Talk:Prophecy of Seventy Weeks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Change title for chapter 11?

For NeoRambam and Mindy: I'm putting this here because you're about the only people I know who are particularly active on this set of articles. There's a single article dealing with chapters10-11-12 of Daniel, which is understandable as they deal with a single vision (it happens to have been given three chapters in bibles, but that's just because chapters were only introduced in the Middle Ages - they're not original). Would it not be a good idea to retitle that article? Maybe as Daniel's Final Vision or something? This is just a suggestion as I don't want to be accused of "owning" the article. By the way, I congratulate you both on your work here. PiCo (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words @PiCo! I think your suggestion of giving a new title to that article along the lines you propose is an excellent idea, and that the current title (i.e. "Daniel 11") is inappropriate to the full scope of the material covered there, as you point out. NeoRambam (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Fragments from chapters 10, 11 and 12 have shown up in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/31/New-Light-on-the-Book-of-Daniel-from-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls.aspx?gclid=Cj0KEQiAuqC2BRDVxMSnpa-mhZoBEiQAFta8wZ3Hf4OfIRoGubB9kv1rysaoDW1ATMg-_11ihsE-tpMaArln8P8HAQ#Article , so they were part of the original book of Daniel and were not added later in the Middle Ages. --MindyWaters (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@PiCo is only saying that the chapter divisions were added during the medieval period, not that the underlying text was originally produced at that time. I also know for a fact that this is true with regards to the chapter divisions in the New Testament; I am less sure about the Hebrew Bible, though, but it doesn't matter in any case since Dan 10–12 obviously constitute a unified whole. NeoRambam (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That's correct, I merely mean that the book was originally one long piece, and the chapter divisions came later. I might be wrong about them coming in the Middle Ages, though. Anyway, if it's agreed that the article should be retitled, I think we need to approach an admin to do it, or at least for advice, as I think retitling articles is a serious matter.PiCo (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. NeoRambam (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Secondary passages

As PiCo rightly noted, it is standard terminology among biblical scholars to say that a passage is "secondary" if it is believed to have been added later. However, in my opinion, this is not an instance of idiosyncratic technical jargon that a non-specialist reader couldn't be expected to understand, as it is consistent with how this word is defined in a regular English dictionary. At the same time, if anyone disagrees with this judgment, please make your argument here so that we can discuss it on this talk page.

NeoRambam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dispensationalist Readings

If anyone has a concern about how the dispensationalist view is represented in the Christological readings subsection, then let's discuss it here. NeoRambam (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Where in the world are you getting that the use of a 360-day year or starting with the decree in Nehemiah are unique to Dispensationalism? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the article in its current form doesn't claim that these elements are unique to dispensationalism, only that dispensationalist readings of the seventy weeks prophecy typically contain these elements. The fact that dispensationalist readings typically contain these elements is reliably sourced in the article via scholarly references to works by Hess, Doukhan, and Hoehner. So that's one answer to your question.

A more detailed answer might be that the tradition within dispensationalist circles of reading the prophecy as a timeline of 360-day prophetic years that begins with Nehemiah can be traced to Robert Anderson (see his book "The Coming Prince" now in the public domain), who was a dispensationalist member of the Plymouth Brethren movement and contemporary with John Nelson Darby (one of the founders of dispensationalism). This interpretation was further adopted, refined, and popularized by the dispensationalist biblical scholar, Harold Hoehner, who taught at a dispensationalist seminary in Dallas Theological Seminary. So there can be no denying that this is how major thinkers within dispensationalism have read the prophecy. Moreover, it cannot be denied that most of the elements associated with dispensationalist readings in the article are unique to that movement: dispensationalists were the first to suggest that the seventy weeks were weeks of 360-day prophetic years; that there was a gap between the 69th and 70th week called the church age; that the rapture of the church would mark the beginning of the 70th week; and so on.

Finally, I would appreciate it if you would be more clear as to what you see as the problem. Do you think the dispensationalist view is misrepresented in the article; and if so, why? Or are you concerned about something else entirely? NeoRambam (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the current version of the article - as I've heard from a number of people who've read it and gotten this misconception - is that it makes it sound like this is a uniquely Dispensationalist view. It isn't clear that it's simply a view that many Dispensationalists hold, but that this view is somehow integrally tied with Dispensationalism. My edits erase that misconception.

Also, what is you source for "dispensationalists were the first to suggest that the seventy weeks were weeks of 360-day prophetic years"? I've heard this interpretation from a number of people who are not Dispensationalists. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this. It seems to me that the best way forward is to reword the third paragraph of the Christological readings subsection in such a way as to make it clear that while this interpretation was originally developed by dispensationalists it has since been adopted by others as well. That way people reading the article will not be tempted to think that only dispensationalists interpret the prophecy this way, which seems to be your main concern. Would such a change be acceptable to you?

My earlier statement that dispensationalists were the first to suggest that the seventy weeks were weeks of 360-day prophetic years is supported by the fact that there is no record of anyone (church father or later interpreter) defending such a view prior to 19th century dispensationalists like Anderson. NeoRambam (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the 360-day prophetic year applied to Daniel 9 predates Anderson (and Darby) by at least a century. The scholar Bishop William Lloyd (an editor to the 1701 King James Bible) applied a 360-day "Chaldee year" to both Jeremiah's 70 years and Daniel's 70 Weeks (but did not do any calculation to the day). [1] István 17:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your contribution to this disucssion István, I stand corrected! Now I wonder whether Anderson (and by extension Hoehner) might have been influenced in some way by Bishop Lloyd on this point. I am fairly well-read on the last century's worth of scholarship on this text and don't remember Bishop Lloyd's work even being mentioned once in the secondary literature.

Still, I would like to stress that the current version of the article only states that dispensationalists interpret the prophecy this way; not that every element of their interpretation was originally developed by them, nor even that only dispensationalists hold to this view. Anyone who comes away thinking the latter is misreading the article. So my proposal to AlphabeticThing9 that the relevant paragraph be revised in such a way as to reduce the odds of such a misreading stands. NeoRambam (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, re-wording it along those lines would be fine. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me know if the latest version of the article does not adequately resolve the concerns expressed on this Talk page. NeoRambam (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

In what world would a paragraph that begins with "Another influential way of reading the prophecy has more recently been advanced by dispensationalist interpreters" do such a thing? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Dispensationalism Again

Dear AlphabeticThing9,

Please explain how the third paragraph of the Christological readings subsection suggests that the interpretation described therein is "unique" to dispensationalism. My proposed revision of this paragraph clearly states that the interpretation popularized by various dispensationalists contains elements that were also supported by earlier interpreters (i.e. Africanus, Bishop William Lloyd) and that this view is held by non-dispensationalists today. So anyone reading my proposed revision would know that certain elements of this interpretation are not unique to dispensationalism and that this view has grown in popularity to the point where it's held by non-dispensationalists as well. Yet you say that my proposed revision is "not even close" to addressing the concerns you expressed earlier. NeoRambam (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The very first words are "Another influential way of reading the prophecy has more recently been advanced by dispensationalist interpreters". It immediately begins by inherently tying it to Dispensationalism, just like the old version. And just like the old version, people are going to come away from it thinking that it is some uniquely Dispensationalist approach. Why does it need to tie the two together at all?

Also, the constant reverts are starting to look like WP:OWN behavior. Given that you previously made the demonstrably false claim that Dispensationalists were the first to advance this view, why do all edits about the relationship between it and Dispensationalism evidently require your approval? I'm seeing some WP:CIR here too based on things like that. Not to mention WP:OR from your reasoning "well, I personally don't know of anyone who said it before them, so let's have the page say that they were the first". AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The claim that this interpretation has been advanced by "dispensationlist interpreters" is reliably sourced with references to scholarly works by Hess, Doukhan, Hoehner, etc.; WP:NPOV prioritizes the retention of sourced information and is not consistent with removing such content for no other reason than the worry that someone could potentially misread it. That said, I wouldn't mind revising the article to say that this interpretation has been advanced by "dispensationalist and other interpreters" or even just "various interpreters" for the sake of reaching some sort of consensus with you on this point. Unless you have some unstated agenda, I would imagine that a simple change in wording along these lines would suffice.

With regards to your various accusations: Reverting your edits on two different occasions in the interest of reaching consensus before major changes are made to this subsection does not amount to a violation of WP:OWN. Also, the fact that I was mistaken about a minor point expressed only in the context of our discussion on this Talk page and not the main article itself hardly amounts to either a conflict with WP:OR or a WP:CIR concern. Moreover, the point on which I was mistaken concerned whether dispensationalists were the first to think that the seventy weeks were weeks of 360-day years, I continue to think that the entire interpretation as a whole was first developed by dispensationalist thinkers, so your characterization is inaccurate here as well.

