CE.

The lengthy apocalypse of Daniel 10–12 provides the best evidence for date and authorship. This great review of the political maelstrom of ancient Near Eastern politics swirling around the tiny Judean community accurately portrays history from the rise of the Persian empire down to a time somewhat after the desecration of the Jerusalem Temple and the erection there of the “abomination that makes desolate” (Dan. 11.31) in the late autumn of 167 BCE by the Greco-Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. (The story of this first of all pogroms of the Jews is told in 1 Macc. 1.41–61; see Maccabees, The Books of the.) The portrayal is expressed as prophecy about the future course of events, given by a seer in Babylonian captivity; however, the prevailing scholarly opinion is that this is mostly prophecy after the fact. Only from 11.39 onward does the historical survey cease accurately to reproduce the events known to have taken place in the latter years of the reign of Antiochus IV. The most obvious explanation for this shift is that the point of the writer's own lifetime had been reached. Had the writer known, for example, about the success of the Jewish freedom fighters led by Judas Maccabeus in driving the garrison of the hated Antiochus from the temple precincts (an event that occurred on 25 Kislev, 164 BCE, according to 1 Macc. 4.34–31), the fact would surely have been mentioned. But evidently it had not yet happened!

The discussion of the date of the book of Daniel can be summed up as follows. With the possible exception of minor glosses, the book reached its present canonical form approximately in the middle of 164 BCE, though the translation of 1.1–2.4a and chaps. 8–12 from Aramaic into Hebrew may have taken place later. One of the best pieces of evidence available for the rapid acceptance of the book of Daniel as scripture is the inclusion of Daniel and his three friends in the list of the heroes of the Jewish faith in 1 Maccabees 2.59–60, thought to have been written in Hebrew about 100 BCE. In contrast, in Ben Sira's similar list (Sir. 44–49), written about 180 BCE, Daniel figures not at all.

I hope this helps. These issues are more easily settled by turning to tertiary sources.Griswaldo (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But that's not the only contemporary school of thought on the issue. Other schools of thought exist, have been found and referenced, and you are merely ignoring them like burying your head in the sand. That's why this needs to be arbitrated. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream POVs exist whether or not "other schools of thought" do as well. This is the mainstream POV in scholarship, which is what we want in an encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, because "scholarship" is not restricted to your favorite sources. The scholarship you are rejecting because your POV is that it is illegitimate, is also scholarship. So either both POVs coexist, or there is a POV-pushing problem that can only be resolved thru arbitration. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhm no Til. The scholarship you site is not from any fields where people have expertise in dating ancient texts. Those fields agree with the POV you claim I have. This is not an argument or a discussion based on sources that disagree this is you using sources that have no such expertise and claiming that their opinions should count as much as the scholarship of the experts. Fraid not old chap. This gets very boring and it needs to stop.Griswaldo (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But you provided no relevant sources, Til. And yes, there is also theological scholarship, but theologians have no expertise to date books. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Says you... You seem utterly ignorant of the fact that scholarly rebuttals for every one of the minimalist arguments have been presented - not "theological" based rebuttals, but scholarly rebuttals. As I mean to demonstrate when this goes to arbitration. What you are doing is writing off schools of thought and trying to prevent them being mentioned neutrally, only because you and other editors don't like them. You are not going to foist your POV on wikipedia without resistance and I don't care if you call me "disruptive" for disagreeing with you, or whatever other names you may call me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have provided the sources, relevant sources, that state that "your" rebuttals are not accepted by most of the scholars. Current scholarship does not accept a 6th century composition.

"What you are doing is writing off schools of thought and trying to prevent them being mentioned neutrally" Maybe you do not understand that you must give due weight to all the positions to have a "neutral" exposition of the matter. This means that if most of the scholars support the idea that this book is pseudo-epigraphical, this is to be the most prominent position in the article.

"I don't care if you call me "disruptive" for disagreeing with you, or whatever other names you may call me" I do not call you in anyway, as I do not care about you, but about the harm you make to the project. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are POV, they call themselves correct and say other sources are incorrect, but wikipedia cannot do that. Even if your sources are the "majority" just because they say they are (a clear circular argument or fallacy of logic) we have to be neutral. You could also find sources that say "Everyone thinks the Quran is a false writing, and nobody who is anybody that counts, disagrees, therefore it is a false writing." But that's no better than playground stuff like "everyone thinks you're a jerk". "Everyone" in this context is a lie, a bald-faced lie. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My dear, your opinion (and mine) does not matter. That is an authoritative, scholarly source, not an excerpt from an unknown internet page; our "neutrality" means we are to report that position as such. That's all.

Exactly - we must report it as one opinion among many that differ. You've finally said something that I can agree with. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We must report it as the opinion, and another one, less supported, besides it. --TakenakaN (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"The" opinion???? I'm sorry, but that is just full of it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since it is the opinion of the vast majority of scholars who are the acknowledged experts in the subject, we WP:WEIGHT the differing opinions to obscurity. In spite of the fact that many believers would take issue to a dating of the book, the opinions of the believers cannot be reliably sourced and an appropriate weighting, as usual, falls heavily on the side of academic and secular sourcing. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Acknowledged experts"??? Acknowledged by whom, each other? Okay, but that means it is a school of thought, just like other schools of thought can be sourced. Why can the opinion of believers not be "reliably sourced"? Who are you to say that their belief is so illegitimate that even sources mentioning what it is cannot be used? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And around in circles we go ... the same discussion with Til every time. Doesn't anyone get bored with this? Tertiary sources show us what is mainstream. Done. Move one.Griswaldo (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Around in circles, indeed, we only keep repeating ourselves and we're at an impasse. That's when arbitration comes in. Don't be afraid of arbitration, as if you just wished this would all go away on its own - because when you start declaring someone's sacred text to be false and pretending that is "neutral", it's not going to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

consensus doesn't say that we have to accommodate sticks-in-the-mud. I declare that the consensus edit is to follow the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia and insert the well-sourced text. Per WP:IDHT, if there are enough people opposing a single user, it isn't an issue to make the edit and make sure it sticks! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

