Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:56, 4 November 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Daniel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Religious texts (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ancient Near East Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

On the general tenor of the article.

Whether the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century or the 2nd century is one question - another question, which is, or should be, more important to Misplaced Pages, is the way in which this topic is presented. Personally, I find the tone rather arrogant, and disrespectful to almost all believing Jews and Christians, for whom the earlier date is pivotal in establishing either the validity of the Messiah which is to come, or has already come, respectively. To state the later date as fact would indicate that almost all believing Jews and Christians are either fools or liars and that whoever wrote the Book of Daniel was a fraud and a liar as were the Jewish priests who presented it to the people. But even more important than THAT, to an encyclopedia, is that the presentation is more subtly polemic rather than encyclopedic. Compare the way that the Encylopedia Britannica opens its article on the Book of Daniel (https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Book-of-Daniel-Old-Testament):

The Book of Daniel, also called The Prophecy Of Daniel, is a book of the Old Testament found in the Ketuvim (Writings), the third section of the Jewish canon, but placed among the Prophets in the Christian canon. The first half of the book (chapters 1–6) contains stories in the third person about the experiences of Daniel and his friends under Kings Nebuchadrezzar II, Belshazzar, Darius I, and Cyrus II; the second half, written mostly in the first person, contains reports of Daniel’s three visions (and one dream). The second half of the book names as author a certain Daniel who, according to chapter 1, was exiled to Babylon.

— The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica

It then goes on to present arguments that the earlier date is more probable:

The language of the book—part of which is Aramaic (2:4–7:28)—probably indicates a date of composition later than the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC). Numerous inaccuracies connected with the exilic period (no deportation occurred in 605 BC; Darius was a successor of Cyrus, not a predecessor; etc.) tend to confirm this judgment. Because its religious ideas do not belong to the 6th century BC, numerous scholars date Daniel in the first half of the 2nd century BC and relate the visions to the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164/163 BC).

— The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica

This is good encyclopedic writing (note the use of the word probable rather than, "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century...")- and although the E.B. article is rather short, it presents facts as facts and arguments as arguments. So here are the facts: There is a Book of Daniel that is a part of the Old Testament. There is a controversy about the date. Most believing Christians and Jews believe in the earlier date. Most secular, scholars of antiquity and many religious Bible scholars believe in the later date.

Then there are the arguments - The three references in the Book of Ezekial as arguments for the earlier date, the counterarguments to that, the matter of Darius being the successor, not the predecessor being a strong argument for the later date, etc. If this article were really being encyclopedic and not partisan to a point of view, regardless of how many worthies weigh I on the subject, then it would present facts as facts and arguments as arguments, and not arguments as facts; attribute the arguments to the right sources, and leave it to the reader make up his own mind what to think, rather than having Misplaced Pages tell him what to think. One of the jobs of a good article on a topic such as this one is to provoke the reader to more inquiry not less. This article needs to be re-written by someone who is partisan neither to the earlier date nor to the later one.Contraverse (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, we teach it a fact (as opposed to teach the controversy) because that's the only mainstream historical view, from the Ivy League to US state universities. This has been discussed to death, and the academic consensus holds unchanged for more than one century.

"there was a famous professor at Oxford in the middle of the 19th century an imp you see who said that if Daniel did not indeed speak these things he must have lied on a frightful scale somebody must have lied at a frightful scale they say that is actually a lack of any kind of literary sensitivity of an appreciation of literary conventions". Quoted from Yale Bible Study, Daniel: Who Was Daniel? on YouTube. Either Joel Baden was drunken, or he is actually right that John J. Collins is the topmost worldwide scholarly authority on the Book of Daniel.

“there is little that we can salvage from Joshua’s stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archeological evidence is indisputable.”

This is the judgment of one of the more conservative historians of ancient Israel. To be sure, there are far more conservative historians who try to defend the historicity of the entire biblical account beginning with Abraham, but their work rests on confessional presuppositions and is an exercise in apologetics rather than historiography. Most biblical scholars have come to terms with the fact that much (not all!) of the biblical narrative is only loosely related to history and cannot be verified.

— John J. Collins

It does not mean that Jews and Christians get called liars. It means that archaeology has spoken and there is no turning back to pre-Enlightenment historiography.

Above Joseph Rowe claimed that there are "two camps" of participants in a statement that implies that both perspectives should be taken as equally valid claims and that a "compromise" midway between the perspectives is appropriate. This is a false dichotomy and that is simply not the way that WP works. We give prominence to mainstream interpretations and usage (as demonstrated by the majority of RSs) in the lead and relegate the occasional idiosyncratic usage to a brief mention deep in the article. I might be inclined to support a sentence or two below the psychology and sociology sections but only after: 1) the multiple issues at Philosophy of conspiracy theories are resolved 2) and suitable neutral language is suggested that does not overstate the importance of a minority academic interpretation of the topic. I would discourage opening a new RfC to include these suggestions in the lead as it is highly unlikely to succeed.
— User:Mu301

What difference do you see to Smith and Mormonism? A man claims he has had revelations from God, presents a new scripture he says comes from God, starts a new religion that claims to be a restoration, not new. It sure seems very similar. The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible.
— User:Jeppiz

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

" that whoever wrote the Book of Daniel was a fraud and a liar" I don't see a problem with that statement. Most of the books in the Old Testament are pseudepigrapha written in the Achaemenid Empire or the Hellenistic era and attributed to mythical or outright fictional characters from the distant past. Seeking truth in the Bible is a fool's errand.Dimadick (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica article is based on an earlier version of the Misplaced Pages article. (Sorry, but EB uses Wiki quite a lot). The author of Daniel was writing an apocalypse, not a prophecy, and he followed the rules of Jewish apocalypse (there are quite a few of them, though Daniel is the only one that made it into the Bible). Achar Sva (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Collins, John J. (2008). "Old Testament in a New Climate". Reflections. Yale University: 4–7. ISSN 0362-0611. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

