Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)/Archive 1

Archive 1

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 10:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous contributions

Someone using the IP address 129.24.94.219 has made quite a few alterations to this article. Since he/she probably isn't aware that at User talk:129.24.94.219 he/she has been invited to create an account and log in, I thought I would mention it here. At that page there are also a list of advantages in doing so.

Because more than one person may use this IP address, we don't know whether the person who is attempting to make serious contributions here is the same person using mild scatological expletives about the United Nations. A contributor can remain anonymous with a user name, but with a user name one has some way of judging the credibility of his/her contributions because one can be certain as to what else he/she has contributed. So, whoever you are, please join! --PeterR 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoever this guy/gal is...

I hope he/she doesn't screw this article up. I'm using it for my religion project! I trust Wiki that much.

Your faith is seriously, horribly misplaced. Do not trust a word you find on Wikipedia, unless you can confirm its veracity elsewhere. And if you can confirm its veracity elsewhere, you're no longer placing your faith in Wikipedia anyway. Above all things, in religious issues. I'm currently dealing with the shenanigans of a bunch of Jehovah's Witness zealots on their religion's pages and the administrators that reinforce their stupidity, so I speak

Ian Yorston on 23 Apr 2006 at 15:00 GMT writes: I wouldn't encourage anyone to take Wikipedia as their only source but I think you can put a fair amount of trust in most articles - and you can always check the History and/or Discussion if you think the subject matter may be contentious. You can also follow through any references quoted at the end of any article; vandals rarely offer reliable references...

[[User: XPDNC12] Where is the source for the statement "The majority of Biblical scholars agree that the Book of Daniel (which see for references) dates from the second century BC..."etc.  ?? I see nothing in the references supporting this statement. I believe it could be a bias introduced without a source.

Restoration of section Daniels life

This was deleted as the only edit by an anon some time ago [1] looks like vandalizm to me. Agathoclea 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar

Which one? I want to bypass the disambig. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Expand lions

The most important part of Daniel's story is the lions den. All it says in here is that he was delivered from the den of lions. How? Did he wrestle the lions? Did he kill them? Did they just hang out with him and then after several days he was released by the king? Did God snatch him out? It seems extremely odd to me that the single event that Daniel is most associated with is the least talked about. It is mentioned in one line. That was the reason I looked him up I forgot what happened in the den of lions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.159.143 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

The preceding comment was moved from the top of the page. +A.0u 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bible does not explain why, only that David was saved by his trust in God. See verse 21. +A.0u 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, two verses later, it DOES say how - that God sent an angel to shut the lions' mouths. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

what makes you think this is the most important part of the story? What actually happened was that G-d closed their mouths so they could not eat, whilst Daniel sat there and prayed, probably questioning what sin he had committed in order to be placed into this predicament and asking for forgiveness. The sages have identified that his sin was to give advice to Nebuchadnezzar as to how to avert the decree of madness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.95.5 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Miraculously Saved?"

In Daniel's Life, it says Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego (not sure if I spelled their names right!!!) were "Miraculously saved." However, the Bible says that God protected them from the fire, because the Son of Man was with them. Am I just being too maniacal about specifics, or does anybody else have this problem? ~Monk (^Chat _Harrass) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Protected from the fire r saved from it. What's the diference? ~~ Dan Waggoner Danwaggoner (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fiction?

The claim that Daniel is fictional was recently added and has been disputed. There are two problems with the designation. Firstly, "not existing" is not the same as "fictional". "Fictional" implies some sort of intent on the part of the author - he or she does not believe the character to have been real. Secondly, we ought not to say he is fictional in WP voice- the neutral way of phrasing it would be that "the consensus of modern scholars is that Daniel is fictional". But of course, we need a citation for that, and it's not what Collins says. StAnselm (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Did not exist" is indeed the same as "fictional", and it implies non-existence on the part of the character Daniel, not intent on the part of the author. Mind you, the author certainly knew that he was making up the visions.PiCo (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. Many scholars reject the use of the word "fiction" in describing biblical stories ("unhistorical" is more common) - often because (they think) the original writers or story-tellers considered the stories to be "true" in some sense.[2][3] StAnselm (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to expand this into two sections, one listing the historical arguments against it in more detail and another listing the arguments in favor of the historicity. For the former, I would like to include content from here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/53615/what-evidence-is-there-to-suggest-that-daniel-never-existed And for the latter, I would like to include content from the following two sites: 1. http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.php And 2. http://penitentserf.blogspot.com/2017/02/who-is-abraham.html?m=1