From reading some of the sources provided above, it seems very clear to me that the article should not give the misleading impression that the traditional or alternative view with regards to the dating of Daniel is anything much more than a fringe position. Til, it very often is neutral to declare someone's sacred text to be false, I'm sorry to say. The creation of the world in seven days, for example, does not represent a mainstream scientific viewpoint, and clearly WP should not suggest otherwise. It looks very much to me as if your POV on this topic does not represent a mainstream historical viewpoint. --FormerIP (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Get an officially arbitrated ruling or policy that all the Churches who officially call this their own sacred text, and all their millions of adherents who feel the same, are FRINGE, and I'll accept that argument. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly not needed. Wikipedia is a community ruled by consensus, not arbitrated fiat. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting now that there is a "consensus" as to which major world belief systems are "FRINGE" and which are okay for folks to believe? Please show me exactly how this "consensus" was arrived at. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm asserting that your request for an "arbitrated ruling or policy" about who is or is not specifically advocating a "FRINGE" position is not necessary in this instance. The consensus of the editors in this case (as in every other case I've ever come across at Wikipedia) is that the mainstream academic consensus on the subject is not "FRINGE" and that those opposed to mainstream academic consensus are "FRINGE". It's an assertion that is specific to this particular article and this particular talk page. It may be that in the future a counter-example will be found, but, personally, such an example would be quite surprising to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What consensus? I've seen plenty of editors beside myself who disagree that the widespread POV is fringe, or that the minimalist scholars' POV is "mainstream". Don't cry out "consensus" when there is no consensus. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I see you right now alone except for token support. Read WP:CON and learn about this most bizarre of Wikipedia institutions. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is absolutely right here. Classic case of WP:IDHT against WP:CON. I have also removed the NPOV tag as there is clearly no consensus for characterising the views of modern biblical scholarship POV. Eusebeus (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Til to Arbitration

In the current discussion Til Eulenspiegel has referred to arbitration a number of times:

"This is a very serious POV pushing matter that I can promise will move up the arbitration process for as long as it takes if the self-described "atheist" editors attempt any sort of POV hijack."
'"As authoritative as certain editors are pretending to be, I'm all for taking this to arbitration."
"That's a circular argument, a logical fallacy, and it is what I will be bringing up when this goes to arbitration."
"...and you're not going to do an end-run around neutrality and tilt this article either, without arbitration steps being taken to remedy this."
" ...editors can ignore these sources, pretend they didn't see them, and insist they are in my head, will only be resolved thru arbitration."
"This is still more evidence of the uncompromising and POV pushing problem going on for when this gets arbitrated."
"...and you are merely ignoring them like burying your head in the sand. That's why this needs to be arbitrated."
"So either both POVs coexist, or there is a POV-pushing problem that can only be resolved thru arbitration."
"As I mean to demonstrate when this goes to arbitration."
"That's when arbitration comes in. Don't be afraid of arbitration, as if you just wished this would all go away on its own..."
"Get an officially arbitrated ruling or policy..."

I think that it is time now for Til to actually go to arbitration and have arbitraded whatever it is that he would like to have arbitrated, and stop further disruption of this talk page. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that arbitration can only make determinations about editor behaviour. It normally won't entertain being asked to rule on a content dispute. If some process is needed, the Mediation Cabal may be a better bet. --FormerIP (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the real problem here is not a content dispute but editor behavior so ironically perhaps that's the best place for this to go if the rest of us want to solve the problem.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen above, I would support bringing such a case. I think it might be salutary. The editor has a tendentious pattern of both editing and engaging other editors. An arbitration case could at least consider restrictions or the imposition of conditions that would be of help in the future. Eusebeus (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No "Scholarly Consensus" on the original date of Daniel

The hypocrisy here has to stop. Wikipedia is not in its own little world here. It has to reflect actual scholarly sources, not just handpicked POV "bully for our side" sources.

"There is still little consensus of scholarly opinion on the Book of Daniel. While almost all accept that, in its final form at least, it belongs to the second century BC, there is little agreement... on the date of the origin of the narratives." Mason, "The Treatment of Earlier Biblical Themes in the Book of Daniel" in Perspectives on the Hebrew Bible: essays in honor of Walter J. Harrelson[2]

(Even I would agree that the "final form" is post-Antiochus, because the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the OG text PROVE that Book of Daniel (especially Chap. 11) was totally rewritten around that time. The older, original OG / Qumran version of chapter 11 doesn't fit Antiochus at all; perhaps Daniel was totally rewritten for the purpose of making it better fit the theory, mentioned by Flavius Josephus c. 100 AD, that the prophecies might have applied to Antiochus.)

"The scholarly consensus today is that the Book of Daniel is a composite work finished in the second century BCE, with a history of development. (1) At least chaps 2-6, and possibly an earlier form of chap. 7, predate the 2nd century." Wooden, "Changing Perceptions of Daniel: Reading Daniel 4 and 5 in Context" in From biblical criticism to biblical faith: essays in honor of Lee Martin (2007) [3]

"Although there is some debate about the prehistory of various parts of the Book of Daniel, there is a general consensus among scholars that the book in its present form is to be dated to the period between 170 BCE and 140 BCE." Chaos and the son of man: the Hebrew Chaoskampf tradition [4]

(of course, because "the present form", ie the rewritten form appearing in today's Bibles, is quite different the Original Greek LXX or the Qumran Hebrew Daniel, which are unquestionably extant, virtually unmentioned though they are!)

