Talk:Book of Daniel/Archive 7

"traditional authorship of Daniel"
Pico says that Collins p. 1-2 states that the traditional view is that Daniel is the author. I can't see those pages to see what exactly he says, but this is a very dubious claim; is Collin the only one saying this, and what tradition or church specifically does he claim to be speaking on behalf of? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick check turned up plenty of sources for a "traditional" view that Daniel is the author, strangely enough, so I guess Collins statement is substantiated. The best and most careful sources of course will point out that it was written anonymously. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC) More specifically, the first half is anonymous, the second half is a series of his directly-quoted prophecies said to be from him so in a sense both are correct. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"The figure of Daniel"
As I suggested above, I've started a new section dealing with Daniel - he's the central figure in the book, and there's a lot of interest to be said. So far just a single sentence noting the mention of Daniel in Ezekiel and in Ugaritic myth, and noting that the connection between the Ugaritic figure and the Biblical one (both Ezekiel and Book of Daniel) is uncertain. The note that Ugaritic Dan'el is equivalent to Hebrew Daniel doesn't come from the source, but I did come come across it one of the other sources - I'll add that if I can find it again. PiCo (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There already is an article just on the figure of Daniel. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, this article should focus on the topic, the Book of Daniel, and it should give an honest depiction of the landscape of thought as it really is on planet Earth concerning the Book of Daniel, not be used as some sort of a propaganda vehicle. Remember, it is very easy to get quality impartial and scholarly info on the Book of Daniel from almost anywhere else, wikipedia has never had a monopoly and if it is blatantly one sided, it will only go down in popularity and reliability with readership. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, Roy, and I'm being careful not to go too far in that direction. What I want to cover is why Daniel was made the central character of the book, and what kind of wisdom-sage he is. So it involves the explanation of things like the literary background to Daniel (Ezekiel and Ugarit), what connection, if any, there is between Daniel and those figures, the background to the "mantic" wisdom tradition, etc. Not a biography, in other words. Anyway, keep an eye on it and let me know of any concerns you have.PiCo (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
Til, since you now have two tags on the article, I think you should set out your concerns here so that we can discuss them. PiCo (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For starters, I have mentioned a few times and never got a response, why must it state as fact that 11:45 says Antiochus will die in Palestine? Is there some problem with following usual protocol and giving the actual verse, then stating honestly that any reference to Antiochus and Palestine is an interpretation? You do agree that the words 'Antiochus' and 'Palestine' are not actually in the text, and that reading them in relies on what Bible scholars know as an "interpretation", don't you? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Til. It's all to do with sources and their use. The source here is C.L. Seow, Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary - in other words, a reliable source. Having established his reliability, the question is, is he presenting a personal argument or a general view? Are there important other views? His words are pretty unequivocal, and the article reflects that. (What he actually says is: "The conclusion one should draw from the historical overview in 11:2-45 seems inevitable..." - if you want to work that word "seems" in somehow, I wouldn't object).PiCo (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to be equivocating in your answer and I cannot believe you are ignoring the obvious. I'll ask you again pointblank: Do you or do you not agree that the words 'Antiochus' and 'Palestine' are not actually in the text, and that reading them in relies on what Bible scholars know as an "interpretation"??? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course the idea that reading Antiochus and Palestine as the referants of Daniel is an interpretation: the point, however, is that this interpretation is the consensus of modern scholars, and there's no viable alternative (meaning not one that has the support of even a large minority of scholars). If you think there is, please produce it. PiCo (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside for now whether there is no "viable" alternative, would it not be more straightforward to mention that this is an interpretation, and ideally, to avoid giving a misleading impression about what the actual text says, quote the original verse as well? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If we can find some acceptable way of saying it, yes. Perhaps use Collins and his passage about the consensus. I'll lok later.PiCo (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably the best reliable source giving an exhaustive overview of the traditional views of Daniel and Revelation through out the history of the church is Froom's Prophetic Faith of 0ur Fathers which has received favorable critical reviews.  The entire 4 volume book (5000+ pages) is available on-line at this web page. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems the primary goal of Daniel's detractors since 200 AD has been to persuade people if possible that Daniel literally mentions Antiochus throughout, and to just accept that on their "authority" without opening the Bible and looking for themselves. And if a name like "Antiochus" had really appeared in the Hebrew /Aramaic text, then yes, it certainly would have been a "smoking gun".  But their deepest fear seems to be that people would actually look in Daniel for themselves and might see that there is really no mention of Antiochus whatsoever, and that this must grudgingly be admitted to be an "interpretation" that hasn't had a shred of proof behind it ever since Porphyry first proposed it in his openly anti-Christian, non-neutral polemic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Til, once again you are exaggerating beyond belief and your assertions about the "invisible" Antiochus have no basis in either the text or the history of interpretation. According to your own beliefs, if I'm not mistaken, the fourth beast is Rome and the little horn is the papacy. Neither are specifically identified in Daniel, so why are you asking for more proof than you require for your own interpretations? Rome is referred to in chapter 11 (in a favorable light ) as "ships of Kittim". Rome is therefore an "interpretation", but one on which virtually all biblical scholars agree. Why? Because the incident it refers to - when Antiochus IV was humiliated by a Roman envoy - is plainly identified in the text. Even a child could follow the succession of historical incidents clearly described in chapter 11 that conclude with accurate descriptions of the second century desecration of the Jerusalem temple and persecution of observant Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes. Everyone seems to be able to see this except for a tiny minority of fundamentalist Christians.

When it comes to "traditional" interpretations of Daniel you seem to be under the mistaken belief that identifying Antiochus all started with Porphyry. The first extant Christian commentary on Daniel (by Hippolytus) was written before Porphyry was even born and specifically identifies multiple references to Antiochus Epiphanes (who the author felt was a "type" of a future antichrist). In fact, the traditional interpretation of chapter 8 has always been that the little horn is Antiochus. This is true of both Judaism (eg Josephus) and Christianity (from patristic commentators through to Luther and the reformers to the present day). Even in chapter 7, which was reapplied to Rome after the fall of the Hasmoneans, there are clear indications that the fourth beast and the little horn were originally applied to the Greek empire and Antiochus. This interpretation persisted in Syriac Christianity, and there is strong evidence in other early literature that demonstrates a change in interpretation. Firstly, at Qumran the "kittim" have been transformed from the benign force they represent in Daniel 11 to the final wicked empire that oppresses believers and will be destroyed in the eschatological war. In 2 Esdras we are told that the interpretation of the fourth beast as Rome is not the interpretation originally given to Daniel himself. Finally, in Revelation 13, the imagery of the fourth beast is heavily modified rather than reused - indicating a development in interpretation as the imagery is applied to the Roman empire (unequivocally in ch 17).