@Achar Sva: what evidence is there that the EB article copied from Misplaced Pages? NyMetsForever (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the evolution of the Misplaced Pages article over the years, and the EB article quoted above is very close to one of them. The Misplaced Pages article was written from sources which did not include the EB. You can look far back into the history of this article, to the time when it was extensively rewritten by PiCo. Achar Sva (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I don't know the details, but I thought that generally, it was Misplaced Pages consensus that EB is generally a reliable source NyMetsForever (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@NyMetsForever: The two claims are not mutually exclusive. If Britannica wants to become the vetted Misplaced Pages, it has the right to do so. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@NyMetsForever: Not when it uses Misplaced Pages as its source. Achar Sva (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I checked the revision history. It appears that user PiCo started substantially rewriting this article in 2018. I also checked the Britannica most recent revision to its article, and it was in 1998, when Misplaced Pages did not exist. Here is the documentation I will ask you to:

• i) withdraw your claim.
• ii) apologize for lying.

cc: @Tgeorgescu:.. Here is the documentation NyMetsForever (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: @Tgeorgescu: even more damning, I checked my 1991 paper Encyclopedia Britannica, and it says virtually the same thing as the online version last edited in 1998. I think Achar Sva needs to apologize for lying. NyMetsForever (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

PiCo rewrote the article years before 2018. I don't see what you're getting upset about. EB today is written the same way as Misplaced Pages, by volunteers. That 1998 date is the date EB added the article to its database, not the date of the most recent revision. Let's move on to soomething substantial, the scholarly view of the composition of Daniel. The consensus is that the date at which it first appeared in its modern form was about 164 BCE. The court tales in the first half are older and date back to the Babylonian diaspora, but they were gathered together as a collection around 200 BCE. That's what our article says, and to check that you can look at the sources we use. Achar Sva (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I am upset because you said that Britannica copied Misplaced Pages when my paper Encyclopedia Britannica of 1991 says the same exact thing that the 1998 addition to the online database. (Also, Online Britannica records revisions as well and edits as well) Unless user PiCo somehow edited Misplaced Pages before the paper Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition, it is literally impossible for the EB article to have copied user PiCo. NyMetsForever (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I don't particularly care if we add EB here, since while EB is reliable, it's not required to be here. It just felt wrong to be misled about EB. NyMetsForever (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

May I remind you that Misplaced Pages:Civility is policy? Avoid making personal attacks. Dimadick (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick: maybe I was too harsh. I am sorry @Achar Sva: I did not mean to be harsh. It's a minor point anyways. Both EB and WP are on the same page. NyMetsForever (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:ERA

@StAnselm and Paokara777: At https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Book_of_Daniel&type=revision&diff=649103468&oldid=649103258&diffmode=source it was a BCE article. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It was certainly a BC article originally. There have been a few discussions about changing it, most recently in 2016 (featuring both you and me), but there has never been any consensus. Perhaps this discussion will produce one. StAnselm (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect, it was edited in late 2020 by user : @2001:16B8:C111:2100:8CAD:6CF2:848:14E2 who switched the BC and AD to BCE / CE respectively with no explanation or reason why.

This goes against Misplaced Pages's policy that both the Common Era and Before Christ methods of notation are acceptable, and not to change them for no reason.

In this context (a Biblical book) it make far more sense to use the more Biblical approach of using BC and AD rather than the secular version BCE and CE. @Paokara777 Paokara777 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"A Biblical book." It is book primarily in the Hebrew Bible. It is, by onward adoption, a book in the Christian Bible. So the term "Biblical approach" is ambiguous; and doesn't resolve anything. The origins in Hebrew Bible, and its derivative use in Christian Bible lean quite strongly in the opposite direction: towards BCE/CE rather than BC/AD. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

BCE is a secular term. It removes the reference to "Christ" who was a prominent Jewish historical person of to which the dating method is based around. Regardless of if you think that the Book of Daniel is more Hebrew than Christian it doesn't change the Misplaced Pages rules. A BC article stays a BC article, which this one was. It was changed randomly by an anonymous IP user in late 2020 for no reason with no notation. Paokara777 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a RfC about it, which is going nowhere, at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Big surprise. Discussions on the topic of ERA seem to be circular. Dimadick (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This discussion would apply to every book in the Hebrew Bible, which has Jewish origins, and whose component texts were subsequently adopted into the Christian Bible (where they are called the "Old Testament", to distinguish them from the specifically Christian "New Testament").

Does this discussion, then, need to talk place in a wider forum about the Hebrew Bible as a whole, and including the Christian Bible. One could well be imagine an outcome of "BCE/CE for books in the HB/OT; BC/AD for books in the Christian NT". What would be a good place for such a discussion? Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense, but that is not how WP:ERA works. Of course, logically all the Hebrew Bible articles would use the Hebrew calendar instead of BC/BCE. StAnselm (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

For info: I've just opened a discussion "MOS:ERA on multiple related articles" at the MOS talk page. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Era: BC or BCE, please vote

Please indicate below whether you would like this article to be BC or BCE.Achar Sva (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• BCE, because it's a Jewish book, not a Christian one.Achar Sva (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• BCE, because it is a Jewish book; its inclusion in the Christian Bible is subsequent on that, by adoption from that primary Jewish (i.e. not BC/AD) context. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• BC, because it's both a Jewish book and a Christian one. But in fact, I don't think MOS:TIES applies here, and even articles about New Testament books can use BCE/CE according to WP:ERA. StAnselm (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• BCE per Feline Hymnic. I'm not saying that all OT books must be BCE, but I don't see a compelling argument for this one not to be. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

