Talk:Book of Daniel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Have it your way: More from the Oxford source

Here's one view favored by the Oxford source quoted above, after stating the lack of consensus. This is in answer to Griswaldo's request for more information on what the competing scholarly views are. If only wikipedia were as impartial as Oxford; this makes wikipedia look like one of the "bully for our side" sources. But if wikipedia could be as impartial as Oxford, I'd be happy. P. 564 (after much discussion of how the visions section, chap. 7-12 are felt to be Maccabean):

• "However, it seems probable that while the visions come from the second century BCE, the stories (chs. 2-6) may be a good deal earlier. [...] The perspective of the stories seems to be that of Jews living under a relatively benign rule (the Persians?) while that of the visions suggest Jews in Judah under a malign ruler. It is therefore likely that the Book of Daniel has a long and complex history. This possibility is supported by the discovery of a story about an unknown Jewish exile and the Babylonian king Nabonidus, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls..."

All I am asking is, why can these things be mentioned by Oxford, but not allowed in wikipedia??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, the view of John Collins along these lines is already in the article. This is about the pre-history of the book - it is a misrepresentation to suggest this indicates a lack of consensus about the dating of Daniel. Incidentally, Albertz (the only writer I can find who suggests an earlier range for these stories) offers the range of 285-140 BCE, so the stories are still from the Hellenistic period and may even actually be younger than 8-12. --FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, our article, especially the intro, currently seems to favor the idea that the entire book was written at the same time, in 165 BC.

However, one of the above sources even asserts that this same idea pushed by wikipedia is a distinct minority in scholarship:

"Among critical scholars, Otto Eisfeldt and H. H. Rowley adopted the view of a unified composition from the second century BCE, but that position has not been followed." Wooden, p 9

(Perhaps he should have said "has not been followed except by wikipedia") ;o) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

More mincing words and red herrings. That is not because of the dating but because of the idea of a "unified composition".Griswaldo (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, read the whole thing again. As for Collins, according to our article he thinks chaps 8-12 are the part that is older than the 2nd C BC, and the rest is 2nd C BC; whereas Oxford thinks it is chaps 2-6 that are older than the 2nd C BC, and the rest is 2nd C BC (the more mainstream view, that is absent from wp) Meanwhile, as it stands wp clearly follows Eisfeldt and Rowley's discredited view in several places by asserting that the entire thing was written at the same time. More illustration of the complete lack of any "consensus" (except in pretense.) "Consensus" is something that serious scholars are always very careful about asserting. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, nobody other than a religious fundamentalist thinks 8-12 are pre 2nd century. Are you misreading the text in the article? "...meaning chapters 1 and 8-12 were in existence before the late 2nd century BC" means prior to 150 BCE or slightly later, which is not disputed by anyone. I'm not, incidentally, opposed to considering whether this view should have more prominence in the article, but I am opposed to the extrapolation that it throws any doubt whatsoever on the dating of Daniel or gives any credence whatever to the 6th century hypothesis.--FormerIP (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected on my reading of Collins' view... but is it really such a bannable offense for me to suggest, as these sources do, that nobody but Eisfeldt and Rowley (and wikipedia) thinks the entire book was written in 165 BC, and that Oxford clearly suggests that chaps. 2-6 date to the Persian period, not the Hellenistic? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't suggested banning you. I don't think Oxford does suggest what you say it does. AFAICT from the sources, some scholars suggest a Persian influence on 2-6, but not that the narratives were written by Persians. I think this is what Oxford is alluding to. The claim you make would seem analogous to suggesting that the film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves dates to the European Middle Ages. --FormerIP (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This time I think you may have misread. "The perspective of the stories seems to be that of Jews living under a relatively benign rule (the Persians?)" this doesn't mean that Persians wrote the stories, in context it means that their perspective seem to bear tell-tale signs of Jews living during the Persian rule, possibly. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. The thesis isn't that the tales were written at this time, it is that there is an influence from this time. --FormerIP (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Read it again carefully, please. It says no such thing about "influence from this time". Oxford clearly says, as you can read above, that the stories section (2-6) may have been written "a good deal earlier", and then it suggests evidence for the Persian period. Oxford here is summarizing a great deal of other scholarship that can be dug up if it isn't clear enough. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you are surmising that Oxford is saying something it doesn't actually say, but other sources clarify things differently, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surmising anything, I'm only telling you exact words that Oxford says, but our article doesn't say at all. Here it is again, in their own words, not mine (further sources saying the exact same to be added momentarily):

"However, it seems probable that while the visions come from the second century BCE, the stories (chs. 2-6) may be a good deal earlier. [...] The perspective of the stories seems to be that of Jews living under a relatively benign rule (the Persians?) while that of the visions suggest Jews in Judah under a malign ruler. It is therefore likely that the Book of Daniel has a long and complex history. This possibility is supported by the discovery of a story about an unknown Jewish exile and the Babylonian king Nabonidus, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls..."

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That the book of Daniel includes legends that have been around since before the book was written is not being disputed here at all. You're just obfuscating once again. If someone who knows how to do it wants to start some kind of behavioral thing here I'm very happy to contribute. Til needs restrictions on this and related entries because all he does is waste people's time.Griswaldo (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not enough sources yet? Here's more from a leading Aramaic expert, let me know if it still isn't enough

• "Therefore it being thus apparent that on the basis of foreign elements imbedded in Aramaic dialects, it is possible for the scholar to fix approximately the time and the locality in which the dialects were spoken; all the more then, as has been shown in the case of Daniel, such a date and locality are required by the vocabulary of the pure Aramaic substratum and favoured, or at least permitted, by its grammatical forms and structure, we are abundantly justified in concluding that the dialect of Daniel, containing as it does so many Persian, Hebrew and Babylonian elements, and so few Greek words, with not one Egyptian Latin or Arabic word, and being so nearly allied in grammatical form and structure to the older Aramaic dialects and in its conglomerate vocabulary to the dialects of Ezra and Egypto-Aramaic, must have been used at or near a time not long after the founding of the Persian empire." Robert Dick Wilson, "The Aramaic of Daniel" in Biblical and Theological Studies, 304

Can we please add Professor Wilson's assessment to the article? Let me guess: No, he isn't a reliable scholar, because his conclusion doesn't support current agendas. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert Dick Wilson died in 1930. When was this written and why did you conveniently leave the publishing date out? 1900? Earlier? Scholarship has come a long way since then. Please also read his entry to find out what his life's project was. Enough games Til.Griswaldo (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly has come a long way since then, but those few who argue that the entire book was written afresh in the 2nd C BC, rather than based on a much earlier an possibly shorter version, are still using the very same arguments Porphyry used. But, I guess the age of the author is cool as long as he fits the programme? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Gleason Archer is a more recent Bible scholar / theologian and Harvard PhD who took very similar views, but he is somewhat of a lesser scholar than Wilson IMO because he only could read 15 languages as opposed to Wilson's 45. But I suppose by wikipedia definition of "scholar" Archer is no scholar at all and is disqualified as a non-scholar, because he is a theist, and everyone knows a theist cannot be a scholar, right? Anyway, he famously wrote re: date of Daniel, that "The linguistic evidence from Qumran makes the rationalistic explanation [ie 165 BC] no longer tenable. It is difficult to see how any scholar can defend this view and maintain intellectual respectability." Oh yeah, we can't use him because he's only a Harvard PhD who spoke 15 languages, but as a theist he cannot be a scholar. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more current view, that I would call much more like "mainstream" than this article is; though there is still certainly nothing like "consensus":

• "The Aramaic legends of Daniel 4-6 probably date from the late Persian or early Hellenistic period. The book a whole, including the Hebrew chapters, dates from just before 164 BC" -- An Introduction to the Bible: Sacred Texts and Imperial Contexts, by David McLain Carr, 2010, p. 211.

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Til all of this is far from what you were arguing before. The book was written just before 164 BCE ... this is clearly undisputed. That it contains "legends" which predate this by some years and that may refer to even earlier periods in their content is not disputed nor does the current entry in any way contradict this. Why aren't you taking this to arbitration like you wanted to? At lest then we can settle your behavioral issues. You are wasting everyone's time.Griswaldo (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the early Hellenistic Period doesn't get close to the 6th century. But even that isn't the point since no none of your sources dispute the notion that the book was written when it was. Please give up on this.Griswaldo (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, aside from saying pointblank that there is no consensus on when the original form of Daniel was written, many of these sources are also saying that the book was redacted several times, including in 164 BC, and that this original form may have included fewer chapters, which could be far earlier, even as early as 530 BC. Also, I have found a fair number of scholarly sources arguing that 164 BC is only the date that the Hebrew parts were translated from a lost Aramaic original for those chapters (1, 8-12). I think if the article were honest, it would mention that pov, too. And here is yet another point of view, A Complete Introduction to the Bible by Christopher Gilbert 2009 p. 145-148, states that it's chapters 1 through 6 that are thought date to the Persian period, and the rest (7-12) to 164 BC.[1] It seems hardly any two scholars seem to agree on which chapters were written when. I'm sorry, but too many disagreements in Biblical scholarship to speak of "consensus" -- at least in any honest sense of the word. What would it take to satisfy you, how much clearer could it be? Anyway I'll keep looking anyway, since I enjoy finding more sources for you to read, and there are so many reliable sources saying what editors here don't want to accept, that this could keep me entertained for days. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"...this could keep me entertained for days." Is that why you're doing it? So you admit to trolling. Thanks, I'll remember that when it's needed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I always find it entertaining when editors are so committed to their position that they refuse to accept what reliable sources are saying in plain English -- or begin to argue that they are such eminent scholars as wikipedians, that they have the right to brush off or discount what the published experts are saying in their own words. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice try.Griswaldo (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, and that comment demonstrates a detachment from reality that is downright eerie. Eusebeus (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Still more difference of opinion / utter lack of consensus visible here: Here are some recent scholars stating in clear, unequivocal language, that Dan. 1-6 were written at various times within both the Persian AND Greek periods, while 7-12 were written and added "mostly" during the time of Antiochus. Funny though, our article doesn't mention that, but still pushes the outdated view that the whole thing was written in 165 BC... Hmm, I thought anyone claiming that any part of it was from the Persian era, was called on this talk page to be illegitimate; so I suppose these scholars are, by that definition, all "illegitimate", because it cannot be demonstrated that this is a "legitimate view"...

An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: A Thematic Approach By Sandra L. Gravett, Karla G. Bohmback, F. V. Greifenhagen, Donald C. Polaski, 2008, p. 355. [2]

Like I say - the reality is, every scholar has their own opinion on which chapters were written when - and you know what they say about opinions: but you DON'T call it "consensus", because it implies the exact opposite case. Our article needs to stop pretending there's anything like "consensus" on that point.. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhm no. These authors very ambigiously state that the "Book of Daniel includes a collection of stories (chapters 1-6) written and collected at various points during the Persian and Greek rule of Yehud. Like Esther, they are fiction that imagines imperial power." There is absolutely not "unequivocal language" about Daniel being written in an earlier period. There is very ambiguous language referring to a very large range of years in a way that basically tells us that some legends in the book are probably much older in origin. I wonder Til, when you grossly misrepresent something that is available to all to read if you think we are all that lazy?Griswaldo (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, I knew you'd look it up. But I am surprised that you disagree with my paraphrase. Don't they say that chapters 1 to 6 were written during the Persian and Greek rule? Isn't that what I said they said? Or do you have a different way of reading comprehension? Don't use my words, use theirs, and then tell me why this scholarly opinion of theirs isn't represented in the article. Is it "illegitimate" and disqualified simply because they claim parts of Daniel date to the Persian rule? Or could our article actually say (gasp) that some serious scholars disagree about whether some parts were written in the Persian rule? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, it is becoming unclear what your objective is now. What change are you now proposing to the article text?

No disrespect to the authors, but the latest source you provide has a glossary explaining words like "masculinity" and "metaphor" for the reader. It's an extremely generalist book. I think that once you have exhausted the best of the sources on google books and not found what you were searching for, you should probably give up. --FormerIP (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Former, the change I am proposing is that the article state that while there is consensus it was redacted in 164 BC, there is no consensus regarding the ultimate origin of the text - like my last edit says. You still don't believe me? And if that wasn;t disrespect to the authors, what is it? Your response writing off that book is a logical fallacy in so many ways. Finally, I haven;t exhausted anything. I'm only getting started. What is amusing is to see you guys with source after source, stick your fingers in your ears and say "I CAN'T READ THAT"! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I think half the struggle here is about being precise with language. Here are my objections to your proposal:

1) There is no consensus that the text was redacted in 164 BCE. "Redacted" means "compiled (entirely) from pre-existing sources", and I don't think there is any source that makes this claim. Scholars seem to be in agreement that at least some of the book was freshly composed at this time. On a less important note, a narrow range of dates is usually given, rather than 164 on the nose (although I have seen this, and also 165 on the nose).

2) There seems to be a very clear consensus about the ultimate origin of the text. Before approx 164 BCE there was no such text, so this is its "ultimate origin". There are theories advanced that the book incorporates pre-existing texts or orally-transmitted narratives, but this constitutes what sources refer to as the "pre-history" of Daniel. If you think the way this pre-history is presented in the article could do with work, then I think that may something worth talking about.

3) The article must not contain anything which may lead the reader to feel there is any possibility that a scholarly view might accord with the traditional view that Daniel dates to the 6th century BCE. This means it is not acceptable to just throw doubt on the scholarly dating without giving a full explanation. Juxtaposing "the traditional view is 6th century" with "the scholarly view is 2nd century" with "there is no consensus about the scholarly view" is clearly highly misleading (as well as inaccurate in the first place).

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, now that's an argument with logic I can follow. But I only saw one source (the one I quoted above) that uses the awkward phrase "pre-history of Daniel"; note that the others use instead use more precise language to say the same: "origin of Daniel", "finished in the 2nd century BCE, with a history of development", and most of the recent ones simply say the vision chapters are dated to Maccabean, while the story chapters are now dated earlier, as if they were two separate books. (Several sources I ran across even mentioned the theory that they really are two separate books, since 1-6 talk about Daniel, and in the 3rd person, whereas 7-12 are in the first person and anonymous, and could feasibly be someone else's prophecies that got attached to Daniel; but I didn't copy those parts since I was looking for statements about the date). But we may be getting somewhere near a compromise, because I agree that data on the various contradictory ideas in scholarship about the origin of the book, is deficient in this article.

Now here's a couple more scholarly opinions for the road, on recent developments regarding dating the Aramaic chapters:

• "Thus the major developments in the study of the Aramaic language appearing in Daniel have all tended to move the date for that writing earlier than critics believed. At present, Daniel's Aramaic is classified simply as "Imperial Aramaic" meaning that it fits well within the dates of the Persian Empire from the seventh to the fourth centuries B.C. The linguistic argument is no longer a serviceable argument against the earlier date of Daniel's Aramaic." Daniel: A Reader's Guide by Dr. William H. Shea, p. 28
• From a chapter about the Book of Enoch in another book, comparing it with Daniel: "This eagerness to keep pace with scientific progress in the case of the dating of the Parables [of Enoch] contrasts sharply with the prolonged reluctance in giving up a Maccabean date for Daniel, as for example the Qumran evidence seems to demand. (18) ... The Aramaic dialect in which the Qumran MSS of Daniel are written is the so called Imperial Aramaic, in use from 700 to 200 BC (cf. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean, 61). It is therefore a scientific non-sequitur when Hartman- DiLella, Daniel, 74, fully aware that "it seems best to place Daniel here" (ie 700-200 BC), still date it during the Maccabean period." The Son of Man: vision and interpretation By Chrys C. Caragounis p. 86. Scholarly enough for ya? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What I find incredible, is that some assume that modern scholars are automatically better and know better than all the other scholars throughout time. This is utterly insane. This is not a science. 75.220.13.4 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Til the first book you are quoting is published by a Seventh Day Adventist Press - Pacific Press Publishing Association. You also failed to cite the second passage adequately because it is in fact from a footnote. The statement footnoted by the text that you have partially quoted here makes a vague claim about how the the "Qumran evidence seems to demand" giving up the Maccabaean date for Daniel. So there you have it again. An unreliable source and then a source that you've had to selectively quote a footnote from. When is this nonsense going to end? Meanwhile you have been changing your tune. Clearly you care less about the 6th century dating that started this mess and much more about the simple act of trolling.Griswaldo (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bad, I forgot the local definition of "scholar" - theist sources are disqualified and cannot be used, because theists cannot be "scholars" and cannot even be quoted for their opinion -- only atheists can be scholars or be quoted for their opinion. How silly of me.

Seriously, what I care about is accuracy in the article. It is patently untrue that there is any thing like a consensus for the origin of Daniel, and patently untrue that there is anything like a consensus among scholarship that the book originated in 165 BC, unlike what our article falsely asserts. I thought the multitude of sources all indicating this were starting to get thru, but apparently not so I will be back with many, many more in the near future. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, it seems that theists who accept a 2nd century BC date for Daniel can be quoted. So on what grounds is the Seventh Day Adventist source disqualified? I know! Because it says parts of Daniel might be earlier than that. So you can say that there are no sources for this view and demand that I find some. I find some, and you say they don't count because you know they are wrong, and therefore there are no sources for this view. So therefore you demand that I find sources saying parts of Daniel might be earlier, with the caveat that any sources saying this are automatically disqualified: an impossible task, and a circular argument. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Til, we ought to be selecting the best sources, and I think it is wrong to approach this by running searches in Google books to try to find sources that back up what you already think. Probably most of the sources out there are written by theists, so we can't (and shouldn't wish to) easily avoid theists. However, there are theological questions that turn on the dating of Daniel, and we should be wary sources that may be written with the intention of supporting a particular religious point-of-view. Here is the website of Pacific Press [3], from which I think it is obvious that this is not a regular publisher of disinterested scholarship. --FormerIP (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it has nothing at all to do with the author being a theist or not. We judge reliability primarily based upon the method of publication Til and not authors personal beliefs, but you knew that already. The fact that the publisher is avowedly Seventh Day Adventist means, as FI insinuates, that there is a theological impetus in what is published by them in relation to biblical scholarship. Their books on the Bible are not "disinterested scholarship". On the contrary they are written specifically for a religious audience and as such they are written within certain theological parameters. Most biblical scholars are theists Til, but all we care about is that they are publishing in mainstream peer reviewed journals and academic presses. Once again you know this quite well so the obfuscation in your reply can only mean one thing. Best.Griswaldo (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Theism has nothing to do with this. It is undisputed that the text dates to the 2nd century BC. The question is, might there be still any genuine tradition of the Achaemenid period, 400 years earlier, preserved in this text? It's not impossible. The Iliad was composed at least 400 years after the Trojan war, and it may still contain genuine memories of the period, such as the catalogue of ships, even if most of the Iliad is unhistorical. Exactly the same question can be asked of the Book of Daniel, never mind "theism". --dab (𒁳) 08:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lately I have been seeing you all across wikipedia proclaiming that your POV is "undisputed" when in fact this is simply false. This will not go unchallenged. Your being an admin does not give your POV extra weight. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(I have reverted the edit this nonsense above refers to - mere fractious noise). Dab, your point is germane; the other thing worth noting, perhaps, is the presence in Daniel of the resurrection motif, which most scholars see as a late-developing motif in the judaic literature that was then picked up in the Christian narrative. However, many also note that the dating of the text does not preclude such motifs from having been derived from an earlier tradition, possibly the result of (like so much else in the OT) syncretic borrowing. Eusebeus (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What "pov"? I am not a Hebraist, I have no vested interest, and I have never even read the book in the original. This is not something I could make a judgement on. I merely look up expert literature, and I note that the experts are unanimous that the text is a Hellenistic era composition. No "pov", least of all of my own, not to mention my "admin status" (which I never even brought up), comes into this.

If for some people, like Til, this is a question of religious faith, it can be discussed as such, no problem. See WP:TIGERS. Discussion of religious convictions are subject to attribution to secondary scholarly literature. We don't want religionists writing our articles on their ideas any more than we want penguins writing our articles about penguins. See also WP:ENC. If Til has a good reference substantiating his view that the dating of an ancient text is a question of religious doctrine rather than philological expertise, let's see it. Pehaps he can at the same time show a reference that God hates intellect and reserves a special hell for encyclopedists so we can cut to the chase. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in responding to your hateful twisting of the argument. This is a disputed POV and should be fairly described as such; to pretend one disputed school of thought is "undisputed" will get you nowhere. All the references have already been given if you read this page carefully. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already agreed with you that the book very possibly contains material that is older than the date of the extant text. The numerous references you cite say exactly that, so we are in agreement. I don't see where "hate" comes in any more than "theism". You are the one who keeps trying to make this emotional or ideological. When I say that you are begging the question, this does not mean that my comment dates to the 4th century BC now, does it? Even though I couldn't say it without Aristotle having coined the phrase. Am I influenced by Aristotle? Yes. Am I therefore Aristotle? No. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you that it doesn't matter if you agree, or if I agree, or what our own opinions on the matter are, since we are not the experts. If you acknowledge that this is what sources say, perhaps there is some hope in finding a compromise wording, like clarifying the difference between the Textus Receptus, which I agree is indisputably dated to 2nd century BC, and hypotheses regarding previous editions Daniel. It's totally misleading to say everyone agrees that the entire thing was concocted in the 2nd century BC. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The extensive discussion on this talk page makes it clear you are pushing a fringe, POV view. Editors have engaged you in good faith about this and yet you continue to WP:OSTRICH in response. You have already been blocked for this obstreperousness, so you should desist from further POV pushing or risk being taken to AN/I again. In this context, your use of WP:3RR is wikilawyering since consensus here has already determined that your position is [WP:FRINGE]]. You make the same argument over and over but you have convinced no-one. So stop. Eusebeus (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may add an observation here. Having read the entire discussion, it seems to me that Til has provided sufficient sources to warrant a rewording of the article. An unbiased reader can find much evidence of controversy on this issue. Til might be favoring sources that support one side of the controversy, but that's in an attempt to prove the controversy, not simply to state his support for a particular side. The article as it is now clearly favors sources that support the later date. (Based on the presumption that an early date is impossible?) 41.132.33.46 (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If I understand Til correctly, he's arguing that some parts of Daniel are older than 165 BCE, possibly even Persian - and why not, since they seem to be folk-tales. His sources are reliable and his point isn't in the least fringe. PiCo (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You do not understand Til correctly. john k (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Adverb?

As the creator of the as-yet-unpublished adverb grammar userbox, I must ask: Is this grammar - or more correctly - grammatical?

The book is written part in Hebrew and part in Aramaic

Shouldn't the word by partly?Mzk1 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes! StAnselm (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! Now I have a great example for getting my Adverbial Userbox included! (Now if only I had as much success with what I believe is the misuse of the word scholarship.....

Removed footnote in opener

PiCo removed my reference in the opener showing, from the beginning of the book, that Daniel was a high government official. This footnote was put in by myself because the long-standing orginal text referred to him as head of magicians. I put in my reference to show that the original description is too narrow. So why remove the footnote - my statement had been contested, de facto, so it was important that I source it.Mzk1 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I took it out because I thought it could be taken for granted. In ancient Perisa, the head of the magicians was a high government official - "magic" was taken very seriously, and especially the interpretation of dreams. If people are reverting that statement, I suggest you simply give a direct quote from the bible (use a modern translation, it might not use the word "magicians"). PiCo (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, no! The reference I gave referred to him as appointed head of the entire province of (Medinat) Babylon and over all of the "wise men" (Chakimei) of Babylon. The original reference referred to the chapter given as a first-person account by Nevuchadnezzar. (This would, of course, open a hornet's nest, as the reader might assume he himself practiced magic, a capital crime in his religion - and everything else written about him attests to his piety.) Then, of course, we have the even higher office he was appointed to in the account of the handwriting on the wall, and the confirmation of the appointment by the conquerors. All of this in the original (or, I should say, traditional) Hebrew and Aramaic; the part I referenced actualy appears to be a blend of both, and most of the language is quite simple.

So what I was trying to do was give a general description that would cover everything and avoid controversy. Therefore I put in my reference, as apparently there are some who consider the "head of magicians" more important than the other descriptions. This is insurance against reversion. The reason I stated Masoretic Text is that the original gave a chapter/verse that was different from my (Masoretic) copy of Daniel. Assuming Good Faith, I presumed that there is more than one system, so I stated Masoretic Text to identify the numbering.Mzk1 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll put it back - I don't question that you're right, I was just concerned at the clutter of footnoes. PiCo (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you had insisted, I would have left it out.Mzk1 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss before making huge changes to the article.

This is your chance to discuss and reach a consensus with other interested editors before implementing changes to the article. Yes, it is important to be bold and make changes to articles, but when you make this many changes in a short time, without discussing it first, you give the impression that you're trying to push through a particular point-of-view or agenda. We attempt to adhere to a neutral point-of-view for all articles on Wikipedia; this means giving due weight to varying viewpoints, of which yours is one. Your changes removed reliable sources cited by the article, you also removed a table which provided clarity for a difficult concept, and such changes damage the integrity of the article, even if you were making some good points along the way. This is your chance now. Please discuss your changes here. Elizium23 (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. First of all, the charts didn't "clarify" anything.

1) There is no chart for the original Jewish interpretation still held to this day by the Jews, which was the Jewish-historical interpretation entry. This would also be the viewpoint of the "majority" of scholars, since secular historians only consider Daniel valid as Jewish apocalyptic literature. This is also the majority opinion of the Higher Critics. There are also Christian Historians (cited in the original entry) who would hold to this viewpoint. It's after the Maccabean Revolt where one gets into opposing and diverse viewpoints.

Moreover, as I also cited in the entry, Jesus commemorated Hannukah according to the Gospel of John, and the John of Revelation wrote his statements from the traditional five-kingdom viewpoint held at the time, with the Roman occupation being a different issues, and future connotations being a different issue.

So first the sub-header needs to be changed to "The Kingdoms," not "the four kingdoms," since half the world believes there were five. And it should go first, since it was the original viewpoint.

Hence, my first entry and my chart were completely valid and would have covered all those bases

2) I don't know where the first original chart came from, supposedly held by "most scholars," but it isn't close to correct. Even the Higher Critics of today would say my chart is right, and wouldn't even know what to make of this one. It seems to be the singular position of one Catholic Priest, as cited in the entry.

3) The "Historicist" chart was put up by some Adventist arguing the short-lived Protestant-Historicist position left over from the prophecy wars between the Catholics and Reformationists. It even has a direct attack on the Papacy in it! (I can't believe Wikipedea let someone post this up in a general article about the Book of Daniel.)

Given that there are four major schools of prophetic interpretation that came out of the (in my opinion, erroneous) four-kingdom theory--Historicism (both Catholic and Reformation, and well before), Futurism, Dispensationalism, and Preterism)--I have no idea why this one chart referring to one Historicist interpretation from one period of time is in here.

The chart I replaced it with would cover all the other major schools of interpretation in one fell swoop, since they all start the same way--they just have differing opinions of what happened/happens/will happen after the Roman occupation.

I preserved my original entries and charts to put them back up, as this section really needs to be straightened out--and one five-kingdom and one-four kingdom chart would do the trick.

The rest of the article has serious problems because some Seventh Day Adventist loaded it down with their minority church's bizarro interpretations of prophecy while failing to note the rest of the mainstream positions whatsoever. (And if you don't think they're bizzaro, Jim Jones and David Koresh, et al, came from Adventist Churches, and used it to kill people.)

The entries the way I did them took away the singularity of position, and covered all the bases in one fell swoop. Everybody gets their due--Jews, Christians, and Secularists alike.

(The original entries are on the discussion page above. Go back and look at them and you'll see what I mean.)

File it all under the heading "an organized person would always know where his towel is."

Ike Eickman (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a point about the Historicist interpretation. The historicist interpretation started long before the Protestant reformation, but it is THE interpretation of Bible prophecies that was the foundation for the Protestant Reformation. Every Reformation leader you can name held the historicist interpretation of prophecy. And, by it's very nature, it is anti-Roman Catholic. It is a fact of history, whether it is politically correct now or not. The Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the history of the world, so inclusion of the historicist understanding of Bible prophecy is demanded by history.

Because of its huge appeal and success around the world and its anti-Roman Catholic stance, priests of the newly formed Jesuit order developed two mutually exclusive counter reformation interpretations of Bible prophecies--Futurism and Preterism--during of the Council of Trent.

The historicist interpretation was held by almost all protestant churches from the Reformation times up to about the middle of the 19th century (approximately 500 years, which is hardly 'short lived'). Since the mid-19th century most protestant churches abandoned their former beliefs primarily for the new Dispensationalism. The SDA church is practically the last protestant church organization to hold strongly onto the Historicist interpretation. The Historicist chart accurately depicts the historicist interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel as held by protestants ever since Reformation times. And it is well sourced. Your attempt to combine the Protestant Reformation historicist interpretation with the Catholic counter-reformation's Futurist and Preterist interpretations with the modern Dispensationalist interpretation is terribly misdirected and shows a general ignorance of Christianity and Christian history.

But please, feel free to better develop the Critical scholar's understanding (what is it, maybe 200 years worth?) and the Jewish interpretation of the Book of Daniel. And, perhaps, even include the counter-reformation's Futurist and Preterist interpretations. Just be sure to have good sources.

P.S. David Koresh was "saved" in a Baptist church and then thrown out of the SDA church partly because of his beliefs and because of unwanted advances towards a pastors daughter. He joined a cult of extremist anti-SDA ex-SDAs becoming their leader as a "prophet". Jim Jones had never had anything to do with SDAs. Better check your facts and your church history. _8een4Tfor (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing. Given the numbers of Scholars and Jewish people in the world, wouldn't it be WP:UNDUE to overly promote these minority views compared with the numbers of Catholics and Protestants in the world (hundreds of millions)? _8een4Tfor (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your understanding of Historicism is completely in error, which was the very point I made.

Historicism happened by accident, after immediacy (or the doctrine of imminance) passed. The first Historicist doctrine was formulated by Victorinus in 300 AD. After each new event in the history of Christianity, a new version was formulated. As each new denomination formed, a new version was fabricated. So there are different forms of Historicism down through history, and Catholic, Reformation, Oththodox, etc forms of "Historicist" doctrines spread among Denominations. The version depicted in the chart is only one form at one point in history in one denomination. Hence, it has no place on a general page about the Book of Daniel.

In addition, all the other "major" schools of prophetic interpretation started from the same (erroneous) chart that the Historicists used to start from, with a four (not five) kingdom outline to try and make Rome the fifth (when John said it was the sixth).

Now, playing fair, I didn't say this was an error in my entry--but it was.

And your statement about Jim Jones is false, too. He was baptized in the Seventh Day Baptist Church, which was the predecessor to the Seventh Day Adventist Baptist Convention, which was later shortened to the Seventh Day Adventists. But it was the same group, teaching the same thing--just the name changed.

The point of this is, neither of these charts should be on a general page about the Book of Daniel. There should be one chart for the five-kingdom version taught by the Jews, some Christian scholars, and practically all historians and Higher Critics, and one chart to reflect the beginnings of the other Christian schools of prophetic interpretation--Historicism (of whatever form), Futurism/Dispensationalism, and Preterism (full or partial). They only differ in their opinions of how the chart continues after the Roman occupation and the destruction of the Temple.

The Historicists say the line continues unbroken, and this is the Millennium (i.e. amillennialist).

The Futurists/Dispensationalists say there is a gap between then and the End of the Age.

The Full Preterists say that Jesus returned at the destruction of the Temple, and this is the millennium.

The Partial Preterists say that there is a judgement of the churches' work still left to come after "this" millennium.

If you have one five-kingdom chart and one-four kingdom chart, you'll have all the major interpretations of Daniel covered, with the fact that there are variants noted.

And your snide comments turn back on yourself--you're the one who doesn't have a clue as to how the different schools of prophecy developed, nor what they teach. And your statement insinuating that the Jews shouldn't be represented in an encylopedic reference smacks of anti-Semitism, especially when everything Christians are is rooted in the Israelites.

What I presented is a fair and balanced guide to understanding the history of the interpretations of the book of Daniel. What you present is the bullshit that messed up the article in the first place.

Ike Eickman (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything you have said will have to be backed up with reliable sources. I can hardly wait.  :) I notice that you are an author of a book about Bible prophecy. Be advised that nothing from your book will be allowed on WP because it is OR. You will have to quote other sources and any synthesis by you is not allowed. _8een4Tfor (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

God save us from the single-minded "thinkers."

The entry was already backed up--by other wikipedia articles, and by the content of the article itself leading up to this point.

Nevertheless, here is one article about Jewish apocalyptic thought before the Roman occupation, when the Jews considered prophecy fulfilled in the events of the Maccabean Revolt, versus the revisionist eschatology that arose with the Roman occupation.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/re/jewish-apocalyptic_bruce.pdf

This is why John--a Jew--referred to FIVE kings that were, not four, with Rome being the sixth, not the fifth (as in revised eschatology). That the Jews considered Daniel, et al, "fulfilled" in the events of the Maccabean Revolt was commonplace. Even Jesus went up to the feast of the dedication, i.e. Hannukah.

However, in the entry, I did NOT argue one position over the other--I simply pointed out that there was a five-kingdom interpretation supported by Jesus' actions and John's statement, and a four-version one (not including the Roman occupation) used by everyone else.

Oh, and the reason people like you can't understand prophecy is your LACK of "synthesis." Until you start reading and thinking about Bible prophecy three-dimensionally, you'll never get it.

But I didn't make that argument in my entry, did I?

Ike Eickman (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, we're not supposed to be writing WP:OR and we're supposed to avoid WP:SYNTH. Please bear this in mind. Synthesis is what we are trying to avoid here. We are not supposed to be interpreting Bible prophecy, we are supposed to be citing WP:RS which talk about interpreting Bible prophecy as it is relevant to the topic of this article. Secondly, what is there in that article by Bruce which you believe provides adequate referencing for your table? It certainly does not show that first century Jews believed that Daniel was completely fulfilled in the Maccabean era; on the contrary, it shows they re-interpreted the prophecy to apply to the Romans.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't synthesis nor interpret anything in the entry--this discussion is wandering off topic because the previous poster is stumping for one interpetation of prophecy by one group at one point in time in history, which is the problem with the article in the first place. There is one explantion of the "kingdoms" in Daniel's prophecy from one variant Catholic perspective, and one variant from the Adventist perspective. Instead of sticking to broad catagories and scholarly observations, it's bogged down with singular perspectives (and primarily Christian ones at that--no Jewish perspectives, and Daniel was Jewish to begin with, not Christian.)

And the article DOES show that the Jews before the Roman occupation thought Daniel was fulfilled. In fact, that's how all of the Old Testament prophets got canonized--the Jews thouht they were fulfilled, and as each prophecy came to pass (in the immediate sense), they included them in the canon. Daniel was the last prophetic book canonized because it had the farthest ranging prophecies (and it's final form came into existance last).

The Jews didn't reinterpret Daniel until they had cause to. In fact, what happened in Jewish eschatology is exactly the same as what happened to Christian eschatology.

Was prophecy extended? Does it pick up somewhere else? Is it repeated?

In light of these questions, you have Jewish historicism just like Christian historicism, and Jewish "preterism" just like Christian Preterism, and a Jewish sort of Dispensationalism just like Christian dispensationalism. (See the article on Jewish Eschatology.)

These are all valid arguments forwarded by modern historians and critics, and the parallels are important to understanding the development of prophetic interpretation.

The present article is severely lacking in perspective because people keep stumping for singular positions.

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to your explicit endorsement of synthesis. The article you cited does not substantiate your entire chart, if any of it. It demonstrates that in the first century some of the prophecies of Daniel were considered to have been fulfilled in the past, but some were considered fulfilled in the first century and that others had been considered fulfilled in the past but were reinterpreted to fit the first century. Your chart mentions none of this, and the article does not substantiate all the claims of your chart. I also note no mention in your chart of the early Jewish interpretation of the bear as Persian, the fact that Josephus and Johanan interpreted the fourth kingdom as Roman. But the complete lack of substantiating references is the major problem.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I made no such "endorsment of sythesis" in my entry.

Second, stop and engage your brain for a moment: As the Jews considered each prophecy of each prophet fulfilled in their history, it was added to the canon of the Tanahk.

The first volume (the Pentetauch) was canonized during the Babylonian exile.

The second volume was canonized after the return. Ezra even says that "the Jews built and prospered according to the prophecies of Haggai and Zecheriah..." In other words, this Jewish historian considered those prophecies fulfilled, without any future implications--those problems didn't start until the Roman occupation, when people started asking themselves "what happened?" The only thing I did was point out two biblical facts: 1) Jesus observed Hanukkah, and 2) John said there were "five (not four) that were, and one that is...," dealing with Rome and any other future implications as separate issues. (And I didn't say that in the entry--I just included the facts.)

The third volume was canonized sometime around the time of the Maccabean Revolt, and included Daniel, which wasn't included in the first two volumes. That's because Daniel was the last Old Testament prophecy fulfilled (at that time), well after the first two volumes were established. If the Jews didn't consider Dnaiel fulfilled then (not at some future time), they wouldn't have canonized it.

All this other stuff arose in both Judiasm and Christianity later, when people started wondering what happened.

When discussing Daniel, you first have to stop and think like a Jew at the end of the Maccabean Revolt, not like a person from the 21st century.

All other implications arose after that.

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

When first criticism of your synthesis was made, you explicitly defended synthesis by writing "Oh, and the reason people like you can't understand prophecy is your LACK of "synthesis." " The rest of what you wrote is completely WP:OR, without a single WP:RS. This is characteristic of your entire approach to the article. I really don't think you understand Wikipedia yet.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding information to the article about various beliefs concerning the prophecies of Daniel. But, your editing was removing valid sourced material on several methods of biblical interpretation and also trying to merge mutually exclusive interpretations as if they were the same (i.e. historicism, futurism, preterism, etc.) Remember, WP isn't interested in truth, but only what can be validated by reliable sources. _8een4Tfor (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

???

First, what kind of asinine statement was "WP isn't interested in truth?" WHOSE "truth?" Your "truth?" My "truth?" WP is interested in broad-based substantiatable articles that cover majority positions. Minority opinions are noted later, or belong on pages discussing those minority opinions.

Second, no one is interested in pimping for singular positions in a general article. Right now there is one chart from a Catholic priest presenting a variant position (splitting the five kingdoms at Media and Persia rather than the Ptolemys and Seleucids, which I had never heard of), and one chart from an Adventist presenting a variant position (Adventist) of a variant position (Baptist) of a variant position (Reformationist) of a variant position (Historicism from the 4th Century AD).

Neither one represents broad-based consensus.

Variations can be noted AFTER the main charts, but they shouldn't BE the main charts. There should be one chart for the general five-kingdom position, and one for the general four-kingdom position, with a general statement about who subscribes to each, and then a discription of the various issues that arise after that--Secular interpretation (nothing), Jewish and Christian Historicism (stretching), Futurism/Dispensationalism (a gap), Preterism (all fulfilled), or some manner of reiteration. Then variants can be noted afterward, if required.

(I did the same thing with the "Son of Perdition" article, and it was taken down, too--I still have to go back and argue that one.)

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Truth period. The only thing that matters is if an article is based on reliable sources. That's it.

The interpretations of Daniel should be presented in historical order, not by overwhelming consensus order. It that happens to agree, fine.

The main theme of historicist interpretation from Jewish through Protestant today has remained consistent over time, with minor modifications added over the 4th Dim of time toward the position held today (see Frooms Prophetic Faith of our Fathers). It was the major cause of the Protestant reformation and the resulting impact on history, most obviously seen as resulting in major wars and such over many centuries. This is not some insignificant interpretation of the prophecies, whether true or false. _8een4Tfor (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

First, what I present IS the "historical order" of the interpretation of Daniel.

Second, you did it again: WHOSE "HISTORICM" ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

1) Historicm was taught from the 4th century to the present, and it was NOT the Reformationists' version. It was changed every time a major event happened in the history of the church. It split between Catholocism and Orthodoxy at the East-West Schism, c. 1000 AD. It split again at the Reformation/Counter Reformation c. 1500 AD.

2) Historicism isn't even a majority teaching among Protestants. Half of them subscribe to Dispensationalism, Preterism (full or partial), Idealism, and now, Realized/Sapiential Eschatology.

You're still stumping for YOUR position, not the BROAD position.

Your position is a minority (Protestant Historicism) among a minority (Protestants in general) among a minority (Catholicism versus Orthodoxy versus Protestantism) among a minority (the Church throughout history).

I meantion all the major groups in the entry--I'm NOT going to single out yours as any more or less significant as the others.

The entry is about the TWO different interpretations of the Kingdoms of Daniel, not YOUR intepretation of the Kingdoms in Daniel. YOUR interpretation is just one derivative of the two main approachs--the five and the four kingdom interpretations. Every other opinion emanates from there.

Yeesh, you're single-minded.

Ike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eickman (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I'm doing. I'm going to rework the entry in the sandbox, and repost it to the article. If anyone has a problem with it, they can tag it. If anyone removes it, then I'll file a dispute demonstrating that the present entry only supports a couple of minority viewpoints, and my entry covers all viewpoints, without getting into specific details supporting one group's viewpoint over any others--that stuff is (or should be) in individual articles covering those viewpoints, like Jewish eschatology, Historicism, Futurism, Dispensationalism, Preterism, etc.

And as to the "valuable resources," there aren't any in the article of a substantial nature

Ike Eickman (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you post has to be properly supported by WP:RS. If it isn't, it will be removed.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I put a draft of the revised section at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eickman

Oh, and while the article is fully supported (with more references to come), they don't have to be fully supported initially--that's what the "citations needed" tag is for--and they're all over Wikipedia.

All the article has to do is get the premise right--the support can be added later.

If you have a problem after it goes up, TAG IT.

If someone takes it down again, they'll be explaining in a dispute why everyones' position can't be represented.

Ike Eickman (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you'll need to take into account the following articles: Daniel 2, Fiery furnace, The writing on the wall, Daniel 7, Daniel 8, Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, Daniel 11 - these all deconstruct individual chapters of Daniel and many of them contain the Historicist chart and other elements of the main article that you may be interested in improving. Elizium23 (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article on Historicm needs to be updated first. It starts out fine, linking the origins of Historicism back to the 4th century, but then it only goes on to describe 16th century Protestant Historicism, not the Orthodox or Catholic versions.

Found this good article on Orthodox Historicism...

http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/05/67-77Petraru.pdf

I still need to find a clear one on the Catholic interpretation.

P.S. did you get a chance to look at my rewrite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eickman

This one covers all the bases that I can think of, with links to every position I can find (so far).

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is my final draft of the entry.

DON'T CHANGE THE ENTRY. Make notes (or I'll have to do a revert and loose everyone's comments, or search for revisions).

Recommendations:

1) Drop the section and chart for the variant Catholic argument, which I moved to "other issues" in the second part of the new entry, preserving the citation.

2) Move the present Reformation chart to "Historicism (Christianity)" under the section on Reformation interpretation, etc.

3) Replace the current section with this one.

4) Copy and adapt the "post-Roman" part of my version to the "Historicism (Christianity)" page, since there is little in that article that discusses Historicism from the 4th to 16th Centuries (i.e. pre-Reformation Historicism), as currently taught by the Catholic, Orthodox, and some Protestant churches that have reverted back to the original.

5) I would recommend that the page be partially locked afterward, or every sectarian will keep trying to change the broad-based statements to stump for their minority positions.

6) I would also recommend that the "Book of Daniel" entry be reordered, as interpretation should be discussed before criticism. How is one to interpret criticisms if one doesn't know what's being criticised?

The replacement entry:

________

The Kingdoms

Pre-Roman interpretation

Referencing the canonization of Jewish scripture, most likely ending during the Hosmonean period, [see Development of the Jewish canon and Bible canon/Jewish] some contemporary Jews and Christians, and most secular historians and higher critics advocate a scheme of interpreting the kingdoms in the Book of Daniel according to their periods of control over Judea, culminating in the events of the Maccabean Revolt, before the involvement of the Roman Empire in Jewish affairs.

The pre-Roman scheme includes:

(1) The Neo-Babylonian period of involvement from c. 587-539 BC,

(2) the Medo-Persian period of involvement from c. 539-332 BC,

(3) the Macedonian period of involvement, starting with Alexander the Great and continuing through the Diadochi from c. 332-305 BC to

(4) the Ptolemaic period of involvement from c. 305-219 BC, and

(5) the Seleucid period of involvment starting with Antiochus III Megas and culimating in the events of the Maccabean Revolt and the confrontation with Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

The Maccabean Revolt concluded with the Jews' victory over the Seleucids on the Day of Nicanor, 161 BC.

The following chart lays out the typical pre-Roman interpretation of the Book of Daniel.

Chapter	Pre-Roman interpretation of Daniel's kingdoms
	Pre-Maccabean Revolt				Maccabean Revolt	Future Perspective (if any)
Daniel 2	Gold Head is Babylon	Silver Arms are Medo-Pesian	Bronze Torso is Macedonia	Legs of Iron are the Ptolemies and Seleucids	Feet of Iron & Clay are kingdoms under Antiochus III Megas. "Little horn" is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The "Stone" is Judas Maccabees.	Separate issues
Daniel 7		Winged Lion is Medo-Persia	Lopsided Bear is Macedonia	Four-winged Leapoard is Diodachi, leads to Ptolemys and Seleucids	Iron-toothed beast is combined Empires under Antiochus IV Epiphanes	Separate issues
Daniel 8		2-horned Ram is Medo-Persia	4-horned Goat is Macedonia	Ptolemys and Seleucids	Combined Empires	Seperate issues
Daniel 11-12		Kings of Medo-Persia	Macedonia	Ptolemies and Seleucids	Combined Empires	Separate issues

Separate issues:

-Some secular historians and certain critics would say that the book of Daniel has little to no significance beyond its historical setting.

-Certain Reconstructionists, Idealists, and the advocates of Realized/Sapiential Eschatology would say that the Book of Daniel is historical, but it is significant as godly instruction.

-In Revelation 17:10, John divided the kingdoms the same way as the Jews of his day would have, speaking of five kings that "were" (from Babylon to the Seleucids), one that "is" (the Roman Empire), with a seventh that was "yet to come" which would "become an eighth, but is of the seven." John's declaration established a triunism (or trinity, or typology)^{will add additional citations} of three distinct and compartmentalized iterations of Daniel's prophecies--one pertaining to ancient Jewish history, one pertaining to the intermediate history of Christianity, and one pertaining to the End of the Age. This being the case, John's parsing of the first set of kingdoms into "five" (not four) that "were" supports the pre-Roman interpretation of Daniel's prophecies.

-Insofar as Judaism and Christianity is concerned, the Jews' cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem near the midpoint of the Maccabean Revolt is commemorated annually at Hanukkah, which Jesus observed according to John 10:22.

Post-Roman interpretation

Jewish and Christian Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, Partial Preterists, and other futuristic Jewish and Christian hybrids, as well as certain Messianic Jews typically believe that the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) are:

(1) the Neo-Babylonian Empire

(2) the Medo-Persian Empire

(3) the Macedonian Empire of Alexander and his successors

(4) the Ptolomaic and Seleucid Empires together, and

(5) the Roman Empire, with other implications to come later.

The conclusion of this scheme is described by Jerome:

"And yet to understand the final portions of Daniel a detailed investigation of Greek history is necessary, that is to say, such authorities as Sutorius, Callinicus, Diodorus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius, Claudius, Theon, and Andronycus surnamed Alipius, historians whom Porphyry claims to have followed, Josephus also and those whom he cites, and especially our own historian, Livy, and Pompeius Trogus, and Justinus. All these men narrate the history involved in Daniel's final vision, carrying it beyond the time of Alexander to the days of Caesar Augustus in their description of the Syrian and Egyptian wars, i.e., those of Seleucus, Antiochus, and the Ptolemies."

Full Preterists, Idealists, certain Reconstructionists and other non-futurists likewise typically believe in the same general sequence, but they teach that Daniel's prophecies ended with the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, and have little to no implications beyond that.

All of these schools of prophetic thought typically start from the same basic premise (with variations), but differ in their conclusions (as described afterward):

Chapter	Post-Roman Interpretation of the Book of Daniel
	Jewish History				Roman Occupation	Future
Daniel 2	Head of God is Babylon	Two Arms are Medo-Persia	Torso is Macedonia	Two legs are Ptolemys and Seleucids	Feet are Romans	Separate issues
Daniel 7		Winged Lion is Medo-Persia	Lopsided Bear is Macedonia	Leopard is Ptolemys & Seleucids	Iron-toothed beast is Romans	Separate issues
Daniel 8		Ram is Medo-Persia	Goat is Macedonia	Little Horn is Seleucids	The "Son of Man" cleanses the Sanctuary during the Roman occupation	Seperate issues
Daniel 11-12		Medo-Persia	Macedonia	Ptolemys and Seleucids	Romans	Separate issues

Separate issues:

The following statements are archetypical, and do not represent every variant of this mode of interpeting Daniel's kingdoms:

-Jewish and Christian Historicists (as generally taught in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Churches) believe that the prophecies of Daniel continue in a straight line through to the End of the Age.

-Other scholars argue that there was a split betwen the Medes and Persians, not the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

-In the Protestant version of Historicism, the Reformers changed the order of kingdoms to claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the "whore of Babylon" and the papacy was the "antichrist." The Catholics reciprocated by claiming that the Reformers were the "seven heads of the beast," etc.

-Jewish and Christian Futurists, Dispensationalists, and, to some degree, Partial Preterists believe that the prophecies of Daniel resume at some point in the future after a gap in prophecy that accounts for the Church Age.

-Jewish Reconstructionists and Full Preterists believe that Daniel is completely fulfilled, and that the believers are now working to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.

_________

Ike Eickman (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

move

Moved the variant Catholic position to a note under "other issues" in the four kingdom interpretation.

Copied the Historicist interpretation to "Historicism (Christianity)."

Also wrote sections of "Historicism (Christianity)" covering Historicm from the 4th century to the Reformation, and one about post-Reformation Historicism, inserted before Adventist section.

Ready to insert new section on 4 versus 5 kingdom interpretations into place.

Ike Eickman (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdoms

Eickman, virtually everything you have contributed here is WP:OR. You have used hardly any sources at all, and certainly none which substantiate your personal claims. Please substantiate your edit with WP:RS, or it will be replaced with properly referenced material.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

One more time for the moron: If you have a dispute, TAG IT, AND FILE A DISPUTE.

I did, and I was sent back to revise the article, which I did.

The system administrator then told me to look at other articles that needed revision as well.

And the POINT of the revisions is to get sectarian b.s. off the main pages, and onto separate subject pages.

There is already links to Historicism, Preterism, Dispensationalism, Idealism, Judaism, etc, etc.

You will NOT be putting sectarian positions BACK on these pages.

They go under their individual subject headings.

(This is why I told the administrator that the pages will have to be protected after revision--so sectarians like you can't load them back up with individual viewpoints again. That stuff goes elsewhere.)

Ike 10:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eickman (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry that's not good enough. You're not at liberty to make unsubstantiated claims in the article and then request that others find supporting references for them. Moreover, other editors should not have to file dispute notices, you should cooperate with them to improve the article. Anyone can see from my edits here that I take a non-sectarian approach to this article. I will revise your edits accordingly.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged your edits for their numerous breaches of Wiki policy and lack of referencing.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, what you've done is prove you're clueless.

1) DID YOU READ THE TAG THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR PUT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE? OBJECTIONS ARE TO GO TO THE DISCUSSION PAGE WHILE THE PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. STOP BEING A PEST. YOU'RE NOT HELPING--YOUR GRINDING YOUR PERSONAL AXE like an immature little child. And it's not ME you're embarrassing, IT'S YOURSELF.

2) A few of the entries DO need citations, but links to other Wikipedia articles ARE the citations. Do you even remotely understand the concept of BRANCHING?

One of the reasons the article is being flagged for being too big is that people aren't BRANCHING to other links where there are CITATIONS supporting THOSE PARTICULAR POSITIONS. One DOESN'T HAVE TO RE-INVENT THE LIGHTBULB everytime one needs a new lightbulb.

2) I fixed the broken link. And if you had bothered to READ the sermon/discussion between Branham and Billy Gramham, you would have found in paragraph 40 this "trinities" statement...

40 Jesus come three times. He came the first time to redeem His Church. He comes the second time to receive His Church. He comes the third time with His Church. EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE TRAVELS IN TRINITIES, THREES, but all in one Christ. He... Remember, the first time to redeem His Church, the second time to receive His Church, the third time with His Church, as King and Queen. Now, but on His first coming, we'll speak of just a little bit, and then on His being here; and then on His second coming; on His--and then on the third time; if the Lord willing.

(And if I could figure out a way to link directly to that paragraph, I would.)

The problem with Branham's statement is that not every triunism is a "trinity," which is a confusion of terms.

Scholars ALSO use the term "typology," but usually only in twos.

I'll add more references from the THOUSANDS of them out there later.

3) You demonstrate your ignorance of the Bible and Jewish traditions: Citing that John said Jesus "went up to the feast of the Dedication which is held in the winter," i.e. HANUKKAH, is NOT "original research." ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE (which you don't) KNOWS that "the feast of the dedication that is held in the winter IS HANUKKAH. And you DON'T NEED CITATIONS to CITE A STATEMENT OF FACT (especially when there is a link to the "Hanukkah" page).

4) Citing that John spoke five kingdoms that "were," one that "is," etc. is ALSO A STATEMENT OF FACT. And the concept of TRIUNISM/TRINITIES/TYPOLOGY is ALL OVER CHRISTIAN LITERATURE.

What is your MAJOR MALFUNCTION?

Ike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eickman (talk • contribs) 07:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to tag, so I tagged. Predictably, you now abuse me for doing what you asked me to do, and you are failing to address any of your reference errors. The sentence regarding Hannukah which I tagged contained WP:OR, and I'm not referring to the Scripture passage you cited. The rest of what you wrote here is a combination of WP:OR and lack of referencing. The link you gave is not WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the additional tags. The administrator ALREADY TAGGED THE PAGE, with instructions; but SOMEBODY doesn't PAY ATTENTION to instructions.

I also went through and marked where I need to add additional citations. (As if there aren't thousands of them.)

NOW STOP PLAYING ADMINSTRATOR.

Ike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eickman (talk • contribs) 08:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding unreferenced content and WP:OR?--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

New questions

1) Why is criticism consistantly ahead of tradition in all of the entries? How do people know what is being criticised if they haven't heard of the tradition yet?

For instance, why is "Dating and content" AFTER "Historical accuracy?" Doesn't one have to have an idea when the book is written and what people say the book is about before you can cricize its accuracy?

2) What is the sole Adventist position on "Literary structure" doing here, instead of an a "Chiasm" page, with a link to there?

3) Shouldn't the "Unity of Daniel" section be fused into the introduction, since they are saying nearly the same thing.

4) What is the "Traditional Tomb Sites" section doing here if there is already a page for it, and the subject relates to the life of Daniel (the "Daniel" page), and has little to nothing to do with the "Book of Daniel" page?

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate references

This reference is WP:OR

• http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm

This reference is not WP:NOTE or WP:RS.

• http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=10

This reference does not say that the Orthodox have their own version of Historicism; it does not say anything about Historicism at all.

• Gheorghe Petraru, Phd,http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/05/67-77Petraru.pdf

And that's because you won't find the term "Historicism" applied in Orthodox or Catholic documents--only from the outside. They both simply assume that their version of eschatology is the original correct version. You don't need a name for something until someone comes up with something different, so, until the Protestants came up with something different--Protestant Historicism--there was no need to have a name for it--everyone was generally on the same page. So for 1,200 years, you won't find any Catholic or Orthodox documents that say "Historicist," even though their eschatology is obviously Historicist.

The Patraru article is written in a Orthodox "Historicist" mode of assumptions (especially when he jumps on Protestant eschatology).

And herein lies another problem: I'm having difficulty finding a single source that gives a point-by-point comparison of Catholic and Orthodox eschatology (historicist).

I can find pieces everywhere, but not a single source that will cover all things.

Catholic bibles have additional apocalyptic books that Orthodox bibles don't, so they're automatically different.

Roman Catholics declare that anyone that isn't Roman Catholic (including the Orthodox) are "heretics" and "fallen." Orthodoxy says the same thing about everyone else. That makes them different.

Orthodoxy doesn't believe in (and actually prohibited) interpretation of prophecy, declaring that prophecy is a mystery that can't be understood, whereas Catholics are more interpretive, ascribing content to prophecies (but not as interpretive as the Protestant, who go WAY overboard, as per Protestant Historicism).

But try to find a good single source that notes all these things.

The Oxford handbook of eschatology has a comparison of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox eschatololgy, but I don't have one, and don't know anyone who does--I've only seen the abstract.

But if there is a section in the handbook on the differences, then they must be "different."

Ike Eickman (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your two tables still have absolutely no supporting references whatsoever.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And they won't. They're illustrative of every other argument on the "book of Daniel" and the eschatology pages.

All arguments about Daniel now proceed from two points of reference--either one believes that Daniel is about the period from the destruction of the temple to the Maccabean Revolt, and the Roman thing was concocted later (Bruce), or one believes that Daniel was prophesying all the way to Roman times (tradition).

It's after that the differences arise (i.e. historicism, preterism, reconstructionism, etc, etc)

The chart illustrates the rest of the article, and, in fact, every argument on every page about Daniel's prophecies and/or eschatology.

It's not "original research." It's simply a chart that summarize what everyone is arguing about.

All the other arguments proceed from these two arguments, i.e. what comes after? Done? A line? A gap? a reiteration?

I don't need a "citation" to summarize what's on the very page the chart is summarizing, and the rest of the "citation" of the chart are all the pages discussing eschatology.

That's why I went through the "seperate issues" sections and linked to every page of every group I could find within the scope of the two arguments--ante-Roman or anti-Roman.

This is also why it was important to fix the "Historicm (Christianity)" page--it was outrageously lacking discussion of anyones' position except the Adventist one. Hence, it had to be fixed before I could use it as a reliable link.

Ike Eickman (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Look can you all calm down please, especially Ike. Firstly, Ike, you are making too many changes too fast for them to be discussed on the talkpage. Secondly, it is hardly possible to discuss changes on the talkpage when people are being called idiots and the like. Thirdly, the request, for example, for an explanation of the use of [4] as a reference seems reasonable to me.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the same problem I have with the Cathololic/Orthodox thing.

People have been using these terms "triunism/trinities/typology" for so long that no one thought to write down and record a solid definition of the terms--they've become assumptions in religious speak.

And it doesn't help when one theologian uses a term differently from the others.

For instance, the Trinity is a triunism, but not every triunism is about the Trinity, so it doesn't help to use the term "trinities" (like Branham in the Graham/Branam discussion) where it should be "triunism."

And then there is the problem with using the term "typology." When theologians use the term "typology," they usually only do it in twos, but one man's "typology" is actually another man's "triunism."

For instance, some would say that John the Baptist was a "type" of Elijah. Others would argue that John the Baptist foreshadowed the coming of Elijah in the End of the Age, as a "type." What the two goofballs in this theoretical argument don't understand is that their two "types" are a "triunism."

So the problem here is assembly, not reference, and again, I can't find a single source that covers everything--I'll have to cobble it together from multiple sources. But they're all really talking about the same thing.

Ike Eickman (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

2) Why is a sermon a suitable reference? Fourthly a request for page numbers is entirely reasonable. Page numbers should be provided. However, a request for page numbers in the same breath as a claim of misrepresentation seems odd. Lack of page numbers is not misrepresentation. If the allegation of misrep. applies to something else, please make it clearer. Fifthly, it is not OK to use wikipedia links as references/citations. This is clear policy. Sixthly, using capitals in communications is considered to be shouting and therefore somewhat aggressive.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

When you say " I can't find a single source that covers everything--I'll have to cobble it together from multiple sources. But they're all really talking about the same thing", that's WP:SYNTH.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, other articles have to be used as references.

For instance, you wanted me to cite an article about the differences between Orthodox and Catholic Historicism, but that argument belongs on the "Historicist" page, with a link to it from the "Book of Daniel" page. Otherwise, the pages get bloated, and you wind up with the warning at the top of the "Book of Daniel" page--it's too long because people are not branching.

Now imagine I have to re-argue the specifics of every single school of prophetic thought cited.

No way.

And where is this "clear policy" that says that articles shouldn't rely on other subordinate articles? Wikipedia is requesting that moves be made.

You're not making any sense.

Ike Eickman (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

3) May I suggest that you take a passage to be altered, Ike posts it here with citations. Other editors raise sensible questions or objections and they are politely answered. If for example, as above, it is claimed This reference does not say that the Orthodox have their own version of Historicism; it does not say anything about Historicism at all., the response to that is to give the page numbers of where this is stated and/or type out a brief passage if it's not too long. Both of you imply that you have this source by the nature of your comments so it shouldn't be difficult.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, link to the "Historicist" page where it should be discussed.

Your way bloats articles.

Ike Eickman (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

4)Finally Ike - please don't suggest your actions are somehow "admin approved" because of past advice. Your opponents are right in saying you have not used dispute resolution procedures. Something has to happen beyond tagging. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't claimed that missing page numbers constitute misrepresentation, the diff I provided here lists source misrepresentation separate from missing page numbers], and identifies instances of each. The Petrau source is being misrepresented for a start.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. maybe it just came out a bit confusingly on the page. Regarding petrau, tell us please what you say the source actually says. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You may have missed the colon introducing the sources (it's not very noticeable in the diff). Petraru's aim is to compare and contrast the Orthodox eschatology with political and secular eschatology, while commenting on neo-protestant millennialism:

• "The aim of the article is to offer a synthetic vision on the Christian Orthodox Church eschatology comparing with the political and secular eschatologies of the modernity. On the other hand, intends to present a vision on the millenialist eschatologism of the neoprotestant sects."
• It describes the main topics of Orthodox eschatology as "death and personal judgment, Parousia and the Resurrection, universal judgment and eternal life in the Kingdom of God, the new world in communion with the Trinity, or in hell as a place and a state out of the God’s eternal love".
• Contrary to Historicist interpretations, which view Scriptural eschatology as a gradual unfolding of historical events throughout time, Petraru says that "Eschatology is not a time category but a transcendent one and the modern view of being as time; the time restricted to a becoming history into an undetermined future does not suit to the biblical and Christian-orthodox vision".
• The article spends several pages on secular eschatology, before describing Christian amillennialism, postmillennialism, historical premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism, all of which it rejects explicitly. The emphasis is a personal mystical eschatology, as one would expect from an Orthodox treatment of the topic.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For some reason my comments above were split up and had Taiwanboi's sig added to them. I have restored my sig and numbered the points. It gets very confusing if editors edit inbetween other edits. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Added more good scholarly references to the "pre-Roman" section.

Copied over Taiwan boi's Historicm chart that matches Jerome's analysis to the "post-Roman" section. Will add other references to variations later.

Ike Eickman (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

STOP attacking the Lanier reference

Lanier was a Southern historian and theologian during American Reconstructionism. He produced his works for the head of the Atlanta Unitarian Church. He self-published them because just about EVERYONE in the South was self-publishing them in the years following the Civil War, including Samuel Clement, a.k.a. Mark Twain. (In fact, Lanier and Mark Twain died about two years apart.) Lanier is an important part of the development of Unitarian theology, which is why Union Theological Seminary digitized his writings and made them available.

This is NOT what Wikipedia was talking about in regrads to the "self-publishing" rule.

(And, of course, you never notified me when you asked for an opinion on this reference, since you are totally ignorant of who he was and what he did.)

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpretations

________

Traditional Jewish and historical five-kingdom interpretation

Most Jewish scholars, some Christian scholars (e.g. Stuart, Lagrange), and most Higher Critics (without reference to any future application of the prophecies) advocate the traditional Jewish schema: (1) the Neo-Babylonian Empire, (2) the Medo-Persian Empire, (3) the Macedonian Empire under Alexander, (4) the Ptolemaic Empire of Egypt, and (5) the Seleucid Empire of Syria, with Daniel's prophecies culimating in the events of the Maccabean Revolt. It was on this basis--i.e. that Daniel was initially fulfilled in the events of the Maccabean Revolt--that the Jews canonized the Book of Daniel.

The event is commemorated annually at Hanukkah, which Jesus observed according to John 10:22.

In Revelation 17:10, John divided the kingdoms the same way as the Jews of his day would have, speaking of five kings that "were" (from Babylon to the Seleucids), one that "is" (the Roman Empire), with a seventh that was "yet to come" which would "become an eighth, but is of the seven." John's declaration established a triunism of three distinct and compartmentalized iterations of Daniel's prophecies--one pertaining to ancient Jewish history, one pertaining to the intermediate history of Christianity, and one pertaining to the End of the Age. This being the case, John's parsing of the first set of kingdoms into "five (not four) that were," while dealing with the Roman occupation as a separate issue supports the traditional Jewish and historical interpretations of Daniel. As such, any other Jewish or Christian Messianic applications of Daniel's prophecies to the Roman period or the future are seperate issues from the historical events pertinent to Daniel.

Chapter	Traditional Jewish and Historical Interpretation
	Pre-Maccabean Revolt				Maccabean Revolt	Future Perspective (if any)
Daniel 2	Gold Head is Babylon	Silver Arms are Medo-Pesians	Bronze Torso is Macedonians	Legs of Iron are the Ptolemys and Seleucids	Feet of Iron & Clay are kingdoms under Antiochus III Megas. "Little horn" is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The "Stone" is Judas Maccabees.	Separate issues
Daniel 7		Winged Lion is Medo-Persians	Lopsided Bear is Macedonians	Four-winged Leapoard leads to Ptolemys and Seleucids	Iron-toothed beast is combined Empires under Antiochus IV Epiphanes	Separate issues
Daniel 8		2-horned Ram is Medo-Persia	4-horned Goat is Macedonians	Ptolemys and Seleucids	Combined Empires	Seperate issues
Daniel 11-12		Kings of Medo-Persia	Macedonians	Ptolemys and Seleucids	Combined Empires	Separate issues

________

It is blatantly anti-Semitic and anti-scholarly to have only Christian interpretations listed and Christian charts when Daniel was a Jewish book before anything else.

In fact, the order of charts should be in chronological order--Jewish-historical, Christian mainstream, and then anything else (if it should be included at all).

2) The so-called "scholars" interpretation, which the author of that entry claims "most" scholars adhere to, is nonsense--NO scholars I know of from any orthodox school of prophetic interpretation or Higher Criticism would ascribe to this thing. Jews, Higher Critics, and some Christian scholars would all ascribe to the five-kingdom Jewish-historical intepretation; and Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, and Preterists (Full and Partial)) would subscribe to the four-kingdom chart I supply below.

This entry reflects some singular, derivative viewpoint--I know not from whence it comes.

3) The "Historicist" chart is nonsense, too.

First, Historicism started with Victorinus' writings in the days of Constantine, long before there was any "Papacy." It changed every time there was a new event in the history of Christianity. So there is a version of Historicism for every era in Christian history, and for every Denomination that teaches it (including Catholic versus Protestant versions).

Second, having one chart for Historicism violates the neutrality of Wikipedia, especially when one chart would cover most of the major schools of prophetic interpretation all at once. They all use the same beginning. (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, Syrians, Rome, End). They just change the ends.

Historicsts draw a line from Babylon to the End of the World.

Futurists/Dispensationalists insert an alleged "gap" between the end of the Roman Era to the supposed last seven "weeks" of Daniel

Preterists say Rome was the end of matters, and then teach Dominionism/Recostructionism.

But agree or not, all their theories start with this one chart.

This is the chart I put up.

Fixed a mistake in my chart. Ike Eickman (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see proper referencing from WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish?? Are you serious?

1. The Christian bible is NOT a source of Jewish interpretation. This article is overly Christian already. I am thinking of requesting that it be downgraded from the Jewish viewpoint.
2. Whatever apocryphal writings we have do not necessarily give us a full picture, and at any rate only refer to thinking in a specific period.
3. The traditional Jewish interpretation, from the last two millenia, is that Dinael DOES have a break; it goes until the Maccabbees, then skips. Read the commentators.
4. The fourth beast / kingdom, etc., it is clear in the Talmud, is Rome, a.k.a. the Evil Empire of Edom, as the rabbis always connected Rome with Essau. The ten horns are the princes of Edom; see also Rashi in Genesis on the princes, and Medrash Rabbah. The Roman empire then split, as predicted in the dream of the idol. In Jewish historiography, Rome was succeeded by Christendom as the fourth empire. It is clear from the liturgy that Jews still considered themselves under the yoke of the Evil Roman Empire (note that of the four empires, only Persia does not get that title). For example, see the last (possibly added later) stanza of the basic Chanukah hymn, Maoz Tzur, uncensored version, and even the first stanza, which somehow got past the censor.
5. Censorship and fear of the Christians made it difficult to state a lot explicitly, but enough got through. Especially interesting is the incongruous use of Aram (Aramea = Syria) in printings in place of Edom.
6. There are those, however, who put Greece and Rome together, and consider Ishmael (Islam) to be the fourth empire. Look in any collection of major Jewish midaeval commentators.
7. The four kingdoms is perhaps the most basic component of Jewish historiography.
8. Perhaps the best treatment of the issue is in Ner Mitzvah, a short discourse on Channukah by the Maharal of Prague. (It is a specific interpretation, not a review, but it covers a lot of Daniel and a lot of Medrash.) The has been printed a couple of times in a somewhat avant-garde English translation and explanation called The Mitzvah Candle. (The title is something of an intentional mistranslation, as at the end of the treatise, the author says that a candle does not qualify a lamp (Ner) for Channukah.Mzk1 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Traditional four-kingdom interpretation

Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists and other futuristic Christians (e.g. Young, Smith, Anderson, etc.), as well as certain Messianic Jews believe that the first four kingdoms should be identified as (1) the Neo-Babylonian empire, (2) the Medo-Persian empire (3) the Macedonian empire of Alexander and his successors, and (4) the Roman empire, with other implications to come later. Preterists and other non-futurists believe that the sequence ends with the Romans, with little or no implications to come later.

In the following chart, parallel elements of each prophecy are the same color.

Chapter	Traditional Four-Kingdom Interpretation
	Jewish History				Roman Occupation	Future
Daniel 2	Head of God is Babylon	Two Arms are Medo-Persians	Torso is Macedonians	Two legs are Ptolemys and Seleucids	Feet are Romans	Rock establishes the Kingdom of God
Daniel 7		Winged Lion is Medo-Persians	Lopsided Bear is Macedonians	Leopard is Ptolemys & Seleucids	Iron-toothed Beast is Romans	A son of man establishes the Kingdom
Daniel 8		Ram is Medo-Persians	Goat is Macedonians	Little Horn is Seleucids	The "Son of Man" cleanses the Sanctuary during the Roman occupation	Kingdom of God
Daniel 11-12		Medo-Persians	Macedonians	Ptolemys and Seleucids	Romans	End of the Age

Ike Eickman (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)