Talk:Book of Daniel

On the general tenor of the article.

Whether the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century or the 2nd century is one question - another question, which is, or should be, more important to Wikipedia, is the way in which this topic is presented. Personally, I find the tone rather arrogant, and disrespectful to almost all believing Jews and Christians, for whom the earlier date is pivotal in establishing either the validity of the Messiah which is to come, or has already come, respectively. To state the later date as fact would indicate that almost all believing Jews and Christians are either fools or liars and that whoever wrote the Book of Daniel was a fraud and a liar as were the Jewish priests who presented it to the people. But even more important than THAT, to an encyclopedia, is that the presentation is more subtly polemic rather than encyclopedic. Compare the way that the Encylopedia Britannica opens its article on the Book of Daniel (https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Book-of-Daniel-Old-Testament):

The Book of Daniel, also called The Prophecy Of Daniel, is a book of the Old Testament found in the Ketuvim (Writings), the third section of the Jewish canon, but placed among the Prophets in the Christian canon. The first half of the book (chapters 1–6) contains stories in the third person about the experiences of Daniel and his friends under Kings Nebuchadrezzar II, Belshazzar, Darius I, and Cyrus II; the second half, written mostly in the first person, contains reports of Daniel’s three visions (and one dream). The second half of the book names as author a certain Daniel who, according to chapter 1, was exiled to Babylon.

— The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica

It then goes on to present arguments that the earlier date is more probable:

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

— The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica

This is good encyclopedic writing (note the use of the word probable rather than, "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century...")- and although the E.B. article is rather short, it presents facts as facts and arguments as arguments. So here are the facts: There is a Book of Daniel that is a part of the Old Testament. There is a controversy about the date. Most believing Christians and Jews believe in the earlier date. Most secular, scholars of antiquity and many religious Bible scholars believe in the later date.

Then there are the arguments - The three references in the Book of Ezekial as arguments for the earlier date, the counterarguments to that, the matter of Darius being the successor, not the predecessor being a strong argument for the later date, etc. If this article were really being encyclopedic and not partisan to a point of view, regardless of how many worthies weigh I on the subject, then it would present facts as facts and arguments as arguments, and not arguments as facts; attribute the arguments to the right sources, and leave it to the reader make up his own mind what to think, rather than having Wikipedia tell him what to think. One of the jobs of a good article on a topic such as this one is to provoke the reader to more inquiry not less. This article needs to be re-written by someone who is partisan neither to the earlier date nor to the later one.Contraverse (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, we teach it a fact (as opposed to teach the controversy) because that's the only mainstream historical view, from the Ivy League to US state universities. This has been discussed to death, and the academic consensus holds unchanged for more than one century.

"there was a famous professor at Oxford in the middle of the 19th century an imp you see who said that if Daniel did not indeed speak these things he must have lied on a frightful scale somebody must have lied at a frightful scale they say that is actually a lack of any kind of literary sensitivity of an appreciation of literary conventions". Quoted from Yale Bible Study, Daniel: Who Was Daniel? on YouTube. Either Joel Baden was drunken, or he is actually right that John J. Collins is the topmost worldwide scholarly authority on the Book of Daniel.

“there is little that we can salvage from Joshua’s stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archeological evidence is indisputable.”

This is the judgment of one of the more conservative historians of ancient Israel. To be sure, there are far more conservative historians who try to defend the historicity of the entire biblical account beginning with Abraham, but their work rests on confessional presuppositions and is an exercise in apologetics rather than historiography. Most biblical scholars have come to terms with the fact that much (not all!) of the biblical narrative is only loosely related to history and cannot be verified.

— John J. Collins

It does not mean that Jews and Christians get called liars. It means that archaeology has spoken and there is no turning back to pre-Enlightenment historiography.

Above Joseph Rowe claimed that there are "two camps" of participants in a statement that implies that both perspectives should be taken as equally valid claims and that a "compromise" midway between the perspectives is appropriate. This is a false dichotomy and that is simply not the way that WP works. We give prominence to mainstream interpretations and usage (as demonstrated by the majority of RSs) in the lead and relegate the occasional idiosyncratic usage to a brief mention deep in the article. I might be inclined to support a sentence or two below the psychology and sociology sections but only after: 1) the multiple issues at Philosophy of conspiracy theories are resolved 2) and suitable neutral language is suggested that does not overstate the importance of a minority academic interpretation of the topic. I would discourage opening a new RfC to include these suggestions in the lead as it is highly unlikely to succeed.
— User:Mu301

What difference do you see to Smith and Mormonism? A man claims he has had revelations from God, presents a new scripture he says comes from God, starts a new religion that claims to be a restoration, not new. It sure seems very similar. The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible.
— User:Jeppiz

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

" that whoever wrote the Book of Daniel was a fraud and a liar" I don't see a problem with that statement. Most of the books in the Old Testament are pseudepigrapha written in the Achaemenid Empire or the Hellenistic era and attributed to mythical or outright fictional characters from the distant past. Seeking truth in the Bible is a fool's errand.Dimadick (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica article is based on an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. (Sorry, but EB uses Wiki quite a lot). The author of Daniel was writing an apocalypse, not a prophecy, and he followed the rules of Jewish apocalypse (there are quite a few of them, though Daniel is the only one that made it into the Bible). Achar Sva (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

"for whom the earlier date is pivotal in establishing either the validity of the Messiah which is to come, or has already come, respectively. To state the later date as fact would indicate that almost all believing Jews and Christians are either fools or liars and that whoever wrote the Book of Daniel was a fraud and a liar as were the Jewish priests who presented it to the people".

Actually, many believing Jews and Christians are more than willing to accept the 2nd-Century date. Just because the book was written later does not mean that it cannot be considered inspired. Seb773 (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and likewise, a later date of composition does not preclude the idea that some of all of the material dates back to earlier information. Textual criticism and faith can certainly inform one another, but they have their separate spheres. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

References

@Achar Sva: what evidence is there that the EB article copied from Wikipedia? NyMetsForever (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the evolution of the Wikipedia article over the years, and the EB article quoted above is very close to one of them. The Wikipedia article was written from sources which did not include the EB. You can look far back into the history of this article, to the time when it was extensively rewritten by PiCo. Achar Sva (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I don't know the details, but I thought that generally, it was Wikipedia consensus that EB is generally a reliable source NyMetsForever (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@NyMetsForever: The two claims are not mutually exclusive. If Britannica wants to become the vetted Wikipedia, it has the right to do so. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@NyMetsForever: Not when it uses Wikipedia as its source. Achar Sva (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I checked the revision history. It appears that user PiCo started substantially rewriting this article in 2018. I also checked the Britannica most recent revision to its article, and it was in 1998, when Wikipedia did not exist. Here is the documentation I will ask you to:

• i) withdraw your claim.
• ii) apologize for lying.

cc: @Tgeorgescu:.. Here is the documentation NyMetsForever (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: @Tgeorgescu: even more damning, I checked my 1991 paper Encyclopedia Britannica, and it says virtually the same thing as the online version last edited in 1998. I think Achar Sva needs to apologize for lying. NyMetsForever (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

PiCo rewrote the article years before 2018. I don't see what you're getting upset about. EB today is written the same way as Wikipedia, by volunteers. That 1998 date is the date EB added the article to its database, not the date of the most recent revision. Let's move on to soomething substantial, the scholarly view of the composition of Daniel. The consensus is that the date at which it first appeared in its modern form was about 164 BCE. The court tales in the first half are older and date back to the Babylonian diaspora, but they were gathered together as a collection around 200 BCE. That's what our article says, and to check that you can look at the sources we use. Achar Sva (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I am upset because you said that Britannica copied Wikipedia when my paper Encyclopedia Britannica of 1991 says the same exact thing that the 1998 addition to the online database. (Also, Online Britannica records revisions as well and edits as well) Unless user PiCo somehow edited Wikipedia before the paper Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition, it is literally impossible for the EB article to have copied user PiCo. NyMetsForever (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I don't particularly care if we add EB here, since while EB is reliable, it's not required to be here. It just felt wrong to be misled about EB. NyMetsForever (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

May I remind you that Wikipedia:Civility is policy? Avoid making personal attacks. Dimadick (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick: maybe I was too harsh. I am sorry @Achar Sva: I did not mean to be harsh. It's a minor point anyways. Both EB and WP are on the same page. NyMetsForever (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

bro lets be honest he still outright lied and that is something that he needs to apologize for. Wikipedia must maintain a level of academic integrity and that lying completely violates it. Juicyj2311 (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hello, I wanted to make a change in places where a 3rd or 2nd century authorship theory is called a "consensus" or "generally accepted" to reflect that this is the position of some scholars. This is one theory of many, it is far from a consensus (and I mean in scholarly, and biblical criticism circles), especially after the discovery of Daniel in Qumran, as I mentioned in my changes. After making the changes they were undone and I had this conversation with the person who undid my changes, (edited down a bit)

Undid revision 1119557205 by Prof.Silas not an improvement for e.g. changing "the consensus" to the WP:WEASEL "some scholars believe"

Is that the only reason you undid all my alterations? "the consensus is that" is unverified and unsourced. I don't even think it can be sourced that's why I switched it. Also, the worlds, "some scholars believe" are not weasel if you actually source the claim as I did, the problem is if you use soft attributions and don't source. "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." (FROM WP:WEASEL)

My reason for undoing your alterations is that they were not an (overall) improvement to the article in my opinion, as I said in my edit summary. When you say it is "unverified and unsourced"... are you saying you checked all the cited book references and verified this yourself? And the lead does not state "the consensus is that" and/or "some scholars believe" in either the current version or the version with your alterations. So how does WP:LEAD apply here? You can propose your changes at Talk:Book of Daniel and see if you can get consensus there. Bennv123 (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that it is unverified that there is a consensus, thats why I switched it to reflect that this is the position of some scholars. The quote that I sent you is from the weasel section, after it talks about weasel words, it states clearly that they aren't ipso facto weasel words: only if you don't source. This criteria doesn't only apply to the lead section but to the whole article. If you don't get what I'm saying please just read the weasel section all the way through. Thank you. All of my changes are for the purpose of academic honesty and clarity, if there are other complaints you have with it please let me know otherwise I'd like to repost the rest of the changes.

Just because such phrases are not automatically weasel words doesn't mean that they are automatically not weasel words). It depends on the usage and context. The passage from WP:WEASEL you quoted from also says: "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source." I am not convinced that you have actually read the cited book references to verify that your changes accurately represent the opinions of those sources.

I am familiar with the three sources that are effected and their claims (seow, ryken, and collins), I am not adjusting the claim or source at all, I am only changing it from consensus to clarify this is the position of some scholars, and not necessarily a consensus. It is not more or less weaselly in that regard. Nonetheless I will make a discussion point.

If These statements are going to remain I think they need some form of citation, of course its not really possible to site a consensus here but something more substantial than we currently have. But I am not convinced such a consensus exists as I mentioned. This, aswell as treating it as assumed that the book was written 2nd century for example, "All eight manuscripts were copied between 125 BC (4QDan^c) and about 50 AD (4QDan^b), showing that Daniel was being read at Qumran only about 40 years after its composition." (This assumes as fact a c.160s BCE authorship). If anyone would like to see my changes they are in the History, thank you for reading and have a good evening. Prof.Silas (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me spell out your choice: abide by WP:RS/AC or be gone from Wikipedia. There is no need to beat around the bush, the end result is the same: you will be blocked and banned if you don't abide by it. We don't need fundamentalist claptrap masquerading as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Either you kowtow to WP:CHOPSY, or Wikipedia is not the proper place for you.

If you would be seeking to play the antisemitism card, see http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/notes/22-Notes.pdf and Video on YouTube. Therein two Jewish professors, one from Harvard and one from Yale, argue that there was no historical Daniel. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, no need to be a rude, WP:RS/AC is exactly my point. Exactly what I am saying. " A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view" (WP:RS/AC) I am not making any religious fundamentalist argument, I don't believe that Daniel was written in the year 600, many of the citations I added counter that idea. Just because other academics consider a different position and recognize problems in hypotheses does not make them religious fundamentalists. My propositions are based on clarity and recognizing that we don't have what WP:RS/AC is asking for currently. And I stated here that if the statements are going to remain then I think they need some form of citation... I don't understand how you see me as the one failing to respect the guidelines. This is exactly more point; there are real discussions about the period of the authorship of Daniel, it is not correct to state that the c.165 date is a proven fact. It just is not.

If you talking about me including traditional Judaic positions then I would ask you to read the neutral point of view- religion section of the guidelines: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion "Their [the religious] point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else.""

This is VERY similar to how I structured my changes, with this particular idea in mind. Thank you. There is absolutely no part of Wikipedia guidelines that says not to post religious views on a subject as I have, otherwise it would not function as well as a database of knowledge (especially for religious people or people interest in Hebraic/Christian studies etc.) But these are really two separate issues (one being "consensus" vs "some scholars" and two being the inclusion of traditonal Jewish sources. Also I am not Jewish or Christian just fyi. Thank you and I hope we can continue more amicably, honestly. Prof.Silas (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I have WP:CITED Portier-Young for fulfilling the WP:RS/AC WP:BURDEN. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope you can see I just am looking for academic clarity, I'm not a propagandist and I am not asserting different views as facts either, I am just looking to have all views presented so someone can reasonably study the subject (including traditional religious views; it is a religious work after all). This is not counter to NPOV but in support of it, as long as all views are presented neutrally. Wikipedia is not about describing the objective truth, it is about a neutral presentation of views and sources. "when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so" Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#"There's no such thing as objectivity" Prof.Silas (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

We do mention what past religious leaders have written. But, mind you, religion is subjective belief, if you change your religion, you change your religious beliefs. While historians work with shared assumptions instead of faith commitments. So, while no one could claim to be the owner of objectivity, historians at least do their best to present arguments which do not rely upon the faith commitments of their readers.

To put it otherwise,

Wikipedia works on the basis that whatever scientists commonly consider to be true is true. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

We WP:ASSERT the mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I largely agree but I would just add that my point is that it is not a fact that Daniel was written in c.165 BC, even if it is widely agreed upon, it is a widely agreed upon opinion. And as it says a little bit lower down in the writing for your openent section, "The great thing about NPOV is that you aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. Even in the most contentious debates, when scholars are trying to prove a point, they include counter-arguments, at the least so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail."

If something is a absolute fact, like for example France is the capital of Paris, it should be presented as such so as not to be confusing, but if there is debate over it, editors don't get to pick a side that is right, even if there is only fringe minority views, the NPOV is all about ensuring that all viewpoints are correctly disseminated, even the ones that you don't agree with. The way to ensure others recognize the "right" view is by correctly sourcing and allowing them to make a decision, and as the NPOV says, you can describe which source is the majority and offer criticism, as I have done with the c.165 BC estimate, while still remaining neutral and suppressing bias as much as possible. The problem with is article as it currently reads, is that it is assumed that one position is correct, and even makes other assertions based off of that supposition, ie "Daniel was being read at Qumran only about 40 years after its composition." which is also going against Wikipedia:No original research IMO. The only reason this article should not include traditional Jewish sources is because no one has added them yet with proper sourcing, from a neutral view of course. Prof.Silas (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to adjust my changes and resubmit my edits (except the "consensus" and "generally accepted" etc comments) if you don't have any objections. And that does include modifying sections of the article that take for granted that the book was written in any time period, in keeping with the npov imo. Even with scholarly consensus there is not a fact, and all views should be presented neutrally, not picking a side, but while still letting the reader know that the scholarly consensus is with c.165 BC [according to Porter Young through the citation]). Thank you, please let me know. Prof.Silas (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Prof.Silas: You're peddling Larry Sanger's take on NPOV, and that's not binding for Wikipedia. WP:GEVAL is binding. And no, the mainstream academic consensus isn't "just another opinion". Not here, at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Im not saying they have to be treated as equal, but they still both have to be presented, and it is still an opinion, and I don't mean like flat earth, I mean this is still a debated topic, it would be bizarre to pretend like its settled fact when it is not, the only purpose it would serve would be to convince readers of your position which is not the point of wikipedia.

"Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views

"the task is to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience Prof.Silas (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope. It's a fact that the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century BCE writing.

For more than a hundred years, every other view than "the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century BCE writing" is dead in the water, as far as the mainstream academia is concerned. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a fact, many main stream bible critics believe it was written in the 3rd century B.C.E. G.R. Driver only said post-500, The existence of the text in Qumran sometime from C.130 BCE-60 AD, aswell as in other places, means that it would have only had 30 to 200 years to enter the Jewish canon, which is unprecedented especially at this time. It is not your place to decide for everyone what is acceptable and what is not to learn, people can choose to read about other theories besides the one you like, and the fact that Porter Young says there is a consensus does that magically change that. Prof.Silas (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Your POV is academically speaking dead in the water. I suggest you find another hobby horse, or take your POV to your own blog or Conservapedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep assuming I am in favor of editorial neutrality because of my religion or politics, if you would read the npov you might understand that it is about the principle, not the specific article.

Also the wikipedia article for facts, says "Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion." Does not seem to match the understanding you are working off of: assuming something becomes a fact when Porter Young says the majority of scholars accept it. Prof.Silas (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Modern "scholars" who defend a different dating are either severely misinformed or religious bigots. See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Not the point, in that case, on wikipedia, you would write, "some scholars believe that there is a different dating, but based on X evidence, the consensus is that they are wrong," You can't dissmiss their viewpoint because YOU specifically do not like it or think its crazy; If it is crazy, explain why it is crazy, this is clearly defined in the NPOV

"If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must cover positions that have no scientific credence. This is not, however, as bad as it sounds. The task before us is not to present pseudoscientific claims as if they were on par with good science; rather, the task is to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience Prof.Silas (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Im going to open a dispute resolution to see if it can help us :) Prof.Silas (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Your POV is dead in the mainstream academia. No amount of NPOV reinterpretation will revive it. Jedi mind tricks cannot revive the dead. WP:NOTDUMB. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Even if it was (which it is not), that is not the point, even dead ideologies should be explained on Wikipedia, "NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion Prof.Silas (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

"Modern 'scholars' who defend a different dating are either severely misinformed or religious bigots." What a joke of a thing to say when Prof.Silas literally cited licensed PhD's and you, a little wikipedia mod, tried to determine which scholars are bigots and which aren't. This situation is so ironic I couldn't have come up with this myself. Let's just say that Wikipedia, although appreciating your help as a little editor peon, does not want you to assert your little opinions into the articles you write. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS SO STATEMENTS SUCH AS THESE ARE COMPLETELY UNACCREDITED. What qualifications do you have sir, to be determining which academic source is more relevant? Get off the keyboard, walk on some grass, and abandon this festering bias which has clouded your judgement. Prof.Silas has frankly remained far more courteous than you have and your actions bring disgrace to our incredible institution. Juicyj2311 (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The shenanigans about my own qualifications have been answered at WP:CITIZENDIUM. Please read it. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place at WP:DRN. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Prof.Silas, tgeorgescu: I think this would be a good time to remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot. I'd also like to remind Prof.Silas that it's inadvisable to WP:SHOUT on talk pages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Prof.Silas has stayed calm this whole time. It is tgeorgescu who has violated Wikipedian policy by adopting sarcastic jokes and using red herrings. Juicyj2311 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The simple truth is that the 6th century BCE dating of the Book of Daniel was dead in the water decades before Bart Ehrman was born. Some fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals did not get the memo, for the rest every mainstream Bible scholar now alive agrees with that. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And, Juicyj2311, may I remind you that your edits to this article were reverted by Materialscientist, who is an admin? I mean: without having the full support of admins, I could never bend this article to my own liking. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

WP:NPOV is not an excuse for maiming mainstream historical information from the article. It never was and it will never be.

What you claim is I'm not a propagandist. What you did repeatedly is maim the article.

Wikipedia is not a friendly website to those who want to teach the controversy. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help lay this thread to rest. I can clearly see scholarly sources such as this one pointing to the 2nd century. What, if any similar sources, do otherwise? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the general trend that I can see if mainstream scholarship being fairly decided, and some religious sources thinking otherwise. Are there scholarly exceptions? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

JJ Collins talk about the fact that this is still a debated topic, with good scholars on both sides, Collins, John Joseph, Peter W. Flint, and Cameron VanEpps, eds. "The book of Daniel: composition and reception." (2002). https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kvtbNQtMqEUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA275&ots=7GjLmsspl6&sig=yfvXq9pt0Izrg9QBpOZiNALi3z4

Vasholz, Robert I. "Qumran and the Dating of Daniel." JETS 21.4 (1978): 315-321.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. "The Aramaic of Daniel." Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel 31 (1965): 79.

Beckwith, Roger. "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel." Tyndale Bulletin 53.1 (2002): 75-82.

Haughwout, Mark S. "Dating the Book of Daniel." (2013).

Thanks. As Collins notes, this is not a "done deal," and i think when Porter Young said there is a consensus, she did not mean for it to suppress other views, it was only said in passing, before describing the setting of the proposed authorship, and I would argue its not really an appropriate citation of a consensus; Porter young is relying on a consensus, not demonstrating one. The problems with the c.165 BC theory are too glaring for it to be accepted as fact, especially without regarding the counter claims. I am not advocating including every fringe religious view, thank you.

Also, Collins notes in his A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with an essay, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” by A. Yarbro Collins (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 29–33 that definite linguistic dating is not possible, and that his point of view is based on probability, not certainty. (p. 17 and p. 27 respectively) (This is the work that Tawny cites when she states there is a consensus in this article, linked above). Prof.Silas (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Prof.Silas - I can't currently access the Tawny article, but I am looking for your source in the "Composition and Reception" book. Could you point me to where you see this "not a done deal" stuff? I do see debates on dating, but everything I have found thus far places Daniel somewhere in the 2nd Century BCE. It is, however, entirely possible that I am missing something. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

p 291 is what I was referencing there, correction necessary, the author is peter w flint and Collins is the editor.(my mistake). some of the works I listed above include extensive criticism of the 2nd century theory. thanks. Prof.Silas (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. but I must be especially thick today. What particularly are you pointing to on p. 291? It does say there is diverse scholarly opinion on the origin and writing of the book. but the involved discussion is on the question of whether it is a unitary work or a synthesis of multiple sources. I do not see any real discussion of dating there, but again, happy to be shown I am incorrect. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

no no problem, im just refering to the first two sentences as a general rule, not the example provided,

for collins' (not flint's) discussion of the uncertainty of linguistic dating see collins' A Commentary on the Book of Daniel p. 17.

"The balance of probability, then, favors a date in the early Hellenistic period for the Aramaic portions of Daniel, although a precise dating on linguistic grounds is not possible."

For the uncertainty of other dating techniques, see page 27 ibid.

For the critical scholar, however, the issue is one of probability.[...] There is no apparent reason,[...] why a prophet of the sixth century should focus minute atten- tion on the events of the second century." etc. While the points he brings up are compelling, they are clearly not certain enough to treat the claims as cold hard fact, imo, and Collins himselves abates, and is clear that his position is "overwhelmingly probable" and not a proven fact.

This is why I think sections like "All eight manuscripts were copied between 125 BC (4QDan^c) and about 50 AD (4QDan^b), showing that Daniel was being read at Qumran only about 40 years after its composition" (from current article, should be edited to not assume this view is correct implictly; it should be recognized this is a probable, widely agreed upon theory. It could just as easily say "All eight manuscripts were copied between 125 BC (4QDan^c) and about 50 AD (4QDan^b), meaning that Daniel was being read at Qumran only about 40 years after c. 165 BC, believed to be its period of authorship according by most modern bible critics" or "according to J. J. Collins." [citation for collins] [citation for porter-young] or something similar.

in short, I would like to follow this "Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV."

Is this disagreeable to you? if so could you explain why. Thank you very much. Prof.Silas (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Right now, the article takes a firm stance, accepting this theory as a proven fact, which it imperially is not, even if many or most scholars agree. Other viewpoints exist on the matter and in its current state, the article itself dismisses the other viewpoints, and does not remain neutral, as the npov expects. I think this section of the FAQ is very important for our current discussion, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#"There's no such thing as objectivity"

"The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time. Even sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that "neutrality", in this sense, is perfectly consistent with their philosophy.

Now, is it possible to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits? It may not be possible to describe all disputes with perfect objectivity, but it is an aim that thousands of editors strive towards every day." Prof.Silas (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Typo corrections:

"...believed to be its period of authorship by most modern bible critics.*"

"...a proven fact, which it empirically is not...*" Prof.Silas (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Prof.Silas: I'm confused about what information you are actually interesting in asserting. You propose the text: "...believed to be its period of authorship by most modern bible critics" - well that is the scholarly consensus then. No need to beat around the bush on the matter. That some questions remain is why history departments remain open. But the opinions of most scholars is what history is. That the story contains 2nd century references also seems to make it commonsense that that is the century of composition. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 my point is that this is still a debated theory, there is not agreement amongst scholars, there is a majority opinion. WP:V says to list the positions and the weight ie how accepted they are. I dont want to assert anything, I want the article to remain neutral and clearly state out the theory, the modern arguments to the theory, other modern dating considerations such as GR Drivers, aswell as traditional positions(along with their criticism) in order to keep the article neutral. Why would we pretend to know something as proven fact? What do we gain by it? thank you. Prof.Silas (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the most unimpeachable academic source that you have currently found that still seriously disputes the dating estimates? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources from 1965 and 1978 will have been outmoded by modern linguistic analysis. Even 2002 is a bit iffy. The 2013 one? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Collins says himself that precise linguistic dating is not possible due to the nature of scribal work, and the lexicon being different from common Aramaic (cited above) also see Vashloz cited above for a summary as to why. Prof.Silas (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

First, it is consensually agreed that the Book of Daniel includes some older stories, copied from an older manuscript. So, that's not an argument against being written in the 2nd century BCE.

Second, there is a disagreement about the precise year wherein it was written, but most scholars narrowed it to a five years interval.

Third, Larousse: "livre de Daniel Livre biblique composé vers 165 avant J.-C."

Britannica: "Because its religious ideas do not belong to the 6th century BC, numerous scholars date Daniel in the first half of the 2nd century BC and relate the visions to the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164/163 BC)."

Fourth, as Bart Ehrman and Francesca Stavrakopoulou repeatedly stated on YouTube, Ancient history is about "what probably happened", e.g. it is probable that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Fifth, four sources cited in our article WP:V the claim of scholarly consensus. Dunn was a full professor, the other three are just associate professors.

Sixth, WP:NPOV is not a free pass for WP:RANDY maiming Ancient history articles. Larry Sanger would cheer for such vandals.

Seventh, denying that the Ivy League teaches as fact that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century is denialism.

Eighth, if anyone supports a 6th century BCE dating for this book, they are highly probably not a mainstream Bible scholar. If any US state university teaches such dating as fact I would be highly surprised. In fact, I would be amazed if you could find any Ivy League or US state university which does not teach the dating in 2nd century BCE as real historical fact.

tgeorgescu July 30, 2021 at 3:34 pm - Reply

Quote: This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!

Can I receive a formal confirmation that you have actually written this? It has been lost somewhere in comments and I cannot find it again. It is important because I quoted it inside Wikipedia and needs a source.

BDEhrman BDEhrman July 31, 2021 at 7:35 am - Reply

The first part sounds like something I would have said. The second part not so much. BUt I sometimes do say things that are phrased more strongly than I would typically phrase them (unless it’s over drinks). Are you quoting this from one of my comments? Then yes, that’s what I said. If I did, I was stressing the point “describes.” THat is, if you have an account that refers in some detail to airplanes striking the Twin Towers, then the account was certainly written after 9/11, even if it is phrased as a prophecy.

Source: https://ehrmanblog.org/comments-on-blog-comments/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=comments-on-blog-comments

So, you see, according to the historical method there really isn't any other dating which modern mainstream historians would be free to embrace.

Wikipedia is open to criticism, but such criticism has to be reality-based. A view that has been debunked since more than a century ago isn't reality-based criticism. The 2nd century BCE dating is settled historical fact since before any of us were born.

"There are no historical facts on this matter, since a Medieval Rabbi begs to disagree with modern historians"—I don't think that such POV gets much traction at Wikipedia, so you'd better try it at Conservapedia. You cannot cherrypick which of our WP:RULES you obey and which you disobey. Enough WP:Wikilawyering! tgeorgescu (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Hello, the sources I listed, and others, are examples of mainstream scholars, some of which collins relies upon, criticizing the 2nd century approach. It is not just either 6th or 2nd century, based on the analysis of the elephantine papyri by GR Driver and the qumran daniel it is probably somewhere from c.510-130. I understand your position that since it is a commonly held belief among bible critics, it should be written as fact, but I don't believe that is keeping with the npov that says that we should not write what something is, only what has been said about it in order to remain neutral unless it is a proven fact. By writing the article accepting the position of even the mainstream critics, you are immediately asserting to every reader that other positions (some secular, some religious, some older, some newer, some critical, some traditional) are invalid, which is not appropriate especially on a religious document where religious readers should feel they are receiving an unbiased report of the facts and positions. I am not saying to write the article to appease religious people, I am saying write it unbiasedly. You have to accept we don't know that this dating is correct, lots of people believe it is correct. There is no reason to write the article like it is a proven fact when it is not. The facts should be there for the reader to view, understand, and determine what they believe, the speculation is done by the sources. By writing it how it currently is you are forcing readers who are critical of the c.165 BC dating to accept as fact something that they don't believe (because of real problems with the theory, not because of religious motivations necessarily) just because it is mainstream in academic settings. The level of how mainstream it is doesn't make it a fact, and even the way collins talks about it (at least in some cases) is as probable, not certain. (I am specifically referring to sections that implicitly accept this theory as fact, for example the first sentence of the lead). Thank you. Prof.Silas (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Prof.Silas: Sorry, debate thereupon has been closed before you were even born. You Wikilawyer for a Sanger version of NPOV, not for the real NPOV WP:PAG of Wikipedia.

For Wikipedia the overwhelming consensus of mainstream historians is holy, so you're committing wiki-blasphemy. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Any estimate narrowing it down to 'c.510-130' is no estimate at all. If a source can't guess a rough century then I would have to question if it even has a working theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 That is my statement based upon the finding of daniel at qumran dated to as early as c.135 bc, and comparisons by GR Driver to the elephantine papyri showing the aramaic of daniel to be later. c.(510). This is the timeframe modern scholarship is working within... my point was it is not just either 6th century or 2nd century. Prof.Silas (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITE WP:RS to that effect. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If we move to tertiary sources, e.g. Britannica, what it states is that the language shows that it occurs after the 6th century, but it does not say when, while it is the analysis of events that forms the firm dating estimate in the 2nd century. Overall, there does not seem to be a serious alternative dating than in the 2nd century other than a vague hand wave of 'post-6th century'. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 The estimate of C.165 BC is based on, as collins says, the fact that the book is writing about that time, and that it gets predictions correct except some later predictions. The critique, one of them at least, is that this time period doesn't make sense due to the qumran fragments dated to the hellenisitc/roman period, meaning daniel would have had to enter the canon unprecedentedly quickly, or be written in or very near qumran, which goes against modern and traditional theories of who the author is. Prof.Silas (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You aren't a WP:RS. This is the timeframe modern scholarship is working within is a huge claim. We cannot believe you upon your word of honor. We need WP:RS explicitly saying what you claim. WP:REDFLAG, and G.R. Driver died almost 50 years ago.

And I see that you are repeatedly using the "just a theory" debunked canard.

Here at Wikipedia you don't earn many friends by engaging in denialism of the mainstream historical consensus. Christian admins think that's despicable, too. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Calling something a theory is not the problem the article is addressing, the problem is failing to give something weight based on the fact that it is "just a theory". I give full credence to the scholars that have arrived upon c.165 BC, but it still has to be noted it is not a fact. G.R. Driver's findings are hugely influential, and widely accepted, at least in this area. Both him and S.R. Driver, his father, are commonly cited by Collins. The fact that he lived a relatively short time ago does not discredit his work. My claim about this being the timeframe is my own statement based upon the considerations cited, but it is not a defined rule of scholarship of this subject, my apologies if i misrepresented the claim. Prof.Silas (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

please see the Book of Deuteronomy#Composition to see an example of a properly written example of what I'm describing. The leading critical theory is explained, and noted as such, but not as fact. Prof.Silas (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Collins' cites the following as positions against the 2nd century position:

Young and Baldwin. The studies of C. F. Boutflower, D. J. Wiseman, K. A. Kitchen, Gerhard Hasel, and W. H. Shea, A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis,

and there are all the citations I offered already above. Prof.Silas (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

it still has to be noted it is not a fact—you don't get to decide what counts for a fact, neither do I, but the consensus of mainstream historians does. Wikipedia learns facts from experts, and mainstream experts have decided that 2nd century BCE dating counts as fact. As stated before, the debate about this is over for a long time. You cannot do WP:RGW here.

"The mainstream academic consensus is wrong" is a judgment Wikipedians aren't allowed to state in our articles. It is invalid by default. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu What mainstream scholar is stating this is a fact? Collins recognizes other opinions and that his theory is probable, not a fact. Fact does not only mean something is true fyi. Prof.Silas (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the time you to give you lessons in the epistemology of history. Fact is that you are POV-pushing and using WP:Sealioning in order to do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu lol, i am not pov pushing by advocating for a neutral point of view for the article. You tell me what pov that exactly is pushing. Prof.Silas (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You're pushing the Sangerite view that the consensus of modern historians cannot decide which are the historical facts. Basically Sanger is principally opposed to the adoption of WP:GEVAL as WP:PAG. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Me having a different interpretation of the npov from you, which i have formed based on nothing except the npov, is not pov pushing. Pages such as the Deuteronomy one i mentioned reflect a similar interpretation to mine. also please see the wikipedia page on facts. Thank you, and i wish we could speak amicably and with some common respect going forward. I have no disparate intentions here. Prof.Silas (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You take the same view of NPOV as Sanger did. Sanger's view was widely rejected through the adoption of WP:GEVAL as WP:PAG. About the Deuteronomy article, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

You linked to the article on the historical method, but did you read it? Yes, have you? Perhaps I should have linked to a more appropriate article, such as scientific consensus which more accurately portrays what Bdub is claiming to be wrong. You can't assume that because an editors is capable of making points that they are correct: Bdub's assertion is that the consensus of modern historians is wrong and ancient sources are right, which puts his position in many of the same categories as Creationism, Breatharianism, The flat Earth theory, Acupuncture and the belief in ancient aliens. No matter hos sophisticated their argument: Bdub has an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear, and absolutely no business doing so here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Prof.Silas: tgeorgescu (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu hello im not sure exactly what you mean with this but i want to be clear i am not asserting ancient, medieval, or dissenting contemporary sources are correct, im advocating for a neutral point of view explaining all views and the modern scholarly view of them. Nothing in WP GEVAL goes against what i am saying. Prof.Silas (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Prof.Silas: For Wikipedia purposes the mainstream academic consensus is by definition right. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

source? what about Wikipedia:Verifiability? even if it is known to be true, it has to be verifiable before it can be claimed be a fact. This claim not verifiable, at least presently. ie, it is verifiable that Collins/scholars agree on c. 165 BC, but it is not verifiable that Daniel was written in the second century. It is verifiable that it was written before the end of the roman period and, potentially, before c. 130 BC, based on qumran fragments, although I am not sure about the precise (ie c.130 bc) dating I have seen concerning the fragments.

Also concerning this issue, KA Kitchen gives a very similar timeframe for the Aramaic:

"You aren't a WP:RS. This is the timeframe modern scholarship is working within is a huge claim."

"The only fair way to proceed is to leave open the whole period c. 540-160 BC until the end of any inquest on the Aramaic, as far as date is concerned." KA Kitchen, cited above, first page Prof.Silas (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The content of Collins' work is substansial for the basis of a theory, but it is not verifiable, I hope you recognize that, as Collins does. "For the critical scholar, however, the issue is one of probability" cited above.

"overwhelmingly probable" (ibid) is not the same as verifiable, I think this is the essence of our disagreement. Prof.Silas (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add that conservative/traditional (so called fundamentalist) religious positions are not ipso facto sub-scholarly/anti-chopsy, the big 6 regularly publish conservative/traditional religious positions. Chopsy is about adhering to scholarly standards, not a rejection of religious views. I of course do not advocate for citing as evidence poorly sourced or other sub-scholarship, but published works that, for example do not implictly disqaulify the possibilty of prophecy, are not sub-scholarly, and are often published by the big 6. For example the porter young article you cited from oxford. Even Collins does not inherently reject prophecy, he makes claims as to why he doesn't believe it to be prophecy (J.J. Collins, Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with an essay, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” by A. Yarbro Collins (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993)) p. 26. Prof.Silas (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid If you disagree with proposal, would you mind briefly explaining why? thanks Prof.Silas (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Just so I am clear, I am assuming the proposal at issue is the language I reverted (or something substantially similar). To my mind, while there are plenty of sources that say dating is difficult or unclear, they seem to me to be talking about within the 2nd Century BCE (or sometimes slightly outside). I see few sources saying "dating is unclear, so maybe 6th Century BCE." There are some certainly, and you have shown some (thank you for that). But to my mind, these strike me as more outliers than a significant minority opinion. As ever, I am happy to consider other evidence, or if you can convince a consensus that I am wrong (and I often am!), I will not quibble. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking people about the same old game

Their running them numbers and the winners never change

The dice is loaded, the deck is stacked

The game itself will hold you back

— Thievery Corporation, The Numbers Game

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

my reasoning is that the statement does not hold up to wp:verifiability, and should not be spoken of as a fact in wp's voice. I am comfortable stating this is the majority view of modern bible critic scholars, and absolutely agree with explaining the position, but i don't believe "the book of daniel was written in the 2nd century" can be recognized as a verified statement because it empirically is unverified. The citations provided do not prove this idea, they merely advocate for it as a theory, and Collins is very honest about this. And it should be noted that within biblical criticism there are major dissenting scholars, especially considering the qumran fragments that have been found since this theory's proposal.

As a sidenote, the major conservative religious positions are not inherently sub-scholarly, anti- WP:CHOPSY, or counter to Wikipedia's position, there is no reason not to recognize these as actual views on the subject aswell, as long as their position can be cited with appropriate scholarship. And once again i am not advocating that the article is written "daniel was written the 6th century bc" i am just wanting to remove assumptions that the 2nd century theory is the truth/remove bias towards this theory while explaining that it is the major bible critical view, because current structure asserts to the reader that all critiques of this theory are invalid and all other theories are inaccurate (and even assumes that the authorship is c.165 bc specifically), which is not appropriate within the npov, imo. Thank you for engaging and being so respectful and receptive. Prof.Silas (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I suspect we're going to end up having to agree to disagree here, which is fine. But I also think you're using "verifiability" in its more common sense, rather than the more Wikipedia-jargon sense. Verifiability on Wikipedia means we must be able to point to that bit of information in a reliable source. For me, that seems a foregone conclusion here. The debate to me seems to be about whether there is a scholarly consensus (as opposed to a mere 'majority') on the issue, and if so, whether a more traditional date is a significant minority view among scholars. But as I say, happy to be corrected, and if you can persuade enough people, you are perfectly entitled to ignore my nattering. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I understand your point and I might have found myself in your shoes if I was in your position. I do want to note that WP:RS says that "Sources should directly support (See WP:INLINECITE and WP:inline citation) the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Collins only calls his theory "overwhelmingly probable", not proven, so I don't think it works as a source that this is a fact, only at most that it is overwhelming probable. ie at most the article could read "It is most likely that this was written c.166 BC [collins citation]" because that is all that collins asserts. I don't know about all of the sources provided, but collins is, academically, far and away the main source for this theory (in the modern day) and i suspect most of the other citations are derivatives of his work/relying on his work. I would also be interested to see why you believe there to be a consensus, as neither the porter young article cited or the Peter W flint article actual demonstrate a consensus, they only mention one in passing (taking it for granted), WP:RS says "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." (ibid) and I have provided more (genuine, scholarly, chopsy standard) citations critical of the 2nd century theory as there are citations for it, I believe. Thank you for listening and ill try not to be to too insistent as I respect that I may have not properly convinced you of my position and that's okay :) Thank you very much for your time. Prof.Silas (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

When a historian says "overwhelmingly probable", that is essentially them saying that it is the only possible way they see the evidence reasonably being interpreted. To translate that as "most likely" is to significantly downplay the emphasis. "most likely" is not what he says; "overwhelmingly likely" is, and this conveys a level of personal convicton well beyond "most likely". Iskandar323 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree "most likely" is too soft to accurately convey Collins beliefs you are right... but there is a huge difference technically between a scholar saying "I know x and i can demonstrate how i know it" and "I find x overwhelmingly probable, and here is why." Of course every historian believes what he asserts to be probable, but he is acknowledging the lack of certainty, otherwise collins would have said "I know that Daniel was written c.165 BC." which practically is the way he is currently cited here, but absolutely not the way he speaks or the way he defends his claim. The evidence he provides is not sufficient to prove his claim, only to demonstrate that it is, subjectively, probable, a cursory reading of p.26-27 of the work i mentioned above (A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with an essay, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” by A. Yarbro Collins (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993)) reveals this view. Collins' argument is one of probability, not certainty, even if he was sure of his belief, this would be a sub-scholarly, faith based certainty, not one properly proven. (but Collins does not claim certainty, and i don't accuse him of being sub-scholarly). Prof.Silas (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

True scholars rarely speak in absolutes; that is the preserve of zealots. Historians do not say: "I know..." They say: "All the evidence points towards..." Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As Iskandar323 has said, you don't really find certain proof outside of mathematics or logic. We're drifting into the field of epistemology now, but I feel there's no other recourse. We are all imperfect beings with imperfect senses, and therefore, absolute certainty is beyond us. Might we someday find a manuscript of Daniel dating to the 500 BCE? I highly doubt it, but it's theoretically possible. Might we find evidence that all our current evidence has been forged, and Daniel was composed in Heian-era Japan? I doubt that even more, but one never knows. The point is, if we caveat everything on Wikipedia with every possible outcome, the caveats will soon swallow the encyclopedia (shades of The Library of Babel). What we have here is plenty (at least by my lights) to say this authoritatively in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The distinction is proof, we do have proof that daniel was completed before the conclusion of the roman period, and most likely we have proof that it was completed before the end of the helenistic era, based on the fact that it appears in Qumran in fragments dated before those periods (but i am not sure about the exact dating of the hellenistic fragments hence my trepidation). The linguistic analysis of G.R. Driver is relatively solid evidence to show that it was completed after c. 510 BC (the Aramaic specifically), Collins claims are not supported by solid enough evidence to make the same claims of certainty, his arguments are centrally logical arguments, essentially boiling down to the idea that a prophet in the 6th century bc would

1) not be so focused on the 160s bc,

2) would have not been able to accurately predict some of the events properly described.

3) and would not have been incorrect about certain pieces of information (where Daniel ostensibly is).

This is not the same as solid evidence, this is speculation, based on analysis, but still unverifiable, and of course as you say absolute certainty is very difficult, especially according to ones standard and philosophy, but this does not pass practically any threshold for certainty, these claims amount to precisely what Collins provides, a theory, not a proof as it trying to be passed off.

This is very different from a evidence for other dating we have, and we should be honest about the fact that we do not know this, especially because the currently inducted view, that is presented as fact, is heavily criticized by many scholars, and has become more questionable since its original proposition in 1901. Prof.Silas (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

So, for me, it's your last sentence that is really at issue here, and again, you have not convinced me (no offense intended by that). We're starting to hit the running around in circles point, so forgive me, but I won't be replying quite so much. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem I understand and I feel the same, just to reiterate, the following all criticize the aforementioned theory by S.R. Driver, further developed by J.J. Collins:

Many of these are given by Collins:

Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton

Young and Baldwin.

The studies of C. F. Boutflower,

D. J. Wiseman

Gerhard Hasel,

K. A. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel." Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel 31 (1965)

W. H. Shea, A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis (1983)

Vasholz, Robert I. "Qumran and the Dating of Daniel." JETS 21.4 (1978)

Beckwith, Roger. "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel." (2008)

Haughwout, Mark S. "Dating the Book of Daniel." (2013).

Also for anyone question the dating of some of these sources, namely Robert Dick Wilson, I would remind them that this theory (c.165 bc) was proposed originally over 120 years ago, and the debate has not fundamentally changed, the only major change has been, as far as I know, the discovery of the qumran fragments in the 50s (which lend themselves to the critics of c.165 bc). I believe this is more than enough scholarship to demonstrate this is a genuinely debated point, thank you. Prof.Silas (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You are now sounding more like you are drawing your own conclusions based on what you perceive to be the evidence, which would be WP:OR. You also seem to suddenly be making some curious assumptions, including that the work was written by a prophet, for which we certainly have no proof. In any case, a 6th-century writer would have exactly zero focus on the 160s BC and would in no way be able to predict any events in the future, so any evidence of knowledge of later events is indeed the strongest evidence of later authorship. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I certainly am not assuming the work was written by a prophet, that is not even my belief. I do draw the conclusion, contrary to yours, that Collins theory is not the same thing as proof of a fact, and I offer this conclusion because currently, someone has made that jump, that collins can be used as proof of a fact. "In any case, a 6th-century writer would have exactly zero focus on the 160s BC and would in no way be able to predict any events in the future, so any evidence of knowledge of later events is indeed the strongest evidence of later authorship." One again, this is not proof, and does not address other possibilities, such as a c. 300-200 BC authorship. Prof.Silas (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If the dating of the Qumran fragments is a source of great interest for you, it might be well worth going and expanding on that particular subject on some of the pages about the Qumran fragments. While the dating of possible source texts or fragments could have a bearing on the dating of Daniel, there does not appear to be a clear scholarly consensus about what exact bearing that might be. E.g. the Vasholz work noted several different theories related to the Qumran fragments on which the jury was still out, including those of dual authorship/composite authorship, while expressing a preference for a pre-2nd century date without going into much more detail than that. Do any sources say where that debate led? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Wegner, Walter E. "The Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls." (1958). from III. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Dating of the Book of Daniel down gives a great summary concerning how quickly Daniel would have had to enter the Jewish canon and/or circulation to appear by 125 BC (the dating provided for the earliest available Q fragments at the time it was written.)

Haughwout, Mark S (MA at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, public research university based in Jerusalem, Israel. Co-founded by Albert Einstein and Dr. Chaim Weizmann). "Dating the Book of Daniel." (2013). expresses the argument using the most modern sources available, but its much harder to read through (you can use f3 to search for mentions of qumran).

As far as dual authorship, the jury is still out. The idea was first put forth by Spinoza in 1674 (Benedikt Spinoza, in C. Gebhardt, ed., Tractatus theologico-politicus (1674; translated as Theologisch- Politischer Traktat, 5th ed.; Hamburg: Meiner, 1955) chap. 10, 207 (ET by Samuel Shirley; Leiden: Brill, 1989); Koch, Das Buch Daniel, 56.).

Collins of course believes in dual authorship, but he goes after the 1898 theory by Gustav Dalman ( Gustav Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 277 M. Haller, “Das Alter vom Daniel 7,” TAStK 93 1898) 11. ), that Daniel 1-6 are older, 7-12 are newer, that 1 was translated to Hebrew, and that 7 was put into Aramaic, ostensibly to blur the lines between the two sections. (this is my understanding of his position) (A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with an essay, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” by A. Yarbro Collins (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993)).

Wegner offers one proof against this claim the aforementioned work, "It is interesting to note, however, that the 4Q fragments of Daniel include the transition from Aramaic back to Hebrew at the end of Chapter 7 and the beginning of Chapter 8. Together with the fragments from Cave I, these manuscripts show clearly that the Book of Daniel was a bi-lingual document already during the period when the Qumran library was in existence. This is strong evidence against the critical supposition which has been advanced that the Book of Daniel was originally written by two authors, with one author composing Chapters 1 to 6 in Aramaic and a later author subsequently writing Chapters 7 to 12 in Hebrew. [this supports] the view that the present bi-lingual character of the Book of Daniel is a feature of the original form in which the book existed."

There are also critiques of the dual authorship theory linguistic claims, Haughwout offers some, and Vasholz on page 320 (ibid above) offers a very practical and (imo) scathing critique of this claim, and comes down firmly against dual authorship, especially dual authorship separated by a significant period of time. I'm going to take a break and hopefully I can supply more material concerning this theory (in support and opposition) in a bit.

Thank you. Prof.Silas (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Published in 1958 in Bible scholarship means when dinosaurs ruled the Earth. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Red herring, what does that have to do with the claims and scholarship present? Respectfully, just because there was poor scholarship doesn't mean all works from the time are sub-scholarly, the same could be said today. You are aware that, as I mentioned, Dr. Collins cites S.R. Driver and Gustav Dalman, and these are the accepted modern origins of the c.165 bc dating, and the dual authorship claims respectively, 1901 and 1898 respectively....

Tell me which claim you feel is antiquated and I will try to point you towards another more contemporary source. As I mentioned before: "Also for anyone question the dating of some of these sources, namely Robert Dick Wilson, I would remind them that this theory (c.165 bc) was proposed originally over 120 years ago, and the debate has not fundamentally changed, the only major change has been, as far as I know, the discovery of the qumran fragments in the 50s (which lend themselves to the critics of c.165 bc). I believe this is more than enough scholarship to demonstrate this is a genuinely debated point, thank you."

I dont understand what the age has to do with the analysis of the facts, which have not changed principally since 1958 (which is after the first qDan discovery). Prof.Silas (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No herring at all, see WP:RSAGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine."

The article is clear that "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light" not that they are inherently outdated, I already addressed the fact that there is no new information that discredits these older works as far as I am aware, please let me know what statement is outdated due to new information superseding it if you see something specific, thanks. Prof.Silas (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In general, just because Collins cited those works, it does not mean that those works are WP:RS in the meaning of Wikipedia. In doubt, open a WP:RSN thread about those works. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of those sources are outdated, especially the way they are cited... if you want to challenge the Walter E Wegner article, please let me know what the specific claim is, besides that it is subjectively old. I think the suite of older citations are valid, as long as they conform to chopsy because there has not been a fundamental change to the linguistic analysis or facts present, besides qumran, which is compelling but does not outright invalidate the second century bc date according to collins. Prof.Silas (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Book of Daniel. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

thank you for the notification Prof.Silas (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

When you say: "As far as dual authorship, the jury is still out. The idea was first put forth by Spinoza..." I would note that you do not need to be looking further back in time to look for current updates on scholarship but forwards. Anything older than a 100 years is almost totally void in terms of modern scholarship except as an example of the history of the modern scholarship. For current updates on a debate you are looking at the last two, three decades max. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Prof.Silas: My specific query was about any sources that further the arguments of Vasholz, so post-dating his scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

i would check the 2013 Haughwout, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I agree the Spinoza work isn't a relevant citation, I just wanted to trace the origin of the theory as Collins does. I disagree that anything older than 3 decades is too old, you would have to explain to my why you say that, it doesn't seem to be the spirit of rsage, there may be a current discussion developing here about these sources. Sources become outdated when they are no longer factoring in crucial information, not by virtue of age. Even considering things 100+ years old, you would have to point out why the scholarship is sub-standard or outdated, SR Driver's work that collins is based on exhibits reasonable scholarship to me... I didn't check Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton but he is held in high esteem by scholars. Prof.Silas (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

What? An unpublished Master's thesis from someone at my alma mater, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, that would be now used by Christian religious fundamentalists to further their claims on trying to bolster the "prophetic" credentials of the Book of Daniel, which of course never even made it to the Prophets section of the Hebrew Canon?? Pretty pathetic, I'd say (to be just slightly more polite than saying actually ridiculous). It would be high time to end this ongoing charade here, in my humble opinion. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The work is published as Wikipedia requires, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. If you have a critique of the scholarship, please let it be known. "that would be now used by Christian religious fundamentalists to further their claims on trying to bolster the "prophetic" credentials of the Book of Daniel," I don't know what this is referencing, and it does not seem relevant. Prof.Silas (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It is referencing this ridiculous religious fundamentalist charade that is going on here. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not a religious fundamentalist, I believe there is genuine criticism of the theory being voiced as fact, and the article should reflect those criticisms. Are you saying you believe the criticism to be sub-scholarly or unfounded? If so please do say but name calling is not constructive and does not convey a real complaint of the criticisms. Prof.Silas (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That is precisely what I said. Anything argued in an unknown Master's thesis is inherently sub-scholarly and unfounded vis-a-vis the high-bar biblical criticism claims that are trying to be advanced here. The simple attempt to try and make someone look up into some unknown thesis dug up from who knows where is really preposterous in my view. Since you have noone here even slightly agreeing with you on any of your claims, it is high time you stopped beating this dead horse here, in my view. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not what sub-scholarly means, the work is, by my estimation, demonstrating proper scholarly deductions and relying upon evidence, I think your position is bordering on a pure appeal to authority. Prof.Silas (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Look, the haughwout source is published on markhaughwout.com, so that material, as it stands, currently qualifies as self-published. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Also fortunately I have many more citations, including some of the most mainstream available like KA Kitchen. If the complaint is Mark Haughwout's work cited is unpublished, then I would point to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Definition of published. If you need help finding the work, please let me know. If your complaint is that it is not published with a mainstream publication, I would ask why you believe that would disqualify it, assuming it represents appropriate scholarship? Also that would apply to only the one source, the other sources aren't affected by the assertation.Thanks. Prof.Silas (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me spell out for you the basics on the dating of the Book of Daniel, and I won't even bother dropping the names of the reliable sources, since this is all rather elementary for anyone who knows some history of the period. I also don't have time for it, and this whole thing is already becoming tiring and boring to death, as anyone looking from the sidelines knows, and as I have already pointed out to you. As I already said, the Book of Daniel did not make it into the Prophets section of the Hebrew Canon. For Jews, in general, the Book of Daniel is rather unimportant as a so-called "prophet." For Christian messianic theology, on the other hand, it is fundamental, because without it there is no basis whatsoever for the Book of Revelation, which is the basic text of Christian apocalypse. However, Jews of the Second Temple period did not start speaking and writing in the Aramaic language before 200 BCE. The Mishnah, which is the basic Jewish religious law collection of the period, did not begin to be compiled before 200 BCE, and it is written still completely in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. The Book of Daniel, is the only book of the Hebrew Bible that has substantial parts of it written in Aramaic, not in Hebrew. These two basic points make any dating of the Book of Daniel before 200 BCE completely improbable. I again, for the last time, strongly suggest to you that you just drop the stick and back away from this dead horse. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted. You should know that portions of the Mishnah are written in Aramaic, portions of Ezra are Aramaic, it has also been documented for a very long time that Jews were speaking Aramaic as early in 530 bc in the elephantine papyri (see G.R. Driver "The Aramaic of the book of Daniel). Thank you for "not bothering" with sourcing your claims, and I'm sorry the discussion is boring you. Have a great day. Prof.Silas (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Also the view of Collins is also that the Aramaic was written well before the Hellenistic period... and this is overwhelming majority view, of both contrarian and traditionalist views. Please see Collins. Prof.Silas (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

To set the record straight: there may be no more than a few expressions, maybe a couple of sentences, no more, in Aramaic in the Mishnah. The Mishnah is basically a vast collection written entirely in Hebrew, not Aramaic. There are a couple of sentences in Aramaic in the entire Book of Ezra. But these are all little asides, basically irrelevant, just to keep this charade going on, which is the main goal of the disruption here. My argument said very clearly: "The Book of Daniel, is the only book of the Hebrew Bible that has substantial parts of it written in Aramaic, not in Hebrew." It is correct and it stands. I, on the other hand, will not participate in this charade any more. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok but you should know that the major view, including the view of Collins, is that the Aramaic was written much early than you are suggesting, and you are only describing your own opinion, not the opinion of any of the cited scholars, as far as I know. Thank you for engaging. Prof.Silas (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Tgeorgescu

in responnse to your statements on the other page, all I'll say is that Collins position is not what you (or at least warshy) are espousing, and the argument that "Daniel has to be written in the second century because that is when Jews began using Aramaic" created by warshy is objectively false, and proven false by many sources, including GR Driver and Collins.

Prof.Silas (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sawyer, John (2012). Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts. Religion in the First Christian Centuries. Taylor & Francis. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-134-80139-8. Retrieved 6 November 2022. By the second century BCE, Aramaic was being used by Jews for religious purposes too, as can be seen from the Book of Daniel (2:4–7:28), which was composed c. 160 BCE [...] You may read the whole page at Google Books. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the claim you are supporting with this citation? thanks. Prof.Silas (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

That there are no 3rd century BCE Jewish religious works in Aramaic. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The citation does not support that claim imo, also the citation is not a proof at least here, it is mentioning these things in passing.

Is your claim that there are no Jewish-Aramaic works before the 3rd century either? or you are referring specifically to the 3rd century, please develop the connection to the citation. Prof.Silas (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The Jews who had returned from Babylon did speak Aramaic. But they had no audience for Jewish (meaning from Judea) religious books written in Aramaic. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu So is your position that the Aramaic was written in the hellenisitic era? Prof.Silas (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't care. I take no position about that.

But I have to warn you that further pursuing this dispute is not in your best interest as a Wikipedia editor. No one else has agreed with you and no one else is likely to agree with you if you pursue the dispute. You have simply lost this dispute and it is high time to admit it. The mainstream academic consensus won't be removed from this article, and no, you don't get to decide what passes for WP:RS/AC. Pursuing your arguments ad nauseam will have consequences. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

fair enough, i think both positions are clearly laid out, ill request a new drn tomorrow. Thanks for the the discussion. Prof.Silas (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I also want to point out this one fianl source

Thompson, Henry O. The Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography. Routledge, 2020. (beginning of the bibliography)

I will wait to see how the conversation about the sources develops before requesting a DRN, thanks. Prof.Silas (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It is in fact a 1993 book, and I am not sure that it WP:V your POV. E.g., it says that the liberal perspective became normative since the 19th century. That is the opposite of your POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

publication date is 2020, per routledge, 1993 is the copyright.

it says, for instance, "criticism of the book of daniel is receding.[...] The pretended certainty of the criticism is imaginary." Bibliography, A.2 Prof.Silas (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then please list 10 post-2010 works listed in the annotated bibliography.

"The pretended certainty of the criticism is imaginary" is a judgment dated 1930 AD. It is attributed to Gerhard Charles Aalders. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

here is the section of Thompson, Henry O. The Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography. Routledge, 2020 that is majorly relevant, https://ibb.co/s9YVy5b.

@Tgeorgescu you are correct that the statement cited was not the words of Thompson, my mistake. Prof.Silas (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

To clear up misunderstandings: there are plenty of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist scholars who deny the 2nd century dating, but by and large they aren't mainstream Bible scholars, and generally speaking they don't publish such POVs in mainstream scholarly journals, but in their own walled garden of pious theological journals. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Since historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and the chances of a miracle happening, by definition, are infinitesimally remote, historians can never demonstrate that a miracle probably happened.

— (Ehrman 2008:243–244)

First point: historians cannot posit miracles as historical facts, even if they are themselves persuaded that miracles do occur.

Second point: historians of the Antiquity can only posit what probably happened.

The historical disciplines are not like the natural sciences, in part because they are concerned with establishing what has happened in the past, as opposed to predicting what will happen in the future, and in part because they cannot operate through repeated experimentation. An occurrence is a one-time proposition; once it has happened, it is over and done with. Since historians cannot repeat the past in order to establish what probably happened, there will always be less certainty. And the farther back you go in history, the harder it is to mount a convincing case. For events in the ancient world, even events of earth shattering importance, there is sometimes scant evidence to go on. All the historians can do is establish what probably happened on the basis of whatever supporting evidence happens to survive.

— Bart Ehrman – Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 195)

Even if true believers consider prophecies (in the meaning of real miracles) as capable of being established as objective historical facts, like Graham Twelftree - The Historian and the Miraculous on YouTube, that absolutely cannot be construed as mainstream history.

"My religion is objectively true"—that affirmation is telling about somebody's theory of mind. You should know that people who affirm that cannot be scholars, merely academic hucksters. Christian theologians who did not go bananas will gladly grant the point that Christian faith (e.g. the Nicene Creed) is a subjective belief. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Revert

The reasons for my revert are WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Proveallthings, please don't do POV-pushing for claims which are dead in the water as far as the mainstream academia are concerned.

Academic scholars is a pleonasm. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

tgeorgescuHello. I didn't dispute the claim and I did not offer an alternate POV, so what am I pushing? It is not biased of me to write, "Ostensibly written in the 6th century, modern academic scholarship usually places its final redaction shortly after the Maccabean Revolt, the main phase of which lasted from 167–160 BC." Is it that you don't know what "Ostensibly" means? It is, in fact, completely accurate. It is widely accepted in *mainstream academia* that the Aramaic portions of the book were written in Imperial Aramaic (8th to 4th centuries BC) and predate the 2nd century. Therefore, opening the article with, "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse with a 6th century BC setting" contains a factual error and also places mainstream academic opinion as a fact in "Wikipedia's voice," which is a violation of WP:YESPOV. Cf. the article over at Encyclopedia Britannica, which handles the issue with class. A fact is tangible, verifiable information. An opinion is an interpretation based upon facts that may change as new facts come to light. I'm reverting your undo, which will actually save you a hundred future reversions, and have no interest in entering an edit war with you. We'll see what the other editor's think.Proveallthings (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

2nd century dating should be kept according to WP:PRESERVE. Larousse bluntly says "written around 165 BCE".

Wikipedia isn't "neutral" between history and pseudohistory.

You're watering down the article, that's POV-pushing. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The article was not watered down in any way by my edit, and nothing was lost materially. The statement in the original form (which you have reverted to) was stronger than the evidence allows, and it is stronger than you'll find in a contemporary article in a well-respected Encyclopedia, which you can note in my example of the Encyclopedia Britannica. If editors write things accurately they won't be so liable to edits.

WP:PRESERVE specifically involves rephrasing contributions that do not conform to Wikipedia's standards. Which is what I did. The information itself was completely preserved. You're literally nitpicking over "sometime shortly after 160-167 BC" vs. "2nd century BC," and wanting to state as a fact something that isn't necessarily true. Mainstream academia holds that the Aramaic portions of Daniel are older than the 2nd century. That's the consensus. So you can't accurately lump it all in as 2nd century.

I'm still waiting to hear about what pseudohistory I'm pushing, as you accused me of on my talk page, and specifically what POV? You shouldn't make accusations without backing them up. Proveallthings (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

a well-respected Encyclopedia? Isn't Larousse a well-respected Encyclopedia? Read what it says.

Also, the fact that it does include older stories is no denial of the fact that it was written in the 2nd century BCE.

If I write an article including copious quotes from the KJV, does that mean that I wrote my article in the 17th century? tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You wrote, "Also, the fact that it does include older stories is no denial of the fact that it was written in the 2nd century BCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)" What is that supposed to mean? Literally, none of your reasoning is making any sense here. Mainstream academia, which you are appealing to, holds that the Aramaic portions of Daniel are older than the 2nd century. It's not "pseudohistory." That's *literally* the consensus, which I was accurately following. You simply can't accurately lump the whole book together as a 2nd century work when 50% of it was written prior to the 3rd century. It's common sense. Thus I used the word "redaction." I wrote everything accurately, and this is literally a massive waste of my time. You can't even back up your pseudohistory and POV-pushing accusations. I've asked repeatedly and you have nothing.Proveallthings (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I took it to WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the KJV has to do with any of this, but if your book contained 50% of the KJV as a whole body, I would date your portion of the work to the time it belongs to, and the content of the KJV would be dated independently to the 17th and 18th centuries depending on the version. I wouldn't attribute authorship of that content to you. I would date the final redaction of the work to the time you wrote it. That's the difference between dating elements of a work and dating a redaction. So I used the word "redaction" in the edit, which is completely accurate.

It is literally no problem of mine if you can't follow "redaction" and "ostensibly." Ostensibly simply means it intends the appearance of something, it doesn't mean that's when it was written. You've taken a small issue to a whole other level.

When dealing with ancient manuscripts, we date the scholia to their appropriate times as separate from the work. That's how we date ancient documents.

It seems you have a caricature of me in your mind that you're responding to. Proveallthings (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Just mind very well that I'm not discussing your opinions, I'm discussing your edits in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm very much with tgeorgescu on this one; introducing and repeating the 6th century date (even with the qualifier of "ostensibly") while delaying the 2nd Century dating certainly creates a distinct impression that the book dates from the 6th century. Combine that with the softening of the prophecy language ("academics view...") and it seems to me that all this does is undercut one of the most widely held views of the book (the 2nd Century date). I certainly have no problem, in theory, with discussions of internal dating--thinking here of the Song of Deborah, for instance. As done here, however, it seems to me to be a disservice to the article. Cheers and Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is applying absolutist language to a situation that is not absolute, and using Wikipedia's voice to do it. There's a reason why scholars and historians try to avoid absolute statements in textual matters, because new information comes to light and suddenly can change everything. Absolute statements also tend to result in a suppression of objections, which stymies discussion and growth of knowledge.

I'm not attached to the letter of what I wrote, and I see your concern, but I think there are plenty of ways to get the idea across without asserting the consensus of mainstream opinion as absolute fact. Basic research is to establish the tangible facts then interpret them. Facts are what you can observe, no opinions added. An opinion is an interpretation of tangible facts. An opinion does not become fact because most people believe it. Otherwise, if we lived in past centuries, spontaneous generation would be a fact. Flat earth would be a fact. The sun revolving around the earth would be a fact.

If someone wrote, Daniel was written at this time, then we have a fact. But we look back, and say, I think based on the evidence Daniel was written then. That's an inference or educated opinion. There's a difference. I think WP:YESPOV is wrongly being applied to stymy discussion. NPOV is supposed to protect all sides of the debate: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence."

I'm also aware that there is a sharp divide in interpretation of the prophecies between academic scholars and biblical scholars. Left, right, and center, there isn't this unanimous agreement in the sources and interpretation as there is presented in the article. Proveallthings (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Proveallthings (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

An opinion does not become fact because most people believe it. True. But according to epistemology a scientific fact is a scientific fact because it is consensually endorsed by the competent scientists.

I think you ignore the extent to which the 2nd century BCE dating is for mainstream historians the only option on the table, or the only game in town, simply because the historical method does not allow for any alternative to it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am all for more epistemological skepticism, but any change in wording would have to be sensitive to the fact that the overwhelming consensus of scholars (including many from religious traditions) concur with the 2nd Century dating. Traditional dating is fine to mention, but we should not be engaged in a false equivalency between the two. On a side note, I have never quite understood the 6th century claim! The verses normally said to attribute authorship to Daniel strike me as equivocal at best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The 6th century is dated based on Nebuchadnezzar. The Aramaic section of the book of Daniel is written in Imperial Aramaic (8 BC to 4 BC) of an eastern dialect.

Qumran, 2nd century, is western, post-Achaemenid (Biblical) dialect.

The situation with the Hebrew is murkier and harder to pin down. Proveallthings (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the languages of Daniel; my point is that eponymous authorship is not actually claimed in the text. But, as I said, a side note. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Tabor, James D. (2016) [2011]. "Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Millennialism". In Wessinger, Catherine (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Millennialism. Oxford Handbooks Series (reprint ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 9780190611941. Retrieved 7 September 2020. The book of Daniel becomes foundational for the Jewish or Jewish-Christian millenarian vision of the future that became paradigmatic [...]. [...] One of the great ironies in the history of Western ideas is that Daniel's influence on subsequent Jewish and Christian views of the future had such a remarkable influence, given that everything predicted by Daniel utterly failed! [...] One might expect that a book that had proven itself to be wrong on every count would have long since been discarded as misguided and obsolete, but, in fact, the opposite was the case. Daniel's victory was a literary one. [...] Daniel not only survived but its influence increased. The book of Daniel became the foundational basis of all Jewish and Christian expressions of apocalyptic millenarianism for the next two thousand years. [...] Daniel is the clearest example from this period of the "when prophecy fails" syndrome [...]

About anti-supernaturalist bias: https://ehrmanblog.org/charges-and-anti-supernatural-biases-readers-mailbag-august-6-2017/ . Morals: many Jews and Christians who don't reject prophecy out of hand admit that the Book of Daniel is about Antiochus Epiphanes.

And you can bet that if Tabor's and Ehrman's opinion would be WP:FRINGE, I would be fighting to remove it from Wikipedia, or at least qualify it in the article as a fringe view. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You are really going on about things not being discussed here, and I feel you only have conditioned and pre-written responses. It's a waste of my time as yours. Also, I don't have the luxury of simply picking up Ehrman or Taylor and quoting their opinion and allowing that to be it. As a historian, I have to look at a hundred sources and determine to what extent what Ehrman and Taylor have to say is valid or convincing.

I think you're mistaking what I responded to elsewhere about the historical method and the Maccabean thesis, and making it a prophetic issue--which, FYI, you brought up just now. I was answering from a historical point that there is no memory of anything supporting the Macc. Thesis preserved even a century later, or even at Qumran. Also, if you want to apply the historical method correctly, you have to read the text carefully. I noted Daniel 11:36, 40: "And the king shall do according to his will . . . And at the time of the end the king of the south shall push at him, and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships." By my count, that's three individuals in one text, not two. The Maccabean Thesis requires "the king" and the "king of the north" (the Seleucid King, including Antiochus IV) be the same. So that's one flaw in how the historical method was applied. Another flaw in application is the presupposition that the book was written in the Seleucid era and should have a Seleucid interpretation. That keeps one from expanding the focus anywhere else. You miss details that way.

Since you want to prolong the subject by regurgitating Taylor above at length, I'll simply note historically what happens next. The Romans secure their victory over Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt in a land battle and massive sea battle at Actium. The Romans rush to annex Egypt and secure Cleopatra's wealth, opening way for their conquest of Ethiopia and Libya. They annex Judea as a province. Nero becomes Emperor, unrest breaks out in Britannia and Judea. He launches a furious persecution against the Christians and sends Vespasian to quell the unrest in Judea. The war in Judea lasts 3.5 years. In the meantime, Nero is declared an enemy of the state and tries to run but has nowhere to go. He commits suicide. The Romans capture Jerusalem and desecrate the Temple mount when the legions offered up sacrifices to the eagle Aquila borne on their standards. The slaughter of the city was immense, since people had been on a pilgrimage there from all parts of the world. It was one of the bloodiest slaughters in history. In the aftermath, they razed the city and temple to the ground and plowed the region with salt.

But I digress. I'm only responding to you against this idea that the historical method only allows one solution here. I'm not going to spend anymore time with all of this on WP. I'd rather choose a different venue, and to be honest, I'm not interested in carrying on a long conversation. I've written more here in two days than I have in the last fourteen years on Wikipedia combined. Your comments are way over the top, and what you left on my talk page is in my opinion absolutely unacceptable.

My argument here is (1) in regards to the present article: when we date a particular text (in this case 2:4-7:28) and say, "it was written between the 8th and 4th centuries in the region of Babylon/Persia," it is absolutely improbable to say it may have been written in 2nd century Judea. Despite being a notable development in the past hundred years, as I recall the article doesn't state it at all. And it is mainstream consensus. And (2), that the Maccabean Thesis is a consensus of mainstream scholars, it's not as solid as it once was and it is an inference based upon their interpretation of the writings themselves. So it should be reflected as consensus, not a fact. An opinion is an interpretation of observable facts. Also, I see no reason why we're ignoring the traditional view, since it represents a significant viewpoint in the debate. WP has guidelines about all of this. Proveallthings (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the luxury of simply picking up Ehrman or Taylor and quoting their opinion and allowing that to be it. As a historian, I have to look at a hundred sources and determine to what extent what Ehrman and Taylor have to say is valid or convincing. This is a fine statement of purpose in every day life, but on Wikipedia, it is a textbook example of original research. It seems like what you're talking about would be better suited to more of an academic context. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid. I'm referring to Tgeorgescu's ongoing appeal to the historical method leaving the Maccabean thesis as the "only game in town," which is simply not true. The last paragraph I wrote above is all I'm appealing to in regards to the article. If we want to contain the conversation it helps not to have to deal with such far flung topics. Quite simply, mainstream consensus holds that 2:4-7:28 is written in an eastern dialect of Imperial Aramaic (Kutscher)--which even here on Wikipedia is classed as c. 700 to c. 300 BC. It is not consistent at all with the Aramaic we find in Judea and Qumran. The Hebrew isn't consistent either, since there was a renaissance of Hebrew in the Maccabean Era and we refer to that Hebrew as Mishnaic and it had a marked difference in word order. In addition, we find three streams of transmission and three patterns of orthography for Daniel at Qumran (See Ulrich, Eugene, "The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls" in Collins, The Book of Daniel, Comp. and Rec., vol. 2, pp. 579, 580, Koch, "Stages in the Canonization of the Book of Daniel" in opp. cit., p. 431ff). From a textual standpoint those don't have time to develop if we accept a Maccabean authorship. Proveallthings (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What? An unpublished Master's thesis from someone at my alma mater, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, that would be now used by Christian religious fundamentalists to further their claims on trying to bolster the "prophetic" credentials of the Book of Daniel, which of course never even made it to the Prophets section of the Hebrew Canon?? Pretty pathetic, I'd say (to be just slightly more polite than saying actually ridiculous). It would be high time to end this ongoing charade here, in my humble opinion. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It is referencing this ridiculous religious fundamentalist charade that is going on here. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

To set the record straight: there may be no more than a few expressions, maybe a couple of sentences, no more, in Aramaic in the Mishnah. The Mishnah is basically a vast collection written entirely in Hebrew, not Aramaic. There are a couple of sentences in Aramaic in the entire Book of Ezra. But these are all little asides, basically irrelevant, just to keep this charade going on, which is the main goal of the disruption here. My argument said very clearly: "The Book of Daniel, is the only book of the Hebrew Bible that has substantial parts of it written in Aramaic, not in Hebrew." It is correct and it stands. I, on the other hand, will not participate in this charade any more. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is it over the top? The only thing that can be construed as remotely about you is And you can bet that. The rest is not even about you, why is it offensive? And Tabor's opinion is Tabor's opinion. You seem to take it personally when either it isn't me who wrote the opinion (I'm neither Tabor nor Ehrman), or I am simply not writing anything at all about your own person. You seem to think that the word pseudohistory refers specifically to your own person, instead of being a broadly shared judgment inside the mainstream academia. Well, I am not the mainstream academia and I don't ventilate my own opinion of what amounts to pseudohistory. As always, I leave my own opinions out of my Wikipedia edits. Wikipedia is not a website for publishing my own opinions. I usually avoid editing subjects whereupon my own opinions cannot align to those of the mainstream academia (I'm not a Wikipedic guerrilla fighter against the academic consensus). WP:NPA never meant that I'm not allowed to WP:CITE WP:RS. If you want a bootstrap intro to the pseudohistory of Christian apologetics, see Exposing Biblical Pseudo-history on YouTube.

And the prophecy of Daniel is that the Jews/saints win the war, on the short term, not two, three or four thousands years later. So it cannot be about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Okay, here is the deal: WP:CITE any book published in the past 25 years by Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, Oxford University Press, or Yale University Press which contradicts that there is a solid WP:RS/AC upon the 2nd century BCE dating.

And I don't care if the tales date to the 5th, 4th, or 3rd century BCE, because that's a red herring. It is a fallacy like "the mouse is a substantive; the mouse eats cheese; therefore a substantive eats cheese". I.e. when Larousse and John J. Collins say the book dates to about 165 BCE, they don't use the word "dating" in the same meaning as you do. They are not willing to split hairs between dating the book and dating the final revision of the book.

If you think that Britannica is a rock-solid WP:RS, read this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-22/Book review. I think that for citing Britannica within Wikipedia, the same rules should apply as for WP:MEDIUM (i.e. has it been written relatively recently by a reputable full professor?). If it has been written by anonymous editors, like [1], it's probably not worth spending time discussing if it passes for a WP:RS.

These being said, I will allow the traditionalist/evangelical position in the article, but I won't allow it stated as WP:THETRUTH, but only correctly labeled as WP:FRINGE. For Wikipedia, by default, the consensus of mainstream Bible scholars is "the truth" in this matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Christophobic

There is nothing Christophobic about the 2nd century dating. Many pious Christians embrace it. E.g. Bart Ehrman's professors: it was the default view at his divinity school, see https://ehrmanblog.org/charges-and-anti-supernatural-biases-readers-mailbag-august-6-2017/ "Taking such a view is not anti-supernaturalist. It is simply taking a historical approach to the task of interpretation, instead of a non-critical one." tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

In any case, the pseudo-prophecies of the Book of Daniel are hardly essential to Christianity. Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV issues

@Lufernac: Your interpretation worked okay for many centuries. Luther and Calvin cannot be blamed for believing in it. But it came to a grinding halt with the Millerites. Nowadays, most Protestant churches don't endorse your interpretation, and Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy didn't historically endorse it, anyway. Protestants overwhelmingly abandoned it since the 1850s, so it's WP:FRINGE according to the historical method, and it's WP:FRINGE theologically. So, both academic fields which cover this article say your edits are completely fringe. Your POV was seen as credible theological dogma, but only before the 1850s. Its prediction of the Second Coming of Christ is a failure, and, strictly speaking, its prediction of the First Coming is also a failure.

Extended content

17. Pusey, Daniel. p. 171. Dr. Pusey adds, "The little colony which Ezra took with him of 1, 683 males (with women and children some 8, 400 souls) was itself a considerable addition to those who had before returned, and involved a rebuilding of Jerusalem. This rebuilding of the city and reorganization of the polity, begun by Ezra, and carried on and perfected by Nehemiah, corresponds with the words of Daniel, 'From the going forth of a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem'" (p. 172.) This argument is the feeblest imaginable, and indeed this reference to the decree of the seventh year of Artaxerxes is a great blot on Dr. Pusey's book. If an immigration of 8, 400 souls involved a rebuilding of the city, and therefore marked the beginning of the seventy weeks, what shall be said of the immigration of 49, 697 souls seventy-eight years before? (Ezra 2:64, 65.) Did this not involve a rebuilding? But, Dr. Pusey goes on to say, "The term also corresponds," i. e., the 483 years, to the time of Christ. Here is obviously the real ground for his fixing the date B. C. 457, or more properly B. C. 458, as given by Prideaux, whom unfortunately Dr. Pusey has followed at this point. With more naivete the author of the Connection pleads that the years will not tally if any other date be assigned, and therefore the decree of the seventh of Artaxerxes must be right! (Prid., Con., 1., 5, B. C. 458.) Such a system of interpretation has done much to discredit the study of prophecy altogether. — THE COMING PRINCE Sir Robert Anderson

As argued above, taking the historical method seriously should not be conflated with anti-supernaturalism: the Princeton Theological Seminary is by and large not anti-supernaturalist, but it teaches the circa 165 BCE dating as fact. Historians cannot posit miracles as objective historical facts, but there is no requirement that historians deny the existence of miracles. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

One Major Error That Causes Adventism to Collapse! (MUST SEE!) on YouTube tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

See all the posts above. Tell me one of the top 100 universities from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2024 which agrees with the IP. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: The University of Liverpool agrees with the IP. Potatín5 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Millard is not unaware of the scholarly consensus: "almost all commentators deduce that the book could only have been composed in the second century BC." That is, he is dismissing apologists out of hand. So, don't blame me for doing that, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Can we get a better source on Daniel being quoted by the Sibylline oracles? I've had a devil of a time trying to track down the actual quote and if it's significant rather than just being a mention of Daniel or a similar type of vision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3018:CD9:100:444:4796:E417:D9BD (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Excessive citing

Can someone please explain this excessive citing here:

The most probable conclusion is that the account must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164 BC, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem, and the consensus of modern scholarship[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] is accordingly that the book dates to the period 167–163 BC.[36][37]

This is looks like Wikipedia:Citation overkill to me. Is this really that controversial or something?CycoMa1 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Now I see the discussion above. But still, this excessive citing looks terrible.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)