But why not all OT books? If we change the status quo on this article, why not all of them? StAnselm (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Simply because I don't know enough about all of them, there might be good arguments for BC for all I know. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There are OT books that are not in the HB, the Deuterocanonical books, such as the Book of Judith. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Septuagint version of the HB (later adopted into some versions of the OT) include the deuterocanonical books (+/- edge cases)? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not "currently" Jewish, ie not included in the Jewish canon for over 1,500 years, but in some Christian canons. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• BC, Daniel is as much a Christian book as a Jewish one, its cultural influence in English has come through Christianity (all those Catholic Renaissance paintings), and it's a common text for sermons, to the point of cliché. Whether we use BC or BCE here is just a matter of personal preference imo 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• BCE as originally & currently a "Jewish" book, but that should not automatically apply to all OT books. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Curious. By way of example, could you provide two HB/OT books where differing particular criteria could be in operation, and why, please? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• BCE This is, at the end of the day, a religious discussion/debate. The book is undoubtedly very important in the Christian tradition, and that is why it generates so much (religious) "passion." But if Misplaced Pages is to stand as a secular, non-religious encyclopedia, then the secular option should be preferred, wherever possible. This seems to be to me, one of those possible cases. Thank you, warshy 17:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• BCE: modern, sensitive choice. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• BCE It is a Jewish book, and we should not mention Jesus as Dominus. Dimadick (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Abstain / Common Third Day instead of Wednesday, because this is a Jewish/Christian book, and using the name Wednesday invokes the pagan deity Woden. Sarcasm aside, arguing for BCE because an article's content isn't "sufficiently Christian", or vice versa, is patently ridiculous. It's a Christian calendar system, it's a European-pagan calendar system... nothing about how you word that is going to change a thing.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 19:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• BC Cause we are adults. 65.94.99.91 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• I don't care Just adopt a site-wide binding rule which ends the edit warring about WP:ERA. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• BC There are already guidelines put in place to determine which notation we should use. This article should stay BC as per the guidelines Paokara777 (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• BC - no reason to change the existing guidelines, and Daniel is a book in the Christian Bible. As a book of the Jewish Bible the article about it should also have the Jewish date. It seems very POINTy to omit both forms of religious date in favour of a secular one. Ingratis (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Ingratis you're welcome to your views on the issue, but please show good faith to those editors who support BCE. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Please note that the guidelines say that "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content" - any !votes that don't do this should be ignored. Remember also that this is not actually a vote. As in for example an AFD, it's the weight of the arguments that should count. See WP:NOTVOTE. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about that. In fact, the heading says "please vote", and indeed there are straw polls here on Misplaced Pages. So it would be unfair for the closing editor to ignore those votes. I see most people are including reasons, but when it comes down to it, era styles are very much a matter of personal preference. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the closing editor has to follow the guidelines, plus policy says “ Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy.” Doug Weller talk 18:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• BCE as people have noted above. This is a Jewish book. Unrelated to this question, I'm sure there could be a programmatic solution that changes the visual text between "BC" and "BCE" depending upon user's preference, but that is not part of this RFC. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Except this isn't actually an RfC. It's a vote. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a vote in the sense that only numbers count. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• BCE. As a text with importance to both Jewish and Christian traditions, the article should not use a dating style that favours one of those religions over the other when a common neutral option is available. Also, endorse Doug Weller's comment above. The relevant guideline only sets out how to resolve a dispute in the absence of consensus. It doesn't provide any guidance on how to form a consensus as to which style an article should use, other than to say that it should be based on "reasons specific to its content".--Trystan (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• BC. Because that is what the original non-stub article used and the MOS says nothing about dividing it down religious lines (nor should it as that could get really messy and confusing). Masterhatch (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Over-strong assertion

"Without this belief, Christianity… would have disappeared," cited to a single source. Surely unless we can find far more citation for this claim, we should be saying that a single author asserts that, rather than saying it as a fact in the narrative voice of the article. I would think it takes a pretty strong consensus among scholars before a Misplaced Pages article should assert a counterfactual. - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• It's been a few days, no response, I will edit accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• And now User:Achar Sva has reverted, saying only "restore sourced text." Obviously, both versions are equally "sourced." The question is whether Daniel R. Schwartz is enough of an authority that we should accept a counterfactual scenario from him without indicating where it came from. I would say emphatically that he is not. Achar Sva, please explain how you see this. - Jmabel | Talk 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Daniel R. Schwartz is an authority; you, on the other hand, are not. Achar Sva (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: What "would've" happened to Christianity without a hyper-specific belief is WAY TOO subjective to state as a basic fact. I concur with @Jmabel: that we need to specify its author. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: For the record, I made no claim to be an authority. Please stick to the matter at hand rather than setting up a straw man. Counterfactual scenarios rarely belong in an encyclopedia. It's probably appropriate to say that some particular authority makes the assertion, but it is another thing to state that opinion as fact. If you can cite several who've concurred, then this might amount to some sort of scholarly consensus. Can you? - Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Jmabel, your edit was based on your personal opinion, not on any source. Please stick to sources.Achar Sva (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: please, see the rules on attribution. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not ask the question "is it true?", it only asks if whether the information is correctly sourced - meaning, is the source a reliable one, and is it notable. In this case the source is certainly reliable (a professor at Hebrew University), and there's no evidence of any contrary opinion. Therefore, we do not add personal caveats (although we never do that anyway). Now, if you want this to continue, take it to dispute resolution. Achar Sva (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Posted at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Book_of_Daniel. I tried to keep the statement there as neutral as possible, but if someone thinks my notice there is biased, please indicate how you'd prefer to word it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pure speculation! How can any of us know what would've happened if history had been different? I can see no basis for owning this speculative hypothetical stuff. It may be logically true, but the editors of Misplaced Pages do not use WP:CRYSTAL balls to look into the future, nor into alternate Bizarro World universes where Jesus isn't risen from the dead. 70.190.16.70 (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages uses reliable sources, and does not add editorial comment to them. Achar Sva (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added attribution. It's obviously an opinion rather than a fact. And it's a very big claim, too. StAnselm (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This claim should be attributed, not stated as fact. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a big claim to say that Christianity depends on belief in the resurrection of Jesus? Rather an odd statement from a Christian. Achar Sva (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I had thought Schwartz was saying a belief in the afterlife as it is in Daniel 12. Now I see that he's not talking about Daniel at all, so I think the whole sentence should be removed. We might still be able to find someone to say something about the impact of Daniel 12 on Christianity. StAnselm (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

StAnselm, I am unable to see that page in the book; any possibility you might be willing to provide the relevant sentence? Dumuzid (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure: "We must emphasize at the outset, however, that any historical study of religion has its bounds: there are data, at times very important ones for a religion, which historians must leave untouched. Christianity is based upon one such datum: the perceived resurrection of Jesus, without which the movement would certainly have disappeared along with the movements following other charismatic figures in first-century Judaism." StAnselm (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you -- and yes, I agree, given that there's no express linkage to Daniel, I think the sentence is both a bit undue and a bit synth-y. I would therefore support removal and finding a different way to discuss the influence of Daniel 12. Happy to go wherever consensus takes us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Resurrection of Jesus

The book clearly says without the perceived resurrection of Jesus, Christianity have disappeared and it does not say without the Daniel's belief of "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt" Christianity have disappeared. Even Daniel isn't even named in the reference, nor does the book of Daniel mention the name "Jesus".