"Of the history of the composition of the book [of Daniel] we have numerous clues but little consensus." The Oxford Bible Commentary 2001, By John Barton, John Muddiman [5]

(note, the Oxford Bible Commentary, after declaring that there is "little consensus" on the history of Daniel, the gets into what it calls "one attractive theory" that it dates from the 160s BC. Note, not consensus, but "one attractive theory".

That was the Oxford Bible Commentary. If you still aren't forming a picture about the lack of consensus here not being just "in my head", let me know, and I can probably fill this page with many more scholarly sources all saying the same thing our article should say, because there were 1000 hits in my search, and I've only gone through the first page of them to produce these. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a single thing you've quoted contradicts the current entry whatsoever. Not a single thing you've quoted mentions the legitimacy of the 6th century dating you wish to promote. What they confirm is that there is no debate anymore about when the text was finalized. What "original" dates do these texts suggest? What ranges do they suggest? The current version of the entry reads "written or redacted" in case you missed that. What exactly is the problem here? Are you taking this to arbitration yet? Please do.Griswaldo (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

These, and many other impartial sources I might add, all state the fact that there is "no consensus" whatsoever regarding the original composition of Daniel -- only consensus that the "final form" (the rewritten form in todays Bibles) is late. Does our article reflect this situation? No, it is too misleading in giving the impression that the entire thing originated in 165 BC, which is only one view lacking consensus.

Since there is no consensus like the above sources say, it means you will find some theories that say the original version of Daniel was only chap. 1-6, and that it was written in the 6th C BC. You will find some theories saying that the original form also included chapter 7, or various others, take your pick. You will even find scholarly theories saying that parts of Daniel were originally written in Mesopotamia 2000 BC. No consensus on when it originated, means no consensus on when it originated. Nobody disputes that it was redacted in 165 BC, so that is the only "consensus" we can fairly state. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to find reliable sources to show that these competing theories are held by a significant minority within the academic mainstream, not simply to show that such alternative views are theoretically possible, Til. --FormerIP (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hogwash. That's why I'm asking you what ranges these sources are accepting or suggesting are legitimate. There is no absolute consensus about the exact origin of the universe but that doesn't mean that there we can accept 6,000 years ago as a legitimate scientific option because there are no reliable sources suggesting that it is. By your reasoning the dating is completely open for speculation when clearly it is not. There is still a consensus that it was not written in the 6th century whether or not there is a quibble over how closely to 165 BCE it was originally written. You've not proven otherwise by any stretch of the imagination. You're selectively quoting sources so you can continue your trolling on this subject matter. I'm done discussing this with you.Griswaldo (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Strawman. I am not arguing that any one particular date or theory is necessarily correct. I am arguing that there is "no consensus" about the origin within any range of dates, and that all of the above scholarly sources suggesting that there is "no consensus" are correct, and that the article should reflect these sources better. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, you are also using very selective quoting above. Here is the entire paragraph from the Chaoskampf book.

"Although there is some debate about the prehistory of various parts of the book of Daniel, there is a general consensus among scholars that the book in its present form is to be dated tot he period between 170 BCE and 140 BCE. Likewise, there is general agreement that, regardless of the possible prehistory of material in Dan. 7.2-14, the author is using the imagery in this passage to describe the events leading up to and of the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This this part of the book is to be dated to the same period. There is a consensus that the book of Daniel in its present form was written by a Jew suffering the Antiochene persecution, and thus originates in Palestine."

It is because you do things like this that I will continue to refer to your behavior here as trolling. You are not interested in getting to the heart of the matter, but simply to plaster the talk pages with incomplete evidence to support your own polemic. Please stop.Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Gris, read it again carefully. It's talking about the book IN ITS PRESENT FORM, and I agree with everything it says. But as for what other scholars call the "origin" of the book, and this one unusually calls the "prehistory" of the book (uh, prehistory means before writing, so how could a book be prehistoric? oh well never mind) it clearly concedes there is "SOME DEBATE", in agreement with the other impartial sources above. Stop arguing your own expertise as a wikipedian, versus published scholarship. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No Til, because the subject matter of this entry, and of scholarly commentary on the Book of Daniel (as with other books), is The Book of Daniel in its present form. It is not proto-Daniel, or oral traditions that lead to the writing of the Book of Daniel, or etc. etc. The above passage, and others, also show that there is absolutely a consensus that large portions of the book must have originated their content from the later period when the final version was penned. You're mincing words above and very disingenuously arguing something you know not to be within the scope of the discussion. More trolling my friend.Griswaldo (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're seriously arguing that the scope of this article is strictly limited to the current redacted / rewritten version of Daniel, and that any scholarly discussion / speculation of its original form as originally written, is out of scope and off topic in this article. I see, interesting, but perhaps not surprising. Perhaps then we need a dedicated article on the Origins of the Book of Daniel -- so that all the extensive various scholarship on that particular problem can find a home on wikipedia, rather than be banished outright as unmentionable like it currently is. Yes, that may be the best compromise. Then we can just link it and leave this article alone, since you just decided that discussion of Daniel's origins here is out of scope. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a usual tactic of Til's to misrepresent bona fide scholarly uncertainty into a semblance of support for his own eccentric beliefs. I think he has been doing this constantly since about 2005 or so. It is certainly possible to track academic debate on the composition of the BoD. As long as it is understood that this debate revolves around a composition process taking place in the Hellenistic period, not the Iron Age. --dab (𒁳) 14:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What would my eccentric belief be? I have never even stated what my personal belief is regarding the origin of Daniel. (But I have read lots of published scholarship on this, as well as the various extant versions in Greek and Hebrew.) The scholarly sources above say there is "no consensus" on Daniel's origin, meaning that there are competing views that don't agree with one another. It looks like these competing views they refer to may not all be mentioned in this article, and are off limits, for the reason Griswaldo just gave. So Origins of the Book of Daniel would be the perfect home for detailing these competing views that the above sources mention. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, neither you nor anyone else has shown the 6th century dating to be a legitimate view. I've asked for dates and date ranges that are presented as legitimate but you have provided none. All you want to do is to cast doubt on the date that we do have in there to suggest that possibility that your illegitimate view has some legitimacy. That's POV pushing and gaming. Please stop.Griswaldo (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that several editors here are establishing a false dichotomy. 6th century and 164 BC are not the only dating options! Til Eulenspiegel is correct in so far as he's saying that there is no exact consensus on the date of Daniel. Respected scholars have suggested that any date in the 2nd century BCE is possible, and some have argued for a slightly earlier date. I am disturbed that fans of that overly precise 164BC date have selectively quoted sources to support that theory. The article should reflect the range of scholarly opinions on the subject. And the sources used should be scholarly books, not TV shows. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Any date in the 2nd century BCE" would constitute a consensus, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to judge numbers, but I would expect that many scholars would support a date somewhere in the second century, with a few supporting an earlier (3rd or 4th C), and a few going supporting a later (1st C) date. If the article was reworded in terms of a second century consensus, it might gain greater support among editors, but I'm still not certain what precisely the "consensus" is. If I had time, I'd correlate date ranges in books with time of publication, and look for some kind of trend.