Finally, the same unique expression that appears in Daniel to describe the profanation of the temple ("abomination of desolation") reappears in the roughly contemporary book of I Maccabees to describe the pagan altar set up in the temple by Antiochus. What was novel with Porphyry is that he suggested (with little understanding of apocalyptic literary conventions) that Daniel was a pseudonymous fraud, so please stop insisting that he originated the identification of Antiochus in the text itself and that this interpretation is some sort of evil, 'anti-Christian' conspiracy. Sineaste (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am aware of Hippolytus and to be fair you can go even earlier with Flavius Josephus connecting Daniel with Antiochus, but the theory that it was written at that time, i.e. the "modern" theory is attributable to Porphyry as stated. And do you realize that above you assumed what my own interpretation is and proceeded to attack it. I am not here to discuss whatever interpretation I may have, if any.  I'm just saying it is ridiculous to pretend that everything has suddenly been resolved, this is no longer a controversial topic, and all dissent to the Antiochus interpretation or hypothesis has packed up and gone home.  That is the hallmark of a biased article.  This is a controversial topic and any honest look at all the major commentators on Daniel should prove that, also please refer to some major commentators on Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14 regarding widespread interpretations of the Book of Daniel. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested outline including traditional interpretation
The current article presents only the modern interpretations of Daniel. I'd like to propose that the outline of the article be modified to something like the following to make it more neutral.

1 Content 2 Modern scholarly interpretation 2.1 Structure 2.2 Composition 2.3 Themes 3 Traditional scholarly interpretation 3.1 Structure 3.2 Composition 3.3 Influence + references, links, etc.