What the book actually says is the following:

"We must emphasize at the outset, however, that any historical study of religion has its bounds: there are data, at times very important ones for a region, which historians must leave untouched. Christianity is based upon one such datum: the perceived resurrection of Jesus, without which the movement would certainly have disappeared along with the movements following other charismatic figures in first-century Judaism."

And what the user Achar Sva wrote says the following: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt." Without this belief, Christianity, in which the resurrection of Jesus plays a central role, would have disappeared."

They are completely different versions.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

They are identical. But thank you for engaging. Now please start a process for dispute resolution. Achar Sva (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If you added this content, it is up to you to defend it. See WP:BRD. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete it as WP:SYNTH. StAnselm (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not synthesis, it's from the source. Achar Sva (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: What are we supposed to resolve? You are alone against 3-4 people all of whom are trying to explain to you why we do not consent to the idea that something so speculative should be stated as a fact. This isn't something that happened in the past. This is one man's opinion on what the trajectory of Christianity would have been without a particular belief. We indicate who states it and move on.70.24.86.150 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva:Both versions do not say the same thing, when Daniel quotes "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt." it refers to the final judgment and the general resurrection, it does not refer to the resurrection of Jesus. They are two completely different events.Please Achar Sva user, stop manipulating the texts to your liking as you have always used to do.Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry Rafael but you're just incapable of reading. Achar Sva (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

When you write "without this belief" what do you mean? Because you never mention the "resurrection of Jesus" before. The book never says that without immortality and the resurrection Christianity would have disappeared. Nor does it say that without the first clear statement that is found in the final chapter of Daniel's book: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt" Christianity would have disappeared. The book only says that without the resurrection of Jesus. What part of "resurrection of Jesus" do you not understand? Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Achar Sva, I am afraid that I have to agree with the general take here; to state this in wikivoice I would want to see evidence that it was a generally held view among scholars, otherwise I think attribution is proper--especially since it's an inherently speculative claim (and one with which I happen to agree). Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid, the belief in the resurrection of Jesus is common to all Christians, or so I understand. I don't think it's unreasonable for our article to say that "without this belief (i.e., in the resurrection), Christianity, in which the resurrection of Jesus plays a central role, would have disappeared." Nor is it unreasonable to point out the belief first appears in Daniel Achar Sva (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Achar Sva, your editing here has become tendentious to say the very least. The sentence you are quoting is not even expressly tied to Daniel. As far as I can tell, every single editor who has weighed in here disagrees with you. What is unreasonable is for you to edit against consensus and exhibit such blatant WP:OWN behavior. Dumuzid (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Please note that User:Achar Sva continues to restore their preferred wording, in defiance of WP:BRD and this discussion. If this continues, they should be reported. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hello, I wanted to make a change in places where a 3rd or 2nd century authorship theory is called a "consensus" or "generally accepted" to reflect that this is the position of some scholars. This is one theory of many, it is far from a consensus (and I mean in scholarly, and biblical criticism circles), especially after the discovery of Daniel in Qumran, as I mentioned in my changes. After making the changes they were undone and I had this conversation with the person who undid my changes, (edited down a bit)

Undid revision 1119557205 by Billyball998 not an improvement for e.g. changing "the consensus" to the WP:WEASEL "some scholars believe"

Is that the only reason you undid all my alterations? "the consensus is that" is unverified and unsourced. I don't even think it can be sourced that's why I switched it. Also, the worlds, "some scholars believe" are not weasel if you actually source the claim as I did, the problem is if you use soft attributions and don't source. "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." (FROM WP:WEASEL)

My reason for undoing your alterations is that they were not an (overall) improvement to the article in my opinion, as I said in my edit summary. When you say it is "unverified and unsourced"... are you saying you checked all the cited book references and verified this yourself? And the lead does not state "the consensus is that" and/or "some scholars believe" in either the current version or the version with your alterations. So how does WP:LEAD apply here? You can propose your changes at Talk:Book of Daniel and see if you can get consensus there. Bennv123 (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean that it is unverified that there is a consensus, thats why I switched it to reflect that this is the position of some scholars. The quote that I sent you is from the weasel section, after it talks about weasel words, it states clearly that they aren't ipso facto weasel words: only if you don't source. This criteria doesn't only apply to the lead section but to the whole article. If you don't get what I'm saying please just read the weasel section all the way through. Thank you. All of my changes are for the purpose of academic honesty and clarity, if there are other complaints you have with it please let me know otherwise I'd like to repost the rest of the changes.

Just because such phrases are not automatically weasel words doesn't mean that they are automatically not weasel words). It depends on the usage and context. The passage from WP:WEASEL you quoted from also says: "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source." I am not convinced that you have actually read the cited book references to verify that your changes accurately represent the opinions of those sources.

I am familiar with the three sources that are effected and their claims (seow, ryken, and collins), I am not adjusting the claim or source at all, I am only changing it from consensus to clarify this is the position of some scholars, and not necessarily a consensus. It is not more or less weaselly in that regard. Nonetheless I will make a discussion point.