The article also hasn't touched on what precisely the "date of composition" of Daniel means, given that the Aramaic portions were probably written after the Hebrew portions. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC - Dating a the Book of Daniel: contemporary scholarship vs traditional dating

The Book of Daniel is traditionally dated to the 6th century BC. Today, only theologians and a handful of scholars support this dating, while the greatest part of academic scholars put the composition of the Book of Daniel at the 2nd century BC.

Where do you get this idea? I see it mentioned in the article and here, but no real references to back up such a generalization.

24.67.72.62 (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion regards the way to present this matter. Should we consider the dating of the Book of Daniel a controversy, or should we recognise the scholarly consensus and inform the reader of the existence of the traditional dating?

--TakenakaN (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Even this gives far too much, in that theologians in many faith traditions (mainline protestantism, Catholicism, non-Orthodox Judaism) have no problem with the scholarly dating. john k (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

On every article about a text that is considered as sacred canon by widespread modern-day groups (such as the Quran by Muslims, or Book of Daniel by most Jews and Christians) it is crucial to insist on strict neutrality, as the point of view of these groups and churches and the scholars in ther schools of thought is every bit as significant to the topic as that of the dry scholars who pretend their own POV to be a monopoly, or all that is relevant. Once again, all we have in sources concerning the date of Daniel are hyptothetical assertions and counter assertions, no convincing or compelling proof whatsoever, and you will have to have me banned first if your agenda is to have wikipedia openly endorse one set of bald assertions over another, because I will never stand for it. What we are seeing here are blatant POV pushing marginalization tactics, attempts to marginalize a widespread, significant and sourced viewpoint, that are not worthy of this project. We can either do this neutrally and even-handedly, or we can stand aside and let the POV propaganda sources that scoff and pour scorn on the "popular view" prevail. But scorning, getting rid of, or covering up viewpoints that contradict your working hypothesis, is NOT the true scientific way to achieve "consensus", it is one driven by your emotion. These tactics make wikipedia look like the fabled proverbial ostrich, stick its head in the sand, and say "All I see is my own POV, therefore the other POVS we are afraid of mentioning, have all gone away, no longer exist, and we don't have to mention them." Don't be afraid to mention viewpoints you don't like and let readers decide for themselves without "steering" them using biased language in the article. A fair and even presentation of both sides points is only feared by proponents of the hypothesis with the weaker points. Another thing, hypotheses and conjectures don't magically harden into solid "fact" after they have made it past some waiting period. That isn't how the true scientific method works either. Someone (Jews centuries ago in fact) came up with a theory that it was written in 165 BC, but no certain proof. A bunch of people said "we like this hypothesis better". Suddenly, they are trying to make the hypothesis an "official doctrine" and make it "anathema" to speak of anything BUT this hypothesis, and pillory all those who dissent as laughing stocks. But wait, I thought it was only speculation! Where is the proof? You mean we actually "proved" it using "peer pressure"? Once again, that isn't how true science works, that isn't even how a good pre-school works. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's yet another source backing up the one I already added to the intro. According to this biblical scholarhip, the only agreement is that Daniel reached its "final form" (ie that by Theodotion?) in ca. the second century. As it points out, citing all the major prominent scholars, there is anything but consensus as far as the date of the origin of the book. [6]

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, that above was the neutral statement requested by the RfC procedure. As an answer, you produced a long accusation of misconduct against me. In the past discussions, I ignored such accusations by you, but now I warn you: stop talking about "pov pushing", "covering up", "emotion" or similar attacks against me, or I shall proceed against you personally. I also remind you that you are expected to accept the consensus of the community: statements like "you have to ban me before I let you do this" are not acceptable. --TakenakaN (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you to stick to the topic rather than "proceed against me personally". Like I said, remmoving your opposition is a poor way to acuieve a fraudulent "consensus". Now btw here are two important early primary sources that disagree with 165 BC. One is the Gospel of Matthew 24, where Jesus says it was written by Daniel the Prophet in reference to the future antichrist, obviously nothing to do with Antiochus. The other is Flavious Josephus who indicates the tradition in his time is to the effect that the Jews showed the prophecies of Daniel to Alexander the Great which caused him to leave off ransacking Jerusalem. Obviously if it was shown to Alexader the Great (and who can say it wasn't) then it existed before 165 BC. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The new testament is not a reliable source, as there are no other sources stating that Jesus of Nazareth actually said any of the things attributed to him in it, and no known way of confirming the accuracy of it. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Who can prove that it *was* shown to Mégas Aléxandros? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding to your history of personal attacks on this page. They do not aid in achieving consensus. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

