Talk:Belshazzar

In song
The story of Belshazzar is told in a song of the same name by Johnny Cash and the Tennessee Two in the early 1950s with Sun Records

And William Walton wrote a tone poem ''Belshazzar's Feast." Wetman 23:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--

Book of Daniel
There is no reason to assume the historical elements of Daniel are fiction. Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 tells us in the fourth year(three years completed) of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar sieged Jerusalem. This is 613 BC, durring Nabopolassars reign. In the twelfth year of Jehoiakim, the first year of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, a second siege takes place. This is the 605 BC siege under Nebuchadnezzar II. Jehoiachin is taken captive and Zediekiah rules for another 11 years. Daniel tells us that Belshazzar is killed the first day of Darius's reign, 522 BC, in the third year of Belshazar's reign, right after Nebuchadnezzar dies. It is not that someone is writing fiction, it is that subsequent rulers are being called by the same name. Even Cyrus in the bible must be Cambyses or Smerdis using the name Cyrus in 524 BC, if 70 years are to be reckoned after the last captivity. He makes a point to say "I Cyrus, the same Cyrus", as though there was doubt. My reckoning of the cronology of the Bible agrees with most of the important dates. 605, Nebuchadnezzars siege, 522, Darius reign, 517,temple is complete, the third siege in 597, even the destruction of Jericho in 1500 BC, and a strong association between what is known of the Hyksos with Joseph through Exodus, so long as you take all of the dates given at face value, and believe God over Moses. It means someone reigned under the name Artaxerxes in 523, that does not mean this is the person we identify as Artaxerxes I who came much later. The temple was delayed only two years. The agreement of those dates falls out naturally just by assuming the bible means what it says. I also assume, whether prophecy or post diction, I believe prophecy, that the years between Zedekiahs captivity and the return to Jerusalem are 70, just as Jeremiah said. Not only do I get the perfect agreement of known historical dates, but the final date given in the bible, after the weeks of years given by Daniel, is 2BC, a year before the death of Herod. There is no contradiction in the biblical account to known history, its errors in calculation, which are easy to make because the account is convoluted, and figures are known by different names. Assumptions are made by some that I do not make, like Ezra must be 50 years after the temple is completed, to make it match up with the reign of Darius II, but if you do that you cannot contruct a continuos cronology using the information in the Bible. If you assume Ezras journey is right after temple is completed as it is writen, it tells you the reign of Darius was 522 BC, and the reign of the Artaxerxes who delayed the temple was 523 BC, and Cyrus was 524 BC, and from Daniel we can construct the dates of Belahazzar, who rules right after a Nebuchadnezzar, but probably not Nebuchadnezzar II. 2600:1004:b046:ba35:b2:54d6:a684:416 (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2021


 * What a load of unsourced nonsense. Unless you can back up anything you say with a reference to a reliable source, it should not go in the article since Wikipedia follows reliable sources. It matters little that certain parts of the Biblical account can match up with certain elements of real history if you add your own unverified interpretations and calculations. What matters is that the Book of Daniel gets important historical details wrong. The Babylonians kept extensive records which are still preserved to us today. For the royal successions from one king to the next we often even have precise dates in terms of months and days. Belshazzar was never king of Babylon. The Babylonian records are very precise in only ever designating him as crown prince. Darius the Mede is not a historical figure, because the Babylonian documents are very clear in that the succession was directly from Nabonidus to Cyrus, and there are no records of anyone else. "It is not that someone is writing fiction, it is that subsequent rulers are being called by the same name" is your own unsourced opinion. Why would rulers by called by the wrong names? "My reckoning of the cronology of the Bible agrees with most of the important dates" - your reckoning or interpretation of the bible is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia, and the Bible is not generally considered a reliable source of historical information anyway. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It is original scholarship. My calculations are nothing but entering the years recorded in the Bible into a spreadsheet. There is nothing added, no interpretation, no assumptions. None are needed. It's a rote calculation. My source is the bible, and there is no reason that one should believe a Babylonian king's list has more historical value than a Hebrew king's list which is what Samuel through 2 Chronicles are. Ethnically biased much? There is no reason to think you would find Belshazzars name on a Babylonian king's list that ended with Nabonidus being overthrown by Cyrus, but there does exist evidence that Belshazzar may have stayed in charge over Babylon until 522 BC.  You have no right to dismiss a historical source because you think it may intermingled with fiction. Then you may as well throw out all of the histories. You are wrong. The bible cronology matches so well you would have to conclude that the Bible is the primary source for all of those dates, 605 522 517, 1500.  It's not a good fit to the data, it's a perfect fit to the data. Speaking of opinions, it is also opinion that Daniel is fiction.  An honest discussion would show a counterpoint of scholars and historians who do not agree that Daniel is fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B046:BA35:B2:54D6:A684:416 (talk • contribs)


 * Let's go through what you're saying point by point because I don't really have the time to go on a lengthy argument.