If These statements are going to remain I think they need some form of citation, of course its not really possible to site a consensus here but something more substantial than we currently have. But I am not convinced such a consensus exists as I mentioned. This, aswell as treating it as assumed that the book was written 2nd century for example, "All eight manuscripts were copied between 125 BC (4QDan) and about 50 AD (4QDan), showing that Daniel was being read at Qumran only about 40 years after its composition." (This assumes as fact a c.160s BCE authorship). If anyone would like to see my changes they are in the History, thank you for reading and have a good evening. Billyball998 (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me spell out your choice: abide by WP:RS/AC or be gone from Misplaced Pages. There is no need to beat around the bush, the end result is the same: you will be blocked and banned if you don't abide by it. We don't need fundamentalist claptrap masquerading as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Either you kowtow to WP:CHOPSY, or Misplaced Pages is not the proper place for you.

If you would be seeking to play the antisemitism card, see http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/notes/22-Notes.pdf and Video on YouTube. Therein two Jewish professors, one from Harvard and one from Yale, argue that there was no historical Daniel. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, no need to be a rude, WP:RS/AC is exactly my point. Exactly what I am saying. " A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view" (WP:RS/AC) I am not making any religious fundamentalist argument, I don't believe that Daniel was written in the year 600, many of the citations I added counter that idea. Just because other academics consider a different position and recognize problems in hypotheses does not make them religious fundamentalists. My propositions are based on clarity and recognizing that we don't have what WP:RS/AC is asking for currently. And I stated here that if the statements are going to remain then I think they need some form of citation... I don't understand how you see me as the one failing to respect the guidelines. This is exactly more point; there are real discussions about the period of the authorship of Daniel, it is not correct to state that the c.165 date is a proven fact. It just is not.

If you talking about me including traditional Judaic positions then I would ask you to read the neutral point of view- religion section of the guidelines: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Religion "Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Misplaced Pages editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else.""

This is VERY similar to how I structured my changes, with this particular idea in mind. Thank you. There is absolutely no part of Misplaced Pages guidelines that says not to post religious views on a subject as I have, otherwise it would not function as well as a database of knowledge (especially for religious people or people interest in Hebraic/Christian studies etc.) But these are really two separate issues (one being "consensus" vs "some scholars" and two being the inclusion of traditonal Jewish sources. Also I am not Jewish or Christian just fyi. Thank you and I hope we can continue more amicably, honestly. Billyball998 (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I have WP:CITED Portier-Young for fulfilling the WP:RS/AC WP:BURDEN. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope you can see I just am looking for academic clarity, I'm not a propagandist and I am not asserting different views as facts either, I am just looking to have all views presented so someone can reasonably study the subject (including traditional religious views; it is a religious work after all). This is not counter to NPOV but in support of it, as long as all views are presented neutrally. Misplaced Pages is not about describing the objective truth, it is about a neutral presentation of views and sources. "when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so" Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#"There's no such thing as objectivity" Billyball998 (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

We do mention what past religious leaders have written. But, mind you, religion is subjective belief, if you change your religion, you change your religious beliefs. While historians work with shared assumptions instead of faith commitments. So, while no one could claim to be the owner of objectivity, historians at least do their best to present arguments which do not rely upon the faith commitments of their readers.

To put it otherwise,

Misplaced Pages works on the basis that whatever scientists commonly consider to be true is true. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

We WP:ASSERT the mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I largely agree but I would just add that my point is that it is not a fact that Daniel was written in c.165 BC, even if it is widely agreed upon, it is a widely agreed upon opinion. And as it says a little bit lower down in the writing for your openent section, "The great thing about NPOV is that you aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. Even in the most contentious debates, when scholars are trying to prove a point, they include counter-arguments, at the least so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail."

If something is a absolute fact, like for example France is the capital of Paris, it should be presented as such so as not to be confusing, but if there is debate over it, editors don't get to pick a side that is right, even if there is only fringe minority views, the NPOV is all about ensuring that all viewpoints are correctly disseminated, even the ones that you don't agree with. The way to ensure others recognize the "right" view is by correctly sourcing and allowing them to make a decision, and as the NPOV says, you can describe which source is the majority and offer criticism, as I have done with the c.165 BC estimate, while still remaining neutral and suppressing bias as much as possible. The problem with is article as it currently reads, is that it is assumed that one position is correct, and even makes other assertions based off of that supposition, ie "Daniel was being read at Qumran only about 40 years after its composition." which is also going against Misplaced Pages:No original research IMO. The only reason this article should not include traditional Jewish sources is because no one has added them yet with proper sourcing, from a neutral view of course. Billyball998 (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to adjust my changes and resubmit my edits (except the "consensus" and "generally accepted" etc comments) if you don't have any objections. And that does include modifying sections of the article that take for granted that the book was written in any time period, in keeping with the npov imo. Even with scholarly consensus there is not a fact, and all views should be presented neutrally, not picking a side, but while still letting the reader know that the scholarly consensus is with c.165 BC ). Thank you, please let me know. Billyball998 (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Billyball998: You're peddling Larry Sanger's take on NPOV, and that's not binding for Misplaced Pages. WP:GEVAL is binding. And no, the mainstream academic consensus isn't "just another opinion". Not here, at Misplaced Pages. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Im not saying they have to be treated as equal, but they still both have to be presented, and it is still an opinion, and I don't mean like flat earth, I mean this is still a debated topic, it would be bizarre to pretend like its settled fact when it is not, the only purpose it would serve would be to convince readers of your position which is not the point of wikipedia.

"Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV." Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views

"the task is to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience Billyball998 (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope. It's a fact that the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century BCE writing.

For more than a hundred years, every other view than "the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century BCE writing" is dead in the water, as far as the mainstream academia is concerned. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a fact, many main stream bible critics believe it was written in the 3rd century B.C.E. G.R. Driver only said post-500, The existence of the text in Qumran sometime from C.130 BCE-60 AD, aswell as in other places, means that it would have only had 30 to 200 years to enter the Jewish canon, which is unprecedented especially at this time. It is not your place to decide for everyone what is acceptable and what is not to learn, people can choose to read about other theories besides the one you like, and the fact that Porter Young says there is a consensus does that magically change that. Billyball998 (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Your POV is academically speaking dead in the water. I suggest you find another hobby horse, or take your POV to your own blog or Conservapedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep assuming I am in favor of editorial neutrality because of my religion or politics, if you would read the npov you might understand that it is about the principle, not the specific article.