More contemporary scholarship:

Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. [...] The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C.
— W. Sibley Towner, Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)

Until relatively recent years Jews and Christians have considered Dn to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. [...] There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming.
— Louis F. Hartman, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 448

--TakenakaN (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no serious scholarly controversy concerning the dating of the Book of Daniel, and suggesting otherwise represents misinformation, as does making an equivalency between serious scholarly consideration and "traditionalist" views which are unsupported by the evidence. A summary of the quotations adduced above would be an excellent contribution to the lede; I agree with TakenakaN in cautioning Til Eulenspiegel against further personal attacks and incivility. Eusebeus (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. But also, why is there a need to offer any characterisation of the difference between the traditional and acadmic viewpoints anyway? Describing a "controversy", whether this is misleading or not (I would agree that it is), does not really give the reader anything of additional value (IMO). Traditionalists say x, academics say y. That is all that is needed. Readers will interpret it according to their own prejucides. --FormerIP (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this from my own end. Daniel is mainly notable as a religious work, and therefore the opinion of the people whose Bible it is, the people who still face Jerusalem (South of here, BTW) three times a day is at least as notable as the questionable field of Historical Criticism. I am not insisting on primacy, just that both viewpoints be reflected in the header in an NPOV way. Science, by definition, does not take religion (prophecy, miracles) into account, and thus is of limited use here. I couldn't care less what you put in the Scholarship section; to me the whole field is smoke and mirrors, anyway.Mzk1 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mzk1, the place of the Book of Daniel in the long history of religion and theology, from say the Church Fathers to modern believers, would be an important subject in its own right. Notable aspects of this history, if properly sourced to WP:RS, need to discussed in appropriate sections, but they have no place in the actual discussion of the Book of Daniel itself. Cavila (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an amazing statement. So the history of a book in the Jewish Bible only starts from the Church Fathers?Mzk1 (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In the English language, "say" is sometimes used more or less synonymously with "for example" or "for instance", which may be used to give a random example. Cavila (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is already a large section in the article devoted to the dating and authorship of the book. I don't see why there needs to be anything more about it. One thing which seems odd, is why all the emphasis on "modern" scholarship. Is "modern" scholarship any better than all the other scholars who have written on the topic over the years? Does a date make something better? 100 years from now, all these reliable sources will be unreliable because they are no longer modern. Allenroyboy (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, modern scholarship usually is better, because incremental improvement is the way all academic disciplines work. Consider the statement: "The primary function of the brain is to cool the blood". This used to be widely accepted. Long, long ago. And, in 100 years, the current contents of Wikipedia may all seem like out-dated nonsense. We'll be dead though, so there's no need to feel embarrassed about it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is very very flawed logic. History and theology are not like science in any way. So your analogy is invalid. And your pov is extremely shortsighted. nobody cares what you think. All they care about is what bible scholars have had to say over several millenia. Allenroyboy (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As authoritative as certain editors are pretending to be, I'm all for taking this to arbitration. By the way, the prophecies of Daniel in the original Greek (pre-Theodotion) and the original Hebrew Aramaic (Qumran) are hard to find, but available, and I have read them in the Ancient Greek and Hebrew, and I can assure you that Daniel actually took its "present form" well after these versions, i.e. the present form is the form represented by the Masoretic text and Theodotion. Very few people have actually bothered to look up the original texts in the original versions in the original languages, and see how they have changed, before pontificating on the Book of Daniel. Almost 99% of everyone in scholarship is arguing about the text of the newer version, represented by Theodotion / Masoretic text. There has been so much cover-up and misinformation here over the centuries, it is indeed a shame. But I can show you as many sources as you like that tell the correct story the same way we should: as many sources as you like, saying the only broad agreement is that Daniel reached its final form after 165 BC, but that opinions differ (in lack of anything other than hypothesis and speculation) when it comes to the date of original composition. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting, but Qumran was the home of a small, heretical cult. How do you know that their version was the one everyone else used?Mzk1 (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"I can assure you that Daniel actually took its "present form" well after these versions" I am sorry, but your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. We are to present modern scholarship consensus, and it says the opposite of what you "assure". --TakenakaN (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is really, really, sad, because this is the very editor who a few days ago tried to write into the lede sentence that Daniel comes from the "Jewish language". I read ancient Hebrew and Greek fluently. I have cracked open a few books. I know who Theodotion is. If You bother to look him up, you will find ample evidence that the "modern" version of Daniel is based on the Masoretic text and the Theodotion version, which replaced the earlier version around 100 AD. The earlier Septuagint version was pretty thoroughly suppressed and study of it or mention that it exists is discouraged to this day, but it is still undeniably extant - ask any serious scholar. But I suppose the editor who calls it the "Jewish language" has just given me my come-uppance. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that Til has praised himself without giving a single reason against the consensus dating, is there still opposition, supported by facts, to its insertion with due evidence in the introduction? --TakenakaN (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time in putting this discussion in an even-handed way. The consensus outcome of this RFC clearly favours explaining the (uncontroversial) mainstream scholarly view regarding the dating of the work, while noting that traditionalist (i.e. non-scholarly) views continue to maintain an older dating. I think making both points clear is both reasonable and encyclopedic. What is unreasonable is to include language that equates the scholarly consensus with traditional positions in laying out the dating of the Book. Thanks again for your engagement. Eusebeus (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage consensus cannot override cornerstone policies like WP:NPOV. At least, not without a prolonged challenge. Editors cannot vote on which hypothesis is going to be established wikipedia doctrine, and which one is going to be treated as "heresy" that readers are proscribed from. We are not the Council of Nicea; that is 100% beyond our scope. We are obligated to simply report what the sourced povs are, and who holds them, without endorsing any. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Talkpage consensus cannot override cornerstone policies like WP:NPOV." Right, but talkpage consensus decides what is NPOV and what is not. And this consensus is against your position. Please, realize this and let's go further. --TakenakaN (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to familiarize yourself a little more with what WP:NPOV actually says. Once again, talkpage consensus cannot pverride this cornerstone policy. The real lesson to be learned here is that Bible interpretation is a tricky business. What we DON'T do is take a vote on what everyone's favorite interpretation will be. Every denomination, every church, almost every theologian has their own way of interpreting some verses. We can source many of these and tell which school of thought feels which way, but policy clearly says we must do so as impartially as possible. No scholar can dictate to all of these groups and sects how a verse "must" be interpreted, and neither can wikipedia. Let's say that there is some denomination that says such and such a verse clearly refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. Wonderful for that denomination, but their interpretation cannot be declared correct and another denom that says "no, this verse doesn't mention Epiphanes at all, and couldn't refer to him, but to someone else" incorrect. Then if you want to see how much scripture interpretation can vary according to POV, just look at all the various theologians and Bible scholars interpretations and commentaries on a verse like Matthew 24:15. The verse quotes Jesus as sternly instructing his followers in the last days to watch for the prophecies of Daniel. The commentaries on this particular verse, which mentions and has bearing on BoD, are out there and easily referenced, to give us a good cross-section of all the interpretations and schools of thought here -- and not just from those who consider themselves among "his followers". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can repeat yourself, so can I! The place of the Book of Daniel in the long history of religion and theology would be an important subject in its own right. Notable aspects of this history, if properly sourced to WP:RS, need to discussed in appropriate sections, but they have no place in the actual discussion of the Book of Daniel itself. Bye now, Cavila (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, why exactly do the things I have mentioned "have no place" in the "actual discussion of the book of Daniel"? Because you say so? Nope - they are indeed easily mentionable, ought to be, and the article would be severely deficient if they were ignored. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I say "ignore" or was that another figment playing tricks on you? As you were the one shouting NPOV, surely you must be aware that "the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue". Although something may be shown of the way scholarly academic opinion has evolved over the years, any full discussion of other, e.g. religious, views are precisely that. Like I said. Cavila (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Cavila, you are just making up BS here, because in your POV the "specialists" are the sources who agree with you, and the sourcees who disagree with you (including all the religions that consider this a holy book) simply don't count, because they aren't "specialists" according to that litmus test you invented. That's a circular argument, a logical fallacy, and it is what I will be bringing up when this goes to arbitration. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Psssstttt, WP:RS. Cavila (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"The real lesson to be learned here is that Bible interpretation is a tricky business. What we DON'T do is take a vote on what everyone's favorite interpretation will be. Every denomination, every church, almost every theologian has their own way of interpreting some verses."