 * 1) It is original scholarship - this is exactly why it cannot be added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, regardless of how correct that research is. Information on Wikipedia has to be cited to reliable, preferrably scholarly, sources. You will notice that the article as it stands right now is fully cited. Your objections to the article do not matter unless you can provide a reliable scholarly source which supports your position. That's not just me being rude, but the information needs to be sourced.
 * 2) My calculations are nothing but entering the years recorded in the Bible into a spreadsheet. There is nothing added, no interpretation, no assumptions. None are needed. It's a rote calculation. - you have added your own interpretation. For instance "subsequent rulers are being called by the same name".
 * 3) My source is the bible - yeeeeeah... I feel like I shouldn't have to tell you why this doesn't really work.
 * 4) there is no reason that one should believe a Babylonian king's list has anymore historical value than a Hebrew king's list, which is what Samuel through 2 Chronicles are. There is no reason to think you would find Belshazzars name on a Babylonian king's list that ended with Nabonidus being overthrown by Cyrus, but there does exist evidence that Belshazzar may have stayed in charge over Babylon until 522 BC. - you appear to not be well-versed in the historical evidence that actually survives from Babylon. It's not just some king list. We have thousands upon thousands of clay tablets preserved from Babylon with precise dates down to the month and day, and the Babylonians always noted down the ruling king in their messages (this is how they numbered their years). We can thus pinpoint exactly when successions took place, and who succeeded whom. We know not only from king lists but also from a wealth of other preserved materials that Cyrus directly succeeded Nabonidus. I have made no comment on Samule or 2 Chronicles because my field of knowledge is Mesopotamia, not Judea, but your ideas concerning Babylonian succession do not match the historical evidence. If Belshazzar had ever become king, or if he would have ruled for as long as 17 years (539 to 522), we would know. Not only would he appear in king lists (even kings who were hated by the Babylonians were not omitted) and we would have an extensive records of tablets and documents dated to his reign, which we do not. Instead, the dates on tablets fit nicely in with the direct succession from Nabonidus to Cyrus.
 * 5) You have no right to dismiss a historical source because you think it may intermingled with fiction. Yes I do. The mainstream academic consensus is to view the Book of Daniel as fiction.
 * 6) The bible cronology matches so well you would have to conclude that the Bible is the primary source for all of those dates, 605 522 517, 1500. It's not a good fit to the data, it's an exquisite fit to the data. The Bible is not the primary source for any dates in the Babylonian chronology. They are known from tablets and king lists, i.e. actual historical evidence, not Hebrew religious writings. Given that your calculations require you to make the unsourced and made-up assumption that a lot of kings went by different names and that it requires Belshazzar to have had a historically non-existant lengthy reign, I think it's pretty clear that the Bible does not fit the dates very well. This shouldn't really by a surprise since the Bible is quite inconsistent even within itself.
 * 7) Speaking of opinions, it is also opinion that Daniel is fiction. Sure, but it fits very poorly with the historical evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever for the story itself, or for things like Darius the Mede being real or Belshazzar being king. As I said, it's not just my opinion, but the mainstream opinion in academia.
 * 8) An honest discussion would show a counterpoint of scholars and historians who do not agree that Daniel is fiction. No it would not. For Wikipedia policy, see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The consensus among historians is that the Book of Daniel is fiction. The viewpoint of the small number of Bible literalists does not need mentioning here, much like how the article on the moon landing should not present the moon landing being fake as an equally valid view to it being real, or the article on the Earth should mention the planet being flat as an equally valid view to it being spherical.