Also the wikipedia article for facts, says "Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion." Does not seem to match the understanding you are working off of: assuming something becomes a fact when Porter Young says the majority of scholars accept it. Billyball998 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Modern "scholars" who defend a different dating are either severely misinformed or religious bigots. See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Not the point, in that case, on wikipedia, you would write, "some scholars believe that there is a different dating, but based on X evidence, the consensus is that they are wrong," You can't dissmiss their viewpoint because YOU specifically do not like it or think its crazy; If it is crazy, explain why it is crazy, this is clearly defined in the NPOV

"If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must cover positions that have no scientific credence. This is not, however, as bad as it sounds. The task before us is not to present pseudoscientific claims as if they were on par with good science; rather, the task is to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories." Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience Billyball998 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Im going to open a dispute resolution to see if it can help us :) Billyball998 (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Your POV is dead in the mainstream academia. No amount of NPOV reinterpretation will revive it. Jedi mind tricks cannot revive the dead. WP:NOTDUMB. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Even if it was (which it is not), that is not the point, even dead ideologies should be explained on Misplaced Pages, "NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree." Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion Billyball998 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place at WP:DRN. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Billyball998, tgeorgescu: I think this would be a good time to remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot. I'd also like to remind Billyball that it's inadvisable to WP:SHOUT on talk pages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

WP:NPOV is not an excuse for maiming mainstream historical information from the article. It never was and it will never be.

What you claim is I'm not a propagandist. What you did repeatedly is maim the article.

Misplaced Pages is not a friendly website to those who want to teach the controversy. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help lay this thread to rest. I can clearly see scholarly sources such as this one pointing to the 2nd century. What, if any similar sources, do otherwise? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Misplaced Pages does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Misplaced Pages generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Misplaced Pages cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Misplaced Pages, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the general trend that I can see if mainstream scholarship being fairly decided, and some religious sources thinking otherwise. Are there scholarly exceptions? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

JJ Collins talk about the fact that this is still a debated topic, with good scholars on both sides, Collins, John Joseph, Peter W. Flint, and Cameron VanEpps, eds. "The book of Daniel: composition and reception." (2002). https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kvtbNQtMqEUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA275&ots=7GjLmsspl6&sig=yfvXq9pt0Izrg9QBpOZiNALi3z4

Vasholz, Robert I. "Qumran and the Dating of Daniel." JETS 21.4 (1978): 315-321.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. "The Aramaic of Daniel." Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel 31 (1965): 79.

Beckwith, Roger. "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel." Tyndale Bulletin 53.1 (2002): 75-82.

Haughwout, Mark S. "Dating the Book of Daniel." (2013).

Thanks. As Collins notes, this is not a "done deal," and i think when Porter Young said there is a consensus, she did not mean for it to suppress other views, it was only said in passing, before describing the setting of the proposed authorship, and I would argue its not really an appropriate citation of a consensus; Porter young is relying on a consensus, not demonstrating one. The problems with the c.165 BC theory are too glaring for it to be accepted as fact, especially without regarding the counter claims. I am not advocating including every fringe religious view, thank you.

Also, Collins notes in his A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with an essay, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” by A. Yarbro Collins (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 29–33 that definite linguistic dating is not possible, and that his point of view is based on probability, not certainty. (p. 17 and p. 27 respectively) (This is the work that Tawny cites when she states there is a consensus in this article, linked above). Billyball998 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Billyball998 - I can't currently access the Tawny article, but I am looking for your source in the "Composition and Reception" book. Could you point me to where you see this "not a done deal" stuff? I do see debates on dating, but everything I have found thus far places Daniel somewhere in the 2nd Century BCE. It is, however, entirely possible that I am missing something. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

p 291 is what I was referencing there, correction necessary, the author is peter w flint and Collins is the editor.(my mistake). some of the works I listed above include extensive criticism of the 2nd century theory. thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. but I must be especially thick today. What particularly are you pointing to on p. 291? It does say there is diverse scholarly opinion on the origin and writing of the book. but the involved discussion is on the question of whether it is a unitary work or a synthesis of multiple sources. I do not see any real discussion of dating there, but again, happy to be shown I am incorrect. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

no no problem, im just refering to the first two sentences as a general rule, not the example provided,

for collins' (not flint's) discussion of the uncertainty of linguistic dating see collins' A Commentary on the Book of Daniel p. 17.

"The balance of probability, then, favors a date in the early Hellenistic period for the Aramaic portions of Daniel, although a precise dating on linguistic grounds is not possible."

For the uncertainty of other dating techniques, see page 27 ibid.

For the critical scholar, however, the issue is one of probability. There is no apparent reason, why a prophet of the sixth century should focus minute atten- tion on the events of the second century." etc. While the points he brings up are compelling, they are clearly not certain enough to treat the claims as cold hard fact, imo, and Collins himselves abates, and is clear that his position is "overwhelmingly probable" and not a proven fact.

This is why I think sections like "All eight manuscripts were copied between 125 BC (4QDan) and about 50 AD (4QDan), showing that Daniel was being read at Qumran only about 40 years after its composition" (from current article, should be edited to not assume this view is correct implictly; it should be recognized this is a probable, widely agreed upon theory. It could just as easily say "All eight manuscripts were copied between 125 BC (4QDan) and about 50 AD (4QDan), meaning that Daniel was being read at Qumran only about 40 years after c. 165 BC, believed to be its period of authorship according by most modern bible critics" or "according to J. J. Collins." or something similar.

in short, I would like to follow this "Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV."

Is this disagreeable to you? if so could you explain why. Thank you very much. Billyball998 (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Right now, the article takes a firm stance, accepting this theory as a proven fact, which it imperially is not, even if many or most scholars agree. Other viewpoints exist on the matter and in its current state, the article itself dismisses the other viewpoints, and does not remain neutral, as the npov expects. I think this section of the FAQ is very important for our current discussion, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#"There's no such thing as objectivity"

"The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time. Even sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that "neutrality", in this sense, is perfectly consistent with their philosophy.