Til, once again, this is not Bible interpretation, this is a scholarly field of dating a text. And in this field, theologian opinion is not relevant. --TakenakaN (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added my comment below. However, I'm not sure why you think "theologian" and "scholar" are non-overlapping categories. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"However, I'm not sure why you think "theologian" and "scholar" are non-overlapping categories." In dating a book, they aren't, just as in determining the age of a papyrus manuscript, in radio-dating a manufact, and so on. --TakenakaN (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Takenaka, you have once again just stated your opinion that "theological views should have no place in an article about a bible book." You are way over due for a wiki-break. It will be a very cold day in hell before we willingly let your favorite set of scholars (via wikipedia) dictate to all denominations how they MUST interpret their own scriptures. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to dictate to the world that the Bible must be interpreted only YOUR way. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, this is not a matter of Bible interpretation, this is a matter of dating a text. Do you understand? If you do, please, stop giving that same answer every time. --TakenakaN (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure Wikipedia should be interpreting the book at all. However, it should be reporting on the range of scholarly opinion. To do that, it should probably include more citations, and carefully stick to what can be defended. For example, "many scholars" can be defended by giving multiple citations, while "most scholars" is hard to prove. There should probably also be more about the reasons for scholarly opinion, rather than just trying to state a "fact." -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the citations above?

Until relatively recent years Jews and Christians have considered Dn to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. [...] There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming.
— Louis F. Hartman, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 448

Fundamentalist readings of Daniel continue to flourish in the popular culture, as can be seen from the best-selling writings of Hal Lindsey, and conservative scholars have continued to fight rear-guard actions in defence of the reliability of the book. In mainline scholarship, however, the great issues that made Daniel the focus of controversy for centuries were laid to rest in the late 19th and early 20th century. A broad consensus on several key issues has existed since then. It is agreed that Daniel is pseudoepigraphic: the stories in chapters 1-6 are legendary in character and the visions in chapters 7-12 were composed by persons unknown in the Maccabean era.
— John J. Collins, The book of Daniel: composition and reception, p. 2

This is the support for "most" instead of "many". --TakenakaN (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Takenaka, those are sources that display a discernibly hostile pont of view toward the traditional church position. We may use such sources as evidence of a POV existing. But we are prohibited from endorsing any POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides the fact that there is no hostility, nonetheless they are the consensus among relevant scholars. Therefore that is a NPOV. --TakenakaN (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a circular argument. You cannot redefine "relevant scholars" to exclude those scholars who don't subscribe to your hypothesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not. I defined as "relevant scholars" those who are specialised in dating literary compostions; this excludes scholars who are specialised in extracting a meaningful theology from religious textes. No circularity here. --TakenakaN (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Aw, that's too bad... Wikipedia policy defines "relevant scholar" as "any published scholar who has had anything to say about the article subject". There is no such litmus test as you have deliberately designed just to exclude scholars for the various signifiant viewpoints of the various denominations who happen to hold this work as canonical scripture; just because you apparently feel their viewpoint is too insignificant to be accorded a voice, doesn't mean it really is insignificant to a neutral encyclopedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policy defines "relevant scholar" as "any published scholar who has had anything to say about the article subject"" and the matter is dating a text, not theology.