 * I would recommend you to go on with your day and spend your time on something more productive. You can't add anything of what you say because it's your original research and you do not seem well-versed in Wikipedia policy or Babylonian history. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The objection to Daniel as a historical source cannot simply be that it tells of miraculous things. It gives several dates that are historically significant, even if it was embellished. There is no reason to think a king wouldn't have consulted seers and astrologers.  Your lack of belief in those things does not preclude the king having belief in those things. Then the idea that Daniel is one of these seers consulted by the king is not so far fetched.  Whether you want to believe the specifics of what happened is different from understanding that these events happened in some historical capacity. It is likely that Daniel is what it appears to be, a journal of a seer who was consulted by the king, known as Nebuchadnezzar.  The historically significant dates that Daniel provides are critical to piecing together the entire biblical cronology. They are key witnesses to narrowing down that Ezra must be talking about Darius I in 522 BC. It eliminates the uncertainty of when the release decree went out and how long the temple was delayed. And then when you stitch it all together, Daniel prophesys the comming of the Messiah in 2BC. This cannot be coincidence.  The book would have to have been much later than 2BC to postdict that in a prophecy, but by all historical accounts we know that book is older than that. The thing we want to learn from these histories is ARE the prophecies and miracles true?  It is a question. So your assumptions about what is possible should be suspended and you should follow the historical account through to it's conclusion. Then maybe we will learn for sure or not if the prophecy is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B046:BA35:B2:54D6:A684:416 (talk • contribs)


 * You clearly just ignored everything I said and you do not appear to be interested in having a reasonable discussion, or presenting anything we can actually use for Wikipedia. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) It's not an interpretation. It a necessary logical conclusion if one is to think that the Bible is speaking of historical figures. Being that all of the biblical dates seem to match exactly those dates obtained from Babylonian sources, it's absurd to not conclude that the Darius, the Mede, in the Bible, is Darius I in 522 BC.  That is the only assumption I made, that the accepted date of Darius's ascension was true and accurate and that it was talking about Darius I.  6) The rest of the dates just fit after that assumption. 605, 597, 517, 2, 1500. 4) I wondered myself how the accepted dates came to be after that. How do they know Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem in 605 outside of the Bible, or does it come completely from the Bible.  That's partly why I have joined this discussion. It's too exact. 5)The bandwagon argument is not valid.  A majority of mainstream scholars can be wrong. 7)There is evidence that there was a Belshazzar the king and a Darius the Mede and that is synonymous with Darius I.  It just that you have decided that you are the arbiter of what is historical evidence and what isnt, and it's based on nothing but an anti-religious bias. If we're any other source you would be elated to have found confirmation that Darius I ascended in 522. 8) We aren't talking about a conspiracy, except for the atheist conspiracy to supress biblical evidence. This is not the moon landing.  It is a lie that there is no evidence of these things we are talking about.  This is about you wanting to eliminate the Bible being considered an historical source, and you do so by assuming it's supernatural elements preclude it having any historical value. By that reasoning nothing should be considered to have any historical value.


 * I would recommend you not worry about how I spend my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B046:BA35:B2:54D6:A684:416 (talk • contribs)


 * It is an interpretation. Does the Bible say that Darius the Mede is Darius the Great? No . Does the Bible include your calculation? No . Does the Bible say that several kings went under different names? No . The dates obviously match very poorly because you believe Belshazzar reigned as king until 522 BC, which he did not. If he would have, we would not have an extensive number of cuneiform tablets that mark the transition from Nabonidus to Cyrus. We have cuneiform tablets dated to Nabonidus' reign from 13 October 539 BC and tablets dated to Cyrus from 30 October 539 BC. The mainstream opinion concerning the Babylonian succession is not just based on king lists, but a wealth of other historical material. The bandwagon argument is not valid. A majority of mainstream scholars can be wrong. shows that you fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, but a collection of information sourced to reliable scholarly sources. Wikipedia follows the mainstream scholarly opinion, and does not promote fringe or views only held by a small minority (again, see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE). It just that you have decided that you are the arbiter of what is historical evidence and what isnt, and it's based on nothing but an anti-religious bias You're really going to call something biased when you prefer a Bronze-Age Hebrew collection of myths and legends as a historical source over the actual texts by the Babylonians themselves and the opinion of virtually all of modern scholarship? It's not my decision personally - Wikipedia presents the mainstream scholarly view. The mainstream view is that the Bible is not generally a reliable source of historical information and that its chronology of Babylonian history specifically does not match the more reliable historical evidence (king lists made by the Babylonians themselves and not a foreign group like the Hebrews, inscriptions by Babylonian kings, and the thousands upon thousands of surviving contemporary Babylonian documents). It's not anti-religious bias. Not all Christians believe the Book of Daniel should be taken literally. There is evidence that there was a Belshazzar the king and a Darius the Mede and that is synonymous with Darius I No there isn't. Your "evidence" for this is the Bible and your own calculations. The Bible is not used as a source of historical information on Wikipedia and your own calculations qualify as original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. If this information was correct you would be able to provide a reliable scholarly source to support it, but you can't and thus it cannot be added to the article. I don't think it's productive for me to keep explaining the actual evidence we have for the Babylonian succession and Wikipedia policy to you so I again recommend you to spend your time on something more productive because nothing you said could be added to the article regardless of if it's right or not since you're not providing anything to cite it to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You use the bible as a historical source whether you know it or not. After a minor adjustment to my calculation, allowing that both Babylonian captivities endured for a seventy year period, the biblical timeline now runs parallel to every known historical date regarding the Babylonian captivity 608 Pharaoh Necho, 598, 587, 517, 522 Darius, 528 Cyrus, which is another date of his death cited as often as 530, it also accurately shows the dates of the Assyrian rulers from Tig'lath-pile'ser to Sennach'erib. One has to be a complete fool to think the bible is not historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0CA:315B:7BB9:A0C6:7228:392D (talk • contribs)