Now, is it possible to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits? It may not be possible to describe all disputes with perfect objectivity, but it is an aim that thousands of editors strive towards every day." Billyball998 (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Typo corrections:

"...believed to be its period of authorship by most modern bible critics.*"

"...a proven fact, which it empirically is not...*" Billyball998 (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Billyball998: I'm confused about what information you are actually interesting in asserting. You propose the text: "...believed to be its period of authorship by most modern bible critics" - well that is the scholarly consensus then. No need to beat around the bush on the matter. That some questions remain is why history departments remain open. But the opinions of most scholars is what history is. That the story contains 2nd century references also seems to make it commonsense that that is the century of composition. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 my point is that this is still a debated theory, there is not agreement amongst scholars, there is a majority opinion. WP:V says to list the positions and the weight ie how accepted they are. I dont want to assert anything, I want the article to remain neutral and clearly state out the theory, the modern arguments to the theory, other modern dating considerations such as GR Drivers, aswell as traditional positions(along with their criticism) in order to keep the article neutral. Why would we pretend to know something as proven fact? What do we gain by it? thank you. Billyball998 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the most unimpeachable academic source that you have currently found that still seriously disputes the dating estimates? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources from 1965 and 1978 will have been outmoded by modern linguistic analysis. Even 2002 is a bit iffy. The 2013 one? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Collins says himself that precise linguistic dating is not possible due to the nature of scribal work, and the lexicon being different from common Aramaic (cited above) also see Vashloz cited above for a summary as to why. Billyball998 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

First, it is consensually agreed that the Book of Daniel includes some older stories, copied from an older manuscript. So, that's not an argument against being written in the 2nd century BCE.

Second, there is a disagreement about the precise year wherein it was written, but most scholars narrowed it to a five years interval.

Third, Larousse: "livre de Daniel Livre biblique composé vers 165 avant J.-C."

Britannica: "Because its religious ideas do not belong to the 6th century BC, numerous scholars date Daniel in the first half of the 2nd century BC and relate the visions to the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164/163 BC)."

Fourth, as Bart Ehrman and Francesca Stavrakopoulou repeatedly stated on YouTube, Ancient history is about "what probably happened", e.g. it is probable that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Fifth, four sources cited in our article WP:V the claim of scholarly consensus. Dunn was a full professor, the other three are just associate professors.

Sixth, WP:NPOV is not a free pass for WP:RANDY maiming Ancient history articles. Larry Sanger would cheer for such vandals.

Seventh, denying that the Ivy League teaches as fact that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century is denialism.

Eighth, if anyone supports a 6th century BCE dating for this book, they are highly probably not a mainstream Bible scholar. If any US state university teaches such dating as fact I would be highly surprised. In fact, I would be amazed if you could find any Ivy League or US state university which does not teach the dating in 2nd century BCE as real historical fact.

tgeorgescu July 30, 2021 at 3:34 pm - Reply

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

Can I receive a formal confirmation that you have actually written this? It has been lost somewhere in comments and I cannot find it again. It is important because I quoted it inside Misplaced Pages and needs a source.

BDEhrman BDEhrman July 31, 2021 at 7:35 am - Reply

The first part sounds like something I would have said. The second part not so much. BUt I sometimes do say things that are phrased more strongly than I would typically phrase them (unless it’s over drinks). Are you quoting this from one of my comments? Then yes, that’s what I said. If I did, I was stressing the point “describes.” THat is, if you have an account that refers in some detail to airplanes striking the Twin Towers, then the account was certainly written after 9/11, even if it is phrased as a prophecy.

Source: https://ehrmanblog.org/comments-on-blog-comments/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=comments-on-blog-comments

So, you see, according to the historical method there really isn't any other dating which modern mainstream historians would be free to embrace.

Misplaced Pages is open to criticism, but such criticism has to be reality-based. A view that has been debunked since more than a century ago isn't reality-based criticism. The 2nd century BCE dating is settled historical fact since before any of us were born.

"There are no historical facts on this matter, since a Medieval Rabbi begs to disagree with modern historians"—I don't think that such POV gets much traction at Misplaced Pages, so you'd better try it at Conservapedia. You cannot cherrypick which of our WP:RULES you obey and which you disobey. Enough WP:Wikilawyering! tgeorgescu (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Hello, the sources I listed, and others, are examples of mainstream scholars, some of which collins relies upon, criticizing the 2nd century approach. It is not just either 6th or 2nd century, based on the analysis of the elephantine papyri by GR Driver and the qumran daniel it is probably somewhere from c.510-130. I understand your position that since it is a commonly held belief among bible critics, it should be written as fact, but I don't believe that is keeping with the npov that says that we should not write what something is, only what has been said about it in order to remain neutral unless it is a proven fact. By writing the article accepting the position of even the mainstream critics, you are immediately asserting to every reader that other positions (some secular, some religious, some older, some newer, some critical, some traditional) are invalid, which is not appropriate especially on a religious document where religious readers should feel they are receiving an unbiased report of the facts and positions. I am not saying to write the article to appease religious people, I am saying write it unbiasedly. You have to accept we don't know that this dating is correct, lots of people believe it is correct. There is no reason to write the article like it is a proven fact when it is not. The facts should be there for the reader to view, understand, and determine what they believe, the speculation is done by the sources. By writing it how it currently is you are forcing readers who are critical of the c.165 BC dating to accept as fact something that they don't believe (because of real problems with the theory, not because of religious motivations necessarily) just because it is mainstream in academic settings. The level of how mainstream it is doesn't make it a fact, and even the way collins talks about it (at least in some cases) is as probable, not certain. (I am specifically referring to sections that implicitly accept this theory as fact, for example the first sentence of the lead). Thank you. Billyball998 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Billyball998: Sorry, debate thereupon has been closed before you were even born. You Wikilawyer for a Sanger version of NPOV, not for the real NPOV WP:PAG of Misplaced Pages.