Wrong-O. For wikipedia policy purposes, the "article subject" here is the "Book of Daniel". Does anyone else here think that "theology" isn't at all relevant or significant to that scope? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, theology has nothing to do with historical dating of the book. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Radagast. And the interpretation that any of this has anything to do with Antiochus Epiphanes, is just one interpretation. We can even report that this is not really such a "modern" interpretation, but was actually concocted by a Rabbi or group of Rabbis in the early centuries. It seems this Rabbinic or Talmudic interpretation has been foisted onto the churches, in direct contradiction of Matthew 24:15, by means of "The Scholars Whom You Are Not To Contradict" (TSWYANTC). But I still haven't seen anything solid going for the TSWYANTC interpretation, other than mere chutzpah. And mere chutzpah from self-styled "scholars" has never been sufficient to convince many denominations or churches to abandon their canon or declare a part of their canon to be pseudepigrapha. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"We can even report that this is not really such a "modern" interpretation, but was actually concocted by a Rabbi or group of Rabbis in the early centuries."

This is false. As clearly stated by Collins, this is a matter laid to rest in the late 19th and early 20th century. Please, stop this nonsense. --TakenakaN (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Takenaka, please read the article more carefully. It already mentions that Josephus had made the connection with Antiochus, as early as the 1st century AD. The matter was certainly not "laid to rest" in the late 19th century, and once again that is propaganda, shouting in the wind, or wishful (wistful) thinking. Come on, now: does it look like it has been "laid to rest"??? I must have missed it, and am still waiting to see how. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

TakenakaN, I wish you would respond to my comment further down: Collins is the one who says "a more specific date is not available." Adding a list of citations supports language like "many scholars." To support "most scholars" is harder: you would need several citations supporting that exact wording. And I'm disturbed that the article seems to be trying to create a false dichotomy between two possible dates, when the actual scholars are much less definite. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

My understanding is the following:

One point of view believes that God exists and the bible is, essentially, a straightforward divinely-inspired work. To this group, the book's inclusion in the cannon is seen as strong a priori evidence of the veracity of the book's content. This point-of-view also strongly argues that the content of Daniel supports this interpretation.

A second point of view, held by people of diverse religious beliefs, rejects the assertion that Daniel's inclusion in cannon is direct evidence of its veracity. Instead, they apply historical-critical techniques to dating and interpreting the work. This group has reached total consensus that Daniel is a much later work. There is still a little bit of debate within this group about whether some portions represent remnants of earlier works.

A third point of view, held by atheists or non-interventionist deists, is that there is no Abrahamic-style God. To this group, the nature of the universe is evidence,a priori, that Daniel cannot be a work of genuine prophecy, since prophecy is impossible in our universe. This group also strongly argues that the content of Daniel supports this interpretation.

Now, I think everyone agrees that POV #1 and #3 do exist and are notable. The hard-line atheist POV (#3) doesn't really need to be covered in-depth here, I think. Since this is a work of religion, the point of view of the religions' followers (#1) absolutely has to be discussed in detail.

The important thing here is that each approach leads to its own conclusion. The debate is primarily over which approach should be taken. Within any given investigative framework, however, there is consensus. Thus, notable points of view are the:

Daniel as as early, miraculous scripture
Daniel as late, non-miraculous work

What you don't see much of is:

Daniel as a early but non-miraculous work by the prophet Daniel in the 6th century.

I would describe that position as non-notable. I'm sure it's out there, but it's very rare.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how many references did you consult to arrive at that uderstanding? Have you found any refs that display this kind of analysis? Did you happen to come across this ref? [7] (Please read the entire section regarding scholarship on the date of Daniel.) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the nature of Third opinions and RFCs-- any comment is bound to meet disagreement from one side. In answer to your question about how many reference I've read, the answer is "a lot". But of course, one can never read them all.

So, you cite a work compiled by an evangelical theologian that reaches the conclusion that the work is consistent with a 6th century Daniel. But this is undisputed. A miraculous 6th-century Daniel is one of the notable points of view that should be included.

But is there really anyone who believes a 6th century Daniel composed the work through non-miraculous means?

The article you cite seems to acknowledge the point I was trying to make-- there's a pretty firm consensus that the level of historical detail in Daniel is beyond what could be explained by mere coincidence or other non-prophetic means. (As opposed to say, Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce where scholars just dismiss the alleged 'fulfilled' prophecies. Daniel isn't in that category.)

But even still, the central point I was making appears to be corroborated by the entry you cite:

dating the book depends on other matters, such as authorship, intention, and the extent to which one takes a 'prophetic' interpretation

the writer was thoroughly familiar with the history [...] of the sixth to second centuries.

the first part of the argument must be conceded [...] Daniel does present a remarkable knowledge of Near Eastern History.
The critical question is whether the knowledge was ordinary human knowledge, gained after the fact, or special knowledge revealed to Daniel beforehand.

I've heard lots of defenses of a divinely inspired Daniel, and I've heard lots of defenses of a 2nd century. I've never heard any defense of how a 6th century figure could have written the entirety of Daniel without divine intervention. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course your point is corroborated by that source, and it's the same point I was making myself, as an example of scholarly language that reports arguments on both sides in a way that is neutral and balanced rather than tilted to endorse any speculation. That is precisely the approach that this article should strive for. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call Tyndale balanced exactly. It's not trying to adopt a 'neutral point of view'. (And since it's not a wikipedia article, there's no reason why it should.) But it is a very good summary of what is being called the 'traditional' point of view on the subject.