Penitentserf (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding comment added by Penitentserf (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Penitentserf: Tektonics is a notoriously unreliable source for the reference said Robert Stevens above. Those blogs do not pass WP:RS. We do not cater to fundamentalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thank you for your prompt and respectful response. I totally understand why wikipedia might consider Tektonics is a notoriously unreliable source for the reference to be the case. As well, although I know of published scholars who might argue that Wikipedia's verifiability standard is itself not completely and incorrigibly verifiable and instead could be replaced with a Language Game approach, I can understand why one would still choose to maintain it and am willing to abide by that in this context. With that said, my request for a new section listing the historical argument for and against a Historical Daniel is not necessitated upon using the Tektonics source or any other source which may be deemed unable to pass WP:RS. While the stackexchange site I listed as well as my own blog entry may not pass WP:RS, I was wondering if the works cited within those particular blog entries may be considered to pass WP:RS and thus acceptable for inclusion if I present the material clearly, concisely, and from a neutral point of view. Penitentserf (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Penitentserf: According to WP:FRINGE Wikipedia does not devote much space to fringe theories (such as pseudohistory) when discussing WP:MAINSTREAM subjects. Autodynamics—There are no reliable sources about special relativity which also mention autodynamics, and so a decent article on special relativity should not mention autodynamics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

We're not talking about the story of the Book of Daniel, but about the character Daniel, and I don't think you'll find any reputable scholars today who think he was a real man. I repeat, John Collins is a reliable source, and John Collins says he's fiction, and that there's a scholarly consensus over this.PiCo (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He says the consensus among scholars is that Daniel never existed. StAnselm (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that someone can not exist and still be real? Can you give any other examples?PiCo (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that Collins does not describe Daniel as fictional. StAnselm (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I've added Collin's exact wording - consensus is Daniel never existed.PiCo (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed correct to say that Daniel was fictional, which means not real. StAnselm's distinction actually applies to the word fictitious, which is the word that implies contrived.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro, StAnselm is one of the good guys - if he's unhappy we should listen, and if this makes him happy we should go with it.PiCo (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I must agree with Anselm's original point. It is proper to note that several scholars dispute Daniel's historicity and would classify his book as historical fiction - though the two issues are not identical. So much should be noted.

However, referencing two or three authors do not make a "consensus of scholars" and do not justify doing away with any pretense of neutrality (This book is fiction, the article said.)

Also, sneeking in little arguments to show how full of errors the book is, is nothing more than POV pushing.

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine to say "The consensus among scholars is that Daniel never existed", as discussed above. That is reliably sourced, and relatively objective. What we cannot say is "Daniel never existed". So it was appropriate to remove "the Book of Daniel is historical fiction" and "the first of a string of historical errors in the Book of Daniel" - those claims should not be in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "consensus among scholars is that Daniel never existed" is reliably sourced. The claim is sourced to one author and a few authors are mentioned as agreeing with the assertion that Daniel never existed or elements thereof. Surely there are more that agree but that's still too little for "the consensus among scholars". I agree with the rest of your comment. Str1977 ^(talk) 05:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The "one author" who is the source is J.J. Collins, one of the leading contemporary Daniel-scholars - if he says there's a consensus, we can take his word for it. Very few scholars today dispute that Daniel is not a historical figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.143.109 (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the most credible identification is with the legendary Pagan king Danel, but even this is not a majority view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Daniel name in Persian ( Persian: دانيال )

Daniel is originally a Hebrew name and he is buried in Iran. I can't see the reason why the name is written Greek but not the language of Iran, Persian respectfully.

Danman58 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The Septuagint is written in Greek, not in Persian. Dimadick (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Biblical prophet status

i noticed he was put in a category called biblical prophets yet nowhere does it say he is one and also jews do not consider him a prophet therefore i removed him from the category

Jesus Himself calls Daniel a prophet ... the Book of Daniel has a gracious plenty prophecy in it. The article discusses Daniel as a prophet ... there is no logical reason for him not to be in that category. BigDT 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel's JOB was a high government official, Chief of Eunuchs per one source, and not a prophet. That does not mean he could not make prophesies. In fact he got his job because he interpreted a rulers dream, similarly to how Moses interpreted the dream of Pharaoh, about the seven fat years and seven lean years, and ending up with a government job as a result.71.174.129.238 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing really 'in fact' about it, as there's no evidence that Daniel actually existed (and Ezekiel's reference to Danel actually refers to someone else). But within the narrative, yes Daniel had a 'job' as a 'government official', which he purportedly got from interpreting dreams. The book of Daniel is included among the Writings and he isn't generally regarded as a prophet by Jews. Later claims about Daniel being a 'prophet' for anything beyond the setting of the stories depicted in the book of Daniel are a Christian invention (especially expanded upon by Adventist denominations).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Daniels prediction on the death of an "Anointed One" being 69 weeks after the restoration of the Temple is also accurate and starts before the second century BC and ends after the second century BC. A decree allowing the rebuilding of the Temple was issue in 445 BC (or so - almost all BC dates are off by a year or two) while Christ died in 33 AC (again or so - there is some question as to the exact year of death by those that don't believe Christ was a fictional character). That gives a span of 478 years (give or take two to four). 69 weeks in "a year is a day" becomes 69 weeks of years or 483 years. Pretty darn close. These years are considered to be 360 day years "prophetic years" and not 365.25 day solar years. Converting the measuring stick from "prophetic years" to "solar years" gives 476 years. Spot on when you consider the impreciseness of the start and end date.

You can now try to convince me that a FICTIONAL character made this FRIGHTENINGLY accurate prediction.

The fact that much of Daniel is a mystery, is no surprise. The Book itself states that the prophecies are SEALED till the end times when "KNOWLEDGE INCREASES". The "end times" is the short form of the the time AFTER the end of "The TIME OF THE GENTILES", which ended when the Jews went home to Israel, restored their nation and took back Jerusalem.71.174.133.249 (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As I already told you, it ain't objective knowledge/fact that the Book of Daniel would be sealed. Why did Christ not return when Miller said he will? Because this book did not prophesize about Christ. As simple as that. The rest are the workings of cognitive dissonance, see When Prophecy Fails. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't know who Miller is or when he predicted the return. Is he a prophet? If he was wrong then he was not a prophet. Daniel on the other hand was right, right, and right again, which is why he WAS a prophet and not a fictional character. Care to discuss how a fictional character could predict the death of the Anointed One (Christ) either to the year or at most off by a few over a span of almost 500 years?.71.174.133.249 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Nehemiah being given permission to rebuild Jerusalem's walls is misused in the stated Christian interpretation as 'an order to rebuild Jerusalem'. Further rants about interpretations of Daniel are out of scope here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The decree I am aware gave "permission" to rebuild Jerusalem and its walls. Jerusalem is a city, and cities has temples. The decree allowing Jews to rebuild "Jerusalem and its walls" includes within itself permission to build temples. Just like it includes permission to build government building, bakeries, taverns, inns, houses, barracks to house the garrison, and whatever other kind of building is found in a city.71.174.133.249 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Again please show me how a FICTIONAL character was able to get this prediction so so right. As right as his prediction of the Dome on the Rock being the Abomination of Desolation.71.174.133.249 (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

See Great Disappointment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't see your point. Why not reference the more recent Jewish predictions on the coming of the Messiah as well? Just to muddy up the water even more. (that last was sarcasm).71.174.133.249 (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Great Disappointment and Miller's incorrect interpretations of Daniel 8 are not relevant to this discussion. It's a red herring. " 60.242.92.172 (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The book of Daniel predates Christ, and got it right concerning the time of Messiah Jesus's coming. Two decrees came to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1-4,Ezra 6:1-12), and then a decree to rebuild the city (Ezra 7:8-28) and this is the point in time when Daniel's prophecy has occurred which says "the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem". This decree was made in approx 458 BC and resulted in Nehemiah actually working to rebuild Jerusalem. 483 years from the time of that decree in 458BC are given in Daniel 9:25 and that brings us to the time of Jesus. I will copy relevant verses below: 60.242.92.172 (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Daniel 9:25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,[f] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[g] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.92.172 (talk • contribs)

From Second Temple: Founded c. 537–516 BCE (construction). Meaning 458 BCE is a bogus date. If you mean Cyrus's decree from 559 BCE (which is otherwise not historically attested and considered mythical), then the Messiah arrived in 76 BCE. If you mean 516 BCE, then Jesus was about 65 years old when crucified. In fact, the Bible clearly states that Cyrus is the Messiah of the Jewish people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Daniel a Prophet?

The article mentions that Daniel never spoke to his own generation. However this is not necessarily true. Daniel spoke directly to the king of Babylon concerning his the "seven times" of insanity that would befall him in chapter 4. He also interpreted the writing on the wall in chapter 5 predicting the Cyrus' great victory that night over Babylon. —preceding unsigned comment by 151.202.45.156 (talk • contribs)

What's all this talk about a category of the Bible being known as the "great prophets"? I have heard of the Major and Minor Prophets. Is this just a matter of semantics? There is a page for the Great Prophets, but there is not one for Great Prophets. Will someone please clarify the use of the term Great Prophet in this page to me? Daniel J. Forman 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ezekiel mentions Daniel's righteousness twice (Ezek. 14:14,20), and Ezekiel mentions Daniel's wisdom (Ezek. 28.3), so even though we "might" know what the Greek translators thought in Alexandria, yet for "certain" we know what Ezekiel thought, hey? Lon Watkins (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Lon Watkins Hope I am not messing this page up. Jesus mentions "Daniel the prophet" in two different Books (Matt 24.15 and Mark 13.14). This is only what Christ thought. Am not seeing it worthy of discussion because I am trying to recall prophets of greater renown mentioned by Jesus.Lon Watkins (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Lon Watkins

You only messed it up slightly, and it was odd to place your comments in the middle of a section from more than 10 years ago. Anyway, Ezekiel referred to Danel, not Daniel. It says Danel in the original text, and he is mentioned along with two other ancient non-Jews, Noah and Job. Danel is hence identified as Danel in the Ugaritic Epic of Aqhat. It is possible the later author of Daniel capitalised on similarity to the name Danel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the terms "Great Prophets" and "Major Prophets" are interchangeable--the difference is only semantic. The "Major Prophets" (the more usual term) are not considered "Major" because they are somehow holier or more important than the others; they are referred to as "Major" because their recorded prophesies are longer--each one individually would fill an entire scroll--whereas the "Minor" prophesies are much shorter, and can alltogether fit on a single scroll. For this reason the twelve "Minor Prophets" are sometimes referred to as "the Twelve," because in referring to them, one would refer to the Scroll of the Twelve. MishaPan 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a claim that Daniel was described as a "prophet" in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tektonics is a notoriously unreliable source for the reference, and I cannot find the word "prophet" in the English translations of 4Q174 on Wikisource ([4]) or any other non-apologetic source I've seen. If a reliable source can be found for the occurrence of "prophet", it can go back in. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

...Oops, missed a bit. The same unreliable source is used to state that the classification of Daniel follows the "Septuagint Greek translation", and the linked reference tries to perform apologetics by arguing that Daniel must have been written before the Septuagint was translated: but the original Septuagint consisted only of the 5 books of the Pentateuch, not Daniel. I've snipped that, and the Tektonics link has now disappeared from the References section. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally the role of a prophet is to be called by G-d to address the people, not necessarily his own (e.g. Jonah). Daniel was never called by G-d to address the people which is why his book is not in the book of prophets. He was given visions, some of those to answer the issues of the kings, but that is not what makes a prophet as such. Joseph in the bible who interpreted dreams of Pharoah and others is not considered a prophet either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.95.5 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

When was that definition of ‘prophet’ adopted in Judaism, and by whom? I only ask because Jacchiades (16th century) says that Daniel “attained to the highest degree of prophecy”. Josephus (1st century) said he was one of the greatest prophets, and to be preferred to others; since he not only predicted things future, but fixed the time when they should come to pass. Abraham ibn Ezra (12th century) observes of Daniel that he delivered out prophecies of things now past, and of things to come, and expressly calls him a prophet as to Daniel 1:17. Maimonides (12th century), however, counts his book as a holy writing, but does not rank Daniel as a prophet, (though not for the reason you give about addressing the people) and that seems to be the accepted attitude. He does say that Daniel and all other authors of holy books may be called prophets in general, for what that’s worth.

The article could use an expanded discussion of attitudes towards Daniel past and present. 31.82.174.35 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

prophet, noun

"1 : one who utters divinely inspired revelations[..]

2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet

3 : one who foretells future events : predictor

4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group [..]"

-- Source: Merriam-Webster

"1. a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. [..]

"2.(in Christian use) the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets."

-- Source: Google: prophet definition

60.242.92.172 (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox

I corrected a link at the end of the section entitled "Daniel the Prophet." The sentence referred to the "Greek Orthodox Church" and the link pointed to the article on "The Church of Greece." However, the worldwide Orthodox Church involves much more than merely the Church of Greece, and both the recognition of Daniel as a prophet, and the celebration of his feast day on December 17 is universal throughout the Orthodox Church. MishaPan 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Trained as Chaldean

I added "citation needed" to the statement "trained as Chaldean". I assume it comes from Easton's Bible Dictionary, but there is no direct reference. Moreover, what does that even mean? Chaldean has 5 meanings related to Babylonia, but none of the first four is something that you could be trained in. Does it mean he trained to become a soothsayer or astrologer? — Sebastian 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

References

Why is the source for Daniel's Life section "partly derived from the 19th century Christian Easton's Bible Dictionary"? Are there no Jewish and indeed Hebrew sources?--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems your use of {{editprotected}} is for protection to be added to this page. These sorts of requests are usually done at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection; however, in this case, I see no reason for protection. Article content can be discussed here or you can just go ahead and make the changes yourself. If you disagree with changes made to this article, I suggest adding it to your watch list. --- RockMFR 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice RockMFR. However this is not the only article I work on, and edits happen with no discussion. I am not a full time Daniel watcher. So I want to be able to go away and come back to an article that has not changed but was discussed and then the fruits of the discussion can be added with a participation of the administrator.--Mrg3105 (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Gosh, there is a lot of vandalism being done on this page. I notice these words:

n that section up. Ogg (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed link plus NEW proposed Change in link

NEW In the Islam section, "Tabiri" is mentioned and the Wiki link is unknown. That portion should probably say something like, "Tabiri (also known as al-Tabari)" with the Wiki link to al-Tabari (which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Tabari).

OLD discussion follows: I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/daniel.html for review. Please, if any reader think it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller

NB: The link is to an 18,000 word (or so) article written by M. Muller putting forth the case that Daniel was not an historical person, but that the book of Daniel was written in 168 BC. This is presented as an explanation for the accuracy of the prophecies in the book, interpreted as refering to socio-political events between ~600 BC and 168 BC. --Waitak 03:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel had to be written before 168 BC ... it was included in the Septuagint as well as another 2nd century BC translation, so it must have been written before then. BigDT 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are different opinions: "The book ['Daniel'] must therefore have been written during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes and before his death, even before the success of the Maccabaean [Hasmonean] revolt; that is to say between 167 and 164." (The New Jerusalem Bible, Introduction to Daniel). "The Book of Daniel presents a collection of popular stories about Daniel, a loyal Jew, and the record of visions granted to him, with the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BCE as their background. The book, however, was written in a later time of national crisis—when the Jews were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164/163 BCE) ..." (Encyclopædia Britannica). "The Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes." (Jewish encyclopedia: DANIEL, BOOK OF). About the Septuagint: "Behind the legends lies the probability that at least the Torah (the five books of Moses) was translated into Greek c. 250 B.C. for the use of the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. The rest of the O.T. and some noncanonical books were also included in the LXX before the dawning of the Christian era, through it is difficult to be certain when." (The NIV Study Bible). I do not know about any other 2nd century BC translation. Bernard Muller 68.145.179.78 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nabonidus

I think people have looked for the identify of this guy without success and I don't want to confuse things. There is an article Nabonidus Chronicle. Unrelated right? Student7 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vessel/vassal

In the first paragraph of the article is "along with some of the vessels of the temple.". Which is correct? Vessels or vassals? 204.210.242.157 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe "vassal" is correct. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. JuJube (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It should be "vessels".

1.In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. 2. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. (KJV)--FimusTauri (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

God is my judge

It seems like someone doesn't know his proper dikduk. While God is my judge isn't incorrect. The correct translation would be "my judgement is God's." For it to be "God is my judge" the yud would have to be after el. If you need a source for it being translated to "my judgement is God's" look at the introduction by Artscroll. 124.168.8.196 14:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The meaning is Judgement of God, there is nothing meaning "my" in it. The hiriq -i- is the Biblical Hebrew hiriq compaginis as grammarians call it, a hiriq that indicates that the first noun is possessed by the second, in other words the equivalent of the English "of", it is not the modern first person possessive suffix that would correspond to English "my". Also dan does not mean judge, the word for judge based on the root in question is dayan not dan. Dan as a verb means (he) judged and as a noun means something that is the result of the act of judging = judgement in English. [[User:Kuratowski's Ghost|]] (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Daniel's life

I've restored this section. I came to the article interested in the life of the historical figure Daniel and was instead only given tidbits about who considers him a prophet, what Ezekial may have said about him, etc. I can't think of any compelling reason or WP policy for deleting this section, but it's obviously open for discussion. BHC (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel's name in other languages

Can't that mess of translations be moved away from the opening sentence? It looks untidy and unprofessional, but worst of all, it makes the introduction a burden to read. (Huey45 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

Danel in the Ugaritic Text

I realize that even the NIV cites that the "Daniel" of Ezekiel is the "Danel" of the Aqhat text, but the Ugaritic story of Danel refers neither to his righteousness nor to his wisdom. Furthermore, Ezekiel was no fan of idolatry (Ez 5:9) nor were post-exilic Israelites, so citing a Baal worshiper as wise and righteous would have been unlikely penned by the original author and all but impossible for later redactors to miss.DefiningEternity (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Was Daniel a eunuch?

One of the facets of Daniel that Byzantine fathers could not agree was whether Daniel was a eunuch or not. His court duties were those that in Constantinople were done by eunuchs. What is the modern scholarship's opinion? Ikokki (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the sources to base such a claim on. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. In Babylon, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are placed under the supervision of the master of the eunuchs. (Daniel 1:3-7) -- Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.104.54 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel being a eunuch is in Jewish tradition:

- Jasonasosa (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The style of the article

The article describes a mythological concept, and a section of Tanakh/Bible as if it were a biography of a person. There maybe was a person Daniel, but if this a biography of a person it lacks notability because of a lack of sources – it just has one source: the Bible. This article should be about the book "Daniel" in the bible, treating the myth Daniel (and associated mythological religious concepts), not an alleged factual Daniel. Now it does exactly what the bad articles on most of the reformers does: carefully avoid the theological interpretations and messages. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion as an article is notability, not historicity. As a major figure in several major religions, Daniel is more than notable enough for an article on him.--FimusTauri (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unquestionably there are some sections of this article that are worded as if Daniel quite uncontroversially is a historical figure, even with speculations about his final days and his age when he died. Most non-fundamentalsit scholars would say that Daniel is a hagiographic figure -- perhaps with some historical prototype, perhaps not. There were legends about a sage called "Danel" or "Daniel" that may have inspired the Hebrew version where he becomes an exiled Jew. No non-fundamentalist scholar accepts his supposed "book" as genuine autobiography; it was written centuries after his supposed lifetime, as late as the 160s BCE.Fauskanger (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would think that it'd be fair to present both arguments because at present the article reads as you say. In fact, I thought it had a significant section on what "scholars" believed about them, but find nothing in the history that points to major deletions. So please feel free to do so with some good references to back up your text. However, to rewrite the article to say that it is "incontrovertible" that he was just a figment of some author's imagination living 200-160 B.C. would clearly be POV-pushing. Ckruschke (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Do we even need a separate article about Daniel as a person? Everything "known" about him is based on the Book of Daniel, the contents of which are treated in its own article. (In that article the scholarly view is also presented -- though it is a constant struggle to keep religious zealots from rewriting the article to make it appear that only fanatical Bible-hating atheists would ever dream of questioning its "authenticity" as an autobiography from Babylonian times.)Fauskanger (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the "religeous zealots" aren't the only one who have issues with non-neutral POV...

IMO, the Daniel as a person page stands on its own. Any suggestion that deleting this page as being a dupe of the text on the Book of Daniel page would probably have to be taken (along with all the other Bible character page) as a group to Wikipedia because Daniel isn't the only one whose Bio is only found within the pages of the Bible. Of course the same thing could be said about 1000's of book/movie/television characters that populate Wiki. So where would you want to draw the line? Ckruschke (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yes, Wikipedia also has articles on Sherlock Holmes, Mickey Mouse etc., but they are not presented as historical figures. There aren't speculations about the final days of Holmes, or his age when he died. The "Daniel" of the Bible is a hagiographic figure, who may or may not have some historical prototype (there was a legendary sage "Danel" or "Daniel", not necessarily Jewish to begin with, but the hagiographer of 160-something BCE decided to use this name for the hero of his book, and made his "Daniel" an exilied Jew in Babylonian times).Fauskanger (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that there are many pages about fictional characters, your point (I thought) was that Daniel the historical person only comes from one source - the Bible. Thus my reply that if you want to kill this page, it should only be as a part of a number of Biblical figure pages whose source references are also ONLY the Bible as our POV whether Daniel is or is not a historical figure is immaterial. Ckruschke (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Bahai connection

I have reverted the addition of a section on the relevance of Daniel to the Bahai faith. It referred to the 1260-day prophecy (see Day-year principle#Baha'i Application) but this from the Book of Daniel rather than Daniel the person, so it's not appropriate for this article. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Daniel (biblical figure). EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Now expanding my closure, per a request. I moved Daniel (name) to Daniel. The alternative was to place the DAB page there. My impression was that more people in the discussion wanted Daniel (name) at the base name. In any event, Daniel (name) seemed to get more page views than the DAB page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Daniel → Daniel (biblical figure) – better 76.120.164.90 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per natural primary topic, as Moses, Category:Hebrew_Bible_people etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @76.120.164.90: If this move were to occur, would you still want Daniel to redirect to Daniel (biblical figure)? The reason I ask is because right now, this article is the primary topic, and moving it away from its current title is unnecessary per WP:PRECISE. So, in other words, I oppose this move on those grounds, but have no prejudice with creating Daniel (biblical figure) as a redirect towards Daniel, and tagging the redirect as a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. (However, if this is not what you are actually proposing, and you are actually wanting this article to no longer be the primary topic [which would also require moving Daniel (disambiguation) to Daniel], then I am neutral.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support if Daniel will become the disambig page; not a primarytopic redirect. The basis for the biblical character being declared primarytopic seems weak. But to discuss this properly, it would to be announced at the various other disambiguated Daniel pages, or it won't stand a chance. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose — at present there are over 400 mainspace articles linking to this one. Yes, some of those links should be to the DAB, but still no other Daniel topic comes close. As a result I'm not sure why moving the article is "better". Why is it better? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Incoming links to Daniel can be fixed en masse using a batch tool such as AWB. If Daniel (name) is moved to Daniel, then incoming links to the name article can be subsequently fixed in the same manner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Dicklyon, make "Daniel" the disambiguation page -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's difficult to see which other use would rival this one and stop it being the primary topic, and none have been suggested. The Elton John song? The department store? The town in Utah? StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not any particular other topic that might make this one not be considered primary, but the aggregate of all such other topics. But just to mention two others, we also have Daniel (name) and Book of Daniel. To me, Moses seems like a much more clear case of primary topic than this one. To me, what springs to mind when hearing "Daniel" (out of any particular context, as in a Word Association game) is just "some guy named Daniel", not the biblical figure. But what springs to mind when hearing "Moses" is primarily the biblical figure. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Two things, then - the general consensus/practice here is to privilege the biblical person over the book - e.g. Isaiah/Book of Isaiah. Secondly, we are driven by what people search for - and nobody is going to type in "Daniel" looking for "some guy named Daniel". StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's entirely possible that people might search for the name itself, either for etymological reasons or even because they can't remember the surname of a particular 'Daniel' they're looking for.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Daniel is a common name in wide usage. Per examples like Chris or Michael, or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, move Daniel (name) to Daniel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, i don't support that move 76.120.164.90 (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I would suggest that the primary topic is just the given name, now at Daniel (name), but would not find it to be a great wrong if the disambiguation page were at this title. bd2412 T 15:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support the biblical figure is important but I do not see him as more important than every other person named Mark combined. I would also like to point out a previous request to move Mark the Evangelist to Mark. which failed for that reason.--64.229.164.231 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think it would be better consistency with the some of the other (biblical figures) and the Book of Daniel article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• @JudeccaXIII: I'm going to ask you this for the discussion closer's benefit: after the move, what should be done with the leftover redirect Daniel? Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Daniel (name) — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be better not to create a redirect when the page is moved. Instead, move Daniel (name) to Daniel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose @Steel1943: Now that you've mentioned redirecting Daniel, perhaps moving this article to Daniel (biblical figure) would not be such a good ideal as Daniel is a popular searched name for the biblical Daniel, and he doesn't have a last name. If this article were to move, articles such as Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah etc. would also have the same issue, and not much people are going to type in (biblical figure). I think its best if Daniel weren't moved per WP:COMMONNAME and redirect Daniel (biblical figure) to Daniel. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Daniel is in much broader common usage than the other names you've suggested. Moving the article is consistent with articles for very common names that are also shared by biblical figures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 Yes, Daniel is a popular first name but Daniel by itself is popularly searched for the biblical name, and I think the article is already set per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The common name for the common name Daniel is Daniel, and it is more precise than Daniel (name). One could argue that the name of any biblical figure could be 'more precise' by having it as the main subject, but it doesn't automatically trump a very common name. What's your source for stating that "Daniel by itself is popularly searched for the biblical name"?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per Jeffro77, GregKaye 13:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Daniel which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The move being discussed does not affect this page. Both articles that are the subject of the other discussion link to this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The move being discussed is a follow on to the one just completed here, and affects whether this article will be accessed by a disambig page at Daniel, as opposed to Daniel going to a names page as it does now, which was contrary to the expressed wishes of several who responded to the recent RM here. Surely this counts as affecting this page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The result of the previous discussion was to move this article regardless of which of the other two articles is made the primary one. The new discussion has no bearing on this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The "bearing" is just what I described; I'm not claiming more. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