For Misplaced Pages the overwhelming consensus of mainstream historians is holy, so you're committing wiki-blasphemy. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Any estimate narrowing it down to 'c.510-130' is no estimate at all. If a source can't guess a rough century then I would have to question if it even has a working theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 That is my statement based upon the finding of daniel at qumran dated to as early as c.135 bc, and comparisons by GR Driver to the elephantine papyri showing the aramaic of daniel to be later. c.(510). This is the timeframe modern scholarship is working within... my point was it is not just either 6th century or 2nd century. Billyball998 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITE WP:RS to that effect. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If we move to tertiary sources, e.g. Britannica, what it states is that the language shows that it occurs after the 6th century, but it does not say when, while it is the analysis of events that forms the firm dating estimate in the 2nd century. Overall, there does not seem to be a serious alternative dating than in the 2nd century other than a vague hand wave of 'post-6th century'. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 The estimate of C.165 BC is based on, as collins says, the fact that the book is writing about that time, and that it gets predictions correct except some later predictions. The critique, one of them at least, is that this time period doesn't make sense due to the qumran fragments dated to the hellenisitc/roman period, meaning daniel would have had to enter the canon unprecedentedly quickly, or be written in or very near qumran, which goes against modern and traditional theories of who the author is. Billyball998 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You aren't a WP:RS. This is the timeframe modern scholarship is working within is a huge claim. We cannot believe you upon your word of honor. We need WP:RS explicitly saying what you claim. WP:REDFLAG, and G.R. Driver died almost 50 years ago.

And I see that you are repeatedly using the "just a theory" debunked canard.

Here at Misplaced Pages you don't earn many friends by engaging in denialism of the mainstream historical consensus. Christian admins think that's despicable, too. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Calling something a theory is not the problem the article is addressing, the problem is failing to give something weight based on the fact that it is "just a theory". I give full credence to the scholars that have arrived upon c.165 BC, but it still has to be noted it is not a fact. G.R. Driver's findings are hugely influential, and widely accepted, at least in this area. Both him and S.R. Driver, his father, are commonly cited by Collins. The fact that he lived a relatively short time ago does not discredit his work. My claim about this being the timeframe is my own statement based upon the considerations cited, but it is not a defined rule of scholarship of this subject, my apologies if i misrepresented the claim. Billyball998 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

please see the Book of Deuteronomy#Composition to see an example of a properly written example of what I'm describing. The leading critical theory is explained, and noted as such, but not as fact. Billyball998 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Collins' cites the following as positions against the 2nd century position:

Young and Baldwin. The studies of C. F. Boutflower, D. J. Wiseman, K. A. Kitchen, Gerhard Hasel, and W. H. Shea, A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis,

and there are all the citations I offered already above. Billyball998 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

it still has to be noted it is not a fact—you don't get to decide what counts for a fact, neither do I, but the consensus of mainstream historians does. Misplaced Pages learns facts from experts, and mainstream experts have decided that 2nd century BCE dating counts as fact. As stated before, the debate about this is over for a long time. You cannot do WP:RGW here.

"The mainstream academic consensus is wrong" is a judgment Wikipedians aren't allowed to state in our articles. It is invalid by default. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu What mainstream scholar is stating this is a fact? Collins recognizes other opinions and that his theory is probable, not a fact. Fact does not only mean something is true fyi. Billyball998 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the time you to give you lessons in the epistemology of history. Fact is that you are POV-pushing and using WP:Sealioning in order to do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu lol, i am not pov pushing by advocating for a neutral point of view for the article. You tell me what pov that exactly is pushing. Billyball998 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You're pushing the Sangerite view that the consensus of modern historians cannot decide which are the historical facts. Basically Sanger is principally opposed to the adoption of WP:GEVAL as WP:PAG. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Me having a different interpretation of the npov from you, which i have formed based on nothing except the npov, is not pov pushing. Pages such as the Deuteronomy one i mentioned reflect a similar interpretation to mine. also please see the wikipedia page on facts. Thank you, and i wish we could speak amicably and with some common respect going forward. I have no disparate intentions here. Billyball998 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You take the same view of NPOV as Sanger did. Sanger's view was widely rejected through the adoption of WP:GEVAL as WP:PAG. About the Deuteronomy article, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

You linked to the article on the historical method, but did you read it? Yes, have you? Perhaps I should have linked to a more appropriate article, such as scientific consensus which more accurately portrays what Bdub is claiming to be wrong. You can't assume that because an editors is capable of making points that they are correct: Bdub's assertion is that the consensus of modern historians is wrong and ancient sources are right, which puts his position in many of the same categories as Creationism, Breatharianism, The flat Earth theory, Acupuncture and the belief in ancient aliens. No matter hos sophisticated their argument: Bdub has an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear, and absolutely no business doing so here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Billyball998: tgeorgescu (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu hello im not sure exactly what you mean with this but i want to be clear i am not asserting ancient, medieval, or dissenting contemporary sources are correct, im advocating for a neutral point of view explaining all views and the modern scholarly view of them. Nothing in WP GEVAL goes against what i am saying. Billyball998 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Billyball998: For Misplaced Pages purposes the mainstream academic consensus is by definition right. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

source? what about Misplaced Pages:Verifiability? even if it is known to be true, it has to be verifiable before it can be claimed be a fact. This claim not verifiable, at least presently. ie, it is verifiable that Collins/scholars agree on c. 165 BC, but it is not verifiable that Daniel was written in the second century. It is verifiable that it was written before the end of the roman period and, potentially, before c. 130 BC, based on qumran fragments, although I am not sure about the precise (ie c.130 bc) dating I have seen concerning the fragments.

Also concerning this issue, KA Kitchen gives a very similar timeframe for the Aramaic:

"You aren't a WP:RS. This is the timeframe modern scholarship is working within is a huge claim."

"The only fair way to proceed is to leave open the whole period c. 540-160 BC until the end of any inquest on the Aramaic, as far as date is concerned." KA Kitchen, cited above, first page Billyball998 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking people about the same old game

Their running them numbers and the winners never change

The dice is loaded, the deck is stacked

The game itself will hold you back

— Thievery Corporation, The Numbers Game

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Ancient Near East articles
• Top-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment