Talk:Book of Daniel

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 10:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

this article is poorly structured, its sections are ill-titled, and it is unaccessible to the average reader who might have desire of its contents. Is that enough of an explanation? it requires cleanup. create a more effective hierarchy of sections, properly title those sections, make the language a little less opaque to someone new to the topic, and sort out the discrepancies of opinion amongst yourselves without compromising the article. This article reads more like the first draft of an amateur academic paper than an encyclopaedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.182.55 (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Time of the End

I have seen this discussion about "where Daniel goes wrong", and it is common consensus that it goes wrong at 11:40, correct? Now when I read this verse, it starts out with "And in the time of [the] end the king of the south...". Shouldn't this "time of the end" be pointing towards a completely different era, with other kings of north and south? - TagDaze

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say anything is "common consensus", especially on a subject as controversial as this. That ignores all the people who disagree, as if they didn't exist or didn't count. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of redundant, but let me rephrase that, then. The issue here is that starting from verse 40, Daniel 11 does not seem to conform with history. My question still stands. Shouldn't this "time of the end" from that verse be pointing towards a completely different era, with other kings of north and south? - TagDaze 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, there are all kinds of different views. The view that it does "conform to history" up til verse 40 is but one view that has received a lot of academic attention in modern times. There is also the view of the Gospel (Matt 24), that the entire thing is a future prophecy of the end times, and none of it corresponds with past history, at least from verse 6 on, where the phrase "at the end of years" first appears. There are lots of different ways of analyzing this chapter, almost as many as there are people who have analyzed it. In my own analysis, the clear dividing line or break comes between verses 16 and 17; that is, I read verses 1-16 and 17-45 to be two distinct prophecies of the end times, both referring to the same events, rather than a chronologically continuous narrative from beginning to end. Verse 16 ends with the evil ruler of the last days standing in the Holy Land, "and it shall be finished up by his hand". Verse 17 starts afresh with a new prophecy about the same events as in 6-16; by the time we get to verse 45, we again have the evil ruler standing in the Holy Land. Of course, as this is only my own interpretation, it would be considered Original Research and hence inadmissible for the article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been a bit since I read Daniel but I agree with TagDaze, it seems that there is a break between the parts of the history that are totally accurate and then the things that can't be attributed and this seems to be a future/past break as he says. This is affirmed by the fact that as well as clear past events in some cases Jesus quotes in Matthew the verse about the Abomination causing Desolation as a future event, 1) this isnt the destruction of Jerusalem because the content is far to clear but also 2) it isnt the desecration of the temple by Antiochus or Jesus couldnt quote it except in the past tense because that was around (memory fails me but i think) 140 BC - TC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.142.233 (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A "Darius" as a generic Median or Persian title?"

No ruler of this name is recorded outside of religious texts. Although, Darius was a common title not unlike Pharoah or Caesar. Some historians suggest Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II referred to by the historian Xenophon. Cyaxares II being weak and sensual, was eclipsed by his energetic nephew, Cyrus. Darius as a kingly title? An example would be good from a royal inscription. Or does the "weak and sensual" remark give a better approximate date for this assertion? --Wetman 22:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i genuinely apologize if you disapprove of the words "weak and sensual"...forgive me. i was only using xenophon's words.(see Cyropædia, i. 5; viii. 7) Georg Friedrich Grotefend has read it in the cuneiform inscriptions at Persepolis, as Darheush, i.e., Lord-king a name applied to many of the Medo Persian kings in common. Three by this name occur; Darius Hystaspis, B.C. 521, Darius Codomanus, B.C. 336 called "the Persian" and Darius Cyaxares II, between Astyages and Cyrus(from Eschylus, Persia762, 763). Cyrus, as the subordinate prince, took Babylon, B.C. 538. if this information will suffice, please re-include Darius as generic title. thanks, -john johnson

My error. Xenophon and Late Victorians: guess I can't tell them apart! If "Darius" is more than Bourbon "Louis", can you work your supportive material into the article? --Wetman 00:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

probably could....though it seems kind of unimportant. Darius Cyaxares II is just a theory about Darius the Mede. however, he seems like he should be included because he fits the time period exactly. Darius as generic title isn't such a big deal. Most of my info was retrieved from (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's A Commentary; Critical, Experimental, and Practical as well as a (yes) late victorian translation of Xenophon. i don't really care if it's included or not--Darius' identity seems like a rather long sidenote to make anyway. thanks, --john johnson

NPOV: a neutral point-of-view

Recently User:Matt Crypto removed the structural and literary text concerning the Book of Daniel: "which would be parables save for their miraculous content" as offending his "NPOV," saying ""parable" strongly suggests fiction." It cannot be strongly enough stressed, especially since "NPOV" is being invoked, that Wikipedia does not testify to the truth of any religion's books of scripture. Wikipedia treats all texts as documents. Wikipedia reports on the history and language and content and social/intellectual background of texts and documents, and attempts to describe the intentions and points-of-view expressed in them. Wikipedia also reports the range of mainstream interpretations of texts. But Wikipedia does not stand witness for miracles, nor, indeed, does it even decry superstitions. --Wetman 14:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Symphona and source for disunity

I removed the remark about "Symphona" because the Greek word "Symphona" references a group of musicians playing together [from which we get the obvious cognate "Symphony."] The word in Daniel which is being suggested as the "earliest example of symphona" refers to a specific instrument which was a type of dulcimer. It is therefor not an early example of the later Greek form (as stated by the article). The remark was reinserted by a later editor.

Since the sources I have indicate that the vast majority of commentators consider Daniel written by a single author, could someone furnish a source for that being a significant view, else it appears more appropriate to use language that makes clear that such is a viewpoint held by only a few scholars.

I disagreed with language "already drawn by Porphyry" in discussing the late dating because it suggests that there was a bevy of commentators chomping at the bit to decry its putative age from early times. The reality is that other than Porphyry, there is no significant historical attack on the earlier dating of Daniel until the 17th Century! Given that only one commentator introduced significant criticism on this point for nearly 2000 years [at least 200 BC to 1600 AD], I think "already drawn by Porphyry" is misleading. The alternative is simply to make a big to-do about how no other commentator suggested an earlier dating until the 17th century, but I thought that did not flow well with the paragraph [which is designed to highlight the later dating point of view]

Can we come to a consensus about these wording issues?

Thanks

Phantym 02:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for fixing more of my spacing issues! I won't use that editor again for this :)

What is up with removing sensible text, such as the following:

Textual analysis has established to the satisfaction of secular historians that the book grew in stages, beginning as separate Aramaic stories of the Persian and Hellenistic period, which were collected and then had a vision added possibly in the 3rd century B.C.E., forming the Aramaic chapters 2-7, to which were added the three 2nd century B.C.E. (see "Date" below) visions of chapters 8-12, and the introduction to the book, chapter 1.

This was not to the taste of Phantym. Or am I missing it in the shuffle? This is very poor behavior. When this person has quite finished with this article, someone will have to go through the edits and note what has been trashed in the interests of "sacred historians" and do some re-editing. --Wetman 04:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

My edit to this page was based upon Wetman's revision of 14 May, while trying to integrate the views of Phantym. I tried to tone down the rhetoric to a level I felt appropriate; it could (and should) go further. I also feel that the paragraph(s) regarding the detailed chronology of the book's creation do not belong at the head of the article, which should serve as an introduction.

Note also Phantym's other contribution: Prophecy of Seventy Weeks. It appears to reference a book by a John F Walvoord, which (as noted at the bottom of this article) is "A detailed, systematic analysis of the Book of Daniel with emphasis on studying and refuting nonbiblical views." This, then, is a POV source, and all information derived from it should be labeled as such. It is an eschatological investigation as well; the Book of Daniel has attracted the attention of plenty of like-minded scholars and dreamers, not the least of whom was Sir Issac Newton.

Here's a balanced commentary, which touches on the authorship issue: http://www.religioustolerance.org/daniel.htm - mako 08:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Four answers

In response to "Textual analysis has established to the satisfaction of secular historians that the book grew in stages, beginning as separate Aramaic stories of the Persian and Hellenistic period, which were collected and then had a vision added possibly in the 3rd century B.C.E., forming the Aramaic chapters 2-7, to which were added the three 2nd century B.C.E. (see "Date" below) visions of chapters 8-12, and the introduction to the book, chapter 1."

Well, for one thing, that is not the text I removed. I removed a paragraph at the beginning which simply stated without any separate view that the book grew in stages. Secondly, no source was given for the remark, and my source postdated the only source I saw when I edited it.

Thirdly, I gave a thorough discussion as to why one of the specific facts [regarding the mention of symphonia] was removed. I do not understand why your post made no reference at all to my talk post discussing these matters.

Lastly, it was not "surreptitious." I stated flat out that I changed the first paragraph and gave the reason why.

The current version of this page is intolerably inaccurate.

First you cannot say "Most interpreters find that references in the Book of Daniel reflect the persecutions of Israel by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC), and consequently date its composition to that period."

The statement as written is simply not true. Secondly, even if it were true it would be a poor conflation of two completely different camps. As should be clear to anyone is that there are separate camps with different agenda, to the point that it makes little sense to discuss them in the aggregate. Thirdly, two of the most acclaimed texts on the matter indicate that a large part of those who subscribe to a later dating still affirm its unity.

Similarly, "Defenders of prophetic inerrancy..." does not portray correctly the situation, as there are scholars running a long spectrum, many who would certainly not consider themselves Biblical inerrantists, that maintain the question of dating and unity as open. The verbiage as written makes the group in the second camp (which, historically, is the majority!) sound like some framentary rebel band.

Another problem is that article incorrectly combines the unity and dating issues. The two are separate and have separate standing in the academic community. Any edition that does not clearly state this, as well as clearly state the documented existence of secular historians who hold that the book is a single unit [thought with a later date than their sacred colleagues] is not an accurate depiction of reality. Phantym 03:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

First, if you go to the history page and do a compare between yours and Wetman's revisions of May 14th, you'll see that you did remove that text. Second, the sources you have are not the only sources, especially if (I am guessing) they are mainly "sacred" sources. Third, you should make a note on the talk page at the same time you substantially edit the article, not days later.

I am not qualified to comment on the associativity of the unity and dating issues at the moment, but I may be compelled to do some research of my own. The important thing, in any case, is to make sure that all, meaning all, points of view are fairly represented. - mako 08:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No I did not,please read carefully.

I was quite clear in saying "Well, for one thing, that is not the text I removed. I removed a paragraph at the beginning which simply stated without any separate view that the book grew in stages."

If you go to the revision page you will see that the passage I removed was:

The book grew in stages, beginning as separate Aramaic stories of the Persian and Hellenistic period, which were collected and then had a vision added possibly in the 3rd century B.C.E., forming the Aramaic chapters 2-7, to which were added the three 2nd century B.C.E. (see "Date" below) visions of chapters 8-12, and the introduction to the book, chapter 1. The book now has two distinct parts, a series of narratives and four apocalyptic visions.

This text (with no suggestion of separate view or that the view above is even up to debate) is the text I removed. My point is that things that are still very much debated should not be placed in the intro as though they were true. Rather, both views should be represented in the appropriate section. I think that is a very reasonable point that any person looking for a neutral point of view should hold. What is not reasonable is for a referenced statement verifying the existence of secular scolars who themselves support a unit view to be completely removed only to have its antithesis instantiated.

I apologize for not putting a post in the discussion page, I misunderstood the purpose of this page. I did, however, ask for discussion about important wording issues so as to reach a concensus, but Wetman did not respond in any way request.

Phantym 20:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Revamp

I have revamped the history and dating sections and included a unity section so that discussions of various theories go in their proper places. To remove some of the weasel words, I have listed significant scholars as specific supports of various theories.

A general list of changes:

added an allusion to the possible movement of the book into the introduction. Removed all specific discussion of Date and Unity from the introduction to be dealt with in their respective sections. Removed the reference to "parables" as, regardless of their accuracy, the stories do not fit that narrative genre. The historicity of the three youthes thrown into the fiery furnace has been varied by archaelogical digs (in the sense of their existence, not in terms of the their actually surviving a journey through the fiery furnace) Changed "Persian King Darius" to "a King Darius of unclear identity," since the text certainly does not refer to "Darius" as a Persian and interpreters are all over the board with regard to whom the author means to specify. Expanded discussion of historical accuracy and moved some content from there to other sections to make a clean break between questions dealing with historical conflicts and questions dealing with date or unity issues. Categorized the various dating and unity issues. Clarified the state of objection up until Higher Criticism Gave an extensive list of scholars (both secular and sacred) that supported and those that refuted the unity of Daniel Fleshed out the issues surrounding Symphonia, which has now been found in much earlier sources than previously known. Expanded both the discussions on historical accuracy and dating by ensuring both viewpoints on each issues [so far as I could determine them] were expressed. Added links to two critical articles, one of which is part of a large set of secular historians attacks on Daniel. Added links to an article summarizing conservative responses. Added an objection to Daniel based on the term "Chaldean" Added an objection to Daniel based on Belshazzar's relation to Nebuchadnezzar Added support to conservative viewpoint based on details of early Babylon Added a discussion concerning the madness of Nebuchadnezzar as a plausible historical error. Phantym 17:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Great addition to the article. Very balanced overall. - mako 20:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Perhaps the long list of scholars could be replaced with something like "Harrison and Barton, the former a conservative the latter a liberal scholar, are cited by Conklin to catalog over two dozen other scholars, both secular and sacred, that support the unity of Daniel."

I did not want the article to become a name-dropping contest, but it beats weasel words.

Phantym 22:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is a POV disaster.

Okay- referring to "sacred historians" as trustworthy sources of information is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The point of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to allow the evidence for opposing mainstream viewpoints about a certain topic to be discussed in an article, yet this policy is routinely abused to put up unsubstantiated viewpoints alongside mainstream scholarly viewpoints as if they both have equal validity. The fact of the matter is that every mainstream scholarly work I have read about biblical history comes to the conclusion that Daniel in its final form dates to the period of the Maccabean revolt. Read William G. Dever, Rainer Albertz, what have you. Heck, even Encarta, a general encyclopedia which is fairly conservative, states that Daniel was probably written in the 2nd century BC.

The question of the unity of the book is an entirely different question that does merit equal treatment of both sides of the issue. The question of date is not- I know of no competent biblical critic who would date any part of Daniel to the 6th century BC.

Once again, you don't see this controversy in the articles about citrus fruit. --Rob117 20:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"The fact of the matter is that every mainstream scholarly work I have read about biblical history comes to the conclusion that Daniel in its final form dates to the period of the Maccabean revolt." They may say it, but they can't prove it. The data from within the book in the language it was written indicates that it was written LONG before 164 B.C..

"I know of no competent biblical critic who would date any part of Daniel to the 6th century BC." Actually, some of the scholars who date it that early ARE competent scholars. One would never expect a critic to ever agree with virtually anything that the Bible says.

I've heard of controversy over the use of Alar on apples, does that count for "controversy" "about citrus fruit"? Otherwise, why would one expect one? --David J. Conklin 13:43, 27 May 2007

I'm no expert, but the article seems to present both sides of the issue. While it could probably be more upfront about the biases of "sacred historians" (and better terms for historians could be used), it reads to the uninitiated (me) okay. If you could mention specific books and/or articles, I'll take a look at them.