--RoyBurtonson (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Roy, I appreciate that you're trying to be conciliatory and to include the "modernists" alongside the "traditionalists", but I honestly don't think that outline would work. It's essentially two articles end to end. From your reference to Froom up above, I take it in any case that you see the Adventists as representing "tradition." For one thing, "traditionalists" don't actually have much to say about structure, and nothing at all to say about "later influence". For another, it's skewed - interpretations of Daniel began in the late 2nd century BCE (maybe you're not aware, but there are many, many early Jewish works taking up the themes Daniel raises), then on through the 1st century (and the early Christian writers who interpreted Daniel were in fact Jews - Christianity only became a separate religion from Judaism in the very late 1st century), and on for the next 2000 years. What I'm saying to say is that the Adventists don't have a monopoly on tradition. I'd love to expand the Later Interpretations section, but it can't concentrate on Adventism. PiCo (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Pico. Eusebeus (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Froom's work gives the understanding of Daniel in the early church including most of the Jewish commentators of the first centuries. Although Froom was SDA, his exhaustive review of the history of the church accurately tells who believed what when, where and why.  I suggest at least perusing all four volumes of his exhaustive work.  I'm not saying that SDAs represent the only traditional viewpoint, but they have held on to the traditional Protestant Historistical interpretation that most other traditional churches have now abandoned in favor of Preterism, Futurism and Dispensationalism.  As for structure, you removed reliably sourced paragraphs about the book's structure by W.Shea, a modern traditionalist scholar, early in your recent editing, along with two other reliable sources which were not traditionalists but giving a similar outlook on the structure.  Those could easily be restored to the article.   --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP policy does not allow "forking" so if the traditional viewpoint is to be found it pretty much must be a part of the original article. It might be possible to put both viewpoints mixed together through out the article, but that could be quite confusing.  So it seems to me that giving one viewpoint in its entirety and then the other seems reasonable and logical.  There are some topics where viewpoints are so different that the each needs to be presented separately to really do each of them justice.  This is not about which viewpoint is right or wrong, but just the fact that they existed and still exist.  It might be interesting to have a section on the conflict between the two viewpoint.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Inside Wikipedia, contemporary scholars are right by default, if they reach some sort of consensus. Theologically, it would be a different matter, but as far as we speak of historical scholarship, mainstream scholars make the call. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to using Froom, but I'd be wary of relying too much on one source (I've relied heavily on Collins myself, and I know it's a potential weakness - it's just that he's important and keeps cropping up). As for structure, my reading leads me to believe that (quote) "the view of two separately crafted halves is still the most prevalent among scholars." That's from footnote 13 on page 3 of this book, but I keep running across the same idea. The prevailing idea seems to be that there is a chiasmus in the Aramaic section (H.H. Rowley drew attention to it), but that it doesn't extend across the whole book. PiCo (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the problem of relying too much on a singe source, but sometimes you have to start somewhere, then more sources will be found. Shea expanded on the Aramaic chiasmus concept showing the book contains a double chiasmus in the Aramaic and Hebrew sections.  His diagram shows how both of them work. It is really a very simple concept.   I noticed in the "Later interpretation and influence" section you've been using modern scholarship to reinterpret the traditional interpretations to fit within the view of modern scholarship.  What is missing is what the traditional scholars actually believed and said.  Instead, what we read is the modern scholarship's 'spin' or rewriting of history according to their view.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Tgeorgescu: You seem hung up on who is correct and who is wrong.  That is a very Fundamentalist attitude.  "I'm right, you are wrong!"  "I'm going to heaven, you are going to hell!"  BUT!....That is not the issue here.  The issue is that there is a traditional scholarly interpretation and a modern scholarly interpretation of Daniel distinct from each other.  The traditional interpretation has existed for nearly 2000 years, the modern interpretation for some 200 years.  From simply a historical perspective, the traditional interpretation needs to be presented along with the modern interpretation.  What is being discussed is how best to do that.  Which one is "correct" is irrelevant.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Roy, as I pointed out, the "modern tradition" associating Daniel with Maccabbeans, Antiochus Epiphanus, etc. can be traced much farther, it was essentially outlined by the pagan philosopher Porphyry writing against Christian beliefs in ca. 200 AD. There is a deficiency in the article for ignoring this, too. Incidentally with the Qumran discoveries we know that chapter 11 was one of the most heavily revised for the Masoretic version that was forced into all modern Bibles, and the Old pre-Theodotion Greek for that chapter is even more different! But only the most meticulous scholars seem to have taken note of such things. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that modern scholarship basically adopted Porphyry's view and has expanded upon it. Froom accurately presents Porphyry's position too.  In between Porphyry and modern scholarship the traditional interpretation has played a large part in church and secular history.  To have it skipped over, or reinterpreted within the views of modern scholarship is an extreme POV.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Using modern scholarship to reinterpret the traditional interpretations to fit within the view of modern scholarship" sounds a bit tortuous. Roy, you're welcome to make your own edits, I don't have a monopoly. Just don't get bogged down in detail, is all. PiCo (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Roy, see my comments above under Neutrality Dispute. The SDA interpretation of Daniel is anything but traditional - particularly the decidedly strange understanding of the 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8 and the 1260 days of chapter 7 - and Shea's position is a tiny minority view that he dropped completely in a subsequent commentary on Daniel. Sineaste (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect that SDAs have a totally unique understanding of the 2300 days and the 1260 years. Look in the Appendix of chapter 7 and of chapter 8 and you will find traditional Bible scholars as early as the 17th century giving interpretations similar to that of the later SDAs. And, Shea based his double chiasmus theory on previous chiasmus work by secular scholars, (which were also originally noted in this article)  Shea is a traditional scholar so one would expect his work to be in the minority today.  That's besides the point.  The idea of studying the literary structure of manuscripts is a modern idea (within the last couple hundred year), so one cannot expect to find traditional scholars before that time discussing it.  Shea's work is a modern traditionalist's look at the literary structure, so his work would appear in a traditionalist's section on Structure.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, there is a quasi-unanimous consensus among mainstream scholars that the Earth is not flat and that the evolution is a fact of biology. That's why we render them as facts. There are theological views to the contrary, but we don't render them as fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Flat earth and "created according to its sort" may have been popular for a very long time, but this does not that mean they are treated on equal footing with contemporary scientific consensus. So, the fact that an opinion was popular for a very long time does not imply that it would count as fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It can be proven compellingly to nearly everyone's satisfaction that the Earth is not flat. It cannot be proven compellingly that the Book of Daniel made any reference to Antiochus Epiphanes. You are trying to equate these two situations that are completely non-analogous and that is the gaping hole in your entire line of logic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu: From Flat Earth "The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as the Myth of the Flat Earth.[6] In 1945, the misconception was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[7]" The idea that the Christian church taught the idea of a flat earth is an invention of some secular scholars of the 19th century.  See:  Myth of the flat earth.  Are you sure you want to continuing using this argument?  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not say it was popular among the elite, mind you. Besides, prehistory was much longer than "history". What the Church taught and what the Bible teaches are different matters, see e.g. http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm . Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Except the Bible doesn't say the Earth is flat either, nice total red herring, how do we keep getting sidetracked from Daniel? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar's dream of a statue