Perhaps some of the confusion lies in the word 'scholarly'. Here, it's being used as a short-hand for 'historical-critical'. But of course, 'scholarly' and 'traditional' aren't literally mutually exclusive, it's just a convenient term to describe one of the major points of view on Daniel, and perhaps better labels could be found.

Yes, of course that is the point. The problem is that some here are using this semantic trick to say that the historical-critical view should be give more weight than the traditional.Mzk1 (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The "trick" is ignoring the fact that in the matter of historical dating of the book, the relevant view is the historical one, not the theologians'. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, we'll just be left to describe the two different major approaches, their different assumptions, and their conclusions about the work. For traditional, that's a divinely-inspired Daniel writing in the 6th century. For historical-critical, it's a 2nd century author. Trying to reconcile or conflate the two will only lead to confusion, since we're definitely never going to reach a consensus on wikipedia about the existence or nonexistence of God. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd Comment

I'm not sure we have any reliable source on how large or small the traditionalist camp among scholars is, but there are certainly academic-level traditionalist scholars with peer-reviewed publications in OT studies. The article should certainly cite Collins, Flint, and VanEpps, who argue for a late (1st or 2nd century) date, but note uncertainty. Evangelical scholars like Mangano tend to discuss the issue, but lean towards an earlier (4th or 5th century) date, which is a third option. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly Collins, Flint, and VanEpps can be taken as evidence AGAINST a highly specific date like "second half of the 160s BC." -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They write "The most likely time of composition is somewhere between the beginning of the second century BCE and the coming of Pompey. Evidence for a more specific date is not available." -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm backing away now to avoid also breaching WP:3RR, but it seems to me clear that there are respectable scholars who don't support a highly specific date in the 160s. The fact that one scholar sees evidence for such a date as "overwhelming" doesn't mean that there is a scholarly consensus. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And I find it disturbing that Collins is being cited in support of an opinion he's specifically disagreed with, as per the quote above. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I can rewrite the wording, but the concept is the same. And please note, the fact that some disagreement exist does not mean that the field is equally divided. The consensus is that the text has been written in the Maccabean era. --TakenakaN (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can find evidence supporting that assertion, you should include it in the article. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the sources provided? --TakenakaN (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

They provide evidence for what several scholars think, which is not the same as establishing that it's the consensus. For that, you would have to prove that very few people hold a different point of view. Again, Collins, Flint, and VanEpps indicate that a pre-Maccabean date is possible. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

3rd Comment

A good general rule regarding disputes over authenticity and dating is to split the traditional view from current scholarship, giving primacy to the latter. Only if there is dispute among contemporary researchers should the dispute be noted, and even there WP:NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to each side. See how I have dealt with this in a non-theological context, Epistles (Plato).

The Bible is a primary source regarding the traditional view only (per WP:PRIMARY#cite note-1); anything that requires interpretation of the Bible cannot be included at all (per WP:SYNTH), while what can be included is evidence only of the biblical view, not of fact (per WP:NPOV). As to the views of theologians, some engage in biblical criticism, others do not. The views of those who repeat the traditional view without engaging modern scholarship (other than to condemn it) should not be cited in a discussion of current scholarship; they hem to the traditional view (per WP:RNPOV. Those who do can be cited regarding the debate, but I only see one (Expositor's Bible Commentary); in any event, the scholarship seems so overwhelming that the majority of the Dating and Content section should present the scholarship in favor of the 2nd-century BCE dating (per WP:UNDUE). Sources have been adduced that state clearly this is the mainstream scholarly view, while sources to the contrary have not be adduced (at most, there is dissent, but not a statement that some other position is the most widely accepted). We can note that mainstream scholarship is opposed to the traditional view, but the traditional view itself should not mold what is said about mainstream scholarship. In this particular case, the traditional view does not appear to have a strong following among scholars (popular support notwithstanding). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your "solution" is that you assume that modern scholarship is better than any other previous scholarship, which is in itself a powerful POV. This results in ignoring such important Biblical scholars such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Newton and many others over the centuries because they didn't publish in modern peer reviewed journals.

Another important point is that any comment on the Bible is interpretation of it. This is not restricted to just conservative, but also to liberal and critical scholarly publications. Thus you end up excluding all sources per WP:SYNTH.

And, theological discussion of the Bible is not science. While the latest thinking in scholarship typically means the best understanding of the natural world by science, this totally fails when it comes to literature and the Bible. Chances are that some of the old scholarly treatises are more accurate and true than anything now, simply because they were written closer to the times than today at hundreds or thousands of years later.

Also, "overwhelming consensus" must itself be a quote from some reliable source else it is just your WP:SYNTH. 75.196.210.56 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to get too far into things, but I do not suppose the superiority of modern scholarship. Rather, if old views have defenders in modern scholarship those defenders count as modern scholars; contemporary textbooks can be cited in support of Newton's second law of motion, for example. Also, the prohibition on syntheses does not limit what counts as a reliable source; it rather signals when an editor has engaged in original research even though s/he cites a reliable source. I think my use of the phrase "anything that requires interpretation" might have led to misunderstanding: any direct citation of the Bible that interprets it runs afoul of WP:SYNTH. The Bible can be used to support the statement that the Bible claims that the world was created in six days; biblical quotations cannot be used to establish the relationship between the first two chapters of Genesis, on the other hand. Saying that Ezekiel shows that Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE is a synthesis; saying that scholar X notes that Ezekiel suggests this dating is not. I think what you object to is more the consequences of WP:RNPOV and WP:UNDUE than WP:SYNTH. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 03:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

^ http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1maccabees.html
^ Sir Robert Anderson
^ www.drgenescott.com

[1] ttp://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1maccabees.html

[2] Sir Robert Anderson

[3] www.drgenescott.com

[1]

[2]

[3]