 * Your calculations have no place on Wikipedia because 1) they conflict with the reliable scholarly sources cited in the article (and the wealth of actual historical material they treat) and 2) you have provided no reliable scholarly source to support them. It's that simple. One has to be a complete fool to think the bible is not historical Yeah, right. The Bible is rife with historical inaccuracies, not only for the parts covering the Babylonian and Achaemenid kings. There are large historical issues with the account of the Exodus and there is no evidence that there was ever a Great Flood, to mention just two obvious examples. It's not strange for non-contemporary writers in a completely different country to get the Babylonian succession wrong, but to believe that their (Biblical) account should be prioritized over the massive amount of actual historical Babylonian evidence, now that's foolish. I would recommend you actually read about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the actual evidence we have instead of just relying on the Bible the next time you want to put together an argument. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have not said the bible should be prioritized over other evidence. That is not the way evidence works. They work together to establish a fact. What I am telling you is that the Bible agrees with every source I can find of the dates of these events. It is more than coincidence for the biblical timeline to pass through the dates of so many known historical events. Either the bible is a very accurate historical register of dates and years, and other historical dating methods are also very accurate, and they agree, or all of the dates we know about these events have come from the Bible and from this calculation in the past. It does not mater what one thinks about the flood, whether real or myth.  The subsequent known historical dates are correct because of their relative position to one another. I could tack on a million years of mythological history and it does not affect the accuracy of the non mythological parts so long as the mythological part is removed from the historical part and tacked on at the beginning. What matters is if I assume that Darius in Ezra is Darius I and I set that date to 522, then all of other dates I spoke of fit perfectly with known history, because of their relative position.  Actually, Manetho in Aegyptiaca begins with something similar. He starts with a mythological beginning spanning 11000 years, but requires that these are months and claims that there were some 2000 years of rule by the god's before the first king's. But here's the thing, you don't throw out Manetho as a valid source of historical information just because it begins with a mythological account. You separate what could be fact from what you think is likely fiction and you draw what you can from it. Yet for some reason because the bible begins the same way, you say it has no historical value when clearly it is a temporally detailed and accurate record of events of a people. The Hebrew morality was no different than any civilization of the day. They were all constantly warring with one another and killing left and right. This is not unique to the Hebrews. At least it was no different in that sense of war and bloodshed.  I can imagine what else you would mean by offensive morality. No lying stealing false gods or idols,no adultery, no false witness, no covetousness of you neighbor s wife of possessions, no killing, honor mom and dad...yeah their morality was awfully offensive. Or do you mean a man is required to marry a woman if he rapes her and can never divorce her? You law is about intent, and it is pretty clear the intent of that law is that he will be indebted to her for the rest of his life. So what's offensive about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0CA:315B:7BB9:A0C6:7228:392D (talk • contribs)


 * You're wasting your breath and wasting our time. You have lost this dispute before it even began. This is enshrined in the practice of the Wikipedia Community and it is enshrined in policies and guidelines. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;"

- Beardsley Ruml

If your intention is to fight against MBS, learn that you have already lost your fight, here at Wikipedia.

Conclusion: the IP has lost this debate before even beginning to write their arguments at this talk page. It is such a basic issue that all Wikipedians who don't realize that the IP lost by default are fools and knaves. As Robert Reich stated, There are two kinds of liars – fools and knaves. Fools lie because they don't know the truth. Knaves lie because they intend to mislead. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not asking to have my research put up on Wikipedia. I am saying that interjections about the book of Daniel being complete fiction are baseless and unfounded, and they do not belong on a page about Belsahzzar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0CA:315B:7BB9:A0C6:7228:392D (talk • contribs)


 * You are not an authority upon this matter. We don't listen to you. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You have no authority to arbitrarily decide what is true or false, fact or fiction, which is what you are doing. And further, the statement is intended to be an offensive toward anyone who does believe that the story is true. The statement has no other academic value. It is a parenthetical jab. It belongs in a subsection on the Book of Daniel. Yet that is the statement that you all are here to defend, that is where you put the tag telling people to come to talk page. Now I am not certain but I am pretty sure, I would bet, there is some sort of rule in the Wikipedia policy about writing things with sole intention of being offensive. You are turning an academic discussion about figures in the Bible into a platform from which to enforce your atheistic beliefs. It is thought oppression by a minority.


 * Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0CA:315B:7BB9:A0C6:7228:392D (talk • contribs)


 * As I have already stated on my user page, the idea that I am an atheist is not reality-based (of course, I have stated it there much more bluntly).
 * Upon thought oppression by a minority: see WP:DEM and ad populum.
 * "If they want a pulpit, I suggest here, not WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)"
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't mean anyone in particular. I don't know that you made that edit. But Wikipedia is eaten up with often unsourced edits on nearly every page about the bible, or related even in the slightest, hammering atheistic talking points, or expressing unsourced anti religious bias as fact.  Sometimes they are sourced but check the source and you find it really dosen't say what they claim it said.  Now it may be that many scholars think the Book of Daniel is fiction, but it does not belong in every encyclopedia article that mentions the Book of Daniel. No mater how many scholars agree it is still an opinion and it should appear in a subsection discussion regarding scholarly opinion about the books of Daniel, not in the bulk of the text relaying the factual information about the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0CA:315B:7BB9:A0C6:7228:392D (talk • contribs)


 * In the mainstream academia there is no dispute about the historicity of the Book of Daniel: that book has been settled as bogus for more than a century.
 * WP:NPOV requires us to mention all academic mainstream views. There is no other academic mainstream view about its historicity. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It does not matter. Interjections about the factuality of the book of Daniel have nothing to do with the facts of who Belshazzar was. The comment does not belong on this page. An encyclopedia relates facts about the topic, the comment that the book of Daniel is regarded as fiction is not a fact about the topic Belshazzar.


 * Suggesting you are an atheist is nothing at all like suggesting that you are an agent of the NWO, but yet you conflate the two just like you conflate Belshazzar and your crusade to pepper every biblical topic with atheist sentiment by interjecting with statements that have no place in the sections being discussed. Did I hear this guy's right, since he paid to make edits noone can correct or modify his opinions? That's what it seemed to say in the opening of his user page. If so Wikipedia is worthless.  It's got a bad enough rep already but what's the point of an open knowledge base if the platform can be sold to the highest bidder? Just another propaganda machine. Edit: I misunderstood that is not quite what he said. I understand now.


 * Wikipedia kowtows to mainstream academia. But this is hardly news. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about your user page, saying you were paid for edits and the community can't change them...not the Wikipedia community, as I originally thought.