Roy, you seem convinced that the dream is of five kingdoms, but you base this (apparently) on your own interpretation of the Masoretic text (you mention the supposed insertion of a word into English bibles). This is OR. I can produce any number of biblical scholars who say the symbol is four kingdoms; a five-kingdom interpretation, if it exists at all, must be rarer than hen's teeth. Do you have a source? PiCo (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can find hundreds of people who promote the 4 kingdom idea. Many of the traditionalists do the same.  But all one needs to do is take a look at any on-line Hebrew/English interlinear text to see that the word "finally" does not appear in the Hebrew text (Masoretic or otherwise).  All it says is "and".  So the insertion of the word "finally" in translations is interpretive.  Also, the body parts delineate the different kingdoms.  It is the head which signifies Nebuchadnezzar, not the gold.  The metals and clay, instead, are descriptive adjectives representing aspects of the different kingdoms.  The gold symbolically tells something about the head kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar.  The silver tells something about the next kingdom, the bronze about the next kingdom, iron about the next kingdom and 'iron and clay' about the next kingdom.  This is simple grammar and logic.  None of the paragraphs in the Content section are attributed to reliable sources.  They are simply paraphrases of the text.  That is all I'm doing here.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Roy, I don't know how I can convince you that what you're doing is original research. I can only ask you to look up any of the books in the bibliography, in either section of it (the first section is books used in the article, the second section is books not used), and do a search for "four kingdoms" or "dream of four kingdoms", and then try doing "five kingdoms". I doubt you'll get any hits at all for the second search, and you'll certainly find that four is the commonly accepted reading. But DIY Hebrew is definitely not allowed. PiCo (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know full well that 4 kingdoms is the defacto interpretation of Daniel 2. What I was pointing out was exactly what you put in the paragraph.  There are 5 body-part divisions mentioned, not 4.  These divisions define the succeeding kingdoms, NOT the metals.  Referring to a Hebrew/English interlinear text is no different that referring to an English, or Japanese, or Javanese translation.  It is probably more accurate than the other translations too.  So, noting that verse 40 in the H/E Interlinear says "And" and not "Finally" is a valid comment.  This is not DIY translation of Hebrew into English because the translation was done by Hebrew scholars.     --RoyBurtonson (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment, Roy, is disingenuous. You changed the text to read "The idol's five body part divisions are interpreted as a series of successive kingdoms, starting with Nebuchadnezzar." By removing the reference to the four kingdoms you are, in effect, promoting your own view. If this is really the position you want to take, I would suggest you send your work to a peer reviewed, refereed journal and then use that to back up your claims. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own research, which I trust you must know. Eusebeus (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Roy - agree with all. Mainstream scholarship - even among non-secular, religious scholars - is four kingdoms. Anything else needs to be heavily referenced - which you have not done. Ckruschke (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Proposals to improve the article: more on traditional view of authorship/composition
Til Eulenspiegel's problem is that the article doesn't have enough on the traditional view of authorship (6th century, work of Daniel). Is that right, Til? I don't mind a brief mention of the tradition, but so far as I can tell the "secular" view (Babylonian/Persian folktales collected in the 3rd century, extended by visions in the 2nd) is the consensus among scholars. There are multiple sources that say this, and even those who hold to the traditional view admit (and complain) that they're a small minority. Given this, what justification can you give for giving the traditional view any more than the briefest mention? Or would a brief mention be enough to satisfy your concern? PiCo (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Antiochus / Seleucid interpretation is the only interpretation currently mentioned and stated as fact. How is it Daniel has only one possible interpretation? This is not the case, this has been debated for almost 2000 years and there are many other interpreters, commentators and theologians who don't interpret it as Antiochus. I believe this interpretation is being presented only as an 'appeal to authority' because the actual evidence supporting the hypothesis is embarrassingly thin to barely existent. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As Smeat75 says above, it comes down to WP:WEIGHT. We have multiple sources saying that a certain group of conclusions is dominant: it's "generally accepted" that the book originated as a collection of folk-tales, later expanded with visions (from Collins 1984). If you want to argue with that "generally accepted" phrase you need to find another source saying something else, but as it is, I can't say I've seen any evidence that a substantial number of scholars reject it. (I should add that this is being presented as an "appeal to authority" because that's how Wiki works - we use reliable sources).PiCo (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Then you are turning a blind eye to massive widespread and widely sourced points of view that don't even get a mention. And I notice it's still "appeal to authority" - as long as it's the authority you select. There is basically not much else going for the Antiochus hypothesis except "Because we say so." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So how come for every other book of the Bible we give multiple points of view, but for this particular book, the Book of Daniel, there is supposedly only "one" possible interpretation or viewpoint? What's your answer? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My answer is that we're observing WP:WEIGHT by giving the consensual view of scholarship - and we have John Collins, a leading scholar, saying that this is so. "A broad consensus" exists on key issues: Daniel "is pseudographic"; the stories in the first half "are legendary"; the visions were composed "in the Maccabean era"; and the book was put together "shortly after the Maccabean crisis." If you feel Collins is wrong, you'll need equally reliable sources to put against him. (See the bibliography for Collins - it's Collins 2002, page 2).PiCo (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I corrected my user name in PiCo's post, no big deal, just for accuracy.Smeat75 (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That answer is calculated to ensure that this article only presents one opinion, remains one-sided, and is a travesty of neutrality. However, this issue is not going to go away until it is a neutral article rather than an attack piece. It will be appealed all the way to Arb-Com, because the article you are imposing is one sided and anything but neutral. And your reasoning doesn't rely on any shred of actual evidence for a Maccabean date, only "Our books are right, because we say they are, but yours are so wrong they don't even merit a mention, because WE say so."  What gives? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You conflate mainstream historians with apologists. If apologists counted as mainstream historians, you would have a case, but as other editors told you, the apologists are either a small minority or fringe. The fact that they are very vocal and sell lots of books for preaching to the choir should not make us think they count as mainstream historians. Fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals are a minority even theologically speaking. People who took formal oaths that the Bible is inerrant cannot be trusted with rendering objective views upon the history of the Bible. They have lost this game since the Enlightenment, I have even added a quote from Allan Bloom to your user page which renders this idea. Now, Bloom is an adversary of this loss and would have it undone, but he candidly concedes they have lost inside contemporary universities, and this loss is part of the package. And since Wikipedia relies upon the universities, they have lost this game on Wikipedia. You can't have the Enlightenment undone inside Wikipedia. Maybe on Citizendium you could pretend it did not happen, but I'm afraid even there you risk encountering many conservatives who are fond of the Enlightenment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever, I'm trying to undo the Enlightenment on Wikipedia. This is merely more rhetoric that won't get us anywhere, obviously I would not agree that I am trying to undo the Enlightenment as you have recast my position in yet another strawman.  Once again, my position is that your Antiochus pov interpretation doesn't enjoy the universal monopoly of all thought that you imagine it does, such that no other interpretation may even be mentioned. You are claiming a monopoly and that no source for any other interpretation but yours could ever be "reliable". Past experience has shown that it's a struggle to maintain a forced one-sided article as an opinion piece for vastly long periods of time when significant numbers of the target audience will obviously disagree with what they are reading. That's the reason we have a cornerstone neutrality policy (which you have worked extensively to undermine) dictating that ALL significant and widespread points of view must be given, we do not tell only one half the story that you like, we are to tell the whole story like any serious impartial source would. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"Nazi official Hans Frank suggested that Alois's mother had been employed as a housekeeper for a Jewish family in Graz and that the family's 19-year-old son, Leopold Frankenberger, had fathered Alois. Because no Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, and no record of Leopold Frankenberger's existence has been produced, historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish."

- Adolf Hitler


 * So the article on Hitler states "historians dismiss the claim". We could mention the idea that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel with a similar qualification, namely "mainstream historians dismiss the claim". Would that make you happy? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It would make me happy if you could stay on topic. You don't seem to have a lot to say pertinent to the facts of the issues of Daniel or Antiochus.  I'm not going to respond to any more of these abstract red herring analogies. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was quite to the point: state the claim and state that mainstream historians dismiss it. So, it isn't a red herring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, let me rephrase it without allusion to "Muhammad in the Bible": do you understand that "Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel" requires or assumes an explanation through clairvoyance or time travel? Do you understand that mainstream historians are by their training extremely skeptical of all explanations which require/assume clairvoyance or time travel? Therefore you are forced to admit that mainstream historians disagree with that claim by the very way in which their were trained and in which they practice their profession. That's what I meant by saying that apologists have lost the game by the very design of post-Enlightenment historical scholarship: since the Enlightenment historians can no longer assume miracles or paranormal inspiration, they have to seek explanations through natural causes and ordinary social and historical processes for historical documents. That's why they default to postdiction. If they would seriously consider supernatural inspiration, they would betray their training and their profession. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't say who wrote it and neither can anyone. Does anyone even claim Daniel himself wrote it?  Gee, I didn't know that.  It refers to him in the third person throughout, except when quoting him. My point is that there are several scholarly differences of opinion on when it could have been written, how much it does pertain to the transition from Babylon to Persia, and what the original version would have looked like.  As for the dream visions themselves, they do not necessitate clairvoyance, as abstract as they are.  In fact one common interpretation throughout history is that these visions pertain to times still in the future, since they literally state they reflect conditions at the very end of this world.  In that case there is no indication of clairvoyance if these visions have never happened yet and no one knows if they ever will. These are visions, the most difficult and controversial type of scripture to interpret so naturally there are more disparate interpretations of what exactly various dream-elements like falcons or lions etc. are meant to portray. (Nobody takes the position that there would literally be a dragon with seven literal heads as far as I know, this is considered an allegorical dream of some sort or another).  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speak of the devil and he doth appear: . Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Til, somewhere up above you say you'll take your concerns to Arb-Com. Please either do that, or else offer constructive suggestions here for editing. PiCo (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Arb-com is supposed to be for if several other processes have failed first, but my criticism of the article has been and remains that it is one sided, that it ignores the complete range of scholarly opinions on when it could have been written, how much it pertains to the transition from Babylon to Persia, and what the original version would have looked like. I have also criticised the fact that it asserts the interpretation or pov that it depicts Maccabeans and Antiochus without mentioning that this is only one possible interpretation.  It seems unacceptably misleading to suggest that the names Maccabees and Antiochus are in the actual text; this is completely untrue and it needs to be stated honestly. Are you afraid to quote what 11:45 really does say that you have to misrepresent it in the article?  Are you afraid to put up the actual evidence used in support of the Maccabean theory because of how embarassingly scant it is?  I suppose I would be too, as embarrassingly scant as it is, I would want to leave it as an unquestionable "appeal to authority" myself if I were out to plug that hypothesis as the only possible interpretation. But I'm not, my only intention is to see that all the significant viewpoints are covered instead of only one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Then provide explicit suggestions for improvements, with sources. PiCo (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I can get some together and add them, in the meantime for now I would suggest rewriting the Maccabean theory more neutrally and less assertively, it should be pointed out that the text does not mention Maccabeans, Antiochus, Ptolemy, Seleucids etc. and this is merely an interpretation, (which ought to be credited to Porphyry) rather than give an impression that any names like these are mentioned in the text. And please don't state that 11:45 prophesies that Antiochus will die in Palestine, when what it actually says is that the "king of the north" will have a palace in the beautiful mountain between the seas before he dies. It would be better, per most articles in this wikiproject, to give the actual verse, then state that someone interprets this to mean Antiochus will die in Palestine, and give the name of who makes this interpetation. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's another suggestion: You have synopses for chapter 1-11, but chapter 12 is conspicuously absent, you know the one where it describes how the resurrection of the dead, judgement day and the kingdom of God will follow after the death of the king of the north? Don't you think this chapter is significant enough to include in your synopsis? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Til, I see no reason to rewrite the Composition section in a more equivocal way, because the sources are uniformly unequivocal. Shaul Bar, for example, says on page 211: "Scholars agree that the final redaction...dates from the Antiochian persecution, 167-164 BCE." "Scholars agree", not "some scholars believe" or anything like that. Zvi Brettler says on page 213, "someone wrote it during the Greek period." And that's just the first two books from the top of the bibliography, excluding Bandstra, who's comments on composition and dating have fallen down a google-books hole. So, if you want the Composition section written less assertively than the sources seem to warrant, give us reasons.


 * On your second point I'm fine. I didn't write the Contents section, it's exactly as I found it, and I have no idea why chapter 12 isn't included. Please feel free to write something about the same length as the other chapter entries. PiCo (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Repeating once again "Because I say so, and because authority x says so, no other rationale, argument or evidence required, and not only that, but everyone must find this logic convincing because we say so" does not even address my specific criticism. The article gives a false impression that 11:45 says "Antiochus will die in Palestine" when it says no such thing and this is only one interpretation of what it might mean.  This is intellectual dishonesty once again.  Have the decency to do like any reputable source, or indeed like any other article in this wikiproject, and tell the truth.  Give the exact verse word for word and do not alter one word, THEN give the interpretation, make sure you say it's an interpretation, and make sure you say whose interpretation.  Anything less is pure deception. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is what Wikipedia is all about. It is not the place to argue with what the authorities say. Further, Wikipedia accepts academic and scholarly authorities, not religious and dogmatic authorities. Anything else is original research. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since when is "appeal to authority" what Wikipedia is all about? I've been here since 2005 and that seems to be a rather new attitude from what Jimbo laid out in the beginning.  For one thing "appeal to authority" is well known as a logical fallacy.  The scientific method is not to get a hypothesis confirmed merely by a supposed "consensus", that is the False Scientific Method.  The true scientific method is to get a hypothesis confirmed through proof and results. Otherwise it remains a hypothesis. If there is ever an "appeal to authority" on wikipedia, there is always something behind it - some explanation of how you get from a to z. In this case, there is nothing behind it - the idea that "there is only one acceptable interpretation of these allegorical dream-visions and the existence of any other may not be alluded to" is just a bald assertion. On most wikipedia articles, we give all the major views.  This is one of the most intolerant and narrow backwaters of any article in the Bible wikiproject, pretending there is a monolith of opinion concerning Bible prophecy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Til, how about a short subsection on "Daniel and the Book of Daniel"? It could be quite interesting and informative, bringing in the Ugaritic Dan'el, Ezekiel's Daniel, the role of the mantic tradition in Babylonian religion (Deuteronomy condemns the sort of thing Daniel is praised for), and then the fact you noted just now in an edit summary that the book never actually says Daniel was the author. PiCo (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, some of those additional points you just raised used to be in a previous incarnation of this article some years ago, what happened to them? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea,I only started looking at this article in the last week. As for your reversions of my edit in the lead about traditional ascription to Daniel, I quite agree with you that the book never actually says this, yet it does seem from Collins that reputable scholars were still fairly recently saying that that Daniel wrote it. (Someone called Robert Dick Wilson, one of the founders of Westminster Theological Seminary, but I have no idea who he was or when he lived). PiCo (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here, I only started looked at it again within the past week, but it's a far cry from a few years ago when we had both worked on it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was responsible for razing what was there almost to the ground (only the Contents section isn't mine - I haven't touched that at all, and I think it's pretty good, apart from the strange lack of a para about chapter 12). My reason was that it seemed the article had just grown over the years, people adding things here and there, till the result lacked structure and balance. I've introduced the structure used in most other bible-book articles as it's pretty flexible in its broad headings (only four of them, Structure/Contents/Themes/Later Influence). Then I moved material around to fit into that structure, deleting things that were repeated or unsourced or that seemed unbalanced. (One that I was loathe to delete, but did, was somebody's work on chiasms in Daniel - it's quite true that the chiasms are there, but they simply aren't the underlying structural principle.) I'd still like to add important areas on the themes of Daniel - son of man, kingdoms, beasts, and so on - and more on its influence in later Western history. I'm getting tired though, and want to stop. PiCo (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources Rick Norwood (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but certain editors here are trying to impose an additional "litmus test" to keep the article one sided and a violation of NPOV. "Only sources for OUR point of view meet this definition. Sources indicating other points of view exist out there are inadmissible."  This is easy to see through.  There are numerous scholars who do not buy into the Antiochus hypothesis.  Swallowing the Antiochus hypothesis is not a prerequisite for the definition of "scholar" and never has been at any time in history to date, much as you'd like to convince everyone it is. Hypotheses can be proven and established by "consensus" in Old Soviet science, but those who have heard of the "Scientific method" know it takes more than selected people agreeing and simply excluding everyone who doesn't agree, to get something out of the hypothesis stage.  "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Yes.  If they cannot show how they get from a to z and say there is no other path possible, they fail, they are only making bald assertions or cheerleading their hypothesis. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, except that Wikipedia does rely on experts. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Luckily, this has been intensely debated for literally thousands of years and remains controversial so there are plenty of sources for all widespread points of view. The main new evidence that has come up is the Qumran edition, but that hasn't exactly settled anything. It's really not hard for anyone who wants an impartial account to get quality information on the Book of Daniel from almost anywhere else, but this article is just a one-sided joke and an interesting statement on what happens when editors from a single pov dominate an article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello; I was invited by a random process to comment about this topic. While I know little about scholarly studies of the Book of Daniel, it seems to me that the view of scientific scholars should not carry all of the weight in a topic that is strongly influenced by belief.  This book was written so long ago that it is likely impossible to know the exact truth of its origins.  Just as in our own discussions, it's not always the number of people who hold an opinion, but the clarity of the arguments that is important.  If the number of scholars who accept the book as written by Daniel is smaller, that doesn't mean that their viewpoint is unimportant, especially if their views have been reported in reliable sources.  I don't believe that there is any policy saying that if ten times as many experts believe A as believe B, then ten times as much has to be written about A.  Wikipedia shouldn't be saying that either view is right, but just reporting the two views.  If one view is based mainly on scientific evidence and the other mainly on tradition, authority and religious belief, these reasons should be made clear, so that the readers will have the information that they need to come to their own conclusions.  This is just my opinion, and the editors here will decided, I'm sure, if it has any validity. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not imply that theological viewpoints should be erased, just that theology does not attempt to establish objective facts, since it mostly preaches to the choir. Theology needs no empirical evidence in order to make some claim, but history does need evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ironic since I have been asking repeatedly what the actual "evidence" is that Daniel has anything to do with Antiochus (other than just "because we say so"), and so far nobody seems to know much about the answer or about the Book of Daniel, all we get in response are weak red herring analogies to marginally related or unrelated stuff that exists... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Evaluating evidence is not a task for Wikipedia editors, instead it is what scholars do in peer-reviewed publication. Wikipedia simply trusts that experts are able to evaluate evidence in peer-reviewed articles. It is not "because we say so", it is "because scholars say so". This should be basic knowledge for any Wikipedia editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You only accept without question or evidence required those scholars that do say so, which is ridiculous, because many do not and dispute them. The truth no one want to admit is there is no real evidence, it's a weak theory and an interpretation.  Let's take a look at what passes for "logic": a) It can be proven that the Earth is not flat; ∴ therefore there is no need to prove that Daniel mentions Antiochus, because this becomes self-evident.  Seriously? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If I remember well, you refused discussing evidence, even seen through reliable sources, at Talk:The Exodus. What I am saying that Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research. If an evaluation of evidence isn't printed in reliable sources you have no right to evaluate evidence as an Wikipedia editor. Only reliable sources have the right to evaluate evidence. Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources, not upon the musings of various editors about evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wrong, of those who do hold to this interpretation, if none of them has ever explained why they think that, but each one relies on "Somebody else before me thinks so too" that doesn't make it any more than an interpretation or a hypothesis.I don't know how or where you learned logic or science. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Then I would suggest to make this point in a peer-reviewed publication and comeback after you get it printed in a reputable scientific journal. You think that all scholars do in this respect is repeat what Porphyry said and that they never had any evidence for it. It's your right to think so, but unless you show it printed in a reliable source, it is discarded by default as original research. In fact at you have answered my demand for evidence with notaforum. What makes you think that the evidence you demand now is wholly different from the evidence I have demanded there? I could simply tag your comments with notaforum since you have already stated that demanding evidence means using Wikipedia talk pages as web forums, i.e. contrary to policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked at the link, on that occasion last March at Talk:The Exodus; it looks like someone without source wanted to soapbox their opinion how everyone agrees that there was never an Exodus, which is poppycock, everyone doesn't agree with that. I get tired of people just throwing opinions out there, maybe I went a little overboard in removing it back then, but this is quite different: here I am trying to find out on what specific basis these scholars can be so confident in asserting that Daniel pertains at all to Antiochus. I don't see how anything at Talk:The Exodus is going to help in any way. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Section "Structure - Modern Traditionalist"
Roy, I don't like your recent addition of this section, though I appreciate that it's a well-intentioned edit. His claims to authority as a scholar in fact seem very tenuous. He has a PhD from the University of Michigan (in archaeology?) and seems to have held a senior position at Andrews University, which is affiliated with the Adventist church. So on the grounds of qualifications and academic positions he might just scrape in as a reliable source. But he doesn't seem to be widely published or to be quoted in academic sources (meaning that he never seems to be invited to contribute to multi-authored sources such as theological/biblical dictionaries, handbooks, etc, and is never, so far as I can tell, referenced by authors who are). On those grounds he doesn't seem to qualify.

