Talk:Book of Daniel/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Son of Man in the New Testament

Ehrman said that "Son of Man" simply meant "this dude". So, another scholar was speaking of the Danielic Son of Man, not of Jesus calling himself dude. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Source: [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Str1977:: We do not make the call, scholars who do it for a living make the call. The information is verifiable and its removal is original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I support the removal, but I fear that you are talking past each other. The source says it doesn't occur outside the gospels and Revelation. But Dunn says it's "noticeable", which isn't the same as "noteworthy", and he doesn't seem to say anything like "suggesting that it was of little if any importance in the rest of Christianity as represented in the NT". StAnselm (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so the information turns out that it is not verifiable. This is a valid reason for removal, I just presumed that it would be verifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu,
no, we do not make the call we report it (but we do so in a NPOV manner, not endorsing the call). But if we reported one call, we would have to cover the whole range of opinions on that term.
You now quote Ehrman, which is expectable, but despite his popularity on the net, he is not the guy who determines "truth" or the "consensus of scholarship", even if another writer than reacts to Ehrman's baseless assertion.
We could, of course, create a whole passage dealing with all the interpretation of the phrase in the Revelation and the Gospels but I don't see any merit in that, given the context we have here. The section is about the Book of Daniel's influence on/importance to Christianity. The section works just as much, is just as informative strange proclamations based on baseless assertions by a single, non-mainstream scholar.
Str1977 (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We can of course cite Dunn with his opinion that is less important than others say. Apparently, this is what he's saying without the strange, self-serving, circular distinction between "son of man" and "Danielic son of man". One should keep in mind however that "only in Gospels and Revelation" is already have the New Testament (and it is very frequent in the Gospels). I don't think that the number of occureneces in the NT is an indicator of the degree of its importance in Christianity. The Danielic idea behind the phrase however was/is very important. Str1977 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Str1977 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Dunn is probably the leading "Son of Man" scholar alive today. There's definitely a distinction to be drawn between the New Testament use of "son of man" and the use made in Daniel 7 - I assume this is what Dunn is talking about? (haven't checked the source being cited). In Daniel 7, the figure of "one like a son of man" appears with the ancient of days and is given a great commission to rule over the Earth; in the NT, "son of man" is used in several senses, one of them being simply "me" and "mankind." Note that there's no actual "son of man" in Daniel, by the way - the phrase is "one like a son of man," meaning a figure with a human form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.143.109 (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


four generations

Four generations before they got out from Egypt the beginning of the first day with a journey to receive their laws and commandments and four generation in the end time because it's he last day for the land in which they live because of the introduction of and idol and the Messiah is cut of from his people because of worship of other God with an Idol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.101 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERA

Per WP:ERA, the first revision to introduce "BC" dating was [2] and so established the style for this article. "Seek consensus on the talk page" before changing the style. I oppose changing it, based on the long-established style. Elizium23 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

•BCE/CE — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Pseudonymous

The lead says "modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous", and then later we have "Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, which mainstream scholars argue are pseudonymous." This is referenced to Hammer, p. 2. The problem is Hammer doesn't say this, exactly. He says, "There exist a larger number of later writings [i.e. later than Daniel]... They are all pseudonymous..." Now, he does say later on "the second section can also be said to be pseudonymous," but we still have a problem: how can Daniel (as a whole) be a pseudonymous work if we have an anonymous narrator? (This makes it quite different, for example, to the Book of Enoch.) Moreover, what is the source for saying there is a "modern scholarly consensus"? StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The bit that says "mainstream scholars argue" is not following the source, which says simply that they are pseudonymous. The remainder of your question is not one which arises for us - we simply follow the sources - but it means simply that that the named author, Daniel, is a pseudonym, and the real author is anonymous.PiCo (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
But where is Daniel named as the author? StAnselm (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
And here is a reliable source that says bluntly, "Daniel is not pseudonymous." StAnselm (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The book uses the first person singular at times ("I saw...") and links this to the name Daniel. Your "reliable source", by the way, is Geoffrey Bromiley, who was born in 1915 and spent his career fighting every change in scholarship that happened during his lifetime. His definition of "pseudonymous" is highly idiosyncratic - "Daniel is not pseudonymous [because] Daniel is not an Old Testament saint..." The current consensus formed in the 1990s, a decade or more after that book was published.PiCo (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit war

Copy/pasted from User talk:Clarkpaton:

I suggest that you read WP:RS/AC and WP:LEDE. You are expected to abide by them in all your Wikipedia edits. Don't change the meaning of verifiable information without citing reliable sources to that extent. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, to say, but we have a name for things like "The traditional, and more accepted view of the origin of Daniel, is that it was written by the prophet himself substantially as it exists today, that the prophecy is historically reliable, and that its predictions are supernatural and accurate." We call them WP:CB. This is because historians work with methodological naturalism and will never assert supernatural causation. That is a theological claim, not a claim that may be safely made by historians who live by publish or perish. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:TALK and re-read WP:CB. Most of what you say above falls outside the norms as stated in the former and is discussed in great length in the latter. I merely corrected the obvious errors to indicate that many reputable scholars are in disagreement with the assertions of a late date for Daniel. Your personal views to the contrary are immaterial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkpaton (talk • contribs)
Well, well, you are new to Wikipedia and strangely familiar with WP:TALK. Anyone having enjoyed higher education should be familiar with methodological naturalism, namely that it is a ground rule of all sciences, including historical scholarship (regardless of whether we count it or not as a science). What I meant is: it is completely bollocks for a historian to posit supernatural causation in a peer-reviewed article which is not preaching to the choir of true believers. That's why there aren't any historical treatises aiming to prove that Vespasian was truly a god, or that Attila the Hun was possessed by evil spirits, or over the involvement of elves and fairies in World War II combats, and so on down the slippery slope towards the loony bin of weird and unsubstantiated metaphysical claims. So I did not claim that it would be WP:CB as a theological claim, since theology isn't a science and obviously does not abide by methodological naturalism. I have only claimed that for a historical claim it perfectly fits WP:CB, since no historian in the right mind would submit for peer review articles blatantly violating methodological naturalism. That would be as bad as claiming that a circle is a triangle. It is simply not done for scholars, and Wikipedia sides with scholars, therefore it is unfit as a historical claim inside Wikipedia. It is not merely my own view, I suggest that you read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/ for filling the gaps on post-Enlightenment historical scholarship and why historians could never claim supernatural occurences. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This has been addressed before. I would highly recommend Clarkpaton read WP:WTW. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Bart Ehrman has stated:

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

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, no - this is only if you proceed on the assumption that prophecy is impossible. Of course, one doesn't need to appeal to supernatural prophecy - it may well have been obvious to a number of people in the mid first century that the Jews were on track to get the temple destroyed. StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's like when the prosecution extracts false confessions: it is not enough for somebody to confess of a crime in order to solve the case, he/she should be checked if he/she has perpetrator's knowledge. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
If it is a vague description, it could be a Barnum effect. If it is precise enough, it is rather Vaticinium ex eventu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice try. There is no "academic consensus" on the dating of Daniel. Merely stating it and citing a source that states it is hardly a proof. Trying to bully me with your "established editor" mumbo jumbo hardly settles this issue. There are just as many "early daters" as there are "late daters" in the scholarly world, and an early dating of Daniel was sourced in several of my changes (all of which I believe were summarily changed). No, there is no consensus on this issue by "top scholars, tenured at reputable universities and published by reputable publishing houses," no matter how much you may wish it to be so. Internal evidence in Daniel itself, longstanding tradition, the appearance of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls as Scripture so soon after a supposed 3rd or 2nd Century date (which would hardly be likely), all argue for a much earlier date for this book. Trying to brush aside this issue and deleting my suggested edits by asserting that "there is broad academic consensus" smacks of intellectual dishonesty.Clarkpaton (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You were told repeatedly to abide by WP:RS/AC. That's how we know what the consensus is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Another thing: consensus isn't unanimity. According to Peter Enns, "You should also know that in virtually any academic discipline there is always a voice of dissent. This is good, but for the few names you list here, many more could be listed voicing the opposite view." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

. . . all New American Commentary authors affirm the divine inspiration, inerrancy, complete truthfulness, and full authority of the Bible. The perspective of the NAC is unapologetically confessional and rooted in the evangelical tradition....

— from the editors’ preface

If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to "Biblical inerrancy" (to my knowledge) on the show.

— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series
So, definitely, you have presented the view of a vocal minority which dissents for theological reasons (inerrantism, which is roundly rejected in the secular academia, and it is only cultivated in fundamentalist seminaries). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
It follows that those who disagree with biblical inerrancy are not necessarily liberal, non-fundamentalist would be a better description. So, when every scholar except fundies agree, we call it a consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
A good measure of being the consensus view is if it is taught as fact/stock knowledge in most US state universities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

In general, academia does tend to shy away from any sort of declarations of miraculous events and/or "yeah, but..." comments, regarding such matters as, for instance, the date of composition of the gospels (which might be along the lines of "yeah, it seems to date from 70 AD, but maybe there was an older version" and similar. I'm not seeing at this point any clear and obvious statement from the person seeking to add material on this talk page regarding the specific phrasing of the material which is sought to be added and/or the sources to support such changes. I think it would be in everyone's interests to begin using the article talk page here to discuss proposed changes to the article, rather than engaging in edit warring on the article itself. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

In looking back over the last several months, I notice that Tgeorgescu has actually had several edit wars with people over this very issue (the dating of Daniel), and the way he has chosen to deal with it consistently is to simply edit out all references to an early date--no discussion, no consensus (as is normally expected in Wikipedia), but simply getting rid of all material he deems offensive. This is hardly in the spirit of either Wikipedia or the kind of academic rigor we all should be hoping to aspire to. If he continues to merely delete all edits concerning an early date for the Book of Daniel without any previous discussion, and his only rationale is to pretend that there is "broad consensus," then we editors have not done our jobs, and some adult supervision needs to step in to arbitrate. I have not been able to have any sort of reasonable discussion with this individual in the slightest, but have instead been the subject of harassment, intimidation and even name-calling.Clarkpaton (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If you would like the article changed, it's probably a good idea to not talk about people, and talk about sources, which this entire conversation seems quite light on honestly. Tgeorgescu, to his credit, has posted sources and quotes. You, in return have posted nothing. TimothyJosephWood 19:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, my problem was this: I saw an editor making edits unsupported by sources, such as saying "liberal scholars" when no source called them "liberal" and saying "many more liberal modern scholarls consider" when sources say "this is the consensus view". I did not actually check those sources, so I could be wrong. But I assume good faith from the more experienced editors who have created this article and whom I respect, and trust them on their word that the existing references fulfill WP:RS/AC requirements. If this is not the case, please state it clearly, such as "this specific WP:RS/AC claim fails verification on page ... of the given source". What is imho not allowed is replacing verifiable information with his personal take on the matter. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
When this started, Clarkpaton should have come to talk and sought consensus after the first revert. When he didn't, you should have gone to neutral forums and sought uninvolved third opinions. Fortunately, one of the side effects of ANI is that is makes the article quite visible. TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I learned my lesson. The problem was the false sense of security given by userspace warning templates: they make one feel justified in reverting policy violations, some of those messages even tell the other editor he has been reverted, so it would be a lie to use them without reverting. Upon which neutral forum would you have posted the notification about this matter and how would you have phrased it? It is important for me to know a script for such actions in the future. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I would have gone to Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory and tried to find the closest related project to request input from. It's also sometimes helpful to post a WP:RFC on discussions that need outside input. Note that these are not considered forms of WP:CANVASSING, as you are attempting to attract disinterested third parties to a discussion, and not trying to attract only those you think will agree with you.
Personally, I don't like using warnings at first. I prefer to leave messages, like these, trying to explain, as politely as possible, what needs to happen in order for someone to get their changes accepted. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, now a WP:RS/AC quote properly referenced inside the article:

In fact, this change of academic perspective was hard won — one need only think of the Fundamentalist crisis that divided American Protestantism at the beginning of the twentieth century.2 In academic circles, that crisis is generally viewed as having ended in the defeat of the Fundamentalists. ... Fundamentalist readings of Daniel continue to flourish in the popular culture, as can be seen from the best-selling writings of Hal Lindsey,4 and conservative scholars have continued to fight rear-guard actions in defence of the reliability of the book.5 In mainline scholarship, however, the great issues that made Daniel the focus of controversy for centuries were laid to rest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.6 A broad consensus on several key issues has existed since then. It is agreed that Daniel is pseudepigraphic: the stories in chapters 1–6 are legendary in character, and the vision in chapters 7–12 were composed by persons unknown in the Maccabean era. The stories are almost certainly older than the visions, but the book itself was put together shortly after the Maccabean crisis. It must be read, then, as as witness to the religiosity of that time, not as a prophecy of western political history or of the eschatological future.

— Collins 2002, p. 1–2
I consider thus the consensus claim verified to our satisfaction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
There will never be unanimity about this issue: biblical inerrantists will knee-jerk disagree with any historical claim that isn't theologically orthodox, according to their own theological standards. So, these people will only agree with the academic consensus when it validates their prejudgments. They are therefore predictable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I consider thus the consensus claim verified to our satisfaction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so, the way this works per WP:NOCON, is that because Clarkpaton wants to suggest a change to the article (which is fine per WP:BRD), then that editor more or less bears the burden for justifying that change, and establishing a consensus for it. If they fail to achieve or seek consensus, then the article more-or-less stays the same by default.
You can never really "call consensus" by yourself. It's not just about the sources agreeing; its about the community agreeing that the sources agree. This is why it's valuable to have uninterested third parties comment on a disagreement.
Also, as a general rule, whenever you find yourself discussing editors instead of sources, you are probably on the wrong track, and the discussion is probably not going to be a productive one. TimothyJosephWood 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I did not insert the claim in the article, I have just defended it. So, there are more editors than me alone who think the WP:RS/AC claim is justified. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The main point was that, as someone who wants the article to remain the same, you don't have the burden to make an argument. The person who suggests the change has that burden, and if you disagree, you have the burden of responding. TimothyJosephWood 22:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would be good to have an RfC on the pseudonymity of Daniel. The issue was raised above, but the discussion didn't go anywhere. It would be even better to have an RfC on how to evaluate scholarly consensus in theology/religion/biblical articles. The thing is, dealing with the Collins quote above is not as straightforward as Tgeorgescu suggests. It says "A broad consensus on several key issues has existed since then." But this is specifically referring to "mainline scholarship". Firstly, non-mainline scholarship is not WP:FRINGE in the Wikipedia sense. Secondly, a consensus in mainline scholarship does not imply consensus within scholarship generally. (Note that we are talking about scholarly consensus, of course, not consensus across all published material.) Thirdly, even scholarly agreement does not necessarily mean we state things in WP voice - we would merely say that "the scholarly consensus is that Daniel is pseudonymous". Finally, we are certainly not committed to "methodological naturalism" here on WP; do be so would mean doing original research. StAnselm (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Anselm It's probably better, at this stage, to follow WP:RFC and have a substantive discussion on the talk first. There seems to be quite a few people here already, and the previous discussion was hardly substantive, as only one side presented sources.
You can start this discussion if you wish, preferably by starting a new section. As general guidance, is usually more helpful if you suggest a specific change to the article, rather than arguing a general philosophical or theological position. This can be done using Template:Talkquote in your suggestion. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here on on my talk. TimothyJosephWood 01:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@StAnselm: According to Collins, there are two sides in this dispute: fundamentalists and the rest. According to him, the rest was academically victorious over the fundamentalists. So, fundamentalists are the academically defeated faction, this does not necessarily make them fringe, but they remain a minority (even if they are very vocal in the press and claim to represent unadulterated Christianity). I did not say that Wikipedia would be committed to methodological naturalism, but that historians who live by publish or perish are committed to it. I don't find that stating the consensual information in WP voice would be optimal, but it would be stylistically cumbersome to repeat every time "most scholars think that..." or "the consensus view is..., but a minority disagrees with it", instead of stating what most scholars agree is fact as fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am not religious, as I say on my user page. But you cannot disregard religious scholarship or theology in favor of secular academic scholarship. They both can be reputable sources, especially as it concerns religious matters. If they disagree, then their disagreement should be accurately represented in the article. Religion per se, most often, does not meet WP:FRINGE simply by virtue of the fact that they are religious.
But again, I say save your energy. No one has actually proposed a change to the article on the talk. So you are arguing against nothing and no one. TimothyJosephWood 01:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I did not say that fundamentalists are fringe, just that they are a minority among scholars. Fundamentalists have no monopoly on religion, so there are faithful scholars who aren't fundamentalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that we will ever come to an agreement on this issue, as it has been hotly debated for well over a century and, despite Collins' claims cited above, it is not, in fact settled, nor has it come anywhere close to a consensus. A cursory scanning of the last few months of edits on this page indicates that Tgeorgescu has for some time and will continue to delete any references to an early date, so, therefore, we seem to be at an impasse. My own canvassing of a wide assortment of commentaries over the last 20 years shows that the predispositions of scholars in both camps will only yield a continuation of this controversy, only exacerbated by those who insist that the issue is "settled" (in their favor, naturally). So, I propose that we make a separate page on the Dating of the Book of Daniel, to be linked from the main Book of Daniel page, in order to provide two separate sections--one for an early date and another for a later date. On the Main Book of Daniel page would be a paragraph mentioning both views. I have no idea how to create such a page. What say you, Tgeorgescu? Do you think you could play nice and share a page with those you like to call "fundamentalists?"Clarkpaton (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You might need to refocus. This is fundamentally, not about settling the controversy. This is about what the article should say. What you are suggesting is a WP:POVFORK and is a no-go. Perhaps more importantly, you have presented no specific suggested changes, and no sources, which are the things that progress this discussion. TimothyJosephWood 04:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The way you describe it, that article would be a classic example of a WP:POVFORK. On the other hand, this article certainly should not commit to a late date. The solution is to discuss and gain consensus on this talk page, rather than hiving off and creating a rival article. StAnselm (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I am prepared to allow the minority view to be expressed (as minority/dissenting view). So, the problem is not rejecting dates out of hand, but stuff like "many more liberal modern scholars consider" when no source verifies such statements (and, awkwardly enough, the source for that claim remains Collins!). You might think that moderates are more liberal than conservatives and conservatives are more liberal than fundamentalists, so that might be the source of your claim about "liberal scholars". There are many conservatives doing historical-critical research who could be (wrongly) qualified as liberals by biblical inerrantists. But until you present reliable sources to the extent that all scholars subscribing to the consensus are liberals, we do not merely believe it on your word. In fact, Wikipedia never believes editors on their word, it always require them to produce sources for their claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
May be a good time to take a break from this article for a while. The fact that you are continuing to argue, when no one is arguing against you, might be a sign that emotions are a bit high. TimothyJosephWood 16:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It was a reply to Clarkpaton. If you seek the reason of my knee-jerk reversions, it is this: the stuff about liberal scholars appeared to me as made up by him, simply because he offered no source for it and he has changed the meaning verified by the already existing references. By my book, this is simply not done, otherwise everybody could make up stories about scholars or other people that they are either gay sympathizers or gay basher, and in both cases picture them as despicable for somebody else. Tgeorgescu (talk)
People say that the first impression is decisive. My first impression of him wasn't that of an Old Testament graduate, who would have a fine command of the scholarly literature and is able to defend his claims the Credible Hulk way, but that of an unreliable editor who inserts in the article made up stuff. That's why I acted vehemently, I was seeking to protect the article against somebody who replaces verifiable content with his own personal commentary (which is decidedly frowned upon around here). This is indeed a problem for Wikipedia: I am not allowed to edit war in order to keep one's own musings out of encyclopedic articles. So, had I not taken vehement action, those musings would have remained for hours or days in the article and be read as truth by thousands of people. If that commentary were backed up by sources, we could discuss sources, but for mere musings there is nothing to discuss, we are not allowed to change the article simply because our personal opinions disagree with the sources. So, while it was an illusion that editors are allowed to edit war in order to keep musings out of articles, I have manifestly acted in order to revert policy violations. I had no right to edit war, but so has he no right to insert his musings in the article. That's why we need sources in order to make progress: no sources, no progress, and the article will remain the way it is today. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, there was an inerrantist source offered for another claim, but no sources for "liberal scholars". And, as shown by the quote offered above, inerrantism is an extreme position in Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
By the inerrantist source I mean Miller (shown as inerrantist by the other quote offered above). Technically, it is true that it is a consensus of "more liberal scholars", wherein "more liberal" actually means "more liberal than inerrantists" (i.e. everybody else). For copyright reasons, I cannot render the two pages of Collins's book, but it is available on Google Books and I advise others to read those two pages for a more detailed history of how the consensus about Daniel has shifted after the Enlightenment up to the beginning of the 21st century. Collins means that this is the academic consensus, fundamentalists excepted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Where is this Miller source? I can't find any other reference to it on this page. StAnselm (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It is mentioned at [3], namely Steven R. Miller, "Daniel" in the New American Commentary. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, that is certainly a reliable source. Like any other RS, of course, we don't report the author's opinion/interpretation as fact. StAnselm (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
As I have shown above, it is an inerrantist source, and in my opinion inerrantists are a minority. There is nothing wrong with stating it as minority view, but WP:UNDUE is of application: it should not be expressed as the majority view. As pointed out by Collins, fundamentalists/inerrantists are no part of the Daniel consensus (consensus isn't unanimity). As I have repeatedly stated, inerrantists will always disagree with all historical claims which aren't theologically orthodox, so if the consensus happens to be unorthodox, they take no part in it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly a minority view, but it is a mistake to equate "majority" with "consensus". If a consensus is just among "mainline scholars", and excludes fundamentalists, then it should not lead to statements being put into WP voice. Simply put, the article should not say that Daniel was written in the 2nd century. But as it turn out, it doesn't - it says "modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC)." However, the article also says "Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous", and that should be reworded. StAnselm (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I did not write that. My guess is that User:PiCo rendered as fact what is generally accepted by critical scholars. As I said above, it would be very awkward to repeat all over the place "the majority view is...", "the consensus of critical scholars is ..., but fundamentalists disagree", etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding dating and origins

I think it would be really useful for anyone who has access to Coogan's Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible to see the section on Authorship, dates of Composition, and Historical Contexts, running from pages 159 to 161. Based on the amount of material included in it, I think that there is probably both sufficient material for a separate article and probably sufficient notability on the matter of the "origins and contexts" or however one wants to discuss it. Particularly interesting is the material from roughly the beginning of 160, where the early views of the dating of the work are discussed, and the end of 160 to the beginning of 161 which discusses the current prevailing opinion, which is, to paraphrase, that the book might be in at least two parts, with the current scholarly consensus indicating chapters 1-6 reflect the Jews of the eastern Diaspora prior to the Antiochene crisis, with a possible/probable later origin of chapter 2 verse 43, and that chapters 7 through 12 can be "securely" dated to the Antiochene crisis, although it is possible that chapter 7 was written earlier and later updated for the Antiochene crisis. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The section on dates is currently two paragraphs. We're hardly at the point where discussion of a separate articles is really appropriate. Definitely does not, at this point, qualify for a content or size WP:SPLIT, and the notion likely treads dangerously closely to a WP:POVFORK. TimothyJosephWood 14:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I was actually thinking more of a separate article on "origins", which would include not only the issue of dating but also authorship and historical contexts, more or less like the section in Coogan's book, because it makes most sense to me to include all the material dealing with the who, what, when, where, and why questions relating to a book in the same article or section. Granted, I have no particular idea of how to title such an article, maybe Origins of the Book of Daniel might be an option. Also, in the case of this book, and I suppose many if not most of the other books of the Bible accepted in Europe, we could probably very easily have a separate article on the History of study of the Book of Daniel or Historiography of the Book of Daniel or some similar title. This could cover not only the various opinions about the dating of the work over time, but also any role in may have played in any religious controversies or theological questions or similar. I am also going to assume, without clear evidence at this point, that many or most of the Biblical works would probably also qualify for a "in popular culture" article in some way or another, dealing either with the incidents or the specific personalities in the given book. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I expect such articles will quickly end up at WP:AFD and merged with this one. The most conservative route is to work on improving this article, and create a new article when the section in question clearly meets WP:SPLIT. Furthermore, the creation of these separate stubs, especially if they read as WP:POVFORKs, may easily be seen as an attempt to circumvent the article protection, and insert Non-NPOV material in a place where it will encounter less scrutiny. That could end badly.
Again, my strong suggestion is to propose changes to the article here, where they can be discussed and vetted by all involved. Formatting drafts on a talk page is easy to do using the talkquote template, which will prevent those on the talk from confusing your proposed changes with general discussion. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, first propose changes here and develop material here first before considering spinout. But, with the length of articles on most biblical books in the major reference works on the Bible, and the frighteningly scary number of journals of all sorts, along with all the books which had been written before journals became as widespread as they are today, I think that there is a really good chance that most books of the Bible can be rather easily found to have sufficient material and notability for multiple articles, particularly regarding topics which have been or are subjects of controversy at some time or other. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a ton of work on Biblical articles. I just tend to gravitate to articles where things tend to blow up. I expect it's probably best to steer clear of hypotheticals right now, especially as a blatant POV Fork has already been proposed by one of the two involved parties.
At this point, I'm just waiting patiently for the protection to expire. Since the editor who originally wanted changes in the article has been largely absent in the interim, I suspect this may be a case of "wait it out and continue as usual." TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
There is certainly the potential to have a separate article on the date of Daniel, including how it has been used as a "litmus test for orthodoxy".[4] StAnselm (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I would personally prefer, though, like I said, that if there is to be a spinout, which probably would be best considered after the content is developed here first, that it maybe deal with the "origins" as a whole, including author, time, place, etc., as those topics tend to be extremely interrelated and hard to separate. It might be best to group them together here first however. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree. It's much easier to argue for a spin out of a fully formed section that is uncomfortably large for an article, than it is to argue that a stub is notable when there is already an article on the main subject. We are also much less likely to waste an extended unfruitful discussion on a needless AfD. TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Improving the wikipedia article "Book of Daniel"

Is there anyone else (besides myself) interested in improving the wikipedia article "Book of Daniel" ? - Exodus2320 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that largely depends on what you mean by "improving". If you mean the inclusion of pages of half-baked diatribes about the end of the world, then no, I don't think anyone is. TimothyJosephWood 15:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Where do you get the notion that the Book of Daniel is about the end of the world? - Exodus2320 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What I am referring to is this edit, and implying that online forums and personal eschatology and exegesis are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Book of Daniel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Error

The article's Dating section reads that "Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets". It is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.69.56 (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Untrue, see Nevi'im. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree w/ previous poster from Sep 19. Several Traditional Date arguments bring Late Date argument into question, or at least merit transparency for readers akin to this topic:

(1) Heavyweight scholars disagree, including: "Daniel is included among the Major Prophets by the LXX [translated 285/2 - 246 B.C.] and the other early versions." [Archer (1985): 7] Collins agrees that the book of Daniel was "classified with the Major Prophets in the LXX. [Collins (1992): 31; it is interesting to note that some critics never mention this fact, see, for instance, Dummelow, 529] Waltke points out that: "According to the general consensus, the Prophets were translated before the end of the third century B.C. ..." [Waltke (1979): 220; see also the articles by Soderlund, 400 and Peters]

(2) Daniel's petition is repeated in Ezra ch 9, as well as Nehemiah ch 9. Were those books written in the 2nd century as well? They were not.

(3) The prophet Ezekiel mentions Daniel three times (14:14, 20; 28:3). Was Ezekiel written in the 2nd century as well? It was not.

(4) The language of Daniel parallels language related to the 5th century, and not the 2nd century (i.e., compare with the 5th c Elephantine Papyri).

(5) Even Jesus and Josephus refer to Daniel as a "prophet."

(6) Even if one decides on a 2nd c date, the 70 weeks prophecy regarding Jesus was fulfilled on time.

(7) The author does not leave us the option of assuming another later author wrote Daniel after Daniel had already died. The following verses contain either “me, Daniel” or “I, Daniel:” 7:28; 8:1, 15.

The article's Dating section regards only one of three widely-held approaches to dating Daniel (i.e., Traditional, Late Date, and Skeptical), being the Late Date approach. There is strong evidence for the Traditional method, as well as important skeptical information, that is vital to a complete scholarly discussion. To avoid a biased discussion or a fundamentalist approach by sharing only one side of the topic. Readers don't have to Google far to see there is a broader picture, and the Dating section will come off as propoganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.167.219 (talk • contribs)

According to WP:UNDUE, the lion's share should be given to the mainstream academic view (majority view among academics). Minority views could be mentioned as minority views if they are notable enough. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
As Bart Ehrman said:

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

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Arguments need to be backed by academic sources rather than original research. In this case the statement in our article is sourced to Hammer's commentary on Daniel; your first step should be to read that and check whether the article reflects accurately what Hammer says (i.e., does he say Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of prophets, and the conclusion to be drawn from that). If you find our article does reflect the source correctly but still feel something is missing, you should find and draw our attention to some source to support that position. (Note that Hammer and our article specifically mention the Hebrew Bible, meaning the Masoretic text, not the Greek LXX).PiCo (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Protestant Reformation

It appears that you have completely missed the importance of the prophecies of Daniel in the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter Reformation. Not the mention the various methods of interpretation that Christians have used to understand the prophecies, i.e. Historicist, Preterist and Futurist. I understand that atheists think that Daniel is irrelevant, to Christians of the last 2000 years, they have been very important and are even now. This shows a complete disconnect with reality. --MindyWaters (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mindy. On the matter of the importance of Daniel to the Protestant Reformation, I gather from comments in the past and on other articles that you want us to say that the Reformation was brought about by recognition that early Protestant interpretation of the Book of Daniel. I know you have some sources for that, but I'm not convinced they represent the mainstream view among historians. Still, we can discuss that here - can you give us your sources? On your second point, the way Christians have understood the prophecies, that's dealt with in depth in just about every article on the individual chapters of Daniel, and they're all linked in the portal on this article: I really think that's enough, otherwise we'd be making this article extremely long.PiCo (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments by religious historian Froom:
The Reformation was born of Luther's dual declaration – first, the discovering of Jesus and salvation by faith alone; and second, identifying the papacy as the Antichrist.<sfn|Froom|1948|pp=243–244> The highly educated Reformation leaders used prophecies of the Bible as their most powerful weapon in appealing to committed believers to break from the church, which they perceived as the new Babylon, and to convince them that the popes were the Antichrist who had assumed the place of God.<sfn|Froom|1950|p=21> The Protestant reformers were unanimous in agreement and this understanding of prophecy furnished importance to their deeds.<sfn|Froom|1948|pp=243–244> It was the rallying point and the battle cry that made the Reformation nearly unassailable.<sfn|Froom|1948|pp=243–244> --MindyWaters (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Mindy, we have to be sure that we're representing majority viewpoints. When I check the Wikipedia article on the Reformation I find that the Book of Daniel doesn't get a single mention. It says that the cause was dissatisfaction with the corruption of the Catholic Church - corruption in the broadest sense, doctrinal, spiritual and institutional. It also says that the initial leaders of the Reformation movement were Catholic priests - plenty of priests were good men who wanted to see the Church reflect the teachings of the Bible - joined and supported by an assortment of princes and other secular leaders whose motives were sometimes more political than religious. But no mention of Daniel. Perhaps you could rephrase your edit in some way? PiCo (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
To be sure, the Reformation started "in house" so to speak, but all of the reformers either left or were kicked out of the church and the protestant churches started around the original protesters. The wikitable below shows the position of nearly every protestant reformer on the prophecies of the Book of Daniel. Because of their understanding of the prophecies they identified the church with the blaspheming and persecuting horns of Daniel 7 and 8 and the Antichrist of 1 John. This understanding of prophecy was extremely powerful in the day. Which is why the Church started the Jesuit order to counteract protestantism. And you can see how the Jesuit order came up with another interpretation -- Futurism -- which pushed the interpretation of the horns and antichrist into the future. Another set of Jesuit priests came up with another interpretation that put all the fulfillment of the prophecies into the past, again getting the focus off the the Church. Catholic and secular sources will downplay the effect of Bible prophecy. for obvious reasons. --MindyWaters (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

--MindyWaters (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This only shows that it was a cool piece of rhetoric, it does not show that the interpretation of Daniel caused the Reformation. Anyway, the source is outdated and maybe non-mainstream. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
If you read Froom's WP page you will find that his is a mainstream source. And his research is the only one of its kind, therefore it is not likely to ever be outdated. His work is far and above what anyone has ever done before or since. Some people don't like his conclusions, but no one can dispute his research and scholarship. The table reports indisputable facts that no one can gainsay. It comes directly from the primary sources reported by Froom. The problem is that most people today are exceedingly ignorant of religious history and poorly read on the topic. If it's not on History Channel it must not be true. And in today's revisionist climate, truth is nearly unknowable. --MindyWaters (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Froom's WP page suggests to me that he's not a mainstream scholar. He was an SDA scholar (SDA by definition is not mainstream) who died in 1974 (therefore very probably outdated). To accept him as a mainstream reliable source we'd need evidence that he's still quoted today (or that his ideas are reflected) in mainstream sources such as those published by Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Eerdmans, etc. But why don't you just re-write your edit to say that this particular interpretation of Daniel has had a deep influence on SDA scholarship?PiCo (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
"The interpretation of Daniel caused the Reformation" isn't a fact, it is a causal claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
And, generally, inside Wikipedia we rarely say that a claim is true or false, we say instead that it is the consensus view or majority view or minority view or fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Mindy, I think you need to give us a draft of what you'd like to add. Without that we're talking in a vacuum.PiCo (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I have temporarily posted to my sandbox a section from Froom about how Martin Luther used Bible Prophecy as a big part of the Reformation. It quotes Luther calling the Pope Antichrist and using that as a reason for reformation. Please read it. User:MindyWaters/sandbox --MindyWaters (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Mindy, you need to give us a draft of what you'd like to see in the article. Just a sentence would be fine, and it doesn't have to be sourced to Froom.PiCo (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Daniel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Garbage

This page is garbage. If daniel was written 300 years after the said events then how come he knew about Belshazzar when all other historians for 2500 years since denied his existence. Either he was there or he was miraculously blessed with historical insights no other historian had access to ergo the bible is more historically accurate than its secular counterpart. Either way your screwed!!!

Your accusations are unfounded. Historians have not been denying Belshazzar's existence for "2500 years" and I am not sure where on earth you are getting the impression that they have. In any case, the fact the Book of Daniel mentions Belshazzar proves absolutely nothing. Xenophon's Cyropedia, which was well-known throughout antiquity, also mentions Belshazzar, so unless you consider Xenophon to also have been a prophet of God, your whole argument is fallacious. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Sources like Tektonics should be removed on the spot, see WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You want me to directly say archer and list his pub? It is much more transparent if we list it in Tek where it can be seen and anyone can go to Archer in his two books. Why do you want less transparency? Where are my changes? Jimnelson2025 (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
From Talk:Daniel 2: Suggestion: you could try citing Archer and see whether that flies with the rest of editors. Anyway, WP:FRINGE views should not be mixed with mainstream scholarly views (Archer was an inerrantist hardliner, thus fringe—he knew that from Ivy Plus to US state universities inerrantism is regarded as the stigma of cranks and kooks). Text cannot be changed at whim, always cite your WP:SOURCES for verification. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
What I meant by it is that a direct citation from Archer is preferable to citing a WP:SPS source: there is no guarantee that its author understood what Archer is saying or that he cited him correctly (I don't say it is actually the case, but there is no editorial control, so no guarantee). Also, changing (the names of) those kingdoms should not be done at whim (which you have apparently done in some Wikipedia article). To give you an inkling why "Daniel is in the Bible and God does not lie, therefore the Book of Daniel has to be prophetic" is fringe, see:

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

— Bart Ehrman, ehrmanblog.org
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how Archer can be considered a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
He is not a reliable source and should not be cited as such. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Maskilim

Hello User:PiCo, User:Kanjuzi, and others; thanks for working on the page; could you please explain the passage about maskilim and perhaps in so doing enable a clarification of the article text? Specifically:

  1. What is the reason for equating the "son of man" with the "people of the holy ones"?
  2. What is the reason for equating the "people of the holy ones" with the "maskilim"?
  3. Whence the term maskilim if not from Daniel 7:27?
  4. What is the range of scholarly debate, so that we can clarify the extent of the consensus or not about this issue?

Thank you again and I hope that by fleshing this out we can make the article easier to understand. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

groupuscule

  1. What is the reason for equating the "son of man" with the "people of the holy ones"?

The equation of "son of man" (and it's a son of man, not the son of man) is made by the author of Daniel, who says first that the Kingdom of God is to be given to the one like a son of man (7:14), then subsequently (7:27) that the same dominion will be given to "the people of the holy ones of the Most High (God)."

  1. What is the reason for equating the "people of the holy ones" with the "maskilim"?

THat seems to come from Grabbe's 2002 book, see below. It's not good news, though - I've lost access to the relevant page.

  1. Whence the term maskilim if not from Daniel 7:27?

Biblehub's translation of Daniel 7:27 is faulty - it has "one like the Son of Man", but in fact there's no definite article and the Hebrew reads "one like a son of man," meaning having human form. In Psalms and Proverbs a "maskil" is someone who is wise and judicious, helps the poor and the weak, and earnestly seeks God - in other words, it's a concept that appears throughout the Biblical literature, not just in Daniel. There's another group, the "hasidim," who are also devout but who stand firm and take action," unlike the maskilim, who don't act. It's hard to say what the relationship between them is, and some (or many) scholars think that they're the same.

  1. What is the range of scholarly debate, so that we can clarify the extent of the consensus or not about this issue?

You mean the issue of the identity of the son of man? In out article we say that "scholars are almost universally agreed that this represents the maskilim," and we source that to page 282 of Lester Grabbe's 2002 book "Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period." Unfortunately page 282 of that book has fallen off google books for me, though perhaps you can access it (if you're really keen you can try to find it in a library, provided the library is large enough).
If this really interests you (it's all a huge subject), I suggest you begin with some of the books listed in the bibliography - Seow's commentary on Daniel, Collins on Daniel (several books are listed), and Grabbe on the historical/cultural background. As for how "a son of man" became "the Son of Man," that's a different subject.PiCo (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, thank you very much for the explanation. You have written a long response to a talk page question and I appreciate that you took the time. Your answer clarifies a lot for me.
The question of how 'people of the holy' could be unambiguously identified with 'maskilim' is still unanswered for want of the book. Maybe I will track it down; or maybe someone else watching the page has it and can tell us what it says.
Secondly it's not clear to me why the giving of dominion twice guarantees an identity between כבר אנש and עםקדישי; perhaps the book will answer this also.
I see what you mean that BibleHub is editorializing by inserting the article the—and also, by the way by capitalizing Son, unless this has something to do with the Aramaic בר as opposed to בן. (Still, BibleHub seems to be one of the better sites for interlinear text—do you know other good ones?) I'm getting the sense that you want to emphasize the maskilim interpretation of the text to defend against an ex post Christian reading. Which is fine I suppose but if Wikipedia is going to come down strongly in favor of one interpretation, the reasons why should be very clear. groupuscule (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
groupuscule, Wikipedia should never editorialise or preference one view over another. What we try to do is reflect expert opinion. We tell the reader the consensus view if there is one (and if we can find it), or we tell what is the majority view and important non-majority views. In the case of the identity of the "son of man," it's too brief an incident in the book as a whole - a verse or two in one chapter - to devote much space to. There's a separate article on Daniel 7, and another on Son of Man, which give more space.PiCo (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
For detailed discussion of the Hebrew behind this, I suggest you go to one of the major academic commentaries, like Seow or Collins - you'll find them in the bibliography.PiCo (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I have started with going directly to Grabbe himself. His full statement on p. 282 is:

It is almost universally agreed among scholars that "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7 represents "the people of the holy ones of the Most High", as Dan. 7:27 states. This may originally have been the community or group responsible for Daniel, the maskilim of other parts of the book (see pp. 60–61 above). In later interpretation, these people are taken to be the Jewish people. It has been argued that the figure is specifically the archangel Michael, so prominent elsewhere in the book, though Michael would still be functioning as a representative of the Jewish people (Collins 1977:144–46; opposed by Davies 1985:105–6). Thus, in Daniel itself the term 'son of man' (bar 'enaš) simply means "human being", as it commonly does in Hebrew and Aramaic; however, in context the 'one like a son of man' may be a heavenly figure.

I think it is clear from this passage (and have edited accordingly) that the point of universal scholarly agreement is that "one like a son of man" represents (but is not necessarily identical to) a larger group, לעם קדישי עליונין (people of the saints of the most high), which in turn may equate with the maskilim but can be interpreted in other ways as well. I'm pretty confident in this reading (of Grabbe, not of Daniel!) but am curious to hear other editor's ideas and also if anyone thinks other sources should be considered in the interpretation. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

[Comment by probable sockpuppet evading block removed]

Biblical inerrancy is a doctrinal position, and does not really fit with the historical and archaeological record. Read more on the Historicity of the Bible: "Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others." Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
[Comment by probable sockpuppet evading block removed]
Since from Ivy Plus to US state universities, full professors are not neutral in respect to biblical inerrancy, neither is Wikipedia, see WP:NOTNEUTRAL. I have explained at WP:ABIAS that Wikipedia is heavily biased for the scholarly mainstream, meaning secular scholarly mainstream (secular does not mean atheist, it simply means that the clergy does not have by default the upper hand in all matters of scholarship). See also the quote from Ehrman at #Unreliable source. By our book biblical inerrancy is WP:FRINGE/PS or pseudohistory. As Bart Ehrman stated at Video on YouTube (55:25-58:00, longer story: 53:00-1:04:00) the history professors from US research universities never posit miracles or divine causation as historical explanations for historical events. So, this labeling of the article as non-neutral relies upon an misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means: we're not Debatepedia and we don't allot equal time/space to each view, see WP:FALSEBALANCE, namely giving equal merit to purely theological dogma and to purely historical scholarship. The historical method is by default heavily biased against the supernatural/prophecies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio detected

See https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Daniel%2C+however%2C+used+the+language+of+%E2%80%9Cvisions%E2%80%9D+to+describe+his+experiences%2C+even+after+he+saw+angels+and+received+knowledge+through+them%2C+as+we+can%22&oq=%22Daniel%2C+however%2C+used+the+language+of+%E2%80%9Cvisions%E2%80%9D+to+describe+his+experiences%2C+even+after+he+saw+angels+and+received+knowledge+through+them%2C+as+we+can%22 Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Daniel/Archive_9&oldid=896216536"