Feel free to correct the POV, but keep in mind that historians on both sides essentially cite evidence to advance their own POV. In an article like this -- covering a book of the Bible -- one side considers it a historical document and the other considers it the Word of God. It would be a major bias to leave out believers' views on their own religious text. - mako 22:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

For sources see under references look for "The Date of the Book of Daniel" and the bibliography will certainly get you started.--David J. Conklin 13:45, 27 May 2007

After having read the article in its present state, I was pleasantly surprised to see a fairly balanced approach. I expected a highly polemic frankenstein of an article as many such are... This discussion page, on the other hand, shows some mistaken notions about NPOV that I want to speak for. First, NPOV does NOT mean that only "mainstream" views should be represented. You will not find the word "mainstream" in the article on NPOV, nor will you find the same concept under a different name (at least at the point of my writing this). You will find rather the opposite: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." Also germaine, from the NPOV article: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. . . . Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." In other words, there should be no problem with a section detailing the position of those who hold the book of Daniel to be written at the time internally stated, but neither should there be any problem with providing the viewpoint of those who believe the book is an encoded document recording the visitation of aliens from the planet Nibiru (if such a view exists). It would be difficult to define NPOV as that which corresponds with "mainstream" scholarship. What was once considered progress by the mainstream is now considered oppressive by post-colonialist thinkers. Darwin's conclusions about evolution were considered poor biology by the mainstream of his day, but are now acknowledged as the foundation of modern biology by most biologists today. It is less fruitful for an encyclopedia (especially one as organic as wiki) to side with a position than to represent it carefully. --JECompton 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Did you know that there is a modern neopagan movement that is resurrecting the gods of ancient Greece? I don't see any Wikipedia articles on Greek mythology giving arguments for and against the historicity of the Greek myths- they are, quite logically, simply assumed to be mythological. A large segment of the American population believes the government has a secret trade deal with extraterrestrials, yet I don't see the arguments of "both sides" being treated in those articles. Why should the biblical accounts of magic and prophecy be treated any differently? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this case, the extraordinary evidence does not exist. Some of the evidence cited to be used by "sacred" historians is downright untruthful. The article claims that John Collins supports an early date in a 1992 work, but a 1993 work by the same author charactarizes the Aramaic and Hebrew of the book as similar to that of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BC-1st century AD), according to this article. According to this article, Rainer Albertz has claimed to identify the historical period of each section of the book based on its themes. Furthermore, the article cites standard apologetic responses as if they were legitemate arguments. Claiming that "Darius the Mede" is just another name for Cyrus the Persian or his officer Gubaru is ridiculous- Cyrus's name was Cyrus, and Gubaru's name was Gubaru. There is no reason to believe either of them used the "Darius the Mede" as an alias. Using wordplay to justify the reference to Belshazzar as "king" when he was clearly not king and as the "son" of Nebuchadnezzar when he was his grandson at best, and quite possibly completely unrelated to him, is simply ludicrous. Furthermore, the article fails to mention that the book of Daniel claims that Jerusalem was besieged in the third year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (606 BC) by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. This is unhistorical. First of all, Nebuchadnezzar did not ascend the throne until the fourth year of Jehoiakim (September 7, 605 BC to be precise), and second of all, there was no siege of Jerusalem in 606 BC- there were two sieges of Jerusalem, one in 597 BC during the three-month reign of Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin, the other in 587 BC during the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. Additionally, the article presents the issue between "sacred" and "secular" historians as if it were a legitemate, scholarly debate. It is not. The article implies that only secularists date Daniel to the second century BC, when there are plenty of nonfundamentalist religious believers who, looking at the evidence without any preconceptions, feel obliged to reach the conclusion that the book is of late date. This is even in the commentary of some mainstream Bibles. According to this article, "The New Oxford Annotated Bible notes that '(t)he author [of Daniel] was a pious Jew living under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 167-164 B.C." Another excellent translation, The New Jerusalem Bible, says the same thing: "The book was written during the persecution of the Jews by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes (167-164 BC); his attempts to seduce the Jews from the observance of the Law... form the background of its message.'"

Lastly, it makes a reference to people who date Daniel to the 2nd century BC as "liberal" historians. The phrase "mainstream historians" would be more appropriate thank you very much.

Wikipedia does not engage in apologetics. I'm changing the article. --Rob117 20:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said, this is not my area of expertise. It's tough trying to police a page when you know very little about the subject. I just think it prudent to include the "sacred" claims (however rooted in fundamentalism they may be) if only to refute them soundly.

Anyway, clean it up as you see fit, thanks. Wikipedia needs more people who know what they're talking about. - mako 00:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I would have no problem with neopagans arguing for the historicity of what we consider Greek mythology. Nor do I have a problem with treating biblical passages as mythology--the important thing is accurate citation and representation.--JECompton 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned it up. Acknowledged that some conservatives still follw the early date, but otherwise went with the mainstream late date(s). Removed all apologetics. --Rob117 03:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is rubbish, absolute rubbish. Wiki had better get a hold on these Evangelical fablers who are spoiling their site or else it'll be superseded by another, more scholarly website. - JCuesicus (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. john k (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. How about getting a hold on the materialistic atheist lot who take over articles like this? GTFO you POV SOBs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

70 weeks of years

Daniel 9: Discusses 70 weeks of years, the account states that this period would start with the "going forth " of the word to rebuild jerusalems walls! Nehemiah's arrivel during Artaxerxes Regin in 455 B.C begins this period! The period is split up into 3 parts

1) 7 weeks of years; rebuilding the walls! 49 years

2) 62 weeks; 434 years

3) 1 Week; 7 years

The 70 weeks are to predict "messiah the leader's" arrival and say he would be "cut off" half way through the final week, or 3.5 years from hes arrival! in order to "finish off sin" (or the sin offerings of the jews) as per the phrase "make attonement for error"! The first 2 parts bring you upto 29C.E (49years + 434 years) and half way through the final week upto 33C.E

The jews were in "expectation" of "the [promised] messiah" at this specific time period Luke 3: 1-5;15 because of Daniel chapter 9!

Most Historians Date daniel as being written 2nd century B.C; They would probably date it later, but for the dead sea scrolls!

fyi: weeks.... if you read Dan carefully there is a distinction between messiah and the leader, traditionally accepted as Christ and Anti-Christ, they are not the same - hence the leader sets up the abomination... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.142.233 (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

King of north & South Following on From 70 Weeks of Years

No they wouldn't. Daniel 11 shows a very detailed knowledge of Seleucid history up to about 165 BC, but is wrong in its discussion of how Antiochus will die. As such, that part of Daniel, at least, can be dated fairly securely to some time around 165 BC - before Antiochus IV's death. john k 22:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Daniel 11 doesnt mention Antiochs IV's demise. Dan 11:20 depicts Octavian-Augustus as someone who "must stand up in his position",the "exactor" was the census of 2 B.C "a few days" upto 14 A.D where he "Augustus" died due to illness at the age of 76! not dying in "warfare or anger" Daniel 11:21 refers to "Tiberius Caesar" "despised" by Augustus & not having the "Dignity" of the kingdom bestowed upon him, this reluctant ruler became Caeser because nobody else could be found! Also the "leader of the covenant", Jesus; was "broken" during tiberius's reign! The fact that the "King of the North" had changed to the roman "Caesar's" was further illustrated in Matt 24:15,16 where jesus refers to the "discusting thing (heathen romans) standing where it ought not("the holy place" or the jewish temple) as spoken through the prophet "Daniel"" Jesus is quoting Daniel 11:31. The Romans later attacked jerusalem, withdrew; (& the jews who listened got out) the Roman's came back in 70A.D!

I have no idea how Christian fundamentalists interpret Daniel 11. It's odd that you would take 11:20 to be referrnig to events after Antiochus IV, when most scholars (including St. Jerome!) interpret 11:20 to be about Seleucus IV, Antiochus IV's predecessor. But the basic scheme followed by secular scholars is as follows:

• 11:2 - the fourth king of Persia is Xerxes, who invaded Greece
• 11:3 - the mighty king is Alexander
• 11:4 - Alexander's kingdom is broken after his death, and is divided up by his generals.
• 11:5 - The King of the South is Ptolemy I, and one of his princes who shall be strong above him and have dominion is Ptolemy II
• 11:6 - The King's daughter of the south is the daughter of Ptolemy II, and the king of the north that she marries is Antiochus II. She does not retain the power of the arm and is given up to Antiochus II's first wife, who murders both her husband and his new wife.
• 11:7 - The branch of her roots is her brother Ptolemy III, who defeats Seleucus II, the new King of the North, in the Third Syrian War
• 11:8 - more on Ptolemy III's victories over Seleucus II. Ptolemy III does indeed reign longer than Seleucus II
• 11:9 - Ptolemy III returns hom at the end of the war.
• 11:10 - "his sons" are the sons of Seleucus II, king of the North - the one who certainly comes up, and overflows, and passes through, is Antiochus III, who invades Egyptian Syria in the Fourth Syrian War in 219 BC
• 11:11 - The King of the South who is moved with choler is Ptolemy IV, who defeats Antiochus III at Raphia in 217 BC
• 11:12 - Ptolemy IV wins the battle of Raphia, but is not strengthened by it
• 11:13 - Antiochus III comes up against the Egyptians again with a larger army in the Fifth Syrian War
• 11:14 - The Jews rebel against Ptolemy at this point, presumably in support of the Seleucids
• 11:15 - Antiochus III comes against Ptolemy V in the Fifth Syrian War and defeats him without much effort. The Jews don't resist either.
• 11:16 - Antiochus III is successful in his conquests.
• 11:17 - Antiochus III gives "the daughter of women", his daughter Cleopatra, in marriage to Ptolemy V.
• 11:18 - Antiochus III tries to make war in Greece, but is defeated by the Romans and driven back
• 11:19 - Antiochus III goes back to his own land, but dies in Elymais while looting a temple.
• 11:20 - Antiochus III is succeeded by his son Seleucus IV, who goes to a great deal of trouble to raise taxes to pay off the Roman indemnity incurred by his father. Seleucus IV is destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle, but by being murdered by his own servant.
• 11:21 - Antiochus IV is the vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom, who succeeds Seleucus IV. He comes in peacefully, in spite of the superior claims of Seleucus IV's son Demetrius.
• 11:22-24 Not sure exactly what is going on here
• 11:25 - Antiochus IV goes to war with the new king of the south, Ptolemy VI, who is defeated
• 11:26 - More on this point
• 11:27 - Not sure exactly, but Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI make peace
• 11:28 - Antiochus IV returns from his successful campaign against Egypt, but is against the Jews
• 11:29 - Antiochus IV goes off to make war on Ptolemy VI again
• 11:30 - The Romans are the ships of Chittim who come against Antiochus IV and force him to return without victory. In revenge, he does bad things to the Jews
• 11:31 - Antiochus IV pollutes the temple with idolatry
• 11:32 - Some will be corrupted by Antiochus, but others will revolt against him
• 11:33-35 - More in the same vein
• 11:36 - Antiochus will make himself as a god (note that "Epiphanes" means "the god made manifest")
• 11:37-39 More in the same vein

All of this is, to secular scholars, a description of the history of the Ptolemies and Seleucids from the time of Alexander down to around 165 BC. After this we get to an inaccurate prophecy of Antiochus IV's death:

• 11:40 - The King of the South (Ptolemy VI?) now makes war on Antiochus, but Antiochus is victorious
• 11:41 - Antiochus conquers many countries
• 11:42 - Antiochus conquers Egypt
• 11:43 - Antiochus conquers Libya and Ethiopia
• 11:44 - Antiochus is troubled by tidings from the east and north and leaves Egypt in order to destroy things
• 11:45 - Antiochus makes his camp near Jerusalem, but dies suddenly, and none shall help him.

All of this is, to secular scholars, an inaccurate prediction of the ultimate fate of Antiochus IV, who did not, in fact, invade Egypt again, certainly did not conquer it, and died, in fact, fighting the Parthians in the east, not encamped somewhere near Jerusalem. Thus, secular scholars date the work to around 165 BC. This has nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls, because it is the inaccuracy of what are thought to be predictions of the death of Antiochus IV that date the prophecy so clearly - it is written after all the events "forecast" in 11:2-39 have happened, but before Antiochus's actual death, which would otherwise be accurately described.

Now, I am aware that this is not the view that fundamentalists have of Daniel. But this is the view of secular scholars, and it doesn't make sense to say that they would date it later if not for the Dead Sea Scrolls - the conventional date for Daniel is because of internal textual evidence that puts it after 167 BC and before 164 BC. john k 20:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

20th Century secular scholars may interprit the verses this way!

But 1st century scholars thought otherwise. Matt 24:15;16 show, the "discusting thing" was not "Antioch IV" as moders scholars have theorised, But was the Roman incursion "removing" the "constant feature" (animal sacrifices)! Note that Matt 26:28 shows who the "leader of the covenant" is described in Daniel 11:22 to be "broken" during the king of Daniel 11:22 or "tiberius"!

I don't care what Matthew thought. Jerome, I will note, basically agreed with present day secular scholars, although he thought 11:21-39 referred only partially to Antiochus, and mostly to the antichrist, and thought 40-45 referred wholly to the Antichrist. But this is irrelevant, because my point was not what these verses refer to. My point was that you said that secular scholars would date the book later than the second century BC if not for the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is not true, because the way secular scholars interpret the book means that it was written before the death of Antiochus IV. This would be true even without the Dead Sea Scrolls. john k 21:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Matthew didnt think anything, it was Jesus quoting Daniel 11:31. have you even read these verses, their very specific! My point was that, scholars date Daniel at 160's B.C because of the accuracy of the prophecies. They would date it later, because the prophecies continue, rationalising that they must refer to Antiochus, but they dont. the 70 weeks of years, the messiah, gift offering ceasing, the leader of the covenant, & him being broken, all pinpoint 33C.E. onwards. The later "desolation", the "discusting thing", but the dead sea scrolls date it at 2nd Century B.C minimum.

The fact that the jews were warned to "flee" when they saw "encamped armies" shows the romans would make an "unexpected retreat" & there would be a way out! Matt 24:15;16 as per the stake-out of 66A.D and later "desolation 70A.D"

This is all original research. Scholars do not interpret anything in Daniel as referring to Jesus or the destruction of the second temple. The description in Daniel 11 is accurate up to a point shortly before Antiochus IV's death. After that, it is not accurate (or has not yet taken place). As such, it is dated by historians to the latter part of the reign of Antiochus IV. This has nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls. john k 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

How could you interprit this quote from 33A.D as anything but the roman incursion.?

Matt 2415,16"when you catch sight of the discusting that causes desolation standing in a holy palce, as spoke of by the prophet daniel. Then let those in judea begin fleeing to the mountains"! Quoting Daniel 11:31 &Daniel 9:

For secular historians, the fact that Matthew thought that Daniel was discussing the Roman period is irrelevant to an understanding of what Daniel is talking about. john k 19:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your own argument invalidates itself! You say that Daniel tried to "predict" Antiochus IV "future" demise. Yet historians are themselves assigning events they believe Daniel must have alluded to!

Surely there would be no point ascribing "any" events to verse 40 onwards. If 40 onwards is made up, why assign events to it!

Also about the writing style of daniel, why would he write 20 verses describing 10+ Kings & 25 verses only describing 1 King? About secular historians ignoring Matthew's account! Just proves their ignorance. If you had read the comment correctly, you would know it wasnt Matthew who reffered to the Romans! & it isnt only mentioned in Matthew!

Who do secular historians say the "leader of the covenant" was, that was "broken" in Daniel 11:22,? Because;

First you have to know what the "covenent" was! It certainly wasnt a covenant with any foreign nations! It was a covenant that replaced the "Abrahamic" covenant. And the leader was the "Annointed" one of Daniel 9:25 called "Messiah the leader" Luke 1:55; Acts 3:25; Matt26:28; Mark 14:24

Daniel 9:26 says "Messiah wil be cut off"! And 70weeks of years pinpoint this to 33A.D

Daniel 11:22 says "The leader of the covenant will be Broken", these reffer to the same person! ^33A.D^

Daniel 11:22 in No-Way at all refers to Antiochus IV or his time period!

First point - I am not arguing the merits of the case of secular historians. I am merely stating what the basic argument is. The reason that 25 verses describe Antiochus is because the book was written in the midst of Antiochus's persecutions. In terms of ascribing events, historians are trying to figure out what exactly Daniel was saying in that part - he seems to be trying to predict the downfall and death of Antiochus IV, but what he says didn't come to pass. This is why historians think it was written before Antiochus's death - if it had been written afterwards, it would have described his actual death. As to Daniel 11:22, I'm not sure what is specifically being referred to, but I do know that historians have taken it to be from the period of Antiochus IV. Again, you can disagree with this, but I'm just saying that this is what secular historians believe, in order to correct your notion that secular historians would love to date Daniel after 165 BC. The fact is that they wouldn't - the date of 165 BC is based quite explicitly on the reigning theory of Daniel's composition. john k 23:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Its been a nice discussion, and well have to agree to differ, dating Daniel to 165B.B.C doesnt explain the 70 weeks of year prophecy or the refference to the "messiah - Leader of the covenant", and him "being broken-cut off" in a 3.5 year period. And lots more not mentioned in this short discussion. The Census of 2B.C & the "Braking of the leader" fit "Octavius & Tiberius" Far more accurately, than AntiochusIV.

Just to let you know, there are at least three obscure interpretations of Daniel 11 that deny reference to Antiochus IV. Rashi (a very well known Jewish commentator) interprets: v. 17 Now the daughter of women he will give him to destroy her: this is the nation of Israel [referred to in Song of Songs 1:8 as] "the fairest of women." the king of the north will command the general of his army to destroy her. I say that he is Antiochus, the king of Greece who issued decrees against Israel, and he commanded his general, Phillip, to kill whoever identified himself as a Jew, as is written in the book of Josiphon. v. 20 And a contemptible person will stand on his base: then the kingdom of Rome will strengthen itself on its stand, as it says "you are very despised" (Obad. 1:2) and the Romans will rise and take the kingdom from the Greeks. Notice that Rashi interprets verse seventeen of Antiochus IV Epiphanes instead of his father, a proceeds to identify the "vile person" as the kingdom of Rome. Yefet ben Ali Ha-Levi, a Karaite commentator, denies any reference in chapter 11 relates to Antiochus. He identified the king of the north as the "king established at Baghdad" i.e. the Parthians and Sassanids (though their capital was really Ctesiphon), and the king of the south as the Romans and Byzantines. Thus he interprets verse 16-19 of Khusrav's attempt at besieging Constantinople ("a well fenced city") and makes the "vile person" Omar ibn El-Khattab, the Caliph who took Persia from the Sassanids.

A note about apologetics.

Wikipedia is not the place to preach. It is an encyclopedia project with the goal of allowing users to contribute their own material, provided that the material being contributed is both neutral and in line with mainstream scholarship. Apologetics are not appropriate. If you are not sure if something constitutes apologetics, ask on the talk page. But do not put apologetics in the article. Please post accurate information with references to mainstream or scholarly sources only. Additionally, please do not post apologetics on the talk pages, as it fills the pages with unnecessary and distracting talk that has nothing to do with the article. Thank you.--Rob117 22:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rob: 1 Be quiet! 2 Do your homework! Not your scifi fantasy! Mythology! Alien search rubbish! that your into. Proper research!

There's also a rule about personal attacks...--Rob117 02:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Rob: Nothing to do with the article? Are you forgetting what Book we're talking about? If there's anyone that's preaching it's you buddy. I've read all your discussion commments and I haven't seen anyone more biased in their approach than you. It's as if any suggestion that the date is 6th cent. vs 2nd cent. BC is 'unrealistic' w/o giving reasons why... and i love your comment to change the word modern historians to mainstream... as if that has anywhere near the same meaning. Modern means contemporary... mainstream historians implies that any other historians are backwoods historians. Get your liberal agenda off of this page... recuse yourself from editing this page as you cannot seem to keep a NPOV.(anonymous)

I cited my sources. I read books by professional archaeologists and textual scholars on the subject. Apologetics do not belong in an encyclopedia. There's no "liberal agenda" here.--Rob117 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Magician

Technically, Daniel was the chief magician (just to show I didn't dream it up).

"I said to him, `O Belteshazzar, master magician, I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is too great for you to solve." Daniel 4:9

"And King Nebuchadnezzar, your father, your father (C)the king, appointed him chief of the magicians, conjurers, Chaldeans and diviners." 5:11

That said, I agree the word "advisor" probably captures the Daniel's role better than "magician" does, with its modern connotations of pulling rabbits out of hats. I tried to think of a better synonymn-- diviner, fortuneteller, magi, consiglieri.. none of them seem to capture it. :) --Alecmconroy 18:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Darius confused with Cyrus in LXX

Rob, the paragraph about the LXX is not "the usual apologetics seeking to equate Darius with Cyrus"... You seem to be missing what it is actually saying... Nobody is equating Darius with Cyrus, and at any rate, it is not "apologetics". The LXX is far, far older variant of the text than the Masoretic Hebrew version. This is proven because it usually tends to agree with the Dead Sea Scrolls canon, and seems to have been the only one known to the earliest Christians who quoted it in the New Testament. What this suggests is not that Darius is or ever was "equated" with Cyrus, only that he was confused with Cyrus, by the various scribes who copied and/or translated the text over the centuries, long after both kings lived. This is not the only verse we have where the Greek reads one king's name, and the Hebrew reads the other. I'm not sure what kind of cite would suffice, did you need a footnote citing the Septuagint itself as a primary source? Or would you prefer a secondary source where these variants have been noted? As for MADAI being used generically for both Medes and Persians, this is well known; coincidentally, I see some anonymous user just added the exact same info to the article Medes only yesterday... It shouldn't be too hard to source this either, if you really need one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All right. Although I'm sure "Madai" was also used for just the Medes, even if it was sometimes used to include the Persians... for example, at the end of Daniel 6, when Daniel says that the Chaldean Empire would be divided between the Medes (Madai) and the Persians, so there is definitely a distinction there.--Rob117 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, sorry for the somewhat... belligerent tone; it's just that some months ago I completely revamped this article in order to remove apologetics as well as quite a lot of info that was just false. I'm fresh out of a dispute with some nationalists in the Bulgars article so I'm a bit suspicious of everything now.--Rob117 04:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Influence of Daniel

This material is poorly presented. The third paragraph comes out of left field. Can someone please clean it up. 24.7.87.135 04:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing "Darius the Mede"

I wanted to re-create the section to make it more accessible and balanced in terms of presenting different viewpoints and objections by both Christians and secular scholars. This "renovation" included the comparison (without conclusions) of the main views striving to claim of "Darius the Mede"

There are still some gaps in terms of references that could be plugged, but the main information is down. If there are objections, let me know what you think, thanks!

Doc Lucio

Discussion of source texts

My understanding (from other Wikipedia articles) is that there are a couple of different Greek texts in addition to the Masoretic Hebrew text, and that the Septuagint text of Daniel is not usually used as a source for the non-Hebrew portions, but rather something called the version of Theodotion. I eventually found my way back to this information, but I was very surprised to see no mention of the source texts in this article (especially given how much other blather the article contains instead). I will try to fix this up, but this field is not my strongest point: I would essentially be trying to bring in relevant material from the other articles that discuss this point, and I'd hope a real scholar could do better. --arkuat (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I know about this. The Theodotion version is the one that is normally passed off as the Septuagint. However, it is not the original Greek, which is much more obscure. Although Theodotion was Jewish, the early Christians at some point decided they liked his translation of Daniel better; the earlier Greek version was ripped out of nearly every copy of the LXX and replaced with the Theod. But interestingly, where Theod.'s Greek agrees in several places with what is now known as the MT (Masoretic Text), the OLDER Greek version tends to back up the Hebrew / Aramaic fragments of Daniel known from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This shows that the older Greek text and Dead Sea Scrolls represent an older recension of Daniel, while the Theod. Greek and the MT probably represent a newer recension of the text. As crucial as these prophecies are, you'd think more people would have studied the original (pre-Theodotion) Greek text, as I have. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologistic crap

Why does this article have to have a lengthy discussion of the silly theories that apologists have presented to explain the "Darius the Mede" nonsense? At the very least, our first sentence should not that most modern scholars except the presence of the otherwise unknown "Darius the Mede" as evidence of the late date of composition of Daniel (Darius the Mede not being mentioned in, for instance, Second Isaiah, or Ezra or Nehemiah, or the later minor prophets, who are considered roughly contemporary), and that it is generally assumed to be a mistake. We can have a brief discussion of the various theories outlined by traditionalist Christians, but it should be just that - a brief discussion. We should not refer to such people as "Christian historians," as though they are comparable to normal scholars, and as though such people have a monopoly on the use of "Christian" - as I understand it, Catholics and main-line protestants are perfectly willing to accept a late date for Daniel. Perhaps we could use something like "Evangelical writers" or "traditionalist writers", if Codex hates "apologists" so much. But the whole section as it is now is awful. It is arguing against a position which hasn't actually been set forth, except implicitly - the section is entirely about explaining who Darius the Mede was, with no sense whatever that most historians don't care, because they assume he's just a mistake. john k 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

POV in "Dating" section

"This division is one mainly due to theology: conservative Bible scholars accept the Bible's claim that prophets can see into the future and then describe what they saw in spoken or written language. Modern Bible scholars, who descend from the school of German Higher Criticism, reject the Bible's notion that prophets can see visions of the future, that in fact Daniel had no such vision. This raises more issues than it solves. Many of the metaphors used in Daniel's visions are quite vivid, pointing to specific individuals and kingdoms. The specificity of these visions is the dividing line between the two camps. Liberal scholars must then, to get around the issue of Daniel's specificity, date the writing of the book of Daniel much later (see below) and attribute it to an unknown author who posed Daniel as the author of the book bearing his name."

Several problems with this: "This raises more issues than it solves" is a POV, and the whole paragraph implies that skeptics give a late date to Daniel solely because of a "liberal" ideological POV which rejects miraculous prophecy (ignoring all the problems with Daniel that are described elsewhere in the article). I see that an attempt has already been made to change this, but it was reverted for being too POV in the other direction: but this paragraph still needs attention.--Robert Stevens 10:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The same reversion made me think the same thing! Like Goldilocks and the three bears. The recent edit that got reverted was definitely "too anti-conservative". The current section is "too anti-liberal". We need to find one that's JUST RIGHT. :) I'm made some edits in this vein, but there's still more to do. --Alecmconroy 12:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An "anti-conservative" "POV" is perfectly appropriate, because it represents the views of the vast majority of mainstream scholarship, accepted by pretty much anyone who's not a fundamentalist, including Catholics and most mainstream Protestant and Jewish groups. But this article is never ever going to get any better, because there'll always be more fundamentalists who wish to push their POV... john k 13:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, I'm basing this on the "due weight" principle. We have to give due weight to different POVs. The traditional Christian POV is just that - a traditional Christian POV. The POV of scholars is the POV of scholars, and it should be presented as it is, without lots of nonsense about how scholars are in a quandary because of the specific "predictions" of Daniel. john k 13:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, Undue weight is not an excuse to have an article be POV, it's supposed to just say how much space an article gives to various ideas or whatever. Homestarmy 13:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that "anti-conservative POV" actually means "giving due weight to the two perspectives." john k 13:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So wait, is it advocating a POV or not? :/ Homestarmy 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the passage that was removed, and which Alec described as "too anti-conservative" was mostly appropriate, and not terribly POV, although I maybe looking at the wrong edit. I think that the view of early authorship of the prophecy parts of the book should not be presented as anything but a view of fundamentalists, and we should clearly note that pretty much all generally respected scholars, religious or not, have accepted a late date for these portions for the last century and more. john k 16:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Last sentence of 1st para. of "Dating" section (on Jesus's attributed use of Dan.'s prophecies) moved to "Christian uses": Under the "Dating" section, that sentence:

According to the Gospels, Jesus indicates that some of the prophecies of Daniel will be fulfilled in the Last days right before the Resurrection of the dead and Judgement day, as the text of Daniel itself indicates.

is not the subject of that section: dating. As that section was written that sentence was discontinuous with what preceded and followed it. On the other hand it is consistent with the title of the section to which it was moved: "Christian uses." Thomasmeeks 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The recently introduced third paragraph of this section begins with a factual assertion:

Christians who believe in the accuracy of the Gospels do not accept this interpretation, ...

Its source is not cited. The reverted use of "accuracy" rather the more contextually precise and well-established 'innerrancy' blurs rather than clarifies.

The whole sentence includes the following clause:

because Jesus is said in Matthew 24 to have quoted Daniel as a prophet who foretold events of the "end times" to immediately precede Judgement Day, and not in reference to Antiochus Epiphanes who had lived nearly 200 years before Jesus.

Neither the first part nor the whole sentence has a citation. Moreover the sentence as a whole (linking the first part to the "because" clause) is a non sequitur, which is what the previous Edit (reverted 4X) attempted to fix. Failure to provide citation for this paragraph and reversion to a non sequitur leaves it open to a characterization of either POV or disputed fact. Thomasmeeks 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[no citation] for 3rd para. of Dating section. See Wikipedia:Citing sources, "Why sources should be cited" in which the following reasons for citation apply:

• To show that your edit isn't original research.
• To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
• To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
• To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
• To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.

If there is no source, that is original research, which is prohibited (Wikipedia:No original research). What is the source for this paragraph of the belief-argument-biblical-interpretation attribution to some Christians today? (typo redundancy edited out) Thomasmeeks 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you disputing? That some Christians believe the accuracy of Matthew 24:14? This is what the Bible has said for almost 2000 years, in what way is this "original research" ??? And as I have asked repeatedly, what is really your motivation for attacking this belief? It was some scholars who stated that Daniel refers to events of 164 BC, but this view is incompatible with Matthew 24:14, so either you accept Matthew 24:14, or you accept the scholars, but how can one possibly accept both, and why should only one view be presented??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

3rd para. of Dating section: Christians who believe in the accuracy of the Gospels do not accept this interpretation, because Jesus is said in Matthew 24 to have quoted Daniel as a prophet who foretold events of the "end times" to immediately precede Judgement Day, and not in reference to Antiochus Epiphanes who had lived nearly 200 years before Jesus. Matthew 24:14

Thx for responding,# CS. Making unwarranted accusations against a fellow editor does not help you. By the way, I think you have in mind Matthew 24:15.

My motivation is to identify a paragraph that needs citation for all the reasons mentioned above.

The third paragraph of the Dating section was introduced on 11:33, 19 October 2006. If it is not original research, there should be no problem in citing a source in case of dispute. That is one use of citation. Disputed are:

• the first part (before the "because" clause). Someone who believes in the "accuracy" (an ill-defined term in this context --see above) of the Gospels need not accept that Daniel was right about all the details.
• conjunction of the "because" clause to the first part. That conjunction imputes a particular interpretation of Daniel to Jesus that is not required in the Gospel and a fortiori that is not required of those Christians today supposedly identified in the first part.

# It's more than happened after I left my first Oct. 29 message on your Talk page requesting a response. Thomasmeeks 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion that should involve all of the editors on this page, as I responded to you earlier several times, they should not be circumvented by attempting to hold the discussion on my talk page. I suspect that Matthew 24:15 is something you don't want mentioned or much attention being given to at all, because of what it says, and probably wish that it would just go away quietly and without any fuss, on whatever pretext you can think of to get rid of it. However, it is still there, and is unquestionably relevant to the Christian view of Daniel, so it is definitely going to have to be mentioned in some form. There are almost 2000 years worth of commentary on this particular verse, where you can find plenty of citation, if you have any doubts, or if you seriously think I am the first person in the world to notice what that verse says. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I did respond on the present Talk page in this section on Oct. 13 and 28. It is not all the editors who are reverting. To repeat what I said on your Talk page, the Matthew reference is fine. Its inclusion is not responsive to either of my points above. If I can find plenty of citations that would meet my points, why can't you find one? Thomasmeeks 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What part do you not understand or agree with? The sentence reads:

Christians who believe in the accuracy of the Gospels do not accept this interpretation, because Jesus is said in Matthew 24 to have quoted Daniel as a prophet who foretold events of the "end times" to immediately precede Judgement Day, and not in reference to Antiochus Epiphanes who had lived nearly 200 years before Jesus. (Matthew 24:14)

• You don't dispute that in Matthew 24 Jesus quotes Daniel as referring to the future do you?
• You don't dispute that Antiochus lived nearly 200 years before Jesus do you?
• You don't argue that Jesus was talking about Antiochus in Matthew 24 do you?
• You don't dispute that some Christians accept the accuracy of Matthew 24:15 do you?

Please let me know what part you need a citation for so I will know what I am looking for. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(Interjected after the comments below: The answer to each of the 4 questions you posed above is "No," as you correctly expected. But those answers are irrelevant to the points I made above, for reasons well indicated below (and above, come to think of it).) Thomasmeeks 19:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Codex, you need to verify from a reliable source that this is what Christians who believe in the accuracy of the gospel today think. A citation from the Bible obviously doesn't do this. An article in a peer reviewed journal or the report of such a statement from a major religious leader in a trusted newspaper (and preferable more than one) would be an adequate citation. -Siobhan Hansa 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are either deliberately playing obstruse, or you have a reading comprehension difficulty. If they do not think this, then obviously they do not believe Matthew 24:15 is accurate. I am not talking about them. I am talking about the ones who believe that 24:15 IS accurate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know who you're talking about, there's no need to attack either my good faith or my ability. I'm still pointing out that to have this in the article you need to have a citation from a reliable source that makes it clear this is a position still held by a significant group of people today. This isn't simply about drawing a logical conclusion, it's about the fact that wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view and refrains from becoming a publisher of people's personal essays by insisting we only report on previously published, significant arguments. If you want to talk about this in the article some-else needs to have said it first, in a reliable source. --Siobhan Hansa 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - you actually want a citation that there are some Christians today who regard Matthew 24:15 as accurate??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. The point is that we shouldn't describe such Christians as "Christians who believe in the accuracy of the Gospels," which is incredibly loaded and implies that any Christian who thinks that Daniel was not written in the 6th century BC does not believe in the accuracy of the Gospels. We should say "conservative Christians" or "fundamentalist Christians," if we're going to have this business. john k 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no - those are the ones I'm NOT talking about - once again, if they agree to the accuracy of Matthew 24:15, there is no way they can possibly assume Jesus was talking about Antiochus. That is axiomatic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a valid reference that says there are some people today who abc, then you can write "according to [source of reference] there are some people today today who believe abc". But you want to say "this particular group of people believe xyz because of abc" So you need a valid reference that says this particular group of people believe xyz because of abc". -- Siobhan Hansa 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthew 24:15 says it all. Now it seems you are needing a source that some Christians today believe Matthew 24:15 is accurate - right? This is a book about the Book of Daniel. Matthew 24:15 directly reflects on Christian views of Daniel. If you or any group of editors exclude discussion of this Gospel verse from the Daniel article on specious grounds, it amounts to anti-religious bigotry. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again I ask you not to make personal attacks. Requests for a source in line with Wikipedia policy are not anti-religious bigotry. And once again I repeat, you need a modern source that includes the entire argument, if you want to connect Matthew 24:15 to Daniel in this precise way, you need a reliable source to have done so for you. It is not specious to insist that arguments in an article have been previously published by a reliable source. It's one of the pillars of Wikipedia. --Siobhan Hansa 01:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed anti-religious bigotry. A source is not required to connect Matthew 24:15 to Daniel. Any fool with basic reading skills can pick up a Bible and read Matthew 24:15 and see that it mentions Daniel. Therefore there is no argument, only your anti-religiouis bigotry that is attempting to keep this FACT out of the article on spurious grounds. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) If it's so basic, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a reliable source in which the same argument is made. A source isn't required to connect Matthew to Daniel (at least I'm not arguing that), a source is required to establish the significance of the assertion, and to help define some of the terms used. this is because Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the significant views of experts in the field, not your exploration of the the subject. In the mean time, please try to stay cool and address the issues at hand rather than attacking those with whom you have a disagreement. -Siobhan Hansa 02:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already provided the source. Matthew 24:15 makes the argument by itself. If the verse is accurate, then Jesus was not talking about a king who lived 200 years before him. Please make up your mind specifically which fact you would like additional citation for, and I promise I will do my best to find it. Is it a) the fact that this verse really is in the Gospel, and really does mention Daniel in connection with the future End Times; b) the fact that some Christians today do accept this verse as accurate; or c) the fact that Antiochus lived some 200 years before the Gospel...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Codex, you've been around a long time, so surely you can see how this is blatantly original research? You are advancing the novel proposition that the only way one can believe "this verse is accurate" (whatever, precisely, that means) is by believing that the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BC. This is nonsense. Jesus is speaking to an audience. That audience, from what we know, clearly understood Daniel as referring to a future time. Even if Daniel really did refer literally to Antiochus, and Jesus really did know this because he was the omniscient Son of God, there isn't any contradiction with him using the verse to illustrate a point. At a minimum, one could argue that the verse both refers to Antiochus and also illustrates a larger prophetic point. You can't assert your own literalistic readings of the Bible as though they are the only interpretation. You can't even assert them as an interpretation which should be in the article unless you can actually find a real source that makes this argument. john k 03:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not Original Research. It's in the Gospel, in plain black and white, and it is very simple. I can more easily look for a source that will satisfy you, if you will just tell me what fact you are disputing. Is it a) the fact that this verse really is in the Gospel, and really does mention Daniel in connection with the future End Times; b) the fact that some Christians today do accept this verse as accurate; or c) the fact that Antiochus lived some 200 years before the Gospel...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I dispute your interpretation of "b," but beyond that, it's not those three points, it's the fact that you're combining them in a novel way that basically makes it seem as though Christians who do not believe this are not "real Christians." john k 04:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this does appear to come under "original research". We are not allowed to use our "common sense" to link two obvious facts together and draw a conclusion from them: we must either present the facts without comment and "let the facts speak for themselves", or we must cite somebody else who has linked them to arrive at that conclusion. Also, the phrase "accuracy of the gospels" is problematic, because it's possible to assume that the gospels are a 100% accurate historical record and STILL assume that Jesus was wrong, or that the text was written in Maccabean times but nevertheless referred to the "end-times", or that Jesus was reading a new meaning into a Maccabean text, or whatever. --Robert Stevens 09:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is referenced above more than once, but it may be worth making even more explicit: Wiki content "must be verifiable" (I'm staring at that phrase below the Edit window now), as specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability). I believe that the only reason that no one commenting has deleted the paragraph in question is to give the editor who inserted it a reasonable period of time to cite a reliable source. Thomasmeeks 12:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is deleted, I will dispute the neutrality of the article and call for mediation, because WP:NPOV states that articles are to include all significant viewpoints, not exclude any, and not present only one viewpoint as if it were the only one. The Gospel reflects a very significant viewpoint on the Book of Daniel. You have been pushing for some time now to exclude this viewpoint, and present only the contradictory viewpoint originated by certain scholars, for reasons that, if they aren't religious bigotry, I fail to understand. If a major viewpoint is not addressed in some form or fashion that is accurate and an acceptable compromise to all parties, I am definitely going to cry foul, appealing all the way up the chain of command, for as long as it takes, because that is blatant censorship and suppression. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The gospels themselves don't have a "viewpoint" on this: they don't say when Daniel was written. If a significant number of Christians have a viewpoint that claims to be based on what the gospels say (plus some additional assumptions regarding their "acurracy" and Jesus' supposed reasons for saying what he is alleged to have said), then you should be able to provide a citation (and hopefully tidy up the "accuracy of the gospels" comment, as this means different things to different people). This isn't about censorship, this is about consistent application of the rules. --Robert Stevens 14:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps you did not know this is a huge topic, so huge there are whole mailing lists devoted to the very subject of Daniel's application in end-times prophecy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant, non-truncated quotation from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.

Failure to observe the highlighted standard itself violates NPOV. -- Thomasmeeks 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that there are almost 2000 years worth of published sources -- commentaries on the meaning of this very verse in Matthew, beginning from the first century writers, up til the present day... I'm a little surprised that you don't seem to realize this. Giving a source can easily be done, but the really hard part is picking just one to stand for all the rest - there are literally so many books etc. on the topic, that it might just warrant a separate article page, strictly on Christian interpretation of Daniel as prophesying future events of the last days. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "...who accept the accuracy of the gospels" comment. It implies that those Christians who disagree don't accept the accuracy of the gospels, which is somewhat POV, especially as there are other possible Christian explanations which don't require an assumption of an inaccurate gospel. --Robert Stevens 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think the sense suffers for it, and is hopefully now more NPOV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disputes that conservative Christians a) believe that Daniel was written in the 6th century BC; or b) believe that it contains prophecies of the end-times. Beyond that, what you are trying to do is to define these Christians as being identical to "Christians who believe in the accuracy of the Gospels." That's a ridiculously POV way of putting it, especially when there's more NPOV alternatives - traditional Christians, conservative Christians, whatever. The fact is that you are basically wording things in such a way as to deny the Christianity of anyone who doesn't think the Book of Daniel is from the 6th century. john k 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not saying exactly the same thing as denying anyone's Christianity - but at any rate, I do not have any objection to the current wording of Robert Stevens that is minus these words, since they are not really necessary to the point, and the pov objection to them is understandable. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of this paragraph:

Some Christians do not accept this interpretation, because Jesus is said in Matthew 24:15 to have quoted Daniel as a prophet who foretold events of the "end times" to immediately precede Judgement Day, and not in reference to Antiochus Epiphanes who had lived nearly 200 years before Jesus.

with the explanation:

We already say that some Christians don't accept the earlier date. It doesn't make sense to say "some Christians accept the earlier date, but many scholars disagree, but some Christians disagree."

triggered a "The neutrality of this section is disputed" template with the explanation:

The significant opposing viewpoint has been cut from this section and is no longer present.

The paragraph in question was disputed and needed citation according to Wikipedia:Verifiability standards. Rather than posting a template whose origin is itself open to the charge of non-neutrality, modifying the paragraph to fit whatever could be verified would be seem to be a more satisfactory resolution. Thomasmeeks 13:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is any question in your mind, Thomas, as to whether or not I dispute this section, the answer is a definite YES I DO DISPUTE THIS SECTION. Please do not be thick-headed. Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that ALL POINTS OF VIEW BE REPRESENTED. You have done your level best to make sure that only one point of view is represented, while one point of view is NOT REPRESENTED, and the result is not NPOV. THIS WILL CONTINUE TO BE DISPUTED INDEFINITELY UNTIL THE OTHER POV IS ADDRESSED IN A MANNER THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Interjected after exchange below) :::Well, good morning to you too. Some of someone's comments above violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is required on Talk pages as elsewhere. On the substance, there is no necessary conflict between representing arguments or interpretations (obscured by reference to 'views') and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thomasmeeks 15:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, all in bold, and partially ALL CAPS. Well done, Codex. I don't see how the Christian view is not addressed. It is mentioned first. Then it is mentioned that many scholars disagree with it. I don't see why it is NPOV to then go back and mention again that Christians don't agree, especially given that you are using an argument for which you have not provided any citations. Even if you could provide citations, I find it problematic to include this particular argument, because it seems to be giving undue weight to one out of a large number of arguments that fundamentalists/inerrantists make for the age of Daniel. In particular, this is one of the large class of completely circular arguments for the inerrancy of the Bible. "How can you say the Bible has errors in it? The Bible itself says that it does not have any errors!" For such arguments, see Begging the question. Obviously people who believe the Bible is inerrant believe Daniel is what it says it is. john k 14:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The bold happened because I hit semicolon instead of a colon. As I said just above: "What I am saying is that there are almost 2000 years worth of published sources -- commentaries on the meaning of this very verse in Matthew, beginning from the first century writers, up til the present day... I'm a little surprised that you don't seem to realize this. Giving a source can easily be done, but the really hard part is picking just one to stand for all the rest - there are literally so many books etc. on the topic, that it might just warrant a separate article page, strictly on Christian interpretation of Daniel as prophesying future events of the last days." What I said about the topic of Christian interpretation of Daniel being such a weighty and voluminous topic as to warrant a dedicated article still stands. There is a vast amount of Christian literature on the subject throughout history, and you can't simply suppress this viewpoint in the dating section and call it adhering to WP:NPOV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, how is it supressing the Christian viewpoint to mention it first? Nobody is denying that the Christian traditional viewpoint is that it was written by the Prophet Daniel in the 6th Century BC, and that this should be mentioned in the article. john k 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is suppressing the Christian viewpoint which largely, through the centuries, has been framed around commentaries and analysis of Matt.24:15, to not even allow the Gospel to be mentioned by name. That's really what this is about. The Gospel quote is 100% relevant to the Christian viewpoint, including the authenticity and dating of Daniel, but you seem highly inimical to the Gospel even being mentioned in this context. Its hard to have any fair discussion at all of the Christian viewpoint without mentioning this, or in the face of such bigotry as we've seen here. The Churches have got a right to a viewpoint on Daniel, it is most significant to the article, and it is being wrongly suppressed.ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can source that this argument is the main argument used to defend an early date for Daniel, then by all means put it in, but the previous format was something along the lines of. "Traditional christians believe in an early date, but modern scholars disagree, but conservative christians disagree." This, I will continue to insist, was a very awkward way of writing about it. john k 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One way of handling it would be to state in the opening paragraph of the section that people (other than some scholars) today accept early dating. As currently written, the first 2 paragraphs might be (wrongly) read as saying that the traditionalists were all dead except for some Biblical scholars. Thomasmeeks 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this section is disputed" template in the Dating section of the article had this Edit summary:

The significant opposing viewpoint has been cut from this section and is no longer present.

The new edit of Dating section inserts the following as the 2nd sentence:

A significant number, though far from all, in the Judeo-Christian tradition continue to believe this today.

So, an opposing viewpoint is now explicitly represented. Thomasmeeks 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove the POV template. I will remove it myself when I no longer dispute the article, which is when I feel the viewpoint you are suppressing is being adequately represented. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't suppressed any viewpoint.* The above thread certainly does not support that accusation. Please review talk page guidelines.

*Surely you cannot believe that my deleting a Wiki template that does not apply as to the reason you gave is suppression of a viewpoint. Thomasmeeks 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, the suppression is of the significant reasons for believing the book to date to the 6th century. Re-read the thread again if your memory is so short. The dispute has not magically gone away, and neither have I, so don't remove the template until there is a compromise. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You have not retracted your false assertion about me as to suppression. In that respect your Edit above remains in violation of talk page guidelines.

The new 2nd sentence in the Dating section ("A significant number,... ") met the reason you expressed in your Edit summary as to the reason for your template. But it was was insufficient, according to you, bacause of "the suppression is of the significant reasons for believing the book to date to the 6th century." The problems with your the deleted argument were discussed at length for your benefit in the above threads. So, the Talk-Page-consensus method of resolution that you earlier urged applies to others but not you. Thomasmeeks 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, well it doesn't look like this dispute is going to be resolved or compromise is going to be reached any time soon, so you had better not unilaterally remove the template until you are prepared to admit into the article, an honest discussion of the reasons why it is believed to date to the 6th century instead of suppressing them from the article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat that you have not retracted your false assertion about me as to suppression and that in that respect your Edit above remains in violation of talk page guidelines.

If you did wish to re-introduce the deleted material, a plausible place to do it would be near the beginning where the belief is mentioned. It would also have to meet Wikipedia guidelines raised above as to NPOV, verifiability in a reliable source, and no original research. By not meeting those objections, you concede their validity by implicature. It should be an embarrasment to claim a violation of Wiki standards for deletion of material itself that violates Wiki standards. Thomasmeeks 12:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does not follow from anything said so far that this dispute is now over, and / or that the "disputed POV" flag can be summarily removed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There is some value in retaining a public record of what can go wrong with a persistent flouting of Wikipedia guidelines and standards. Have a good day anyhow. Thomasmeeks 13:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oeralp - i would like to thank the participants in this long and passionate debate and offer a citation. Dr. Gene Scott is in an evangelical preacher (deceased) and bible scholar. He disputes the post-dating of Daniel in his Revelation series (Revelation 1-A #688, Oct 20, 1980), and references several additional biblical sources and scholars. I personally feel that biblical dating is highly complex and controversial due to highly fragmentary archeological sources. A new source could be discovered that back-dates Daniel and that would be another controversy. I feel the article is well-balanced. I happen to agree with Gene Scott's analysis but wholly accept that a) it is not conclusive, b) not essential to Christian (or any other) faith. I thank Wikipedia for taking on important scholarship despite divergant views. [previous signature deleted]

+++++

Concerning current article Edit, Dating section:

06:33, 24 February 2007 PiCo (Talk | contribs) (tried to clean this up to remove the pov - revert if you think it's no better than the original.)

an improvement, yes. And if it comes down to a vote, count me as a "Yes." It better represents a scholarly consensus. I did not Edit to allow for study and comment, but I believe that the 2nd sentence of this section:

For a variety of reasons this position is no longer held by modern scholars, who believe that the book reached its final form (except for possible minor glosses) around 164 BC (Hartman and Di Lella, 1990, p. 408; Towner, 1993, p. 151);

would be more acceptable to a wider group Edited as:

For a variety of reasons this position does not reflect a consensus of modern scholars. Rather, a consensus is that the book reached its final form (except for possible minor glosses) around 164 BC (Hartman and Di Lella, 1990, p. 408; Towner, 1993, p. 151);

This has the advantage of immediate attestation from general scholarly sources without suggesting that any scholar dissenting is by that fact unmodern. A watering down? Yes, but transparently (and possibly more acceptably) so. --Thomasmeeks 13:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus' opinion of the Book of Daniel

I don't think anyone here has addressed this issue, namely, what was Jesus' opinion of the authenticity of the Book of Daniel. Let's assume that if Jesus was God, He would not be in error, and would not "promote" the teachings or work of someone who was a blatant liar. With that assumption, the following comment of Jesus,

"'Therefore when you see the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place'...'then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.'" (Matthew 24:15-16),

affirms the accuracy and truthfulness of the Book of Daniel, via affirming the truthfulness and accuracy of Daniel as a "prophet". The point is, if the Book of Daniel was NOT written by the person identified in the Book of Daniel as Daniel, and if Daniel did not in fact experience what he claimed to have experienced, when he claimed to have experienced them (in particular, having several futuristic visions around the time of the Babylonian captivity, to within 70 or so years afterwards), then Jesus is not God, since God would not call someone who PRETENDED, FALSELY, to be a prophet a "prophet".

Thus, the issue of the timing of the writing of the Book of Daniel has implications for the truth of the Gospel, and the identity of Jesus as God. Note, of course, that in this missive, I have not argued (so far) as to when the Book of Daniel was written - all I have done is point out the issues involved.

For myself, I am utterly convinced of the early (in the 6th century B.C.) authorship of the Book of Daniel.

There is no "Gospel of Jesus", so basically you're just assuming that a comment in another book (written by yet another human author) is accurate about what Jesus said. In addition to assuming that Jesus knew what he was talking about, of course. --Robert Stevens 10:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this is not a viewpoint based on scholarship, but one based on religious dogma. It is a significant viewpoint, and should be mentioned in the article, but it should be mentioned as a religious viewpoint, not as a scholarly one. Your arguments are, additionally, completely unconvincing to anybody who is not already a Christian fundamentalist. For those of us who reject Biblical inerrancy (and that includes many Christians and observant Jews, as well as us secular types), it is completely irrelevant. john k 13:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There's that condescending pov on your part once again, that 'religious' and 'scholarly' are mutually exclusive. Why cannot someone be both? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Religion" is different from "Scholarship". A religious person can have scholarly arguments for their fundamentalist ideas. For instance, a fundamentalist Christian scholar who believes in the antiquity of the book of Daniel could, theoretically, point to linguistic arguments for dating the book to the 6th century. They could point, theoretically, to accurate knowledge of Babylonian or Persian court life that a 2nd century writer would be unlikely to have. And so forth. But it's utterly begging the question to point to Biblical inerrancy as evidence of Biblical inerrancy. That's not scholarship, and it can't be scholarship. john k 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, a scholarly argument is one that ought to be persuasive to anybody, whatever their religious views. Arguing that because the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus quote Daniel, that means that it's right because Jesus is God, is explicitly one that anybody who doubts the inerrancy of the Gospel of Matthew cannot possibly find persuasive. It's not scholarship, it can't be scholarship. I'm not even sure it's apologetics. It's a tautology. john k 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct that in accordance with WP:NPOV this is a significant viewpoint, and therefore should be mentioned with proper attributation. But my point is, there IS such a thing as a "religious scholar". There would be nothing wrong with attributing this viewpoint as a viewpoint of certain religious scholars, for example. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The term "religious scholar" is deeply imprecise. What exactly do you mean by this? The viewpoint described above is, at any rate, not a scholarly viewpoint. It is a religious viewpoint. A scholar might hold this view, but this particular argument is not one that is scholarly. No peer-reviewed journal would ever publish such an argument, for instance. Someone who believes this argument might be able to publish an article arguing for the age of the Book of Daniel based on other reasons, as I discussed above. But the argument that "Jesus quotes Daniel, therefore Daniel must not be a later work" is not a scholarly one. At all. I would suggest that it is not an argument at all. Basically, the argument is "this one part of the Bible is inerrant because, if we assume Biblical inerrancy, its truth is held up by this other part of the Bible." It is begging the question, it is preaching to the choir, and it would be a joke to label this viewpoint a scholarly one. Again, this does not mean that Christian fundamentalists cannot produce scholarship. But we should distinguish views that are basically religious from views that are basically scholarly. I have no problem with including views by fundamentalist scholars, so long as they can genuinely be determined to be real scholars, with some respectability outside fundamentalist circles. But I strongly object to acting as though fundamentalist theology is equivalent to genine scholarship. john k 15:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well this is your blatant POV showing again, because there ARE religious scholars through the centuries, and they DO make this very argument. Your redefinition of the word "scholar" to exclude religious scholars, or asserting that only non-religious scholars engage in "genuine" scholarship is clearly your POV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You basically seem to be arguing that this viewpoint cannot be labelled as "scholarly", because it relies on a source that you personally find objectionable, namely, the words attributed to Jesus Christ. However, it is widely recognized that those words can indeed form the basis of scholarship, even if you refuse to recognise it as such. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I say that this viewpoint cannot be labelled as "scholarly" because it begs the question. The Book of Daniel is what it purports to be because, assuming that the Bible is inerrant, there are other Biblical passages that say that it is what it purports to be. This is not an argument. It is a textbook example of a fallacy. The question of whether the Bible is inerrant is precisely the one under dispute. All the text from the Gospel of Matthew illustrates it that the author of the Gospel of Matthew believed the Book of Daniel to be genuine. The whole premise of the argument falls back into itself. The argument, which is essentially an argument for biblical inerrancy, is only convincing to people who already accept biblical inerrancy. Even if one is a Christian, one can only accept this particular statement as having any weight if it can be assumed that Matthew is, in this instance, accurately reporting the words of Jesus. There is no particular reason to assume that he is, unless one has already accepted a traditionalist view of the Bible. The whole thing is entirely worthless. john k 17:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite aside from 'biblical inerrancy', the scholarly argument seems to be that a Christian document refers to a separate Jewish document. This can certainly be used in a scholarly fashion to back up the notion that not everyone in the first century AD thought that the specific end-times prophecies had all been fulfilled in the second century BC, just as not everyone thinks so today for much the same reason. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be a scholarly argument. This is not what the anon user who added the comment above stated at all. Their claim is that because Jesus Christ Himself quotes the Book of Daniel, it must be genuine scripture, and thus must be what it claims to be. john k 17:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to the following comment by "john k",

"[The anon user's {i.e., me, Douglas}] claim is that because Jesus Christ Himself quotes the Book of Daniel, it must be genuine scripture, and thus must be what it claims to be."

I would like to say, "No, that's not my claim, at least in its most general, direct, form.". You have it ALMOST right, but not quite. My "claim" is that because Jesus Himself quotes the Book of Daniel AND calls Daniel a "prophet", it is either the case that Jesus is God and Daniel was a true prophet and therefore the Book of Daniel had an "early" writing (circa the 6th century B.C.), OR Jesus is not God and Daniel was not a true prophet and the Book of Daniel had a "later" writing (circa roughly 165 B.C. or thereabouts). Only for those who believe in Jesus as God would the argument therefore imply that the Book of Daniel was written "early". (It would directly follow, of course, that anyone, in the face of Jesus' comment from Matthew, who claimed to believe in God but still believed the Book of Daniel had a "later" writing would therefore not believe in Jesus as God, or would not believe God is incapable of error, or would not believe that God is incapable of lying.) [Douglas J. Bender (Elkhart, IN)]

Plenty of people believe that "Jesus is God", but nevertheless accept that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. It is incorrect to label early-authorship as "the Christian position" and late-authorship as "the non-Christian position". You are merely repeating the inerrantist fallacy: the belief (rejected by most Christians) that a "true Christian" must regard the Bible as inerrant. --Robert Stevens 09:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Plenty of people believe that "Jesus is God", but nevertheless accept that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC." -- How can this be so? Do they believe Jesus is God, but reject the Gospel? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Stevens: "Plenty of people believe that 'Jesus is God', but nevertheless accept that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC." -- Not once they have been confronted with Jesus' opinion of the Book of Daniel, no. My logic in this regard is irrefutable, though you apparently do not understand it. Again, either a person must accept that Jesus is not God, or that the Bible is not always trustworthy (in particular in what it claims Jesus said and did, which would thus undermine the very foundation for faith in Jesus as God), or that God is capable of error, or that God is capable of lying, OR they accept that Jesus is God AND that the Book of Daniel was written sometime in the 6th century B.C. or so. There are no other logical possibilities, and I've already detailed the logic involved.

Robert Stevens: "It is incorrect to label early-authorship as 'the Christian position' and late-authorship as 'the non-Christian position'. You are merely repeating the inerrantist fallacy: the belief (rejected by most Christians) that a 'true Christian' must regard the Bible as inerrant." -- No, that's not the argument I was using. However, I am curious how you would define a "true Christian". Does a "true Christian" need to believe that Jesus is God? (This question is relevant to this issue - if we aren't using terms with the same meaning, we will be talking past each other.) [Douglas J. Bender]

Douglas, your argument is illogical, because you are ignoring or dismissing the logical possibility that "Jesus is God, but the Bible contains some falsehoods" (which is actually the view of most mainstream Christians). You may not agree with this view, but that doesn't make it logically invalid. --Robert Stevens 15:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

...For completeness, I'll add another couple of possibilities based on arguments that I've seen Christians use (in other contexts). Some have claimed that "Jesus wasn't omniscient during his time on Earth" (to explain verses in which JC seems ignorant of the divine plan), implying that he might not know about the authorship of Daniel. I've also seen claims that Jesus spoke to people in terms they would understand, without bothering to correct factual inaccuracies that were irrelevant to his message, implying that he 'might not care about the authorship of Daniel. --Robert Stevens 16:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

When you read what Jesus is quoted as having actually said about the Book of Daniel, it's pretty hard to make either of those cases, and I have never before heard of anyone doing so. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Stevens: "Douglas, your argument is illogical, because you are ignoring or dismissing the logical possibility that 'Jesus is God, but the Bible contains some falsehoods' (which is actually the view of most mainstream Christians). You may not agree with this view, but that doesn't make it logically invalid." -- I don't see that view as being a logical possibility, really. Consider the implications if it were true: If the Bible "contains some falsehoods" (not mere "typos", mind you), then how does one determine if its more "extreme" claims are valid or true? If Jesus is God, would He not be able to keep the only record of His life and ministry free from error? The answer is, of course, yes. A second question would then be, if Jesus is God, would He not desire to keep the only record of His life and ministry free from error (after all, if it contained any errors, it would detract from His mission, which [according to the Bible] was to save the world from sin, since it would cast doubt upon the testimony regarding Jesus contained in the Bible). The answer is, again, certainly yes. Therefore, my previous logic still holds: one cannot logically and consistently maintain that Jesus is God AND that the Book of Daniel was written at a "later" period. [Douglas J. Bender]

...And yet most Christians are well aware that the Bible does contain errors. Indeed, even most "inerrantists" know this: they admit to "copyist errors" and maintain that only the "original manuscripts" (now conveniently lost) were "inerrant". Therefore your counter-argument does not hold. I don't need to justify the beliefs of mainstream Christians to you (as I'm not a Christian myself): I merely note that this is their belief, and they seem content with it. They accept that, for whatever reason, the text was NOT miraculously preserved from all error. Furthermore, a Christian is supposed to have a "relationship with the living Christ", not the Bible: hence the accusations of "Bibliolatry" against inerrantists. --Robert Stevens 10:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

(Just a quick note to let everyone know I'm still around, and planning to address the above claims [as well as the below claims]. I will "return" later this week and edit this comment out, replacing it with my response.) [Douglas J. Bender]

Those parts of the New Testament that say Rabbi Yeshua taught from the Book of Daniel, and that say he stressed its crucial importance to the future tribulation and to the final days before his return, could not have arisen through a mere "copyist error". But it's good to study more. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

...And how is the date of Daniel's authorship relevant here? If Jesus (or the gospel author) thought that what the book had to say about these things was relevant: why should he care when it was written? The book says what it says: regardless of who wrote it, or when. --Robert Stevens 15:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Learned about this today from a Biblical scholar: The "Jesus as God but not omniscient" school has by now a pedigree: Kenosis (see also Charles Gore). Thomasmeeks 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

John Collins and "court tales"

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

In a recent edit, the following was removed: Some scholars disagree with this, and still date this section to the Maccabean revolt along with the vision chapters. The reason given: "redundant, already mentioned several times". But it looks like information has been lost here: I'm not seeing where else the text describes scholars who are apparently aware of this specific claim and disagree with it. The reader is now left with the impression that Collins has found something that others haven't noticed: the original text gives a different impression. POV has subtly changed. --Robert Stevens 13:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It ought to have a citation to the "some scholars" who disagree with COllins' specific claim, if there is one... The article already mentions several times that scholars have statefd the exact opposit, but this suggests there are scholars who have specifically responded to Collins... If so, they should be mentioned. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe restore the original wording with a "citation needed" tag? --Robert Stevens 15:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor Correction

Corrected a reference to http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/comment/daniel.shtml (which I wrote).

--Curtvdh 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Prophecy of 70 weeks" material

Anonymous user 12.175.230.58 has added a lengthy section on the "Prophecy of 70 weeks". But there's already a specific page on this, Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, linked from "Daniel". Furthermore, this material contains POV statements such as "Modern scholars not withstanding, some of the best evidence for the age of the book of Daniel...", "An critical look at the attempted Maccabaean fulfillment of this prophecy will show that in fact the Maccabaeans attempted to fit the events of their lifetime to the already existing prophecy", "The available historical evidence does show that both the prophecies of Daniel 9 and Daniel 12 were written at some point prior to the events surrounding the Maccabaean era". Furthermore, it appears to be apologetics, referring to "prophetic years" and so forth (generally an apologetic device for use when calendar years don't give the "right answer"), and relies on an unsupported claim that skeptics rely on such "prophetic years". --Robert Stevens 12:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 I have added a note the discussion on that page regarding another POV. --Curtvdh 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now snipped out this section. In addition to the aforementioned issues, it was entirely devoid of citations in any case: apparently one apologist's "original research". --Robert Stevens 08:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research / Devoid of citations

Mr. Stevens,

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

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

Sincerely,

William Struse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of deleted section. ________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Suggest reorganization

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

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

Suggest reorganization

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

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

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

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

Daniel as 6nd century BCE work

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

Daniel as 2nd century BCE work

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

Other views

• Multiple authors
• etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, but we n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Britannica:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember the concept of undue weight from WP:NPOV:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rob117 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

BC/BCE

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

RFC - Yet another POV dispute

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

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

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

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

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

A brief chronology may help here:

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

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

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

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

Edits to dating and content section

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

The Merchant of Venice

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

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

And again by Gratiano (IV, i, 331)

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

IV, i, 338 (Gratiano)

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

24.108.189.244 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

How about this...

In the authorship and date section, we simply state:

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

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

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

Number of scholars in "Unity of Daniel"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God I am so fucking drunk right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe this is true !

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

Ten horns as ten generations in the book of Moses.

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

490+700+70=1260

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

user:twentythreethousand07:54, 1 July 2007

Inappropriate use of "weasel words" tag

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

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

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

Follow the spirit, not the letter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited "Apocalyptic visions in Daniel"

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

Daniel 7:7

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

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

Daniel 7:20

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

Section on "Structure"

It seems to me that the section on structure, while well intended, is representative of only one point of view and not particularly illuminating. I would like to see a little more information on alternative views and an indication of the structural complexity of of the work, especially as it illuminates theme and meaning. An obvious example is the movement in the "visions" section of the book from general to specific, from the broad vision of a succession of four kingdoms to the very specific location of a particular 2nd centure crisis in chapter 11.

--Sineaste 06:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some alternative views on the literary structure found below, i.e. the idea that the book was thought to be divided between narrative and apocalyptic sections. But such a literary division has no biblical basis, whereas the chiastic structure is a common Biblical literary device. As noted in the text, the chaistic structure explains puzzling points such as out-of-order narratives, the division between the Chaldean and Hebrew sections, and the parallel arrangement of the visions. These are points that no other literary discussion satisfactorily explains.

One would want to put discussion on theme and meaning illuminated by a literary structure in a different section. Other existing sections deal with theme and meaning, but not well tied to any literary structure.

The idea that chapter 11 deals with the 2nd century is deeply flawed. The successive visions deal in greater and greater detail the whole basic outline of Chapter 2--from Babylon to the set up of God's kingdom. Allenroyboy 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised at the suggestion that any structuration of Daniel apart from the double chiasm proposed by William Shea is unbiblical. Shea is a prolific and rather conservative Seventh Day Adventist scholar who believes, for example, in the historicity of the Genesis flood story. This conservatism seems to have influenced the way he has structured the second part of the book, resorting to the artificial division of chapter nine into four parts - when it is clearly a self contained unit - in order to impose a new testament christological understanding on ch 9.26, "The Messiah Dies Alone", to make it the fulcrum of the books message. Shea also artifically separates chapers 10-12 into two units when it is clearly one and consigns chapter one to a "historical prologue" when it contains a trial story with a similar narrative pattern to those of chapters three and six.

I agree completely that chiastic or concentric structure is a fundamental feature of biblical poetry and literature which can be found across verses, chapters or literary units and whole books (Revelation is a well documented example). The structure of Daniel, however, is a little more complex than Shea would have us believe. While I agree that there are chiastic markers for chapters 2-7 an equally compelling case could be made for a similar structure in chapters 1-5, the chapters that recount court stories from the Babylonian period. Chapter one records the destruction of Jerusalem, the transportation of temple objects, and a trial story about Daniel's refusal to eat "defiled" food from the king's table and consequent elevation. Chapter five records the overthrow of Babylon, mentions the same temple objects, and recounts a feast hosted by the king who is tried, "found wanting" and deposed. Chapters two and four describe dreams of Nebuchadnezzar which are interpreted by Daniel and Daniel's "hymn" in chapter two is paralleled by similar poetic utterances by Nebuchadnezzar in chapter four. The central tale concerns the trial and fidelity of Daniel's friends in his absence, echoing the story of chapter one and contrasting with the blasphemous behaviour of Belshazzar and his nobles in chapter five.

Similarly there are clear thematic and structural markers for a break between chapters one to six and seven to ten, as indicated in the introduction to this article. The court tales of one to six give way to dreams and visions experienced by Daniel (rather than Babylonian kings) and recounted by him in the first person. Among other structural features there is a clear AABB structure indicated here as the first two dream stories involving beasts and animals give way to extended angelic interpretations elicited by prayer (chapter 9) and fasting (chapters 10-12). This structural feature of course overlaps with the correctly observed chiasm of chapters 2-7 (the Aramaic section), the inclusio of chapters two and seven (both concern a four kingdom succession) suggesting that the latter part of the book interprets and elaborates on the basic historical schema of chapter two.

It is also rather silly to say that structure has nothing to do with theme and meaning. Broad structural overviews allow us to observe the development and progression of key themes and provide a system of checks and balances which help prevent eccentric interpretations of isolated verses and sections. My understanding of chiastic structure is that it highlights the central unit and I am sure that William Shea would be rather horrified to hear that his section D in which "The Messiah Dies alone" is a purely structural feature which is unrelated to the message and meaning of the book.

Finally the assertion that chapter 11 contains no reference to Antiochus Epiphanes goes against all critical scholarship (as noted in the introduction) and a great deal of conservative christian scholarship (which frequently admits that the historical progression in chapter 11 contains reference to second century events). It is quite correct to say that the original vision of four kingdoms is explained in progressively greater detail in the last chapters but the fact is that the historical horizon of chapter 11, where we get the most detail, does not extend beyond the second century BCE. Any assertion to the contrary is based on conservative christian commitment to the belief that the prophecies of Daniel must "be true" and "come true" no matter what the evidence. Because the prophecies extend to the establishment of an "everlasting kingdom" the scope of the visions must, according to this view, encompass all history from Daniel's time to the present. This is a perfect example of christian fundamentalists championing literal interpretation of the bible but in fact being rather selective in what they take literally, forcing the data to fit with predetermined beliefs rather than letting it speak for itself. Another relevant example is the refusal to accept the literal meaning of the book of Revelation which is addressed to seven historical christian communities in first century Asia Minor and which repeatedly states that "the time is near" and that the events described in the book "must soon take place".

--Sineaste 04:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you go the the source you will see that Shea did not originate the chiasm literary structure, but did refine it. Associated with it is this chiasm of vs 25-27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks#Literary_structure

William H. Shea observed that verses 25-27 form a chiasm (also explained here):

A. Daniel 9:25a

Jerusalem Construction:

Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem

B. Daniel 9:25b

Messiah:

until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens' and sixty-two 'sevens.'

C. Daniel 9:25c

Jerusalem Construction:

It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

D. Daniel 9:26a

Messiah:

After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off, but not for himself.

C'. Daniel 9:26b

Jerusalem Destroyed:

The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

B'. Daniel 9:27a

Messiah:

And he shall confirm a covenant with the many [for] one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

A'. Daniel 9:27b

Jerusalem Destroyed:

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Again, Shea did not invent this chiasm either.

Most Christians pay little attention to "critical scholars," especially those who are unbelievers. The Bible says it is spiritually discerned, thus unbelievers haven't a clue. It is true that some Christian scholars accept the idea of Antiochus, but Antiochus was such a weak fool that the Romans drew a circle around him in the sand and dared him to step out of it. He did not. That is hardly the powerful king described in 11.

All four prophecies of Daniel (2,7,8,11-12) are parallel with each other, beginning in Daniels day and ending with the set up of God's kingdom. God's kingdom is not yet set up. Allenroyboy 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no issue with Shea finding a chiasm in 9:25-27, although it is not particularly convincing, but I do have a problem with him making this the structural centre of the book. Again I believe that dogmatic presuppositions have overruled common sense here. The poetic description of the "judgement scene" in chapter seven (v9-10) is also a chiasm (and a far more obvious one) but that does not automatically make it the focal point of the book.

Also, the way Shea separates chapter seven structurally from the latter half of the work is highly artificial. Most commentators acknowledge that chapters 7-12 form a distinct section of the work (see my comments above). While the Aramaic “chiasm” (again not overly convincing because it ignores chapter one as a distinct literary unit within the court stories of one to six) does help to integrate the two parts of the book it does not, by any means, undo the more fundamental bifurcation. Structurally chapter seven belongs to the sequence of four Danielic dreams and visions (7-12) rather than the court stories of 1-6. Furthermore I find the suggested parallel between chapters 9a and 10 in Shea's structure dubious at best. Chapter 10 relates a terrifying vision of a celestial being which concerns "a great war" involving Persia and Greece (described in detail in chapter 11); Daniel 9a, on the other hand, is a covenantal prayer confessing Judah’s rebellion and pleading for divine intervention to restore her fortunes: how these two form a parallel chiastic couplet under the heading ‘trials of God’s people” is a complete mystery to me.

My conclusion, then, is that Shea is so desperate to make "The Messiah Dies alone" the structural centre and core theme of the book (to fit his Christological purposes) that he forces a completely alien structure on to chapters 8-12 which is not supported by textual evidence. In any case if the "Anointed One" put to death in 9:26 is a Jewish figure we are compelled to think of Onias III – identified in 11:22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onias_III) - rather than Jesus. And the king who destroys the city, causes "the sacrifice and oblation to cease", and creates a "desolating abomination" can only be Antiochus based on the parallel descriptions in chapter 7:8,11,20-21,25; 8:9-14, 23-25; 11: 21-45. Unfortunately conservative Christians are so ready to see veiled references to Jesus here that they ignore the evidence.

If Antiochus IV was such a nobody, as suggested, I wonder why it is that Jews to this day celebrate the rededication of the temple, defiled by Antiochus, in the festival of Hanukkah (Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah, see also John 10:22). This feast commemorates the liberation and rededication of the temple in 165 BCE after Antiochus had looted it, massacred observant Jews, outlawed the Jewish religion and erected a statue of Zeus in its courts in 167-8 BCE. This rededication coincided with the overthrow of Seleucid rule and the founding of an independent Jewish kingdom, the first since the Babylonian captivity, which was to last for the next 100 years. This hardly sounds like a minor blip in Jewish history to me.

Furthermore Daniel 11 does not one dimensionally describe a “powerful king” but rather accurately reflects Antiochus IV’s first highly successful campaign against Egypt as well as his second which was repelled due to Rome’s intervention (the “ships of Kittim” in v 30). This was the occasion of the “line in the sand” incident. There are also clear references in 11: 5-20 to key events and kings in the history of the Seleucid empire from Ptolemy I and Seleucus (v5), to the marriage between Antiochus II and Berenice – and her subsequent murder (v6), Ptolemy III’s successful invasion of Syria (vv7-8), the battle of Raphia (vv11-12), Antiochus III’s success in the Fifth Syrian War (vv 13-16), Cleopatra’s marriage to Ptolemy V (v17), Antiochus III’s defeat by the Romans at Thermopylae and subsequent death (vv18-19), Seleucus IV (v20), and, finally, Antiochus IV Epiphanes to whom the rest of the chapter is devoted. I defy any independent observer to read chapter 11 and compare it with historical events without coming to the conclusion that the bulk of the chapter is focused on Epiphanes and his attempt to wipe out the Jewish temple cultus. All seem to agree that the visions of Daniel are parallel and focus on the same crisis. The obvious implication is that chapter 11, which supplies the most detailed information on this crisis, clearly identifies the events of 168 to 165 BCE as the central concern of the book.

I think it would be fair to say that historical critical scholars pay little attention to conservative Christian interpreters who rely on "spiritual discernment" rather than logic and evidence to skew the natural and literal reading of texts like Daniel. Certainly an encyclopaedic entry should stick to the evidence rather than imposing later Christian interpretations, evident in Shea's thinking, onto this text. And to say that because the prophecies of Daniel end with the establishment of an eternal kingdom the historical schemes must cover all history up to the present day is just circular reasoning. The logical explanation, in view of the fact that all four visions of chapters 7-12 focus on the same crisis (an attack on the temple and its services historically located in chapter 11), is that the predictions of a subsequent everlasting kingdom were not fulfilled.

Consequently I recommend that Shea’s section on structure be moved or deleted. At the very least the section on structure should include some information on alternative views which canvass the various structural features of the book without resorting to dogmatic and illogical arguments.

--Sineaste 06:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The supposed correlation between 11 and Antiochus is exposed in the following book.

Arthur Ferch, 1988, “Daniel on Solid Ground.”Ch. 4, 56-65

Historical Analysis

What then are the historical resemblances between Daniel and the period of Antiochus? Are the similarities so striking that one should ignore the book's explicit claims and accept a second-century origin?

Basic to the Maccabean thesis is the presupposition that a rather reliable historical reconstruction of events between 167 and 164 B.C. is possible and that such a reconstruction coincides so closely with the data provided by Daniel that it could only have been written in the mid-second century. If this proposal is valid and the book arose within earshot of the events of the Antiochian persecution, one would expect a particularly detailed and accurate account of events during this period. Is this the case? In addition, if the putative second-century author was a Maccabean or had Maccabean leanings, as a sizable number of scholars suggest, one would further anticipate seeing some of the significant emphases, concerns, and perspectives of Maccabean literature reflected in Daniel. Can this be demonstrated?

A historical analysis reveals several serious problems with the Maccabean thesis.

First, the most important primary contemporary sources depicting historical events between 167 and 164 B.C. with considerable detail are disappointingly few. They are limited to 1 and 2 Maccabees and Polybius.

Second, several weighty disagreements between these sources about both details and the order of events during the period under discussion complicate matters even further. Events that still remain a matter of controversy among historians include the cause of the religious persecution of the Jews, the precise time of Jason's rebellion, the date of Antiochus' death, and the issue of whether Antiochus conducted one or two campaigns against Jerusalem.

Given the divergences in the presently available primary and contemporary sources, it is difficult to draw up a consistent, detailed, and accurate historical reconstruction for the period under consideration.5 The problem is compounded by several rather vague allusions in Daniel 11. All of which highlights the serious difficulty in establishing a satisfactory comparison between the book of Daniel and the mid-second century happenings.

Occasionally scholars will actually use the book of Daniel to round out their historical reconstruction of this period. A case in point is the matter of the two campaigns that Antiochus is supposed to have waged against Jerusalem. Neither book of Maccabees refers to two campaigns by the Greek despot. In view of this difficulty, it is interesting to note the dubious procedure adopted by the well-known Jewish scholar V. Tcherikover. Tcherikover reconstructs events of the period under discussion by considering Daniel 11 (which mentions a twofold contact between the king of the north and God's people) as an eyewitness account of two visits by Antiochus to Jerusalem.

But this process begs the question. Tcherikover assumes what scholars discussing the second-century origin of Daniel are still trying to prove, namely, that Daniel is an eyewitness report of the events under discussion. The validity of this type of circular reasoning is open to question because it is precisely the issue of the two campaigns by Antiochus against Jerusalem that is advanced as one of the major proofs for the second-century B.C. origin of the book of Daniel.

Striking resemblances between Daniel 11 and the account given in the books of Maccabees and Polybius include (1) the reference to the setting up of the "abomination of desolation" (Dan. 8:9-13; 9:27; 11:31; cf. 1 Macc. 1:54); (2) a twofold conflict of the king of the north with the king of the south (Dan. 11:25-29); and (3) the northern tyrant's withdrawal after an encounter with the ships of Kittim (Dan. 11:29, 30). Historians have compared these scriptural details with the profanation of the Jerusalem Temple by Antiochus, his two campaigns against Egypt, and the tyrant's expulsion from Egypt by the Roman consul Gaius Popilius Laenas.

Given this apparent correspondence of events, one can appreciate how people reading Daniel in the time of Antiochus could apply these verses to the situation of their own time. Antiochus left an indelible impression on the minds and lives of the Jews of his day. How could they forget the marches of the Greek army through their territory? Antiochus interfered with their religious observances and ideas. He defiled the Temple by erecting a pagan image on its altar. The hated Greek ruler had attracted traitors to the Jewish cause and persecuted mercilessly those who were unwilling to comply with his program.

Stress on similarities, however, could lead one to pass over the even larger number of dissimilarities and problems. Daniel 8:9-12 and 11:36-39 describe the little horn and the king of the north in terms that far surpass anything we presently know about the actions, character, and pretensions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

If our information from extrabiblical sources is correct (e.g., Livy's comment on the religious disposition of Antiochus), then we are left with notable discrepancies regarding the Greek's religious practices and the description in the Bible of the little horn and the king of the north. Consequently, commentators resort occasionally to interpretations dictated not so much by the book of Daniel as by the desire to have the biblical material conform with the information that we have about Antiochus (e.g., comments on Dan. 11:39).

Politically, the reign of Antiochus was far more modest than the descriptions of the little horn and the king of the north given in Daniel 7, 8, and 11. Antiochus inherited the ever lengthening shadow of Rome. When faced with the ultimatum presented by Popilius Laenas, Antiochus, who had formerly been a hostage in Rome, bowed to the superior might of Rome.

If Daniel 7-12 was written shortly after the episodes recorded, as historicocritical scholars contend, why do the biblical accounts reflect so little of the material we read in I and 2 Maccabees and Polybius?

Maccabees records a three-year period of temple profanation, but this is not matched by any of the time periods mentioned in Daniel.

If the author of Daniel was a Maccabean or someone sympathetic to the Maccabean cause, one would expect a basic philosophy common both to the books of Daniel and Maccabees. Yet the ethos of 1 and 2 Maccabees and Daniel is at odds. In Daniel there is no call to arms to defend the faith of Israel as there is in 1 Maccabees 2. Daniel is silent about the Maccabean revolt and its leaders. Whereas in the Maccabean literature the freedom fighters and their vicissitudes are of central importance, commentators see no more than a vague allusion to these Jewish soldiers in Daniel (11:34). The book of Daniel is silent about the exploits of the Maccabees and their exciting victories over the Syrian generals. Even if the author had been a pacifist, one would have expected a greater sympathy with the successes of his countrymen. It is hardly likely that such heroes as Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus would live remained unnamed.

The Maccabean letters are concerned with the Jewish opposition to this idolatrous king; whereas the book of Daniel focuses primarily on the activities of the little horn and the king of the north.

Proponents of the Maccabean thesis concede that Daniel 11:40-45 does not conform to what is known about the end of Antiochus. Given these discrepancies, commentators claim that the author of Daniel changed from the writing of history to a genuine but inaccurate attempt to prophesy. Such an explanation is a tour de force that would hardly survive elsewhere in Old Testament analysis. The majority view simply wants to have it both ways and therefore becomes incredible.

If the fulfillment of Daniel 11:1-39 was designed to inspire hope and to validate the fulfillment of future prophecies, then the alleged failure of the events described in verses 40-45 to materialize raises grave questions about the thrust of the total book. The problems would be largely resolved if we were to abandon the Maccabean thesis, recognize Daniel I I as a genuine prophecy, and seek a different interpretation of the chapter.

In light of these problems, the contention that Daniel (especially chapter 11) parallels events in Palestine between 167 and 164 B.C. so closely that it provides us with the origin of the book needs to be called into question. While the Maccabean thesis demonstrates how those who read Daniel at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes could apply sections of this chapter to their own situation, the theory fails to prove that the book (or sections thereof) originated at that time.

Pseudonymity

The Maccabean thesis raises an additional problem. If the book of Daniel was not authored by the sixth century B.C. statesman/prophet who claims to have been the writer of at least portions of the book (e.g., Dan. 7:1, 2), then one has to assume pseudonymous authorship for the book. Yet this slender volume qualified for inclusion in the sacred canon in spite of this alleged pseudonymity. How could this be?

Some scholars suggest that the adoption of the name of an ancient well-known person (a practice that presumably went undetected) was intended to increase the acceptability and authority of the document. Such a practice would seem to border on deception. Other modem writers assure us that attribution of such ancient names to works composed at a later time was an accepted literary practice that deceived no one. Clearly these two functions are mutually exclusive and offensive to the logic and moral sensitivities of non-technical readers of the book of Daniel.

In the light of Joyce G. Baldwin's observation that during the whole of the Old Testament period "no example has so far come to light of a pseudepigraphon which was approved or cherished as an authoritative book," the idea of pseudonymity as applied to the book of Daniel is highly questionable.6 It robs this biblical book of its very impact.

Gordon Wenham remarks appropriately that "the idea that God declares His future purposes to His servants is at the heart of the book's theology. If, however, Daniel is a second-century work, one of its central themes is discredited, and it could be argued that Daniel ought to be relegated to the Apocrypha and not retain full canonical status as a part of OT Scripture.7 In any event, the burden of proof that Daniel is in any part pseudonymous still rests with those who make this claim.

Conclusion

Likewise, the argument that Daniel (particularly sections of the second half of the book) originated in the second century B.C. because it accurately reflects the Maccabean period is dubious. Contrary to popular opinion, the history of that period is not well known. The main sources disagree on several important issues, and Daniel does not fit this period as well as we have been led to believe.

Although the Maccabean thesis illustrates how people living during the days of the Syrian tyrant's reign could apply portions of the prophecies to their own day, it cannot bear the weight of the argument placed upon it. Much of the detail provided in this slender volume is far better explained when the visions are understood as genuine prophecies (vaticinia ante eventu). While one may not want to press for historical correspondences for every detail in a prophecy given centuries before the fulfillment of predicted events, one should be able to expect close parallels in an account that purportedly narrates immediate past event;.

In sum, the book of Daniel reflects the background, practices, and customs of the Babylonian and early Persian empires. The author's knowledge of contemporary history and customs, a knowledge lost in subsequent centuries, suggests that the writer lived at the time suggested by the book. Once we accept the validity of predictive prophecy (which is clearly an axiom of faith), there is no reason why the claims of the book of Daniel in regard to its exilic composition cannot be accepted.

The implicit information provided does not contradict the explicit testimony according to which Daniel was responsible for the messages that narrate events in his life and disclose divine forecasts that stretch from the sixth century B.C. to the end of time.

References

5 For a more detailed discussion, see my article "The Book of Daniel and the 'Maccabean Thesis,"' Andrews University Seminary Studies 2 1, No. 2 (1983) : 129-141.

6 Joyce G. Baldwin, "Is There Pseudonymity in the Old Testament?" Themelios 4, No. 1 (1978) : 8.

7 Gordon J. Wenham, "Daniel: The Basic Issues," Themelios 2, No. 2 (1977): 51. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again a Seventh Day Adventist author is being dragged out in a rather silly attempt to refute the clear historical progression of Daniel 11, a progression which is obvious to all commentators except those blinded by confessional bias.

Before I respond, however, I note with interest that no attempt has been made to counter my arguments about the inadequacy of Shea’s structural proposals. I reiterate my suggestion that the section on structure be removed or re-written.

At the outset it is worth considering that Seventh Day Adventist interest in Daniel is motivated by the fact that their basis for existence stems from an eccentric interpretation of Daniel 8:14 which states that the 2300 “days” represent 2300 years, ending in the year 1844. This date was when the Millerite movement in North America believed Jesus would return to earth, applying the “year for a day principle”. When Jesus failed to appear Adventists, refusing to admit that the date was wrong, developed a rather elaborate scheme designed to prove that in 1844 Jesus entered the holy of holies in a “heavenly temple” to begin “cleansing the sanctuary”. This was interpreted to mean an “investigative judgment” of the living and the dead, an examination of the lives of everyone who has ever lived, after which Jesus would return to earth to take the righteous to heaven and destroy the wicked. Adventists understand themselves as the holy “remnant” who alone keep God’s law (particularly the seventh day Sabbath), raised up in the “last days” (i.e. 1844) to prepare the world through active evangelism for the end of the investigative judgement and the second coming of Christ. So to admit that Daniel focuses on a second century BCE Judean crisis, rather than spanning the whole of history up to the establishment of their church and the end of the world, is anathema to any Adventist. Arthur Ferch was generally a careful and capable scholar but could, nonetheless, be relied upon to come up with doctrinally orthodox results in his research. He would very quickly have lost his employment with the church if he had come up with any sort of alternative views on Daniel. In the context of Daniel B, of course, the “2300 evening mornings” is an obvious reference to the daily evening and morning sacrifices which were to be disrupted due to a defiling attack on the temple by the tyrant identified in chapters 7- 9 and particularly chapter 11. The immediate context of 8.11-13 and parallel references in 7.25, 9.27 and 11.31 make this abundantly clear. Ferch and other Seventh Day Adventist authors are the only ones to adhere to their rather strange and fanciful interpretation which was originally formulated using naïve “proof text” methods in the mid 1800s. It is also worth observing that Ferch’s published opinions on Daniel have done nothing to sway scholarly consensus on the interpretation of Daniel 11 or the date of the book.

Ferch’s argument depends largely on setting up two “straw men”:

1. Unless a watertight history of Antiochus IV and his interventions in Jerusalem can be constructed the “maccabean thesis” is disproved. 2. If thematic similarities between I and II Maccabees and Daniel cannot be established the second century origin of Daniel looses credibility.

The second point is mischievous to say the least. The most widely held understanding of Daniel’s relationship to the books of Maccabees and their guerilla fighter heroes is that Daniel represents a completely different school of thought to the authors of these works. Daniel nowhere advocates taking up arms against the wicked king of chapters 7-12 but rather, in both the court tales and the visions, suggests that passive resistance and dependence upon God should be the appropriate response of righteous Jews. It is the Hasidim and not the Maccabees who are the leaders and heroes of Daniel B and, contrary to Ferch, this is the accepted scholarly view. Saying that Daniel and Maccabees should display common themes is a little like saying that the gospels should share a “basic philosophy” with the aims and methods of the zealots and sicarii in first century Judaism. In other words this argument is nonsensical.

Ferch’s second point has more merit, in view of some historical discrepancies between first and second Maccabees. For a useful discussion of one of these issues see http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/4th/papers/Schwartz99.html. But here Ferch grossly exaggerates the evidence. To suggest that there is no sort of reliable historical reconstruction of this period against which to measure the historicity of Daniel 11 is, to use a Christian analogy again, like saying that Jesus never existed because of discrepancies and contradictions between nativity and passion/resurrection stories in the gospels. Whatever the exact date of Antiocus’ death or Jason’s rebellion, whether the persecution was instigated by Hellenistic Jews or by a wider religio-cultural program designed to unify the Seleucid empire, regardless of whether there were one or two attacks against Jerusalem, the fact is that the crisis described in both primary sources and valid secondary sources like Josephus agrees perfectly with similar descriptions in Daniel B. That is: the temple would be defiled, the daily sacrifice abolished, an “abomination” would be set up in the temple, and faithful Jews would be persecuted and killed.

Perhaps if we isolated the relevant parts of chapter eleven these descriptions could be roughly applied to other crises in Jewish history. Taken in the context of chapter eleven, though, the evidence is incontrovertible. We start with a description of a powerful Greek king – Alexander - whose kingdom is divided into four parts at his death. Following verses describe a succession of conflicts between kings of “north” and “south” – the Ptolemies and Seleucids. Events described match independent historical records of this period. Finally one of the Seleucid kings, whose rise to power and military campaigns match those of Antiochus IV, attacks Judaism and disrupts the temple cultus. Again I would suggest that fundamentalists, and Ferch fits this category to the extent that he ignores the obvious progression of events, have their heads buried in the proverbial sand if they ignore the textual and historical evidence here. The question that has to be asked is what other attack on the second temple involved the suspension of the cult by a foreign king for a significant but LIMITED period? Neither Ptolemy’s incursion in 63BCE nor the final destruction of the temple in 70CE match this description. Ferch and others would have us believe that the final verses of chapter eleven, despite the fact that they clearly identity an individual wicked king and a specific historical calamity, somehow leap forward thousands of years to some post-1844 pre-advent eschatological crisis in which Seventh Day Adventists become the heroes. This is both absurd and unscholarly and typifies the Christian fundamentalist approach to scripture which is to bolster poorly founded denominational traditions with scholarly arguments that have a veneer of respectability but major on minors. --Sineaste (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

history lesson

After accusing Ferch of creating a srawman, you stoop to the same thing in your flawed presentation of the SDA position on the 2300 day prophecy.

William Miller and the thousands of his followers proposed two things: 1) That the 'cleansing of the sanctuary' meant the Second Coming of the Lord, and 2) That the 2300 day prophecy began in 457 BC (with the 70 week prophecy) and would end in 1844. After 10/22/1844 came and went and Jesus did not return, the disappointed Millerites faced the following options: A) Reject Bible prophecy and Christianity altogether (many did). B) Ignore Bible Prophecy but still kept faith in the Bible and Jesus (many did). C) Apply all kinds of other lengths of time for the 'days'(some did). D) Keep setting new dates based on different ideas about the starting times or other things (a few did, out of which came the Jehovah Witnesses). E) A few, perhaps several dozen who eventually became the SDAs, felt that the assumptions and calculations of the 2300 days was Biblically sound. They reexamined the texts again and realized that if the dates were correct, then they had likely been wrong about the event that was supposed to have happen. NO ONE at the time had really studied to see what the Bible meant by 'Cleansing of the Sanctuary.' It was just ASSUMED by Miller and nearly all theologians of the day to mean the Second Coming of the Lord.

The idea that 'Cleansing of the Sanctuary' may find meaning in the symbolic services of the ancient tabernacle caused a synergistic synthesis of an array of Biblical teachings that had not been fully appreciated before. It was not stubborn resistance to appease their egos that caused them to keep hold onto the dates founded by the Millerites, but the much broader theology that grew out of learning what the Bible actually meant by "cleansing of the Sanctuary" rather than what men thought it meant. Christian Skeptic (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is called retrofitting.  ???? by some unknown person

Retrofiting refers to the addition of new technology or features to older systems. Even if you try to apply it figuratively, it does not describe what actually happened. They did not try to apply some newly invented interpretation to the Bible, but rather stepped back and took a second, longer look at what the Bible actually had to say and discovered that what many (including themselves) had thought the texts meant had been forced onto the texts (eisegesis) rather than letting the texts read for themselves (exegesis). As is displayed here, critics, instead of bothering searching things out and thinking for themselves, are content to mindless regurgitate the same blind mantra over and over again. After all, the majority must be right! Right? Surely Jesus didn't mean it when he said: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." No one really believes that .... How foolish.... Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They misinterpreted it to suit their own purposes. As I said, it's called retrofitting, in spite of your preachy, yet futile, attempt to refute my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.226 (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Daniel is first and foremost a Jewish book. I imagine that Jewish readers would, on the whole, be somewhat offended that Daniel's depiction of a horrific period in their history is being spiritualised into some sort of heavenly bookkeeping exercise which only Seventh Day Adventist's interpret correctly. I also have to say that SDA assumptions about the 2300 "days" are NOT biblically sound and, in fact, make nonsense of the literal meaning of the text ie that the Temple in Jerusalem would be defiled by a Seleucid king, an "abomination" would be set up in it's courts, and the daily temple sacrifices abolished for a period of around three years. --Sineaste (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, Jewish people of that era may have thought that Antiochius was a fulfillment of the prophecies, but that doesn't mean they were correct. All the books of the Bible are for all who believe in God from all all ages. Nothing is singled out for some select minority group. Jesus didn't come to save just the blood line of Abraham and Israel. His free gift of eternal life is for all mankind--every one of every age. Christian Skeptic (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Preaching has no place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.63.96.108 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll remember that, if I ever feel tempted to preach. Those are just the facts. Christian Skeptic (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Preaching is exactly what you are doing, and it's quite tedious and irrelevant here. And your so-called "facts" are just opinions, nothing more.

Excellent points, Sineaste. As you have indicated, Daniel was a Jewish "apocalypse," not a Christian one, and it has been reinterpreted (and misinterpreted) by Christian sects such as the SDA in order to further their own agendas.  ????another anonymous post.

'Jewish "apocalypse"' is an unsupported OR assertion. 'reinterpreted (and misinterpreted)' is another unsupported, personal opinion assertion without any facts to support it. There is not a Jewish part nor a Christian part of the Bible. It is one indivisible whole woven together by the same Holy Spirit who inspired it all. Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you study the standard critical commentaries in order to understand the error in your position. D.S. Russell, for example, quite clearly identifies it as a Jewish apocalypse. Also, the Old Testament is the Jewish part of the Bible. The New Testament is the Christian part. Finally, this is supposed to be an objective article, not a platform for the preaching of your personal religious beliefs. I suggest that you take that to some religious forum, somewhere else.

Sectarian apologetics ought to have no place in this article. If we want a lengthy discussion of Seventh Day Adventist views of Daniel, we should have a separate article on the subject. This article should deal with the scholarly consensus. john k (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A "scholarly consensus" is very sectarian, i.e. anti-deistic. The "scholarly" approach is that there is no such thing as real prophecy because there is no such thing as God. Therefore, Daniel cannot be a prophecy of the future, but history written in a "prophetic" way. This scholarly approach is sectarian by nature. Any group who hold common beliefs in about anything is a sect. And anti-deist believe together that there is no God. There is no such thing as non-sectarian when it comes to the Bible. Christian Skeptic (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-theistic, I imagine you mean. But that's absurd. A huge percentage of scholars of religion are believers. They aren't Biblical inerrantists, but that's not the same thing. I am so damned sick of this argument. john k (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Any notable interpretation of these texts should be presented in an unendorsing and concise fashion, whether one agrees or not. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That was an excellent refutation of Ferch's flawed arguments, Sineaste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.63.96.108 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Refutation! It was only a series of unsupported, baseless assertions. Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, as usual! It is your baseless assertion that is unsupported.

Expositor's Bible Commentary

Because of my using the electronic version, I don't know the exact page and volume of the printed version, but I will have it tommorow.--Vassilis78 09:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Parallel Prophecies

The prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11-12 have long been recognized as parallel prophecies that cover over and again the same periods of time in history. The following table shows how all 4 prophecies are parallel as has been interpreted by Bible scholars of all ages.

Some wax poetic about Antiochus fulfilling Chp 11. That's pales to insignificance when compared to how all 4 prophecies dovetail together.

Daniel 2	Daniel 7	Daniel 8	Daniel 11-12	Std. Interpretation
Head--Gold	Lion with wings	---	---	Babylon
2 Arms and Chest--Silver	Bear w/one side more powerful than other. 3 ribs in mouth	2 horned Ram [Called Media/Persia]	Persian Kings [vs 2]	Media/Persia
Belly and thighs--Bronze	Leapord with 4 head & wings	Single horn Goat: 4 horns come up [Called Greece]	Greek Kings of N & S [vs 3-19]	Greece
2 Legs--Iron	Horrible beast W/10 horns & Little horn	Blasphemous Horn	King of North [vs 20-39]	Pagan & Papal Rome
2 Feet--Iron & Clay mix	Judgment court set up	2300 Days/Cleansing of Sanctuary	The Time of the End Northern King [vs 40-45]	SuperPower & Sanctuary Judgement
Rock	Kingdom of God	Cleansing of Sanctuary	Kingdom of God [vs 12:1-4]	God's Kingdom

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic (talk • contribs)

Pales to insignificance? Please. john k (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "Std. Interpretation" supposed to mean? Standard? Certainly, the wording given above is not standard - standard are merely the linking of the various beasts with Babylon, Persia, Macedon and Rome and of course the ending in God's Kingdom.

However, Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 are more commonly linked to Macedon - there is no indication of any preceding Empire. The Northern Kingdom vs. Southern Kingdom thing closely covers the history of the Seleucides vs. the Ptolemaeans (and is actually the basis for placing the latter half of the book around 160 BC). Str1977 ^(talk) 09:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

By standard interpretation I mean the typical interpretation that has been held by most Bible Scholars in the last 2000 years. See. Macedon (or whatever) is indeed a part of all 4 prophecies, but only a part. All 4 prophecies cover the history of the earth from the day of Daniel, 5th Century BC, to beyond the present to God's kingdom. Christian Skeptic (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "standard" or "typical" interpretation, that is asserting a false "consensus" on something that is in fact highly controversial, about which there has never been any consensus at any time ever, and taking one "favored" interpretation and assigning it "undue weight". The best we can do is mention all those various interpretations by significant scholars that can be cited, exactly as NPOV and other policy states. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the "standard" interpretation of scholars is pretty clearly that the prophecies culminate about the period of Antiochus IV. So far as I can tell, religious scholars in mainline protestant, Catholic, and non-Orthodox Jewish traditions also generally agree on this point. Conservative religious traditions of various sorts, and their apologists, will hold various different alternative beliefs about what the prophecy means. john k (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely wrong. First of all, Catholic scholars, Protestant scholars, Orthodox scholars, Jewish scholars etc. are still scholars. Being faithless has never before been a prerequisite for scholarship; that is a very modern attitude that has only reared its head in recent times, although it was present in the Soviet Union. Secondly, because Christ clearly alluded to Daniel according to the Gospel, and indicated that the prophesies would be unfulfilled until the last days immediately before the Resurrection of the Dead (which also happens to be waht the text of Daniel itself indicates several times) there are people from every Church who read this and consider what it means. I don't know about those "churches" that openly deny the Bible, but there is a widespread feeling in every Church that actually believes the Bible contains God's Word, that he who is wise will study the prophecies of Daniel, while he who is foolish will discount them, and will even go to great lengths to attempt to prevent them from being discussed at all. We've been through all this before, but there can be no such thing as a "consensus" POV that Wikipedia must endorse, on something this controversial, and anyone who pretends there is, is simply trying to discount all the POVs that they don't agree with, when policy is quite clear that ALL significant POV's that can be sourced have to be presented. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course Catholic, Jewish, Protestants can also be scholars - my apologies for suggesting otherwise. My point in these articles has always been to note the significant level of agreement and consensus between secular and mainstream religious scholars. My whole point, in fact, has been to try to deny that there is a dichotomy between "religious" and "secular" scholars on these subjects - in fact, most secular and religious scholars agree about this stuff. On the other hand, fundamentalists who assume that the Bible is inerrant cannot, however, be scholars of the Bible (they can certainly be scholars of other things.) What they are doing is simply not the same thing as what scholars do. As to all significant POVs - sure, but all significant POVs should be represented for what they are. The view which is the consensus of the modern academy should be presented as such. Views which are held by fundamentalist apologists should be presented as such. BTW, I love the idea that anyone who thinks that Daniel is about Antiochus IV doesn't "believe the Bible contains God's word." As I understand it, even many relatively conservative Christians accept that much of Daniel 11 is about Antiochus. C.f., for instance, this guy. Hell, even St. Jerome accepts that the stuff in Daniel 11 applies both to Antiochus and to Antichrist, as Antiochus is a type for Antichrist. Is St. Jerome also a denier of the Bible containing God's word? john k (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, since Jerome supports the view that it also applies to a future Antichrist, he is not denying the Bible, and he is but one source for this ancient view. It sickens me to see wikipedia which is supposed to be "neutral", used as a platform for attacking certain beliefs and faiths that are still widely held today, by dismissing all those who have written them down as "fundamentalist apologists". In fact, deciding which widely held faiths and beliefs to attack like that, doesn't seem very "neutral" at all. If it's truly going to be neutral, then call it neutral, but if it's going to be used to attack, and deliberately attempt to weaken people's faiths and beliefs, don't call it "neutral", call it for what it is. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Messiah

All Bible translators of every version of the Bible have used "THE Annointed" or "THE Messiah" in this text. Yes, EVERYONE knows, there is no definite article in the original text. However, since ALL Bible translators from over several centuries have translated this as 'THE Messiah' or 'THE Annointed' they must have had good reason to do so. Those who claim "mistranslation" are fringe and without merit. And further, this change was made without any references to support it and must be considered OR. Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no good reason for mistranslating the text as "the Messiah." This mistranslation is just evidence of Christian bias, in the reinterpretation (and misinterpretation) of a Jewish text. Furthermore, this article is supposed to be objective, not a platform for the preaching of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.0.226 (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is only in your opinion that there is "no good reason". You are putting your puny opinion against ALL Hebrew scholars who have ever translated the Bible or the Torah not only into English but all other languages. You are the one wanting to make this article a platform for your personal beliefs. You need reliable sources to support your position. Get those and you can add a statement to that effect. Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again I note that "Christian Sceptic" is wildly overstating his/her case by stating that all bible translators unequivocally use the article here (I assume he/she is referring to Daniel 9:25-26 as this is not specified). A footnote in the New International Version (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?niv=yes&passage_request=Daniel%209) clearly lists "an anointed one" as a valid optional translation. It is also wrong to assume that "Anointed One" is simply equivalent to "Messiah" with all of the Christian and eschatalogical overtones that the latter word now possesses. NIV very deliberately chooses the more inclusive term which can also be used to refer to High Priests. As all scholars of second century BCE Jewish history are aware a prominent high priest, Onias III, was assassinated by Hellenizing rivals during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The wikipedia article on Onias III states that: The passage in Daniel ix. 26, "shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself," is generally referred to the murder of Onias. --Sineaste (talk) 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Messy Darius the Mede section

The current section on Darius the Mede is a complete mess with undue weight being given to views which the sources mentioned in the section in fact address and discredit. I propose the following replacement:

Daniel describes a certain Darius the Mede as taking control of Babylon after Belshazzar is deposed and ruling over Babylon in chapters 6 and 9. Daniel reports that Darius was 'about 62 years old' when he was 'made king over Babylon.' Josephus corroborates the account in Daniel but the name 'Darius the Mede' is not found outside these sources thus raising the question of his identity. The Nabonidus chronicle does however record that a Mede named Gubaru took control of Babylon and his birth is dated 62 years before, thus John Whitcomb in his 1959 book, Darius the Mede concludes that that Darius the Mede is Gubaru, Darius being a throne name. The identification had already been proposed in 1883 by Babelon. Additionally Josephus makes Darius the Mede the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus. Several scholars (including Calvin, Ussher and John Gill) as well as in more recent times (eg. Keil and Delitzsch Vol.6, p.546-548) note that Xenophon in his Cyropaedia 1.4,7, iii.3, 20, viii.5, 19 makes mention of the same historical individual referring to him as Cyaxares, the name of Median royal family.

Alternative suggestions see Darius as another name for either Cyrus or Astyages (e.g. Syncellus) although such views do not accord with Josephus.

The current paragraph gives undue weight to discussion of Darius as Cyrus or Astyages when such views are either based on ignorance of Josephus' and the Nabonidus chronicle etc or blatantly disregard them. There is also little point to mentioning the overturned 19th century view that Darius the Mede isn't historical when its been observed for over 100 years already he matches individuals mentioned by both Babylonian and Greek sources ie. Gubaru and Cyrus' uncle of the house of Cyaxares. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

...According to the apologists, yes. Many disagree. Your proposed change gives undue weight to the views of those who want to force-fit "Darius the Mede" into history by renaming someone who wasn't called "Darius". There is no particular reason to do so, given Daniel's somewhat casual attitude towards history (e.g. erasing Nabonidus and making the more famous Nebuchadrezzar the father of Belshazzar, among other things). Yet the previous version already covered this view: what you're proposing is implicit endorsement of that view and explicit deletion of other views. In general, an apologetic fix to a problem should not be taken as the correct answer to that problem: in particular, it does not justify deletion of other views and commentary regarding that problem. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but Darius is a name used only by a ruler and would not be his normal first name prior to becoming a ruler. The info on Darius the Mede, not only from Daniel but from Josephus, matches Gubaru, if it quacks like a duck its a duck. Daniel does not erase Nabonidus, it has no reason to mention him and it is well known that the description of Nebuchadnezzar as father can be understood as and is in all likelyhood intended to be understood as forefather, as the Jews certainly knew of Nabonidis and had a text called the Prayer of Nabonidus. (Open a Jewish prayer book for example and you will find that every instance of the term father means forefather not literal father.) Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But Josephus was merely echoing Daniel, and Darius wasn't a "ruler's name" (that's apologetics again). It was just a name. Maybe it later gained "royal" status after Darius the Great (just as "Caesar" did after Julius), but that was later. Darius the Great himself does not appear to have had another name prior to becoming a ruler. And, yes, Nebuchadrezzar is consistently portrayed in Daniel as Belshazzar's father and immediate predecessor (no king between Nebuchadrezzar and Belshazzar is mentioned), and apparently the illness of Nabonidus was exaggerated and transferred to Nebuchadrezzar. Making assumptions based on a presumption of Daniel's historical accuracy is pointless. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Josephus does not simply echo Daniel as he makes statements about Darius the Mede that are not sourced from Daniel, in other words he had an independent source. No where in Daniel does it say Nebuchadnezzar immediately preceded him and the simple fact is that "father" more often than not means forefather in Hebrew texts. Saying that it doesn't based on the presumption that Daniel being part of the Bible must be inaccurate is pointless. You call attempts to understand the sources "apologetics", but your view which denies any sensible understanding is merely "anti-Bible polemics". Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Darius of Daniel does not need to be anyone famous outside of Daniel. He was simply a ruler/king over the city of Babylon under Cyrus the Great who went on to other things in his conquest of Middle East. If I remember correctly this was in an era of transition from city-states to nations with cities. A person could be a ruler or king of some city but not a ruler of a nation. History mostly records the events of the rulers of the nations and not the rulers of this or that city. With the fall of Belshazzer, the city of Babylon fell from being the capital of an important nation, to just another captured city. The capitals of Cyrus and the Medes and Persians were Persipolis and Susa. The city of Babylon became just a backwater--has been--city. So the ruler of Babylon was probably not a big player in the overall scheme of things after Babylon's capture by Cyrus. Further, the latter chapters of Daniel place him not in Babylon but on the Banks of the Tigris (the Euphrates ran through Babylon). In chapter 8, in Babylon before it fell to Cyrus, he had a vision that he was in Susa, implying the future lack of importance of the city of Babylon. So Darius the Mede need not be anyone of importance outside of the captured city of Babylon. And so not likely to be in historical records. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My personal view is that the proposed replacement text is well written if a little overly simplistic. I would be happy for it to be included provided that alternative views, eg. Darius as another name for Cyrus or just a historical error by a later author, are given their due weight. I also feel that the detail about the birth date of "Gubaru" - which, as far as I can see, is not recorded in the Nabonidus Chronicle - needs a footnote and reference as it is a fairly crucial part of the argument. On "Gubaru", the governor mentioned in connection with the capture of Babylon in the Chronicle, the natural reading of the text suggests that he died after one month in power (Shea suggests it was the following year). There was another Gubaru (several Old Persian historical figures are known by this name) who became governor of Babylon and Transpotamia in the fourth regnal year of Cyrus - 535/4 BCE - but this can hardly be the same person or be identified with the biblical figure of "Darius the Mede". Other problems with the identification of Gubaru as Darius include the lack of any extra-biblical reference to him being a son of Ahasuerus/Xerxes, Median, or having the title of king. Josephus is a useful but not completely reliable secondary source who follows Daniel closely and may have been wresting with some of the same issues as modern commentators. On the period in question, for example, he describes a 17 year reign of Baltazar (= Daniel's Belshazzar) which conflicts with other data on the length of his "co-regency", and also seems to confuse him with Nabonidus in his list of Babylonian kings:

When Evil-Mcrodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life; and after him the succession in the kingdom came to his son Labosordacus, who continued in it in all but nine months; and when he was dead, it came to Baltasar, (23) who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus

While Josephus seems to know of other traditions about "Darius" he still can't be considered to be of equal value as other primary sources. His value as an accurate historian has been questioned by both leading conservative christian scholars, like WS Albright, as well as more recent Jewish apologists (eg http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html). To dismiss other views because they "do not accord with Josephus" is therefore a little unfair. If the writer holds to an early date for Daniel he may also be somewhat dismayed to discover that Josephus goes on to refer to several books of Daniel and to interpret Daniel chapter eight as referring to the activities of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Overall I feel that the identification of Gubaru with Darius the Mede is a genuine option that has to be taken seriously, while the simpler explanation that this otherwise unknown figure is the result of a historical confusion has to be at least considered as a viable alternative.

--Sineaste (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

While Josephus is not infallible (no historian is) he does indeed present information about Darius the Mede that is not sourced from Daniel. The Yossipon when covering that particular section of Josephus records additional points about Darius the Mede independent of both Josephus and Daniel and both Josephus and the Yossipon clearly present Darius as a relative of Cyrus, the Yossipon making him the uncle and father-in-law. So firstly arguments made in the past that Darius the Mede is unkown outside Daniel are simply wrong and secondly arguments that he is supposed to be Cyrus do not fit the entire set of data we have, they require an assumption that the extra-Biblical traditions in Josephus and the Yossipon are wrong with no explanation of how these traditions arose while the Biblical tradition is essentially correct but merely has a problematic name for Cyrus. Taking into account the extra-Biblical data we have a match between the Cyaxares of Xenophon and Darius the Mede - Cyaxares is his uncle and the son of Astyages (as Josephus says) and is given a palace in Babylon (and what who lives in a palace, a ruler does) and the difference in name is not problematic as Cyaxares is a family name not a first name - he was the son of Astyages the son of an earlier individual called by the family name Cyaxares by Herodotus and in fact Josephus says Darius the Mede was known to the Greeks by another name. So Xenophon is another extra-Biblical source for the same Median ruler, also making him distinct from Cyrus. So view that Darius the Mede is Cyrus ignores a lot of data.

Josephus does not confuse Belshazzer with Nabonidus, Josephus discusses Nobonidus elsewhere calling him the correct name Nabonidus. He calls Belshazzar "Naboandelus" which is a different word to the name Nabonidus which he knew. (I don't know what has been said about the etymology of Naboandelus but I'd bet it means son of Nabonidus in some language of the time.) Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary I feel that the evidence for Josephus confusing Belshazzar with Nabonidus is quite strong. A very cursory comparison of the two relevant sections in Antiquities and Against Apion reveals that Josephus in one instance lists Belshazzar as the final king of Babylon who reigns for 17 years with no mention of Nabonidus, while in the other he lists Nabonidus as the final Babylonian king who reigns for exactly the same period with no mention of Belshazzar. In Antiquities Cyrus and Darius make war against Belshazzar, in Apion they attack Nabonidus. In both the sequence of five kings starting with Nebuchadnezzar is exactly the same except for the name of the last king. The alternative name given to Belshazzar in Antiquities, unknown elsewhere as far as I can ascertain, seems to be an attempt to reconcile the two names. Evidence that Josephus is clearly drawing on two different traditions (in AA he is quoting Berosus) is found in the differing regnal years (eg in one "Evil-merodach" reigns 2 years while in the other it is 18, his successor reigns 4 in one and 40 in the other) and slight name variations (or is this just a difference in translators?) for the other Babylonian kings. And is the fact that Josephus, in Antiquities, delays the death of Belshazzar so that it does not occur on the night of the feast (a clear divergence from Daniel) another attempt to reconcile with Berosus who records Nabonidus dying peacefully outside of Babylon?

Despite the very few extra-Biblical facts about Darius that I acknowledged were present in Josephus, and despite the slim possibility that the Yossipon might contain additional reliable traditions, I really feel that both of these authors are being accorded too much weight. Josephus' primary dependence was upon Daniel and we have no guarantee that the extra information may not be a result of attempts to harmonise information in Daniel about Darius with alternative historical figures. This seems to have been his approach with Belshazzar. The Yossipon is a medieval (tenth century) Jewish document that admits to embellishing Josephus and is very historically inventive when it comes, for example, to describing the origins of Rome in order to suit the author's anti-christian polemic. While the information about Darius is incidental to the author's purposes, and therefore likely to be more reliable, it cannot be given much weight due to its great distance from the events concerned. Put simply, the name Darius the Mede is unknown in ancient literature and its use in Josephus, in a section of Antiquities which focuses on the stories and visions of the book of Daniel, is almost certainly dependent upon Daniel itself.

In the case of Cyaxares there are also complications. Xenophon also knows a Gubaru (Gobryas), an Assyrian/Babylonian noble who becomes a close companion of Cyrus, fights alongside him, and is prominent in the capture of Babylon. This tends to make the equation Gubaru = Cyaxares difficult if relying on Xenaphon. Cyaxares is a Median king and relative of Cyrus who takes no part in the capture of Babylon. It is Cyrus who stays in Babylon after its capture and acts as its king and ruler. It is only some time after the fall of Babylon when Cyrus returns to Persia that he stops off to visit Cyaxares, telling him “that a palace in Babylon and an estate had been set aside for him so that he might have a residence of his own whenever he came there”. This hardly sounds as though he is installing Cyaxares as resident governor. Rather it suggests the offer a luxurious residence, befitting Cyaxares position, whenever he VISITS Babylon. Babylon, unlike many smaller cities, was known to contain several palaces in this period. After visiting his father in Persia and marrying Cyaxares’ daughter Cyrus returns to Babylon. There is no suggestion that Cyaxares also travels to Babylon and we hear no more of him after this. Rather it is Cyrus who goes on to reside and rule there. Cyrus, like Darius in Daniel, sets up satraps to administer his greater empire and even during his ongoing territorial campaigns bases himself in Babylon for seven months of the year. It should also be noted that most historians consider “Cyaxares II” to be an invention of the author as this individual is unknown in any of the other histories. Xenaphon’s Cyropaedia is of course a partly fictional account of Cyrus’ life which has long been recognised to contain historical inaccuracies. --Sineaste (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Nabonidus Chronicle and Gubaru, upon doing some reading I find that the assumption that the name Ugbaru is identical to Gubaru is unfounded, the names look very different in cuneiform besides the obvious difference in pronunciation and it seems most of the arguments for or against an historical Darius the Mede seem to miss the point that Ugbaru does not equal Gubaru. Ugbaru was the governor of Gutium, Gubaru was governor of Babylon. Ugbaru died early (either a month or a year later), Gubaru didn't, what we finally put in the article needs to clearly distinguish between what the text says about each and not assume that its talking about the same person. Whitcomb points out a match between Gubaru and Darius the Mede not between Ugbaru and Darius the Mede. When I first looked at the Nabonidus Chronicle my assumption was that Ugbaru dies a year later, it talks about the month of Arahshamnu then it talks about later months then the death in Arahshamnu again, so it looks like it means the Arahshamnu in the following year. On the other hand the entire section falls under the intro saying 17th year, in which case it refers to the same month as the fall of Babylon. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're quite right here and I stand corrected. I'd read a translation which didn't really indicate the differences - although I note that some interpreters still maintain they represent the same person. One thing that we loose, however, with distinguishing between two individuals is the link to Media. Gutium is often understood to be a part of Media and this was one of the reasons for linking Ugbaru with Darius "the Mede". Another problem is that Xenophon records a Gobryas as being one of the prominent generals involved in the capture of Babylon but knows of no Ugbaru, which tends to corroborate the view that Gubaru and Ugbaru are the same person. William Shea originally held to the view that Gubaru was Darius but felt forced to reconsider this in 1991 in light of new cuneiform evidence which made it clear that Cambyses, Cyrus’ son, held the title “King of Babylon” for nine to ten months after the city was captured until Cyrus took over the title in addition to his existing designation “King of the Lands”. (Shea had previously dated this co-regency in the last year of Cyrus to support the theory that Gubaru ruled during the first year). This obviously leaves no room for a third kingship of Gubaru and also dovetails nicely with Xenaphon’s story of a trip to Persia by Cyrus after he had captured Babylon. Shea, incidentally, now believes that “Darius the Mede” is a throne name of Cyrus. (see [2] ) --Sineaste (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)