But to get closer to the point, you seem to be saying that Shea's proposals on the structure of Daniel merit inclusion in the article on the grounds that he's a "modern traditionalist." I'm baffled - what's a modern traditionalist? In any case, the article's section on structure, sourced from multiple reliable sources, sets out the modern scholarly thinking on the book's structure - i.e., two part division on the basis of subject matter, slightly different two-part division on the basis of language, presence of a chiasmus in the Aramaic section. Shea agrees with those sources on the Aramaic chiasmus, in which case why mention him specifically? His idea that there's also a chiasmus in the Hebrew section seems to have no support, so again why mention it? Being a "modern traditionalist," whatever that is, hardly seems like sufficient reason. Anyway, I'd like to hear what others say, but my inclination is to remove the new section. PiCo (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Modern traditionalism isn't traditional. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Modern secular scholarship and modern traditional scholarship live in two separate worlds based on their distinct approaches to the Bible and the Book of Daniel in particular.
 * Secular scholarship approaches the Bible with the assumption that God does not exist, therefore, a non-existing god cannot communicate to humans, therefore the Bible is the work of deluded men who are trying to control people though coercion or whatever means they might try. Supposed prophecies are actually history couched in lies to try to make it look like a non-existing god predicted it.
 * Traditionalists approach the Bible as the word of God, communicated to selected individuals called prophets who then wrote down what they had learned so that others can learn about God. They approach Daniel as the actual work of a person called Daniel who lived during the times detailed in the book.  They believe that the prophecies are indeed future history written down in advance by an all knowing God.
 * There is no compromise between these views. They are mutually exclusive.  The traditional view has existed, and still exists in some circles, for over 2000 years.  As I have mentioned before, simply from a historical perspective, their position needs to presented as they believed it, not as secular scholars think they believed it.  This means that you have to make use of old and modern traditionalist sources.  These are reliable sources for explaining what they think.  No one has to believe them, but they are quite capable of explaining for themselves their position.  You don't need someone else to try to explain it for them.  Some secular scholars try to explain the traditionalist position from their view, which is largely nonsensical.
 * Shea is a reliable source for the traditional position. What matters is strength of argument, not how many people believe it.  It is the very differences that Shea notes which make it an important traditional source.  You cannot expect Shea to agree with secular scholars.  He won't simply because he is a modern traditionalist.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are conflating "secular" with "atheistic". In fact, many secular Bible scholars are Christians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing "traditional" about Shea's suggestion of a double chiasmus in Daniel - he uses the tools of normal biblical scholarship to defend it, and has to be judged by normal standards. You, Roy, need to defend the inclusion of this material in the article: Why mention the Aramaic chiasm again when it's already described in the section on structure? Why mention Shea's proposal of a Hebrew chiasmus when it hasn't won acceptance among other scholars? The mere fact that Shea is an Adventist hardly seems a compelling reason. PiCo (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the addition for the reasons set out here - the Aramaic chiasm is already mentioned in the article and the Hebrew chiasm has no support in the scholarly community. Tangentially, there's nothing very "traditional" about Shea's suggestion - he's not a traditional scholar. PiCo (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just checked the history of this article and found that the first mention of chiasm in this article happened when Shea's diagram and comments and source were addded. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you extract the part on the Aramaic chiasm from that diagram and add it to the article? It's quite good, and as I said, the Aramaic part is widely accepted in scholarly sources. PiCo (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you know how to construct those diagrams (I don't), it would also be useful to have a two-colum table, in colours, showing both two-part divisions, the one by subject matter (chapters 1-6 and 7-12) and by language. PiCo (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposals to improve the article: more on influence on Protestant reformation
RoyBurtonson, I gather you want more on the role of Daniel in the Protestant reformation. I think that's fine - it would go in the last section, "Later Influence" of whatever it's called. Please have a look at what that section already says and make some suggestions. (I don't actually agree that the Reformation was caused by Daniel and Revelation, but perhaps that's not the impressioin you meant to give).PiCo (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The traditional historistcal interpretation of Daniel (and Revelation) has been used since the earliest days of Christianity. Thus, from a historical perspective, it should form a major component of the article.  The article now reflects primarily the modern, secular, scholarly perspective as if that is the ONLY possible and correct understanding of Daniel, and attaches 2000 years of Biblical scholarship as an afterthought.  The point of the article is who or what is right and who or what is wrong.  That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.  We should be reporting about what was and is, not what is right or wrong.  The readers can make up their own mindes about that.
 * The impact of the Bible on the Reformation is played down by modern scholarship. But go back and read the original manuscripts and quotes from them (most of which can be found on line).  Just read some of Luther's blasts against the papacy sometime and you will get a completely different picture.  Bible prophecy played a huge and major role in the reformation.  Sure there were other facets, including political and economic, but these were seized upon in addition to the Biblcal interpretations.  Read Luther's "95 Theses", which was the most important document of the Reformation.  There is nothing there about politics and economics.  It is all theological.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your position is problematic. You are suggesting in essence that the article be recrafted to reflect what you feel is an elision in "modern scholarship" and you exhort editors of this page to edit the content based on the old cry of ad fontes: "go[ing] back and read[ing] the original manuscripts and quotes from them (most of which can be found on line)." That is the very definition of original research (WP:OR). Could you try to restate what you wish to achieve that is consistent with our various policies (RNPOV, SYNTH, OR, etc...)? Surely it cannot be your view that an encyclopaedic source be used as a corrective to what you see as the deficiencies of "modern scholarship". That is idiosyncratic to the extreme and raises troubling questions about your aims as an editor. Eusebeus (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that modern scholarship is inherently biased against Christianity because it starts with the position that there is no god (or the deistic position of non-involvement of some unknown god). Therefore, an article that bases all of it's resources on modern scholarship can never be NPOV on a topic that is the basis for important Christian theology.  Just take this statement, for example, from the "Later Interpretation" section:  "Christianity would have disappeared, like the movements following other charismatic Jewish figures of the 1st century, had it not been for the perceived resurrection of Jesus.[49]"  This is blatant anti-christian bias because the resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity.  Only someone who was not a Christian and/or did not believe the Bible would say perceived resurrection.  And stated this way implies that thinking, rational people reject the perceived resurrection and delusional, irrational people believe in the resurrection.  This is bias, pure and simple.
 * I'm not here to argue which is right or which is wrong. But promoting one view over another, as is done through out this article in ways just like this example, is not encyclopedic. WP should simply state the the positions of differing views without comment over which is right or wrong.  So far, most of the editors who have commented on this topic are overly concerned over right or wrong as if their beliefs are under attack.  As if everyone should believe the same thing.
 * To give the Christian position on this topic you will need to use Christian sources because the modern scholarship reinterprets the Christian position to fit its viewpoint(as is obvious in the above example). Just stating the Christian position on this topic is not promoting Christianity over any other position.  It is simply stating what exists...  Whether it is true or false is irrelevant.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is WP:RNPOV. Please read it and obey it. It says that both theology and history have to be rendered. What it does not say but everybody knows or should know is that history establishes objective facts (like Jesus died around 30 AD), while theology does not establish objective facts, but only true belief for the members of this or that church. Historians by the very rules of their profession default to "perceived resurrection", whether they are or not Christians. Their own faith is irrelevant to their scholarship, and whether they consider that miracles are possible does not imply that they could prove the occurrence of miracles as historical facts. As Bart Ehrman says, historians have no access to God and could never argue that it was God who helped Protestants fight the Catholics, simply because that isn't a matter of historical research, but a theological claim, which could be true or false depending upon your church membership (generally true if Protestant and generally false if Catholic). Historical research cannot establish the correct theology, since that isn't something which could be objectively assessed.


 * At http://www.bloggingtheologically.com/2010/07/27/book-review-the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-by-andreas-j-kostenberger-and-michael-j-kruger/ I wrote the following:


 * "Is orthodoxy theologically correct?" is not a historical question and it cannot be answered by the historical method. While it can be great theology to say that the orthodoxy is right, it is not history. Historians have no access to God and therefore they can never say which belief is theologically correct, if any.


 * "Under the guidance of God’s providential hand and through the work of the Holy Spirit, etc., etc." isn't a falsifiable statement, therefore it isn't history in any meaningful sense. Therefore if the book is theology, it is a great book. But if the book is history, it is a meaningless solution to a meaningless problem. You are entitled to believe that your theology is right, but you cannot have a scientific proof that your theology is right. Science does not seek to answer such problems.


 * That history does not takes sides in respect to theological truth claims is not an effect of postmodernism, but it is a consequence of proper scientific methodology. There is and there could be no scientific reason to choose for Christianity rather than for Islam or Hinduism. Science is not concerned with establishing true theological beliefs. This isn't postmodern, it is precisely modern.


 * History could never say that heretics were wrong and that the orthodox were right, nor, conversely, that the heretics were right and that the orthodox were wrong.


 * The gist is: any historical study which tries to show that orthodoxy is right is methodologically flawed (as history). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In objective terms, we don't know and we cannot know if Jesus rose or could rise from the dead, that's why the word "perceived" is necessary for having a neutral rendering of the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral terms have to be used since the readers of this article are of various religious persuasions, we cannot take for granted that only Christians read this article and that no Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Deists, atheists and agnostics could read it. Therefore the article should never imply that the resurrection of Jesus was real, since that is a subjective belief, not a neutrally established, objective fact of history. But you perceive neutral terms as an attack upon your faith. Well, your faith is not privileged above Islam and Hinduism and Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of your religious sensibilities. It is a very extreme position to consider neutral language as an attack upon the pillars of your faith. Claiming that it is objectively proven that Jesus rose from the dead is just as ludicrous as claiming that it would be objectively proven that Jesus could not rise from the dead. Either claim fails under WP:FRINGE/PS, since no amount of scientific research could prove or disprove that dead people could be risen from their death through miracles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To put it bluntly, you asked that this article state that Christianity is true and therefore Hinduism is false. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Perceived resurrection is an extreme biased term. No ifs, ands or buts. Historians can say the resurrection is false. Christians can say it is true. Hindus can say it's false. Etc. I don't care. But to say that Christians only perceive that Jesus was resurrected when in fact they don't know if he did, which is how 'perceived resurrection' is being used, is twisting what Christians believe. Christians know that Jesus was resurrected because the Bible says so. They believe what the Bible says because they know and believe, through trust and faith, that God is telling the truth in it. Obviously, someone who does not believe in the God of the Bible is not going to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and will think that those who do are insane. Saying that Christians only "perceive" Jesus rose from the dead is false. They know Jesus rose from the dead. But saying that they know Jesus rose from the dead is not saying that everyone must also believe it. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Roy, pleaselook at the source for that sentence in the article - it does use the phrase "perceived resurrection." What I understand it to mean is that because the followers (pre-death) of Jesus believed (or "perceived" if you like) that he had been resurrected, his movement survived, while those of other messiahs (and they did exist), did not. The difference between those messiahs and Jesus was not the resurrection in itself, but the belief/perception of Jesus' followers. In other words, the sentence says nothing about the reality or otherwise of the resurrection, it's about the impact that the belief had on the early community. (It's also saying that the belief would have been impossible without Daniel and other late 2nd temple authors who popularised the idea that resurrection was possible - it doesn't exist in works from the 1st temple period).PiCo (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, besides there is a difference between knowing (as in science) and believing (as in religious faith or opinion). Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected, they don't know if Jesus was resurrected (Romans 8:24 and Hebrews 11:1 confirm this very view). And during the first generations of Christians there was simply no Bible which could tell them what to believe. Historians cannot prove that Jesus wasn't resurrected, neither can they prove that Jesus was resurrected. Simply because it can't be known if Jesus was resurrected. It isn't science, it's belief or opinion. The claim that Christians know that Jesus was resurrected is very far-fetched, because this would trigger a slippery slope that such things can be known and therefore render them falsifiable scientific claims instead of immunized theological claims. Most Christian theologians would disagree with the statement that such stuff could be known. That's what the very split between science and faith is about. I am even amazed that an Wikipedia editor who discusses history and theology could peddle such explanation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Such redefinition of the word "know" is weird epistemologically, it is fringe theologically and it smacks of cult ritual abuse (mind control techniques). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If the theological truth could be known, instead of being believed, the freedom of religion is a terrible mistake. If the state could know the true theology, there is no point in allowing religions to deny theological facts which are objectively true. Freedom of religion only makes sense if nobody could know the supernatural realm. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything we know about science we know because we have been taught it from others whom we trust and believe are telling the truth. No single person can possibly do all the experiments that have gotten us to the level of knowledge we now have about nature, therefore we must trust and believe what others say.  There is NO DIFFERENCE when it comes to knowing the truth told in the Bible.  It is known because someone trusts and believes in what someone else has said.  The early Christians didn't have the New Testament, but they did have living eye witnesses.  The NT was written by those trustworthy eye witnesses.  Theology is all about knowing God.  Science is all about knowing nature.  Science cannot know anything about God because science can only know about nature.  Science is limited to what is natural and can say absolutely nothing about anything outside of nature (i.e. super (outside of) nature -- supernatural).  If there is something outside of nature science cannot say.


 * Just as scientists argue over various aspects of nature, theologians argue over various aspects of God. Although much is known about nature, no one knows everything about nature. Similarly, much is known about God, but no one knows everything about God.  Just as there is freedom to explore nature, there is freedom to explore God.  Thus freedom of religion is a requirement of society.


 * You have yanked verses out of context. "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently."Rom 8:22-25
 * This is saying that Christians eagerly wait for the resurrection ("the redemption of our bodies") and they are saved by this hope in something yet to happen. They don't hope for what has already happened, but only for what has not yet happened.  They KNOW what is going to happen, but it just hasn't happened yet.
 * "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."Heb 11:1
 * Christians KNOW what they hope for, things which they do not yet see, because they have faith in the God who told them about what was going to happen.  "Certainly the sovereign Lord does nothing without first revealing his plan to his servants the prophets."Amos 3:7  So "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable... 2 Tim 3:16  Because "the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I [Jesus] have said to you." John 14:26  Through the Holy Spirit, God revealed his plan to his prophets whom he inspired to write the Bible.  And the same Holy Spirit will teach each of us all truth to be found in the Bible.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A short introduction to the difference between "know" and "believe" is available at http://americaneditor.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/on-words-believ-and-knowledge/ . Your argument that theology is just like science is ludicrous because most Christian theologians say that Christians should have faith in Jesus, they do not say that Christians should have science in Jesus. It seems that you missed the fact that the Enlightenment did happen and theologians have sought to protect their faith from criticism precisely by affirming the difference between knowledge and religious belief. As Dawkins put it, "Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops."


 * A professor of physics cannot appeal to the freedom of speech in order to be allowed to teach his students that atoms do not exist. That's simply not what he is paid for. It simply cannot be known if a god exists, let alone who's god it is and what theology that god subscribes to. If something made you unlearn the difference between the objective and the subjective, you should quickly get a grasp of it in order to properly contribute to Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is off-topic and rapidly approaching the limits of WP:NOTFORUM. Can we focus on identifying ways the article can be improved? Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, there are more pressing matters to discuss, but his reluctance to admit that theology isn't objective knowledge is a matter WP:COMPETENCE. And it has consequences for his activity as an Wikipedia editor, e.g. it led to his accusations of putting extreme bias into the article. I even wonder if he has ever read a book of Bible scholarship published by the Oxford University Press after the year 2000, since he sounds to me like never having read any recent mainstream historical work about the Bible, and this leads him to accuse others of bias in a weird and ludicrous manner. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Christ
PiCo - Thought I'd put in a note rather than just blindly reverting your insertion. Based purely on a quick look on Wiki "Anti-Christ" - at least two passages in the new testament: 2 John 1:7 and 1 John 2:22 (neither of which were written in the 2nd Century). The figure is also listed in 2 Thess and (predominantly) in Revelation (both of which also have author dates prior to the 2nd Century). Beyond that, I'm not sure how you can state with 100% finality in the text that the Anti-Christ figure is an amalgam from Revelation when he APPEARS in Revelation. Therefore it appears that "at least" your insertion should reflect the above facts and state that the two authors you site have a "contrary opinion" as to the genesis of the Anti-Christ figure. However, its quite possible I'm missing the point of your sentence - not the first time it's happened... Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Thanks, I appreciate that. As you maybe guessed, I'm still feeling my way forward on this. I didn't mean that the antichrist per se is an amalgam of Revelation and Daniel, but that the figure as it appears in medieval sources is that amalgam - it's about a tradition, in other words. Traditions evolve over time. But I'll re-write. PiCo (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks PiCo. Appreciate the friendly tone. Ckruschke (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Original Greek Septuagint version
One question. Is the original Greek Septuagint version of the Book of Daniel (that later got replaced by Theodotion's version) still preserved in old manuscripts? Komitsuki (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It must have been since it is still possible to get the original Greek text of the pre-Theodotion. (Also known as O.G. among serious Daniel students). It is possible to find the O.G. online, but you have to search diligently since most have the Theodotion text and even call that the "original Greek"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I found this article called The "One Like a Son of Man" - According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7,13-14 and I'm wondering if there's a complete copy of the original Septuagint version of Book of Daniel in a museum? The explanations on the internet are usually obscure. Komitsuki (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Greek and Catholic versions
I have a habit of improving leads because I think they're the most important part of an article and because I'm good at summarizing. The lead talks about the Greek and Catholic versions adding material, and the reader is left wondering "what material?" I answered that question. Perhaps the earlier reference to the extra material can go away now that the extra material is named. This article is controversial because certain people outside the scholarly mainstream feel very strongly about it. I hope that my cited information is welcome here. Leadwind (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)