 * We have to include that the Book of Daniel is fiction because it is the most famous cultural appearance of Belshazzar. This is a fact-based encyclopedia that provides the current academic consensus. Readers should be informed that the Biblical character of Belshazzar is not a close fit for the real historical figure he is based on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * And just a last thought. I can understand why some would say Daniel is fiction. It makes many claims that would make one think it is a late work. Surely the author couldn't have known about those things unless they had already happened. I can tell you for sure though, it is the 70 years prophecy that makes the timeline fit the known historical date, both captivities.  Without them one can only guess the relative dates.  The bible timeline does not work without Jeremiahs prophecy.  The early dates like Jericho 1500BC, and the alignment of the Exodus with Ahmose I driving out the Hyksos 1532, do not fit unless you assume the words of God in Genesis are true, that they would sojourn 400 years in Egypt in a land not their own, and when all is said and done, from when nehemiah hands the keys to his successor, the weeks of years prophecy, which basically says 490 years till the comming of the Messiah, ends in 2BC, the birth of Christ, 1 year before the death of Herod. That is not coincidence.  Either it's a prophecy, or Daniel is even much later than Jesus Christ, but we know that is not true.  And someone would have had to have known there would be an exactly 490 year gap between Nehemiah's last date and the birth of Jesus Christ. Either it was counted or it was predicted. Conspiracy or Prophecy, but not coincidence or post diction. Remember the whole thing depends on one known date.  Without at least one known date I wouldn't be able to fit it to anything. While all of that is true, it is all a modest proposition in the end.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Belshazzar, just like that damned comment stating that book of Daniel is regarded as fiction. I't dosen't belong where it is.
 * I just explained why that comment belongs where it is. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I just explained why it dosen't. It is irrelevant to the topic. To discuss opinions about the historical value of the book requires another section according to the policies and guidelines. A reader learning about Belshazzar does not need to be sidelined by comments that the book of Daniel is regarded as fiction.  It is editorial bias and an opportunistic use of the platform.
 * It's not irrelevant to the topic. I explained precisely why it is relevant. It is not an opinion of the book's historical value, it is the mainstream consensus in academia and it is important because the Biblical depiction is probably more well-known than the actual historical figure, which means that it is vital to point out that they are quite different. To discuss opinions about the historical value of the book requires another section according to the policies and guidelines No it does not, and you've already demonstrated your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies several times. Readers aren't "sidelined" by the comment, it is important to understanding who Belshazzar was and who he wasn't. It is editorial bias and an opportunistic use of the platform is a baseless accusation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * They are not quite different, we know very little about Belshazzar at all. Why would someone pick this obscure figure of which very little was actually known, to base a fiction around? We don't know when he died, but we have another document that is testifying of his existence up to 522 BC. They are the same person, just like Darius the Mede is obviously Darius I. Daniel says Darius the Mede took the kingdom the night Belshazzar was killed. I can calculate and show that Darius in the Bible, began to rule in 522 BC, therefore biblical Darius is Darius I.  It is unambiguous. Three separate books testify that the kingdom was divided between the Persians and the  Medes.  This is also attested in Ezra, and Ahasue'rus is testified to again in Esther. If you cared about history or scholarship you would not be so quick to dismiss these things and say Daniel is completely fiction.  Your putting that statement in the Wikipedia article is purely ideologically driven. Has nothing to do with sound history and good scholarship.


 * and also, you said earlier that my calculations "they conflict with the reliable scholarly sources cited in the article (and the wealth of actual historical material they treat)". Yet they agree with every scholarly source on every other topic. 605 Pharaoh necho and The first captivity of which Daniel is a captive, requires that you use the information in Daniel, since he and Jeremiah conflict, to get the correct date. 598 second captivity, 597 Third captivity, 517 temple complete, 522 Darius reigns, 528 for Cyrus first year, Jericho 1492, archeologist place the date of the destruction at 1500BC, Exodus in 1532 agrees with the reign of Ahmose I 1550–1525 BC, who drove the Hyksos out of lower Egypt. And Hyksos comming to Egypt is depicted in a c. 1900 BC mural in the Tomb of Khnumhotep II and it corresponds to the date of Josephs brothers comming to Egypt to buy grain which I calculate to be 1932 BC, their comming to Egypt resulted in a land use agreement and they lived in Lower Egypt for the next 400 years. This is one continuous calculation from the Flood to Nehemiah, and then to 2 BC, every cell depends on the last. It's astounding. Someone who cares about history and scholarship would be astounded at that.  That is what the book you call fiction is carrying around in its pages.

Archives
The linking to old archives in the box on the upper right seems messed up, if someone skilled can take a look at that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Belshazzar
The Bible cannot factually be called a “work of fiction” since this is not an historically provable fact 2601:545:4403:7CF0:0:0:0:7685 (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You do not make the call. Mainstream Bible scholars make the call, e.g.:
 * "The last quarter of the 20th century has also seen the development of a crisis in the historiography of ancient Israel, which shows no sign of abating in the early years of the 21st. This crisis takes the form of a progressive loss of confidence in the historical value of the biblical narratives. In the middle of the 20th century, English language scholarship on ancient Israel was dominated by the Albright school, which placed great confidence in the archeology as a a means by which to affirm the essential reliability of the biblical text, beginning in the time of Abraham. This approach found its classic expression in John Bright's History of Israel, an impressive attempt to contextualize the biblical story by interweaving it with what we know of ancient Near Eastern history. Even when Bright wrote, a more skeptical view prevailed in German scholarship, at least with regard to the early books of the Bible. But the scene has changed drastically in the last quarter century. In a book originally published in 1992, Philip Davies claimed that "biblical scholars actually know - and write - that most of the 'biblical period' consists not only of unhistorical persons and events, but even of tracts of time that do no belong in history at all."

- John J. Collins


 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Academic consensus
Does Encyclopedia Britannica seek to pass Darius the Mede for a genuine historical person? Does Encyclopedia Iranica? Does Encyclopedia Judaica? So neither should we.

Larousse wrote "livre de Daniel Livre biblique composé vers 165 avant J.-C." Why? Because in the mainstream academia that's the only game in town. There is no recent mainstream dating of the Book of Daniel which places its composition outside of the 2nd century BCE. No WP:CHOPSY full Bible professor believes that would be the case, and no US state university and no Ivy League university would teach that for a fact. The historicity of Daniel is dead in the water. No kidding, this is the only view in mainstream academia. If you can show an alternative view from the mainstream academia you will win lots of money from Christian apologetics organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are behaving like WP:RANDY, there is no point editing our articles. See. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The source is Yale Divinity School. Two full professors from Yale are discussing the Book of Daniel. One of them is one of the leading experts on that book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That the Book of Daniel was written around 165 BCE is one of the most certainly established facts in mainstream Bible scholarship, and such academic consensus rulez for more than one century. Doubting that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet is still within the bounds of mainstream Bible scholarship, but not doubting the dating of Daniel to the 2nd century BCE. Of course, the book used an older document containing stories about Daniel, nobody has denied that. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the "broad consensus" in "mainline scholarship" according to Collins. The question is, is that enough to put a statement of fact in WP voice? In other words, is it an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" in terms of WP:YESPOV? StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals disagree, of course, but I would not count them among "mainstream Bible scholars". WP:FRINGE applies, and biblical inerrancy is WP:FRINGE, certainly when discussing historiography instead of apologetics. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree with you, but I think you knew that. But the point is, even within "mainline scholarship" we still have (only?) a "broad consensus". Is that enough for wikivoice? I don't think it is. I think the article should say "The broad consensus among scholars is that the Book of Daniel was compiled shortly after 164 BCE." StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Though as you indicate above, we may need to double check that year - it's not mentioned on p. 2 of Collins. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If Michael Coogan gives the lie to the theology of his own church, it is business as usual. If Dale Martin (scholar) gives the lie to the theology of his own church, it is business as usual. If fundamentalist and conservative evangelical scholars express doubt that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, they get fired ASAP. So, they will knee-jerk reject everything that contradicts the theology of their own church. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying here, nor what it has to do with the discussion about wikivoice. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mutatis mutandis see https://web.archive.org/web/20210927021435/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/09/07/can-unique-byu-really-be/ tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So... you agree with the change, then? StAnselm (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that casting doubt upon historical facts just because inerrantists disagree is not WP:NPOV, but perhaps this isn't the place to settle such dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For sure, this may need a broader RfC regarding wikivoice in Bible-related articles. Here, anyway, there are two issues: (a) is "Daniel was compiled shortly after the Maccabean revolt" a "historic fact" (I think we can agree that "164 BC" is not), and (b) is prefacing it with "The broad consensus among scholars is that..." casting doubt upon that historic fact (regardless of anyone's motivations for wanting to include such words)? StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. "Broad consensus" is construed around here as a stronger claim than simply mentioning in in the voice of Wikipedia, so I guess opposing it cuts no ice. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 164 BCE is a rather impossible date anyway. According to the main article on the Book of Daniel, the book's author was aware of the military campaigns of Antiochus IV Epiphanes but was unaware of the king's death. The suggested composition date is between 167 and 164 BC, prior to Antiochus' death. Dimadick (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)