Talk:Book of Daniel/Archive 6

points that need sources
Ike said in the above section:

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

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

''The second volume was canonized after the return. Ezra even says that "the Jews built and prospered according to the prophecies of Haggai and Zecheriah..." In other words, this Jewish historian considered those prophecies fulfilled, without any future implications--those problems didn't start until the Roman occupation, when people started asking themselves "what happened?" ...''

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


 * There are a few things which you are going to have to show from reliable sources to back up your statement; 1: That the Jews 'cannonized' their scriptures.  2: That they were 'cannonized' because prophecies had been fulfilled in their eyes.  3: That prophecies had actually been fulfilled at the times when they thought they had been.  _8een4Tfor (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL

The Jews didn't canonize their own scriptures? Deuternomy 13:1-5 doesn't contain the instructions for canonization? The Jews (including Jesus) don't observe Hanukkah, commemorating the events of the Maccabean Revolt?

There comes a point where argument for the sake of argument crosses over into stupidity, and you've crossed it.

Ike Eickman (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been asked for sources. Please read WP:RS to understand what kind of sources you need to provide. This is not stupidity, this is Wikipedia policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I read on Development of the Jewish Bible canon and Tanakh, your view of the canon is rejected by modern scholarship. Plus, I failed to find any mention of fulfilled prophecy being a criterion for inclusion. And I shouldn't need to remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Elizium23 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting plenty of sources. And I'm quite aware of the range of sources.

And thanks: The article on the Development of the Jewish Bible canon supports precisely what I said--Daniel was canonized last because it was fulfilled last. Moreover, it happened sometime during the Hosmonean period which existed between the end of the Maccabean Revolt and the beginning of the Roman occupation. That some modern scholars dispute this is irrelavent--there's always somebody disputing something about facts. (But, as usual, you're overplaying your hand, just like the person who wrote the article.)

And the rules for canonizing the prophets is in Deuternomy 13:1-5, and supported by parts of Jeremiah, and Jesus' trip to the Temple to deliver His prophecy to the Sanhedrin. People didn't just show up at the door and say, "Here. stick this in the book." The Jews had a very precise procedure that had to be followed, and they had to see the prophecies come true (to their satisfaction) before including them. That's how Daniel wound up in the third volume of the Tanakh instead of the second.

Ike Eickman (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does the article on the development of the Jewish canon say that Daniel was canonized last because it was fulfilled last? As for the rest of what you wrote, you need to use WP:RS, not WP:OR.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop using the Christian Bible as a source for Jewish procedure. The Christian Bible has its own problems. If there is a specific Jewish procedure of canonization, I am not aware of it, or even if there is such a process at all. The Rabbis were discussing what to do with Ezekiel, for instance, way after it was accepted. And part of Daniel (the split of the Roman Empire) was not fulilled until much later, and part has still not been fulfilled (the coming of the messiah (sic), from the Jewish viewpoint). And the same applies to the rest of the Bible.Mzk1 (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Kingdoms
1) I Restored the Jewish-historical chart which someone took down, as it was the first mode of interpretation, the one that existed among the Jews before the Roman era (as confirmed by John in Revelation, as noted in the entry). Even the Higher Critics would cite this chart, with the stipulation that they may or not believe in any ramifications of Daniel's prophecies beyond their historical context.

The entry:




 * Pardon, but I wouldn't consider a book of the Christian Bible a good source for Jewish thought. This acticle is already overly Chrsitian, considering it is about a book written by and for Jews.Mzk1 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly, by "criticism" I suspect that you mean modern scholarship or possibly the historical critical approach to interpretation. The object of more modern exegetical methods is not to "criticise" earlier traditions but to provide a more objective approach based on independent historical and literary analysis. The proper place for "traditions" in an article such as this is in a section titled "History of interpretation". Otherwise, an encyclopaedic article should reflect the best and most up-to-date scholarship available on a given topic.

Secondly, I agree completely that the section on literary structure section is is woeful and have criticized it previously. The attempt by William Shea to manufacture an double chiastic structure for the book is highly subjective and doctrinally biased in its suggestion that the "death of the messiah" is the structural fulcrum of the book. It is not, however, the "Adventist" position as such. Rather it is the individual position of an Adventist scholar that seems to have been abandoned completely in a more recent commentary on Daniel. Of course the chiasm of chapters 2-7, first identified by Lenglet, is a well documented and commonly accepted feature of the book's structure.

Thirdly, the issue of dating is normally dealt with in the introduction or textual history sections of similar articles. Because it is so expansive in this article it should stand alone and, yes, it should probably come before the historical accuracy section - even though this is relevant to conclusions on dating. Why the topic of "content" has been mixed up with dating, however, is beyond me. The subsection on the "kingdoms" seems to be the only content referred to but mentions only five chapters of the twelve that make up the book. The court tales (apart from chapter two) and chapter nine are completely ignored so "content" is not an appropriate heading. Moreover, there is already a "contents" heading in section one so a second is completely superfluous. Consequently, I suggest that the "kingdoms" material should be relocated to a new section titled "History of interpretation".

Finally, I agree the "unity of Daniel" section looks a little lonely and should be incorporated into another section - perhaps "literary structure". The Tomb of Daniel part refers to traditions about the hero of the book so I also agree it should be relocated to the "Daniel" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sineaste (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis of traditional Jewish interpretation
I have placed a summary of the traditional (last 2000 years or so) Jewish interpretation of Daniel in the middle of the Interpretations heading above, under the title "Traditional Jewish? Are you serious?". (Sorry about the title; it fit in over there.) The only thing missing there is that the traditional interpretation considers Daniel the author of the prophecies, although not necessarily of the book, and that they are considered divine predictions of the future, although perhaps below the level of prophecy (Nevuah) in the Jewish sense of the term; the Talmud has to prove that Daniel is a prophet.Mzk1 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy Unneeded
I think the Historical Accuracy section has two major issues. The essential one is really not the NPOV issue, but one of length. The Historical Accuracy section is unnecessarily long, and mostly unneeded. With the entire article clocking at over 80 kilobytes, already grounds for splitting under WP:LENGTH, I see no reason to include the tediously long "objections" explaining why Daniel is historically inaccurate. But even setting aside the length of the section, as well as the semi-obvious POV issue, I'm not convinced that the historical accuracy of the text is actually significant and worth including in the article.

My suggestion: Erase all the fourth section, and simply add in the fifth that the vast majority of scholars find at least significant parts of Book of Daniel to be historically inaccurate. I think it would fit nicely with the Dating and Content section, and cut down this monstrosity of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qizix (talk • contribs) 02:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the deletion of the statements entirely, as it has interesting information, but I do think it is a good candidate for its own page and perhaps having a "Main article" link point to it with some key teaser points left behind to help shorten this article. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Historical Accuracy" section sounds like a one sided debate
Dating and content as well as the main paragraph at the top both seem to indicate that there there is a dispute about the date and it's not known completely. You can tell by the line: Due to the prophecy content of the book, skeptics argue that the book was probably composed about 165 BC,[2] shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164.[3] Opinions continue to differ, however, in light of apparently early forms of Aramaic language used in the Aramaic portions.

Suggestion 1 - Historical Accuracy

With that in mind, I think the first paragraph of this section should be revised. It states: ''Dating to the 2nd century BC; the Book of Daniel is the youngest text in the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, there has been some debate on the possibility that some of its content may be informed by historical events of the Achaemenid period.''

That line makes the assumption that it's a settled fact and without dispute. To be neutral I think it should be revised to say something more like: "If it is correct that the book was written in the 2nd century BC; the Book of Daniel would be the youngest text in the Hebrew Bible."

Suggestion 2 - Historical Accuracy: Date of Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of Jerusalem

This entire section is based on the author's statement "This appears to be a description of" and should be removed. The author thinks that the first siege of Jerusalem was in the 11th year of Jehoiakim and that Jehoiakim was then taken away to Jerusalem. His sources were (2Kings 24), (Daniel 5:1-5), and (2Chronicles 36). The first siege of Jerusalem was in the 3rd or 4th year of Jehoiakim though, depending on the chronological system used, and Jehoiakim was not taken away as a captive, thus there is no contradiction as he assumes.

Daniel 1:2 (NKJV):

"And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the articles of the house of God, which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the articles into the treasure house of his god."

Jehoiakim lost to Babylon but was not carried away, instead became a vassal. "gave into his hand" only means it was up to the king of Babylon to do with him as he pleased, it was "in his hand." It is understood and lines up with all of the references quoted that what was carried away to Shinar was only the articles of the house of God. Other verses clearly point out that Jehoiakim stayed in Jerusalem as a vassal.

If you read one of the references he gave, it makes it quite clear:

2 Kings 24:1 (NKJV):

"In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. Then he turned and rebelled against him."

As well Jeremiah 36:9 states "in the fifth year of Jehoiakim" meaning he was still reigning. He also gave Daniel 5:1-2 as a reference even though it only talks about the gold and silver vessels Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple.

Daniel 5:1-2 (NKJV):

"Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in the presence of the thousand. While he tasted the wine, Belshazzar gave the command to bring the gold and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple which had been in Jerusalem..."

In Daniel 5:1-2 there is no reason to believe that it was a recent battle. The only reason those vessels are brought up is to point out the example of how Belshazzar had not humbled himself before the Lord, and the reason for the vision/miracle in the following verses by God. In the same way it showed Nebuchadnezzar's example of how he did not humble himself before God (Daniel 4:30) just before he received his punishment.

The reason for the majority of the author's misunderstanding of dates appears to be with the following verse which he cited.

2 Chronicles 36:5-6 (NKJV):

"Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD his God. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against him, and bound him in bronze fetters to carry him off to Babylon."

There are 2 confusions here it seems. The first is that Nebuchadnezzar coming up against him was after the 11 year period, when in fact it only says that he reigned 11 years. The 2nd confusion is with understanding "to carry him off to Babylon" is what actually happened. It doesn't say he carried him off to Babylon, only that it was the reason he was bound in bronze fetters. If I said "I dressed up nice to go out" it doesn't necessarily mean I went out, though the verse isn't from English, so we should look to the translators. I grabbed the first source I could, if you want to find other interpretations by all means go for it and we can debate what it means.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament:

"Nebuchadnezzar did not carry out his purpose of deporting the captured king Jehoiakim to Babylon, but allowed him to continue to reign at Jerusalem as his servant (vassal). To alter the infin. להוליכו into the perf., or to translate as the perf., is quite arbitrary, as is also the supplying of the words, "and he carried him away to Babylon." That the author of the Chronicle does not mention the actual carrying away, but rather assumes the contrary, namely, that Jehoiakim continued to reign in Jerusalem until his death, as well known, is manifest from the way in which, in 2 Chronicles 36:8, he records his son's accession to the throne."

All in all there is no proof from any of his sources that the battle was in the 11th year of Jehoiakim or that he was taken captive back to Babylon, in fact there is only proof that he stayed as a vassal according to all of his sources. So if we are to understand this correctly, Jehoiakim was placed as a vessel after Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in Daniel 1:1, and only vessels from the temple were taken away. This was all in the 3rd-4th year of Jehoiakim depending on the chronological system used to date it. Daniel and Jeremiah used different chronological systems. Daniel only counted whole years while Jeremiah followed a system in which any part of a year was counted as a full year.

211.181.71.178 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally, WP:TLDR. The article already panders too far to anti-intellectualism. --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't take the time to read the criticism and you insult the author? What an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.30.87 (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Article is partially false
This article is incoherent, incorrect on many issues, and the writer must have been ignorant of the exegesis of the Book of Daniel and mainstream Christian and Jewish Bible prophecy. The editor of this article seems to not know the meaning of preterism, futurism and Dispensationalism. As I was scanning through this article, I have also noticed that you have a link to an anti- messiah figure (Armilus) when referring to a figure that is widely believed to either be referring to Antiochus Epiphanes or the Antichrist. Good faith?? This article might need to be completely rewritten or partially modified. Nashhinton (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a search and did not see Armilus. I do not have a broad knowledge of the concept, but my understanding is that he is a figure in Medrash (perhaps related to Romulus), so your complaint above would not apply. Sorry if I misunderstood.Mzk1 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with User: Nashhinton, this article is incoherent. The subsection Book of Daniel also duplicates many sub articles. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * looking at the discussion and history it is apparent that this article has been written and rewritten by many different editors adding here and there. and deleting here and there.  It has been a long time since any one person sat down and re edited it into a coherent article.    Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Kingdoms
The section of this article titled 'The Kingdoms' is not only poorly written and confusing, it is woefully inaccurate. There is no 'prototypical' 'pre-roman' interpretative scheme that corresponds to the author's succession of kingdoms (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, the Ptolemys, the Seleucids). Furthermore, the reference used to support this apparently universally accepted division of kingdoms (http://www.annettereed.com/RS-3R03/reed3R03_2-7.pdf) contains a quite different, and more traditional division: Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece (including its subsequent divisions).

For example, where the table used in the Kingdoms section interprets the second kingdom in chapter two as Medo-Persia and the third as Greece, the reference identifies the second and third kingdoms as Media and Persia. Similarly, the first kingdom in chapter seven is identified as Medo-Persia when the reference has Babylon. The confusing table used to illustrate the succession of kingdoms does not conform to the scholarly consensus that it purports to represent, and it seems as though the designer is making it up as he goes along.

The reference to an absurd and "tiny minority" view of Revelation 17 is also highly misleading. Scholars are almost unanimous in detecting a succession of Roman emperors here - even if the precise emperors are in dispute. The seven heads are seven "kings" but they are also the seven hills of Rome - this is made very clear in the angelic interpretation. There is no mainstream interpretation that suggests we have a recapitulation of Daniel's kingdoms in this chapter. In any case, we have seven kings in Revelation 17 - not four kingdoms.

When the author comes to the 'post Roman' scheme, we again find this riddled with errors. When Jewish and later Christian interpreters started to reapply the image of the fourth kingdom to Rome, this was done much earlier that the fourth century CE. It is already found at Qumran long before the common era. For the Jews, there was no 'future antichristian empire' and for the early Christians this was already present in the form of the Rome. The early Christians lived in hope of an imminent end to the world and this belief is found throughout the New Testament. Only after the apocalyptic fervor of the first and second centuries subsided did writers like Hippolytus begin to suggest that the end may lie many centuries into the future. Additionally, there was no standard interpretation of Daniel 8 that included the Roman empire. This chapter was still interpreted by both Jews and Christians as referring to Antiochus Epiphanes' attempt to wipe out Judaism. Even when later Christian commentators saw a prototype of a future Antichrist in this chapter, it was grounded in the historical type of the Seleucid emperor. This interpretation was standard right up to the period of the reformers and beyond. Where the description of 'the son of man [cleansing] the sanctuary during the Roman occupation' comes from, I have no idea. Finally, the concluding statements about historicists, dispensationalists, preterists, and reconstructionists may have a place in a section on history of interpretation but is frankly just irrelevant here. Like the similar emphasis on these older, conservative Christian schemes in the article on Revelation, they merely serve to obscure the clear scholarly consensus on the original intent of the biblical author. Sineaste (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you say, but for one thing. You assume that the best interpretation is the modern scholarly one. This is very whiggish.  It is simply the latest one, not necessarily the best nor most important.  I think that there should simply be a section that lists various interpretations in historical order.  RVscholar (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a short section on the historical interpretation of Daniel could be both helpful and illuminating. And while we must weigh each interpretation on its merits, I'm not so sure that each interpretation can be given equal weight. Medieval commentators who applied the book to political threats and crises of their own period are historically interesting but long discredited, for example. I could say the same about first century Christians or nineteenth century Americans involved in the "second great awakening" movement. None of these believers saw the advent of the "everlasting kingdom" spoken of in the book of Daniel.

The key issue is that some approach the book of Daniel with the conviction that its prophecies must "come true" in some respect, or the work is worthless and a fraud. The schools of Christian belief mentioned above - historicists, preterists and so on - all share this conviction. Many Christian and non-Christian scholars do not. In fact, the bulk of scholarship for the last century or more has affirmed that the book of Daniel was created in the second century BCE to address the crisis precipitated by Antiochus Epiphanes. If the book was first and foremost resistance literature forged in a very dangerous climate, then pseudonymity, ex eventu prophesy, and the use of subversive fictional tales - purportedly from a former age, are entirely appropriate. Moreover, the kingdom and rewards described in the visions are very imprecise. So imprecise that first century Christians believed the "Son of Man" had walked among them, and that, in some respects, his kingdom was already present.

In some cases, of course, older interpretations and modern scholarly views agree. Daniel chapter eight is a prime example. With few exceptions, there is a strong historical consensus among both Jewish and Christian interpreters that Antiochus is the "little horn" described in this chapter. While some of the church fathers also came to see the shadow of a future Antichrist here, it was still grounded in the historical application to Antiochus. It is but a short step from here to the multiple parallels between chapters 8 and 10-12, and the fairly easy to follow history of conflict between Ptolemies and Seleucids in the latter vision that culminates in explicit descriptions of the actions of the same tyrant. When the concluding events of all four dreams and visions described in chapters 7 to 12 are then compared, it is very hard to escape the conclusion that we have a common historical focus. This conclusion is reinforced by the movement in these chapters from sweeping apocalyptic symbolism (chapters 7-8) to detailed historical (angelic) interpretation (9-11). What forced a reapplication of chapter seven, in particular, to the Roman empire was simply the passing of time, and the advent of yet another oppressive "beast" in the form of the Romans.

I agree that faddish interpretations of Daniel are not always helpful, and that the latest and greatest academic theories sometimes fall by the wayside with the passing of time. A number of years ago it was among the Hasidim that the author of Daniel was to be found, now it is the Maskilim. Similarly, there was a time when the links between Ugarit and the throne vision of Daniel 7 were expressed very confidently, whereas now they are qualified more carefully. In addition to the older, standard historical-critical method we now see a wider variety of interpretative approaches including feminist, postmodern, and sociological criticism. However, to dismiss appreciation for the wider gains of modern criticism as whiggish is, in my opinion, going to far. No one these days, aside from those constrained by denominational boundaries or particularly conservative forms of faith, believes that Daniel was written by a Jewish exile in Babylon who predicted the rise of the Roman Empire and the exact date of the crucifiction. Even less do they give any credence to historicists who believe that the entire history of the world to the present day is to be found in the visions of Daniel 2 and 7 to 12. If anything, the latter interpretation is far more recent and out of touch with tradition than the views of modern commentators. The same applies to dispensationalism, a movement that arose in the nineteenth century to invent an entirely new form of eschatology based on extremely flimsy biblical foundations and the novel idea of a secret rapture. Ultimately, I would rather believe in a God who sympathized with the the powerless and downtrodden, with exiles and refugees, than one who could predict the weather two months in advance or assure comfortable, middle class believers that their future will be miraculously serene and trouble free. Sineaste (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is all very interesting, but traditional interpretations are also acceptable in Wikipedia. (See RS, Question #1.) No particular group, not the historical-critical school, and not the Christians, has a monopoly on the book, and the people who wrote it should certainly not be frozen out. The traditional Jewish view is that the fourth empire is the Roman ("the evil empire of Edom"), and after the fall of Rome, it was applied to Christendom. This is all over Jewish liturgy, once one gets past the censors; the reaction of the Christian censors themselves is rather indicative. The ten horns are the ten chiefs of Edom; the Medrash lists the second-to-last as Rome (see also Rashi), and the last as the king who will face the messiah (lower-case intentional). There is a minority opinion that puts Greece and Rome together, and considers the fourth to be Islam; obviously these interpretations could not be made until the events occurred, as the end of Daniel indicates. I hope someday someone will find the time to go thorugh Ner Mitzvah of the Maharal of Prague, one of the best summaries on the subject, and add the material. (It has been translated with the title The Mitzvah Candle, although that is not an exact translation of the title.) Insofar as your last sentence is concerned, I am not sure what the difference is; are you aware of the horrid Herodian and Roman oppression of the Jews of the time?Mzk1 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against including mainstream, traditional interpretations in a "historical interpretation" section. After the national disasters of 70CE and the Bar Kokhba rebellion, the mainstream tendency in Judaism was to consider the predictions of Daniel fulfilled in the first century destruction of Jerusalem. Speculation about a future messiah were generally hosed down and considered dangerous. But while Rome was usually interpreted as the fourth beast of Daniel 7, chapter eight was interpreted in nearly all traditions as referring to the crisis precipitated by Antiochus Epiphanes. Along with the vast majority of modern scholars of all faiths, I believe this tradition about Daniel 8 reflects the true historical setting of the book. It is a much more venerable tradition than the later application to Rome, if the evidence of I Maccabees is to be trusted. Furthermore, I don't really understand why I have to believe that it was predicted in Daniel to re repulsed by Roman persecution of Jews. Ultimately, I place more value on the textual evidence of the book itself and the historical circumstances that fit the textual evidence, than on historical schemes of interpretation that seem to change with every new episode of religious persecution. --Sineaste (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Major re-edit of article
Since Saturday, I've been grouping content and moving them to either new sections or to other wiki locations. I propose the following layout for the Daniel pages as follows:


 * 1) Source criticism
 * 2) Identifies source texts
 * 3) Narrative criticism
 * 4) Analyzes authorship and words used
 * 5) Literary criticism
 * 6) Theorizes literary structure
 * 7) Content
 * 8) Interpretations may be imbedded here or directed to other wiki-links.
 * 9) Historical criticism
 * 10) I propose this section offer both supporting and non-supporting evidence for the validity of Daniel as this section's name implies.
 * 11) References

I do not condone self-published material, and will fervently protest its use on this page. I have and will continue to comb through all references and their publishing houses and will note anything that seems unusual. I will also be working on the individual Daniel Chapter pages, condensing all those annoying historicist tables onto one page... namely at > Four monarchies. There is still a lot more work to be done on this page, so please bare with me. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I commend your work on this and other articles. This one was the site of an edit war in the not-too-distant past and it was left in quite a state. It was probably no better before that started, anyway. I lack the expertise to do anything substantial here, so I appreciate this from you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for your support User: Elizium23. I remember skimming through and seeing that war, but I dared not getting involved with that... I think it had something to do with those aweful historicist tables. Now that that stupid war is over, I have already moved most of them that I could find over to the "Four monarchies" pages. When I get around to it, I will be taking a real close eye look at those tables and probably do some major damage to them... hee hee hee. :). I wish User: Dougweller could see me now! Thanks to him, I've been a referencing fool and looking for anything that is just total crap. Jasonasosa (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * About further edits on this page... I'm using  striking through Self published material on any self published material or crapy references, as a way to nominate it for deletion rather than just deleting it.. so it can easily be discussed or just deleted. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

POV-section tag removed
If there are no objections, I removed the tag: POV-section. I hope you like the look of this article and the more becoming neutral conditioner that I put in the Book of Daniel section. :) More improvements can be done, but I think for now the page isn't subjected to as much of the hogwash as it was before. If there are any other improvements that need to be done, please provide feedback. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

MOVE NOTICE: Darius the Mede
MOVE NOTICE: The sub section Book of Daniel was moved off the Book of Daniel page on 00:09, 26 September 2011 and pasted into Darius the Mede on 00:20, 26 September 2011. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Article's Default Era
Currently, the article is all over the place as far as what era system is being used; some dates use the christian system, while some use the neutral CE/BCE system. I would suggest going to the BCE/CE system considering it is more neutral, the article is about a Hebrew Bible book, and that it would make this article consistent with most of the other articles on the books of the Hebrew Bible (almost all of them use CE/BCE). However, it should be noted that the era first introduced into this article (thus the one that is current considered the default per WP:ERA) is the christian system (edit by User:Wetman on 2004 June 16). Can we get a consensus to switch to the CE/BCE system? If not, we need someone to go through and change the dates in the article to conform with each other (if using the christian system, I can't do it). Thanks. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be standardized and would suggest using the "Christian system" since it is a Biblical topic. Simply as a point of observation, whatever system is decided on, the page will eventually look like this again as people from opposite viewpoints fight to make the page more Christian or more "neutral" (non-Christian?) in their eyes. Seen it on dozens on Biblical pages and whatever the agreement, it will require vigilant editors to maintain that agreement... Ckruschke (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

four generations given to the land of Israel
When a prophet inherit a land divided into three 22 generations are given for that land including the owner of the land. That is four generations for each land divided into three.Four generations which is 420 years a days for each year, 430 in the book of Daniel.Blessed is the one who wait 45 days more.70*7+62*7=920 days. I think this should be added in the article. Talking image: The idol the king of the north uses for worship and a strange God. Four generations four choosing other God like king Solomon,He saves it for the sake of David a descendent of Juda.The seed of King David. number of a man 70-25=45 or a circle and a sphere the world in a graph paper. Twentythreethousand (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppets
Johnjonesjr and Johnjonesjr blocked as sockpuppets, see Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. As block evaders their edits can be reverted (just explain that they are sockpuppets in edit summaries). Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The "new look" article
Congratulations to whoever was responsible for tidying up this rather messy and over long article. The current version is much more readable and well organized. I am more than a little dismayed, however, by the subtle change in tone. The present version seems to undercut the mainstream, modern consensus on the origins and purpose of Daniel to make the old and long discredited, conservative view of the work seem equally plausible.

The introduction and first section on authorship and dating are cases in point. The current introduction is clumsily put together, overtly conservative, and poorly representative of the books content. I have no idea why we need to know be told about the language division in the MT - surely this belongs in a section on structure or text. At the same time we learn little about the content of the work, except for the suggestion that it contains a historical account of Daniel and his friends in Babylon. Not only does the first paragraph imply that the court tales are historically reliable, it insists on labeling the four visions as 'Divine' - note the italic. Similarly, the final paragraph almost satirizes the mainstream view (it is a "critical" view which "posits" that the author was an "anonymous" nobody who compiles a "pseudopigraph" of visions and legends). When it comes to the alternative, we read about "more conservative textual scholars" - ah, the voices of reason and careful textual analysis - who "maintain the historic Judeo-Christian tradition" that Daniel is the "historic author". Not only is the language highly biased and weighted towards the ultra-conservative view, but the conservative argument has the last word. Compare this authorship overview to those in Wikipedia introductory sections for Genesis and Isaiah, where the order is inverted and the modern scholarly view is accepted without question.

This bias is continued in the section on authorship and dating where the mainstream position is so distorted and undercut that it is reduced to an easily refuted, "straw man" argument. The presence of Greek loan words and arguments about the Aramaic of Daniel are not key reasons for a second century date. If anything, they are neutral. Hartman and Di Lella are cited to support an earlier date when this is not their position; in fact almost all modern commentators agree that the court tales are drawn from older, traditional material, without conceding that the author must have been a historic Daniel figure. Ludicrously, Porteous writing in 1965 is called 'one of the first to postulate' a second century date for the book's composition. This is wildly inaccurate, as the modern position on Daniel was first articulated in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, while the suggestion of second century BCE authorship goes right back to Porphyry in the late third century CE. In the first subsection the loaded word "critics" is used throughout. These are latecomers who "dismiss" the "traditional" view of Danielic authorship and the books "prophetic claims", subscribe to the strange "Maccabean thesis" - link to a wiki page where this is also misrepresented and the conservative Christian view is championed, "theorize" about legends, and focus on the rather woolly and vague notion of Maccabean "religiosity". Of the six subsections, then, four conclude that a 6th century date is probable, one lampoons the current scholarly consensus, and one suggests that the modern view only arose 40 years ago! This completely reverses the tone and thrust of the original article and does so in a an underhand and misleading fashion that flippantly overturns the findings of over two hundred years of scholarship. --Sineaste (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, these are definite problems. I would suggest you jump in and fix them - perhaps it is mostly a question of changing the emphasis slightly (and correcting the errors you note above). 20:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL... Standing behind Sineaste with my handy dandy editing chainsaw. Jasonasosa (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with modern scholarship being a part of the article so long as the conservative position (which has been around for more than 2000 years) is represented also. The idea that one is better than the other, or that one should reinterpret the other, should never be a part of the article, that would be POV.  A NPOV article would simply state the conservative and critical interpretations without any comment over which is better.
 * It seems to me that the differences between the two interpretations suggests that there should actually be two articles on the topic. This is simply because of the vastly different approaches to the text.  The conservatives believe that the historical content of Daniel is true and that the visions are prophetic of future events to happen.  The modern scholarship approach is that the historical content is fabricated and that the visions are pseudo-prophecies written after the fact.  Trying to blend these approaches into a single article is very difficult. And I think that the current article is an example of that.  Perhaps there could be articles entitled Book of Daniel (conservative interpretation) and Book of Daniel (modern critical interpretation) with a disambiguation page somewhere.  This may reduce arguments over reliable sources and a whole host of other issues. Johnjonesjr (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the style is apocalyptic, which style prevailed well after these events, the modern view (including Catholic, which tends to be otherwise conservative) is that it was written 200 BC or so. Anyway, not much earlier. This would exclude the physical Daniel as the actual scribe. Most Christians believe (nevertheless) in the prophetic nature (Divinely inspired) of the text. Particularly, the Apocalypse of John can be traced to this material. Student7 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching this article for some time. It is apparently going to be a never-ending struggle to keep religious zealots from rewriting this article to make it appear that the universal, century-long view of disinterested scholars is just the random ranting of modern-day atheists, whereas the conservative religious view is obviously so much more reasonable.

Consider the bold claims, as well as the source, offered in this quote: "The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1990) says that the language of Daniel, in comparison with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Hellenistic period, 'prove quite conclusively to any scholar that the second-century date and Palestinian provenance of the Book of Daniel cannot be upheld any longer without violence being done to the science of linguistics.' It adds that the serious mistakes of the Septuagint to render many Persian and Accadian terms, as the offices mentioned in Dan. 3:3, proves ignorance of words of the old past, already forgotten in the Hellenistic period, indicating that the Book of Daniel was written in the late 6th century BCE."

22 years after the appearance of The Expositor's Bible Commentary, what suppposedly was so very obvious to "any scholar" still has not moved the REAL scholarly consensus one inch. The big words about this being "prove[n] conclusively" is just the wishful thinking of conservatives. Of course an evangelical publisher like Zondervan is going to argue that the Book of Daniel is "real" prophecy written by the "real" Daniel in the 6th century BCE! This is like quoting some Mormon "scholar" to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is unquestionably an absolutely authentic historical record of ancient American history.

Also notice the circular reasoning here: "Since Daniel was a statesman during the Persian conquests, the Book of Daniel could have been written in a period when the Persians had their greatest influence on Aramaic, believed to be in the mid 6th century BCE." Apparently the existence of Daniel as "a statesman during the Persian conquests" is just as uncontroversial as the historical existence of Napoleon! Actually the only Daniel we know is precisely the hagiographic figure of the Book of Daniel. While nobody can ever conclusively rule out that he may be inspired by a real historical figure, the hero of the Biblical book is a literary character. The adventures of Daniel and his friends are about as "credible" as any saint legends, riddled with supernatural elements. No rational historian could ever treat such material as a sober historical account of past events. (Indeed, conservative Protestants eager to defend "Daniel" as a historical account would never accept similar stories that involve the Virgin Mary performing miracles for Catholics!)

Here is another quote clearly slanted towards the conservative view: After claiming that some terms contained in Daniel were poorly translated in the Septuagint (SAYS WHO?), the article insists: "It is difficult to explain how within five or six decades after Daniel was composed (according to the Maccabean date hypothesis) the meaning of these terms could have been so completely forgotten even by the Jews in Egypt, who remained quite conversant in Aramaic as well as in Greek." No source, no scholar is quoted in support of this. Zondervan may seem to be the source once again.

Any argument in favor of a sixth-century date for "Daniel" can never be a NPOV position. It absolutely requires a supernaturalist frame of reference and essentially grants the "truth" of Judaism, with Yahweh telling Daniel about events in the Maccabean era centuries in advance (yet curiously getting the ultimate fate of Antiochus IV Epiphanes quite wrong -- the point where the marvellously accurate "prophecies" suddenly go wrong is precisely what allows the REAL date of composition to be pinned down more accuratately than for any other book of the Bible).

The default position of a neutral encyclopedia has to be that any form of supernaturalism remains to be proven. Huge sections of an encyclopedic article cannot propound ideas that absolutely require wholesale supernaturalism to even be conceivable. The article must primarily represent the scholarly view, while also duly noting that the "historical view" is still upheld by conservative commentators. But the arguments for a sixth-century date must be presented as what they really are: Conservative Christian apologetics, NOT an "alternative scholarly view", which it simply is not. Some of these believers may of course conceive of themselves as "scholars" (very much like ID proponents may see their ideas as representing the glorious upcoming paradigm in biology), but a neutral encyclopedia instead has to rely on sources not dependent on very specific religious convictions. Fauskanger (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC) :I just want to point out that "any form of supernaturalism remains to be proven" is a POV. According to Wikipedia policy, a neutral POV article will present all noteworthy positions. Supernaturalism is accepted by Christians, whom represent a large segment of the world's population, regardless of whether it is proven or not in the eyes of many scholars (there are scholars who accept supernaturalism). That alone makes the supernaturalism position noteworthy and so the supernaturalism understanding of the book and Daniel and the Bible needs to be a part of the article. "the universal, century-long view of disinterested scholars" ought to be held in spacial relationship to the near universal, millennial-long views of believers. Fauskeanger's view that NPOV means "no supernaturalism" unless proven to his satisfaction is not the view of Wikipedia.
 * I agree that the article does need work, especially in distinguishing between the scholarly and believers view of the book. I really doubt that there any such thing as a disinterested scholar. They wouldn't be studying this material if they didn't have a deep interest in it.   HerbertHuey (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The view of religious conservatives is absolutely notable and worthy of being presented, but one has to distinguish serious scholarship from religious apologetics. Also, "disinterested" does not mean "uninterested"! I am for instance interested in Tolkien's work, and sometimes even dare to call myself a Tolkienist, but I don't believe that The Lord of the Rings is an eye-witness account written by Frodo Baggins (even though the final chapters suggest just that!) I have been in contact with extremely devoted Tolkien-fans who do claim to believe that The Lord of the Rings is an actual account from ancient times. I respect their right to believe whatever they want, but don't feel unkind if I say that by maintaining such ideas, they have voluntarily removed themselves from the society of serious academic Tolkienists. Religious conservatives who insist that the saintly legends of "Daniel" are actual, straightforward historical accounts similarly cannot be counted as serious academic researchers, though their faith as such may be "notable" enough.


 * People who see it as their religious duty to defend a sixth-century for Daniel date no matter what, and fear they can't cash their after-life insurance if the scholarly consensus is correct, can hardly produce any unbiased "scholarship" on the matter. Zondervan's publications represent a party line, not an alternative scholarly view. The article should not blur this distinction.


 * For a few hundred years now, it has been possible for serious scholars to look at the Bible without risking to be burnt at the stake or becoming outcasts from society if they dared to suggest that orthodox ideas about writership and dating do not hold water. It has inevitably been painful for religious conservatives to see many of their cherished ideas being abandoned by professional academic researchers: No, Moses didn't write the Pentateuch. No, Isaiah didn't write huge portions of the book ascribed to him. And no, the "Book of Daniel" is not the autobiography of the "prophet Daniel" in the sixth century BCE; it is a pseudepigraph written in a later age. As the article rightly says, to scholars this matter has been settled for more than a hundred years. A section about "Conservative apologetics" might very well be included in the article, but it must be presented as what it is. Fauskanger (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've only struck out this edit as you've replied, but if you want to delete it feel free per WP:DENY. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, on a talk page (in particular!) anybody must be allowed to voice their opinion, and we shouldn't rush the deleting or even the striking-out before we're certain that all viewpoints have been expressed.Fauskanger (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

New sockpuppet from the same stable
Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Need for a rewrite.
As the article stands, what jumps out to a reader just looking for information is the number of paragraphs that have the form: Everybody agrees that A is true. All the evidence shows that A is false.

Maybe the following structure would be acceptable. A section on the view of those scholars who do not believe the Bible is inerrant. And a separate section on the views of those scholars who do believe the Bible is inerrant. That way, everyone could read whichever section they chose, without being confused by two views presented in the same paragraph and left unreconciled. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps.
 * There is more than two groupings, however it is worded. There are "fundamentalists" of all creeds who believe the literalism of all their sacred scripture. Opposed are those who disbelieve entirely, and (the larger group of believers), who believe scripture was "inspired by God." The latter group is not concerned with God failing to tell an uninterested nomad about DNA and atomic theory, and (BTW) skipping over or summarizing other material facts as well. The latter group allows that myths are important and even true sometimes. The first group says there is no such thing as myths in the Bible. It's all literally true. Student7 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not quite the problem here. It is not a question like what the "six days" in Genesis mean. It is a question of when the Book of Daneil was written, and whether it had one author or more than one. Here there really do seem to be two groups, the fundamentalists and the non-fundamentlists. And this article presents the two views chock-a-block. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, only the fundamentalists think the book was written by Daniel himself.
 * Do you have an Wikipedia scriptural article for another biblical book that splits the summary in two? The problem is (for most works), that there is more than one interpretation that believers accept for either side. Daniel is apocalyptic and even those who don't believe that Daniel wrote it, may believe in some or all of the material in a literal fashion. An example article (easier to find maybe?) or an outline (harder to do, easier to criticize), may be in order.
 * The analysis I am looking at did not find the question of "multiple authors" sufficiently interesting (once you accept than it wasn't Daniel) to pursue it. We're not talking a P, E, J-type merger here, right? The lead says "unknown writer" (singular) and it can't be written before 200 BCE because it is apocalyptic. Too much later and it can't quite squeeze into the Septuagint. Almost like "multiple writers" would have to have known each other! Student7 (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What those who promote the POV that the Book of Daniel was not written by Daniel don't seem to understand about most believers, is that believers do not believe based on what a majority of scholars (or even theologians) think. Rather, because the Bible says that God has revealed his plan to his prophets (Amos 3:7) and that the Biblical writers were inspired by God to write it (2 Peter 1:21) and that God himself teaches believers all Biblical truths (John 14:26), what the majority of mere men might think is irrelevant when compared to direct teaching by God.  The truth of the Bible, to believers, is not found by searching for the majority opinion of scholars and/or theologians.  So, to write an article dealing with the Bible that assumes that what scholars think is most important, means that one fails to comprehend basic understandings by believers and so fails to present a NPOV on the topic.  To write a NPOV article requires the editor to try to comprehend the differing positions and present them clearly and fairly, without judging one by the other.  That is the hard part.  RoyBurtonson (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quoting one book (Amos) which is talking about 50 other books, some of which were not yet written, nor canonized. That is, a lot of books were written, but determined to a) not be inspired by God, or b) written too late for the New Testament (Shepherd of Hermas, for example).
 * Daniel uses words which couldn't have been used in the 7th century. The words weren't invented yet. The book uses a style which wasn't developed until much later. It's like Paradise Lost being written in rap.
 * Daniel may have well been inspired by God, but it was not required to be written by someone actually named "Daniel" to achieve this. Nor need it have been written immediately after the events described to be "inspired by God." God may inspire people at any time. To believe otherwise is to limit God and God, by definition, is limitless. Student7 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Bible speaks of some prophets whose sayings and writings became parts of the Bible. It also speaks of other prophets, both male and female, whose sayings and writings did not become parts of the Bible.  All of them God used to tell of his plan.  Canonization is irrelevant to whether God's plan has been told through the prophets.
 * I don't know how extensive you have read about the words used in Daniel, but there are scholars who explain how every word could easily have been in used in 6th Century BC Babylon. An editor needs to be widely read on all sides of this topic.
 * One could play the "God could have done...." game all day long. Why not just accept the obvious, plain reading rather than looking for something hidden?   RoyBurtonson (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion illustrates why the problems with this article are so intractable. If you take as an axiom that the Bible is inerrant, then everything can be explained away. The only solution I see is the one I suggested originally, two separate sections, one with the view of linguists and historians who are not fundamentalists, the other with the view of those who are. That is better that paragraphs that contradict themselves. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rick's statement is also an illustration of the problem by apparently assuming that "taking the bible as it reads" is an inerrantist position, because inerrantists often disregard or reinterpret conflicting statements in the Bible to fit their inerrantist ideals. But I agree with him that the POVs need to be clearly defined and separated so that readers can easily understand each position and reach their own conclusions.  What we have here are differences of opinion.  People are not stupid that they need to be told what to think.  RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that people shouldn't be told what to think. But readers need to be informed that the book was written in a style (apocalyptic) used only after 200 BC. And uses some words only available after that time frame. They may draw their own conclusions. Again, if we read "cell phone" and "the bees knees" in Paradise Lost, readers might have to be told what neutral experts think since grammar/linguistic changes are too detailed for individual descriptions. And having to read lengthy arguments from self-taught non-neutral linguistic experts who argue their way into an argument that Milton really meant something else entirely when he apparently used phrases not available to someone writing in the 17 century.
 * Having said that, if we were reviewing Dr. Seuss, we would state what the book said. Then once a literal statement were given, if there were some underlying theme, say "tolerance" for Dr. Seuss (or indications that Seuss was merely signing off on a book written by someone else, or that the company who owned the name had the book authored by someone else and was using his name), that might then be given, with counter-arguments from those who think it should be taken at face value. But these might have to be done, one argument (or set of arguments) at a time for continuity.
 * An article that runs A, B, C, D, to ten pages and then starts with counter-A, counter-B, counter-C, etc. is not going to get read, and the "counters" may have the predominate argument. Student7 (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that some of the information you are talking about could easily be inserted in the section on linguistic criticism. There already exists a discussion on the sources for certain 'loan' words found in the text from the different languages.  Just add a comment and back it up with a reference to your reliable source.  And your point about it being of 2nd century BC apocalyptic style is already stated just so in the Authorship and dating section.  Is your purpose to inform the public what scholars think or to win converts to your view point?  RoyBurtonson (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

rewrite of the lead.
I'd like to suggest that in the lead section of the article that paragraphs 3 and 4 be switched with paragraph 2. This is because a summary of the book's story ought to be and can be presented before one gets into the discussion of whether it is a 6th or 1st century BC document. Here is a suggested rewrite of paragraphs 3 and 4 (to be moved up into positions 2 & 3) for consideration:


 * RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC):The first half of the book is the story of Daniel set in the courts of Babylonian and Medo-Persian kings during the time of the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BCE.
 * In chapter 1 Daniel and his three friends arrive at Babylon and are enrolled in special training and they convince their overseer to feed them only vegetables and water. The king—through a personal interview—then finds them to be wiser than all their peers.
 * In chapter 2 Daniel saves the lives of Babylon's "wise men," along with his own, by interpreting the king’s dream of a large image.
 * In chapter 3 Daniel's three friends are thrown into a blazing furnace because they refuse to bow to the king’s image, but come out of the furnace without even smelling of fire.
 * In chapter 4 Daniel interprets the king’s dream of a large tree and informs the king that he will become like a beast for seven years.
 * In chapter 5 Daniel interprets the writing on the wall. That same night Belshazzar is slain and Darius the Mede is made king.
 * In chapter 6 Daniel is cast into a lion’s den due to political maneuvering by his fellow officials. He survives the night, but the senior officials do not survive the next day. The king makes Daniel “ruler over the whole province of Babylon”. His friends are appointed as important officials.


 * The last half of the book describes the experiences of Daniel concerning three visions.
 * The first vision deals with a series of unique beasts that arise from the sea and, after a court in heaven is set, their eventual destruction, followed by the eternal reign of God's kingdom
 * The second vision talks of items used symbolically in the ancient Hebrew tabernacle; i.e., sacrificial ram and goat, the shofar (horn trumpet), and the Day of Atonement cleansing of the sanctuary.
 * The final vision tells of Kings of the North and Kings of the South who vie over the land, but who, in the end, incur diving judgment, but God's people are given an everlasting kingdom.


 * Looking for feedback here.  Is this acceptable or not?  RoyBurtonson (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I jumped the gun on posting this, but the lead was drastically cut down without consensus. So I guess I did the same.  :)  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Present tense
The tense has been "standardized" to present. This is done for fiction. If this is history, it should be past tense. We've had this discussion before on other books of the Bible and (so far) most people have gone along with past tense (i.e. history, not fiction). Student7 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care if it's past or present tense. I used present because it is easy to read.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The past tense is standard, in all history, and even in most fiction. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for or against anything. I just don't care.....  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of term "Conservative" scholars
I'm not sure from where the term "conservative" scholar arose. Conservative can refer to politics which doesn't seem germane here. Fundamentalist viewpoints on reading scripture literally arose in the early 19th century. This new technique was not limited to Christianity. Before then, Christians read the bible for inspiration and did not assume one could (say) cram 400,000 pairs of different beetle species into the ark.

I would think "evangelical" would suffice more accurately to describe the (new) literal interpretation. "Conservative" is extra and confusing in this context IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

suggested replacement for last paragraph in the lede....
I'd like to suggest the following paragraphs replace the last paragraph in the lede.
 * During the Christian era discussion has ensued over interpretation of the prophecies found in the Book of Daniel.  The Historistical method of interpretation of the prophecies was used from the time of the Church fathers.  This methodology ultimately initiated the rise of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.  The Catholic Church developed two alternative methodologies of interpretation – Futurism and Preterism – as part of the 17th century Counter-Reformation against the Protestants.   During the latter part of the 19th century the Dispensationalistic method of interpretation was developed, containing elements of Futurism and Preterism, and has become popular among the evangelical churches and some mainline protestant churches.   The Historistical method is still held, after two millennium, by a few churches.
 * During the Age of Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, came the origin of Biblical criticism, which viewed the biblical texts as having human rather than supernatural origins, challenging the traditional views of the Bible. It followed that texts purported to be supernaturally prophetic must actually be naturally historic instead.  It is now the scholarly consensus in Biblical criticism that the Book of Daniel was written after Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the altar of the Temple of Jerusalem around 167 BCE. In this view, the Book of Daniel was written in reaction to that incident and the final redaction of the work dates to the second century BCE.  This view is becoming accepted among some mainline protestant churches.

--RoyBurtonson (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is too much detail for the lead. In particular, the lead in this article is not the place for a discussion of Futurism and Preterism, and the idea that the historical method of interpretation initiated the rise of the Protestant Reformation is not supported by references. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be a very concise recap of the place that the prophecies of the Book of Daniel played in church history and is an integral part of this topic. The importance of these prophecies in the rise of the Protestant Reformation is supported by at least one reliable scholar, Froom, as noted here.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Le Roy Froom is an apologist (in the best sense of the word) for the Seventh Day Adventist movement, but most Protestants do not accept the beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventists, so this is a very specialized interpretation of both scripture and history. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although it is not often used this way, Biblical Criticism scholars are also apologists for their viewpoint. A viewpoint need not be religious. So, IMO, being an apologist, is not an important issue.  I've found, when reading Froom's books (The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, 4 volumes, ~5000 pages), that every statement he makes is supported by quotes from original and/or reliable sources and by his immense research (He collected and studied over 1000 documents dealing with Bible Prophecy dating from the 1st to the 19th century from nearly every library and archive in the Western World).  The fact that Froom was a SDA is typically used as an excuse to play down or ignore his research and conclusions.  No other scholar has ever approached the volume and detail of the study of Bible Prophecy documents as Froom.  And I know of very few who have read more than just a few quotes from his books.  There is no excuse, for they are available for free on-line.  The idea that this is 'a very specialized interpretation' is based on pigeonholing according to the opinions of others and ignorance of Froom's work.  Who knows more about the history of belief in Bible prophecy and its influence on history over the last two millennium? The research scholar who spent 20 years studying the original documents, or a book reviewer who writes his review based on his beliefs rather than on 20 years studying the original documents? --RoyBurtonson (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I was using "apologist" in the best sense, one who offers explanations of a particular faith. Whether Biblical Criticism scholars are also apologists depends on the scholars. Some have a preconcieved belief that they want to promote. Others just examine the evidence and follow where it leads. It is these latter scholars who are NPOV and who we should rely on. It really doesn't matter how much evidence Froom looked at. If he arrived at his conclusion before looking at the evidence, that is not NPOV. Confirmation bias is a powerful force. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is an edited (for length only) version of the introduction to the first volume of the series (the entire section can be found here) In it Froom forthrightly sets out his POV, but this work was not done to prove his POV, nor to prove Bible prophecy true, nor to prove the Bible true, but discover what Christian philosophers have though about Bible prophecy since the 1st century, and to present what he found in a scholarly way. :


 * From the Author to the Reader
 * Throughout the ages godly men have seriously sought to understand and to interpret the prophecies recorded in God's Holy Word. … An earnest endeavor has here been made to trace this quest of man back through the centuries by systematically gathering and analyzing the essential records of all leading expositors of Bible prophecy from apostolic days down to the twentieth century; yes, beginning, in fact, with Jewish expositors prior to the Christian Era.
 * Bearing of Prophetic Interpretation on Church History
 * Even the best of historians and biographers have usually overlooked, or at least underrated, the influence of prophetic interpretation in the religious thinking of past centuries. …
 * But this oft-forgotten element of Biblical prophecy has frequently exerted an even greater influence than some of the commonly emphasized factors, not only upon the leaders of the people, but also upon the masses as well. …
 * The interpretation of prophecy has not been simply a by-product of Bible study. It has been not merely an occasional interest but a remarkably constant one over long periods of time. Nor has it been attempted chiefly by obscure and ignorant men. Instead, the expositors of the years have usually been men of prominence, learning, and influence, whose lives and teachings not only have molded their own generation, but often have lived on, influencing other generations to come. … And they represented all walks of life—churchmen, statesmen, teachers, historians, scientists, mathematicians, physicians, philosophers, discoverers. They included Jewish rabbis, Catholic clerics, Christian ministers, dissentients, prominent laymen, and even monarchs on the throne. …
 * Impelling Motive Back of This Search
 * The challenge of a great need was the impelling motive back of this really huge undertaking—the obvious need for a thorough work of this sort, and the lack of anything of its kind extant in any language. … But the sheer inaccessibility of many of the thousands of source documents required for a work of this character, the prohibitive costliness of extensive travel and of acquiring them, the excessive time required for such a task, and the need of expert assistants to overcome the multiple language barriers, all combine to place a task of this kind utterly beyond the range of most students, no matter how competent they may be or how desirous of undertaking such a study.
 * The Safeguards of Group Endeavor
 * This search for the prophetic expositors and their writings has never been a one-man quest. Through approximately sixteen years of endeavor there have always been associates, first in searching out and finding the sources … and then in the reading and the analyzing of the materials collected. It was also necessary to have the help of competent translators from the Latin, German, French, Spanish, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Scandinavian, and other foreign languages in which many of these sources are found. So always it has really been a group project, with the safeguardings that the application of various minds—of investigators, linguists, historians, consultants, and verifiers—would bring. Often these have been the most eminent men in their fields. …
 * Earnest endeavor has been made to present these materials accurately and to evaluate them fairly. The undeviating purpose has been to present all the essential facts that the reader may weigh and evaluate for himself. To this end, comprehensive tables, charts, and covering statements, at the close of each major epoch, epitomize the principal interpretations of the leading expositors within the period. Thus the combined evidence of the period is made available at a glance. The author and his collaborators recognize that, despite all the safeguards thrown around the procedures, there is still the possibility of error or inadequacy in some phase of the presentation.
 * The Author's Viewpoint Set Forth
 * Any author must necessarily have a viewpoint. His opinions of his subject matter are bound to be visible to some degree, if only in the choice and treatment of the materials, though he reserves the direct expression of these for his summaries and conclusions.
 * This author is an evangelical Christian—a Protestant conservative—who believes first of all, and without reservation, in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16), and the fundamental provisions of the gospel; second, that the "sure word of prophecy," written by the prophets of old as they were "moved by the Holy Ghost," was divinely given to man as "a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn" (2 Peter 1:19); and third, that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private [idios—independent, isolated, personal, solitary] interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20).
 * The author believes, further, that according to His promise, "God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets." Amos 3:7. He also believes that God has declared "the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand" (Isa. 46:10); further, that the "path of the just" is designed of God to be "as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day" (Prov. 4:18); and finally, that prophecy has been given unto us to establish sound and substantial faith—that "when it is come to pass, ye might believe" (John 14:29; cf. 13:19 and 16:4). Incidentally, the only direct command our Lord ever gave to understand the Word was directed to the understanding of the prophecy of Daniel. (Matt. 24:15.)
 * This, then, is the Biblical justification for the study of prophecy, and consequently of the propriety of man's honest and reverent attempt to understand its meaning and to read its lesson. …
 * LEROY EDWIN FROOM. Washington, D.C.
 * Froom did believe that Bible Prophecy is true, but the topic of the books is about the interpretations of Bible prophecy by scholars of the past, not about Froom's beliefs. This distinction needs to be kept in mind.  The same distinction would need to be made if Froom had been an atheist.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this article is The Book of Daniel. The Fundamentalist view is already represented in the article. To give Froom's view special emphasis is to give undue emphasis to one author who says from the outset that his interest is in the opinions of "godly men", not of scholarly men. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All that the scholar and historian Froom does is give a description of the positions of historic Bible scholars about the prophecies of Daniel over a period of nearly 2000 years. Those positions are not all 'fundamentalist,' but they are by definition the positions of 'Godly men' because there was no other position until beginning of the Enlightenment.  Your concept that 'Godly men' cannot be scholarly men is highly flawed.  You are choosing to call only those who hold to the Biblical Criticism viewpoint scholars.  This sets up a false dichotomy.  Scholars can be and are both 'Godly men' and those who are not.  The real contrast is between those scholars who believe the Bible and those scholars who do not.
 * Given that there is nearly 2000 years of scholarly works by those who believed in the Bible and Bible prophecy then one would expect the verbiage required to describe that long history to be longer than the verbiage required to describe the position of the Biblical Criticism viewpoint. The article is not about who is right or wrong.  It is a history of what was believed or not believed over time.  Such a history based partly on Froom does not prove the Bible, nor-Bible prophecy, nor Froom's beliefs true.  It is just a history, not an argument or proof.
 * If you think there is not enough written about the Biblical Criticism position, then be sure add more to the article. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not everybody before the Enlightenment was "Godly". For that matter, not everybody before the Enlightenment was a man. I did not say that a Godly man could not be a scholar. Froom said his interest was only in those he considered Godly, which omits scholars who do not fall into that category. I came to this article not because I wanted to edit it but because I was looking for information. I've stayed because as it stands, the article contradicts itself, and that's not good. I do not think it needs more about Biblical Criticism, I just think it needs to be clear, and to focus on the Book of Daniel, rather than on the history of commentary on the Book of Daniel. Maybe we need an article on Commentary on the Book of Daniel. If you write one, then Froom would be a fine source. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the suggest lede to try to be senstive to certain objections and have inserted it in the article. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Clumsy rewrite of the introduction
It's been several months since I last visited this article and, from my perspective, there have been a number of positive changes over that time. One less impressive feature is the heavily revised lead section. A number of common lead conventions for biblical books have been lost (the meaning of the title, the book's classification within the Hebrew and Christian bibles, an adequate summary of the work, a balanced perspective), and the section contains irrelevant material, factual errors, and a thinly veiled endorsement of fundamentalist interpretation.

This is what the previous lead section looked like:

The Book of Daniel (דָּנִיֵּאל / Dānī’ēl means "God is my judge") is found in the Ketuvim (Writings) section of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). It is grouped with the prophets in the Greek versions and in most Christian Bibles.

The book is made up of six court tales and four apocalyptic visions set in the time of the Babylonian captivity. The tales of chapters one to six contain colorful accounts of the hero and his three companions in the courts of Babylonian and Medo-Persian kings. They survive death threats, mortal trials, and court intrigue to be elevated to the highest positions in the land. Daniel interprets royal dreams and visions, foretelling both the individual punishment of the Babylonian monarchs and the overthrow of their empire. In the four visions of chapters seven to twelve, Daniel himself experiences strange revelations. These all culminate in frightening depictions of a powerful king who, like the Babylonian rulers of the court tales, attacks Israel, defiles the temple, and incurs divine judgment.

Though traditionally the book was believed to have been written by the Daniel figure of the court tales, today the scholarly consensus is that it is a product of Maccabean times. Though many evangelical commentators still defend a sixth century date, for mainstream scholarship the issue was settled over a century ago The common view is that the court tales represent a stratum of older, traditional stories, while the visions and final redaction of the work date to the second century BCE. The visions describe the national crisis that occurred under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Seleucid king who persecuted and slaughtered thousands of observant Jews, polluted the Jerusalem temple, and tried to replace traditional customs with Hellenistic religious practices.

I suggest that the above section be reinstated, along with any helpful modifications or improvements. I will leave this open for comment for a few days before making any changes. --Sineaste (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW I prefer the version that's here (the previous version). I feel it gives a better preview of what the article is about. Wolfhound668 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

--I have no problem with this replacement for the lead. But try as I might I can't seem to find the "thinly veiled endorsement of the fundamentalist interpretation" in the current lead. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And now we have a clumsy introduction consisting mainly of weasel words and editorializing in an aggressively anti-"conservative" vein. I know you Americans are in the middle of your self-important cultural war, but wikipedia isn't the place to take cheap pot-shots at each other. In addition what is being called "conservative" and "fundamentalist" in this fairly demagogic intro, are the views of historical and traditional scholarship. Many modern secular scholars disagree with the traditional dating and interpretation, and such views should be advanced in the article. However denigrating historical scholarship in the manner currently found in this article is both idiotic and wrongheaded. --Philip72 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "many Christians do not accept this line of reasoning, looking to Jesus' implicit approval of the book by quoting from it in his teachings."  This is a factual statement, but you have marked it as "editorializing."  It is a significant theological POV, and it summarizes material cited further on in the text.  There is no way to make the statement any more factual, so the "editorializing" tag serves no purpose. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright Eulenspiegel, lets go over this in greater depth.

"There is sharp difference between the fundamentalist view of Daniel and the scholarly consensus."

Who are the fundamentalists mentioned here? It's not clarified or cited. The traditional views on Daniels dating have been the prevailing views in both Eastern and Western Christianity, Rabbinic Judaism and Islamic literature such as the "Stories of the Prophets", for the last 2000 years. Why have they been suddenly been assigned to contemporary fundamentalists? Modern secular scholarship does have some consensus as mentioned in John Collins book (the lone citation), but why are the views of ancient scholars from camps as diverse as the Nestorians, Bohra Islam, the Copts and pretty much all Rabbinical tradition, lumped under Christian fundamentalism?

"Conservative Biblical scholars and evangelical commentators hold that its stories tell of real events and real prophecies written during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity by a real Daniel living in the late sixth century BCE."

Again why are Christian conservatives and evangelicals the soley mentioned groups here? Maimonides In his discussion of the 13 principles of faith and in his Laws of Kings held the same views; and to quote Indian Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali in the The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary: - "Daniel was a righteous man of princely lineage and lived about 506-538 B.C. He was carried off to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, the Assyrian, but was still living when Assyria was overthrown by the Medes and Persians. In spite of the "captivity" of the Jews, Daniel enjoyed the highest offices of state at Babylon, but he was ever true to Jerusalem."

"For secular scholars, the issue was settled over a century ago

Do you really not see the problem with this line? Do you seriously think this sounds NPOV? The fact that the cite is one author, with essays from 30 other scholars from different fields, several with divergent opinions, hardly justifies the supposition.

"but many Christians do not accept this line of reasoning, looking to Jesus' implicit approval of the book by quoting from it in his teachings."

Who these "many Christians" are is not noted, are they Assyrian Church of the East? Lutherans? Old Order Mennonite? Marionite Catholic? Southern Baptist? All of them? And again, why just Christians?

Look, I'm an agnostic Canadian liberal, I don't have a dog in your fight. I also happen to think that the second century BCE date à la John Collins et al. is the correct one. However it doesn't take a eagle eye to see that the introduction is a shot at conservative American Christians. It's misleading, poorly cited, blatant editorializing and a flagrant violation of NPOV.

I propose the words fundamentalist, evangelical, etcetera be replaced with traditional or religious scholarship, rather than continuing the inference that those views were held solely by bumpkins and Elmer Gantry's. I think the descriptive of "Modern" or "Secular" should remain when describing the second century BCE view. --Philip72 (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Philip72 - I agree with your review of the lede that it has been corrupted over time and much of it is now argument/editorializing. However, I also agree with Til Eulenspiegel that adding tags (which may be true) is not how ledes should be written. My suggestion is that we restore the lede that you quote in your opening argument and go from there since it seems to conform to the requirements found in WP:LEDE that has been regularly quoted by Til Eulenspiegel. Ckruschke (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Question use of "secular" to describe scholars. For me, this suggests "anti-religious." I think the scholars could be described more objectively than that.
 * Having taken that clear stand, my adjective list has suddenly come up short....
 * I can appreciate trying to divide the opinions into two camps. We've done this elsewhere with "minimalist" and "maximalist." Don't know if those terms would apply here. Student7 (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think both Ckruschke and Student7 both make good points, particularly as secular is often unfortunately conflated with "anti-religious". --Philip72 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Secular," more often than not, actually does mean anti-religious. They approach Biblical scholarship from the viewpoint that the Bible can not possibly be what it claims to be and seek alternative explanations. 152.133.14.5 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Secular" means anti-religious according to fundamentalists. They perceive anything which challenges Bible inerrancy as anti-religious (or Satanic) propaganda. As I have implied above, Bible inerrancy may be theologically okay, but it is not science, since science requires evidence, not doctrines stipulated by fiat. There is a broad consensus among non-fundamentalist scholars that the Bible has contradictions and copying errors. You may consider that not all Christians are fundamentalists, in fact most aren't. So, according to the majority of Christians, secular is not the same as anti-religious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This can be seen in politics: most Christians support secular rule, only fringe Christians support theocracy. If one is a Bible thumper, it is easy for him/her to have contempt for secular government and for liberal democracy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Careful. You are veering dangerously from opinions that I agree with and that many would hold true into a the realm of GROSS generalizations and even Christian bashing. I and many "conservative Christians" (i.e. Bible Thumpers) have contempt for liberal democracy for MANY MANY reasons, but none of which are because I want to setup a Theocracy. Your opinions may be correct about the Muslim world (in general terms), but I would wager alot of money on the number of American Christians who want a theocratic government in the US as little more than a handful. Labeling those of us who espouse the Bible as inerrant as "fundamentalists" and and non-scholarly, is a little much and is purely a generalized opinion on your part. Ckruschke (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I did not imply that all despisers of liberal democracy would be supporters of theocracy. But the Bible speaks on democracy when discussing the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, Abiram and On. For the Hebrews, democracy was an alien system introduced by their occupiers, kind of what would Belgians think of democracy if democracy were first introduced in Belgium by the Nazi occupiers. Otherwise, I heard many fundamentalists conflating secular with Satanic, speaking only of discussions in Wikipedia talk pages. Granted, not all fundamentalists are like them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the suggestion of Sineaste and subsequent discussion which concurs with the proposal, I have restored the original lede since it offers a clear and informative overview of the topic - certainly better than what had replaced it. I would suggest that any additional changes should be discussed here for review prior to introduction into the article. Eusebeus (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Authorship and dating
It seems to me that this section is almost ENTIRELY about presenting the scholarly view as highly dubious, while simultaneously giving the impression that the conservative religious dating may very well be correct. Look at the references. Almost every single quote is to to the effect that there is no reason why this book can't be written in Babylonian times. In short, the entire world of critical scholarship is wrong or at least builds on extremely shaky foundations, whereas the evangelicals could be right. Hurray.

Every fundamentalist apologist I have seen duly claims that the position of modern scholarship on the book of Daniel is based on the ideas of "heathen philosopher Porphyry", and sure enough, the article as it stands also throws in the claim that scholars are "taking a cue from third century pagan critic Porphyry". The tendency of this section is NOT difficult to discern, and it is certainly not NPOV. 2.150.34.187 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see the validity of giving the viewpoint of "modern scholarship" but not at the expense of the possibility that the traditional view could be correct. Not everyone is impressed by "modern scholarship." 152.133.14.5 (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're beating a dead horse. This issue has been settled once and for all by the official Wikipedia policy WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are misinterpreting the policy. There is nothing wrong or against policy in giving both viewpoints.  Choosing one viewpoint and omitting the other is defintely POV.  "Beating a dead horse?"  Ludicrous comment is ludicrous. 99.0.37.176 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * History is a science and a science is about the facts. Theology can only state "subjective truths", in Kierkegaard's meaning. There is nothing wrong with rendering the scientific consensus as fact and theology as opinion. Do mind that fundamentalism became a fringe viewpoint in historical research and per WP:UNDUE we don't give undue weight to marginal claims. While it can be great theology to say that Daniel was actually a prophetic book inspired by God, historians cannot prove miracles, have no access to God, and by the very definition of empirical science they seek natural explanations for past phenomena. It is therefore WP:FRINGE/PS to say that the book of Daniel successfully predicted events centuries later through paranormal insight, instead of assuming that it is a postdiction. In such a case historians default to postdiction by the very requirements of the historical method. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The traditional theological view upon the Book of Daniel it's like claiming that a 10th century manuscript is describing Operation Barbarossa. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you want to state it as theology, I have nothing against it, but it cannot be stated as history. There are no objective criteria for distinguishing between right and wrong theology, so it cannot be argued that a theological point would be "wrong". As long as it is notable, it should be included. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Dating
One sentence says "The discovery of the scroll 4QDanc (dating 125 BCE) at Qumran does not reassure critics that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE. G. R. Driver stated that "the presence and popularity of the Daniel manuscripts at Qumran" conflicted "with the modern view which advocates the late dating of the composition of Daniel". [Wegner, 116] clarify|The dates agree 100%. The persecutions were in the early 2nd century, the copy made in the late 2nd century. How does this result in an anomaly?|date=November 2012"

I am going to rm this if someone doesn't explain why a 2nd century date doesn't agree with a 2nd century date! Thanks. Student7 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You are assuming that the Qumran scrolls preclude the possibility of earlier writings. This is a false assumption on your part. 152.133.14.5 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The people that wrote the Qumran scrolls had high regard for Daniel. Which would be odd if it was first written in living memory of the Qur'an scroll writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.42.251 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess I was assuming that the phrase meant "at least by the second century." Apparently it was intended to mean "not before the second century," which (to me) is a preposterous assumption.
 * No one said when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found that the Bible was (therefore) all written in the 1st century AD!
 * Maybe the "2nd century" should be returned. But it would have to be reworded. I don't see how it can be useful to justify what I call "the minimalists." Just realized that the wording could be 2nd century, but the material didn't say anything about the use of 2nd century words. Student7 (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)