In any case, AlphabeticThing9, let's resist the temptation to accuse each other of violating policy simply because we're struggling to find common ground on this Talk page. I am willing to be flexible, but reaching consensus requires some discussion here. NeoRambam (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the page as written makes it sound like that is a uniquely Dispensationalist interpretation or somehow tied up in Dispensationalism. In reality it is independent from Dispensationalism. It isn't a problem with any factual claims per se, but the fact that the information is presented in such a way that it implies an inaccurate conclusion.

I'd be fine with a switch to something like "various interpreters". AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, that works for me as a compromise. NeoRambam (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Undoing the latest edits

Can you explain why you believed that each of the changes that were undone needed to be so? Things like linking to the page about the 360-day calendar are very useful for a reader to get additional information on the subject. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to such a link, so please feel free to restore that edit. NeoRambam (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Why undo absolutely everything then...? Remember that the page is not your's AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, these allegations aren't helpful. My concern with some of your edits has been that they conflict with core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:RS; there's no single version of this page that I wish to preserve, nor do I think that all edits must be to my liking or taste.

For example, you've recently asserted in the edit summary box that the concept of a delayed seventieth week is not "fundamental to any" view; however, the sources provided in the article to works by Doukhan and Hoehner indicate that this concept is essential to the view that says that the death of Christ marks the end of the sixty-ninth week in the year 32/3 CE. So it looks to me as if you're promoting distinctions within views without also providing additional reliable sources to justify your claims concerning these distinctions, which is the sort of thing that should not go unchallenged.

Problematic ownership behavior is defined in terms of repeatedly reverting the edits of others without explanation and other forms of abusive behavior, including naked assertions of authority over content and insults. It's not an accusation that can be leveled against someone simply because they've reverted another person's edits on multiple occasions, the context in which those reversions took place matters. NeoRambam (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

All Doukhan says that that is what Dispensationalists do. He says the "Historical-Messianic Interpretation" does not do this. So the edit's version is correct in that it is only under some views that the final set of seven weeks is separated. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What Doukhan is calling the "Historical-Messianic Interpretation" is the one described in the second paragraph of the Christological readings section, hence the reason why the same article written by him is referenced there as well. As I have said repeatedly, it is the type of interpretation outlined in the third paragraph that has a seventieth week separated from the rest, with supporting references given.

You seem to think that there are noteworthy interpretations which have the sixty-ninth week end with Christ's death and no separated seventieth week, as that would justify the creation of a new fourth paragraph to make a further distinction. But even if you privately know that to be true, reliable sources need to be given in order to justify this extra distinction. NeoRambam (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Historical-Messianic Interpretation that he lays out there is one example of such a view. Preterist views also don't have a division between the 69th and 70th week, see for example http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html#fourteen or https://revelationrevolution.org/daniel-9-24-27-commentary-daniel-9-miraculously-fulfilled/ for direct examples. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for providing those links, as it helps move our conversation forward. The next issue we have to address is that these sources are in conflict with WP:RS and WP:NOR, which state that articles are to be based mainly on reliable secondary sources and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources, with the relevant concept of a reliable source being defined in terms of books, scholarly journals, and peer-reviewed articles (since biblical criticism/interpretation is a discipline belonging to the humanities and/or history). Needless to say, blog posts don't meet this standard for what counts as a reliable secondary source.

I have no problem distinguishing these Preterist interpretations from those already described in the article so long as you (or someone else) can support such edits with reliable secondary sources that meet the standard described above. I understand that finding sources that meet that standard can be difficult, but this is an important way for ensuring that content has encyclopedic value since articles are not supposed to function as complete expositions of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding their subjects. NeoRambam (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

For a scholarly source, I'll also add the article here: https://zdoc.site/the-hebrew-masculine-plural-for-digital-commons-andrews.html, which argues from the grammar of the passage that the seventieth week shouldn't be divided. It concludes "the unitary block of ‘seventy weeks’ cannot be split apart…by means of any intervening time period, gap, or parenthesis...[the language] is employed to emphasize the sum total of the 'seventy weeks' as a complete and uninterrupted span of time". Also, JFTR, none of those are blog posts AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

While this article can be used as a reliable secondary source for article content, it doesn't support the existence of an interpretation that has the sixty-ninth week end with Christ's death and no separated seventieth week. Indeed, it is not even relevant to the Christological readings subsection, as it doesn't engage the passage at the level of a messianic prophecy that provides a prophetic timeline for the coming of Christ—no such interpretation is discussed in the article. Again, I think it would be better for you to find scholarly sources for the Preterist views you referenced earlier, as that would justify the creation of a new paragraph for distinguishing such views from the ones with a separated seventieth week. NeoRambam (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)— NeoRambam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How does it not? Its entire argument is that all seventy are undivided. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)