"Like Ruth and Esther, the Book of Daniel is historical fiction" The word 'fiction' implies 'made up' and not true. If the comment you have used here is only taken from one source then you should quote that source alone as one opinion. It is hardly reliable in my opinion since Jewish & Christian scholars for centuries have not questioned the veracity of these books. They would regard them as historical narrative written in various styles. Daniel contains apocalyptic language but that does not make it fictional - most of the prophecies he made have since come to pass. Please adjust this phrase and perhaps review the rest of your article against Biblical scholars past and present. I should be happy to do some research and supply you with some references and quotes if you like. Bruce Langford. 203.206.40.239 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done "historical fiction" should not be in WP voice; this was discussed a couple of sections above. StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Historical fiction

User:PiCo has again being trying to say that the book is historical fiction, and presenting it as fact. PiCo, please discuss it here first and gain consensus. What evidence do you have that this is the universal view among scholars? StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

To preface this sentence with "according to..." is weasel-wording, introducing the implication that the idea is unique to Coogan or even that he's introducing it for the first time in this book. Both these suggestions are false. That Daniel, Esther and Ruth are fictional is the common position of mainstream scholarship - you only need to read the mainstream commentaries and look up what they say under "genre" (most have a discussion of genre). StAnselm please stop trying to push your fringe ideas by stealth or I'll be forced to take this dispute resolution. PiCo (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No - that is just not true. Perhaps you misunderstand what "historical fiction" means. In biblical studies, it is linked to authorial intent - see the Adele Berlin article referenced at Book of Esther (available here). And there is lots of disagreement over what the original author(s) intended and how the original readers understood the work. This has nothing to do with whether the book is "true"/historical/factual. You are making big claims about "mainstream scholarship" with nothing to back it up. StAnselm (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You presume to give lessons to Michael Coogan? When you get to be a full professor, maybe. No, if Coogan says it, we accept it.PiCo (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not the way wikipedia works at all - see WP:YESPOV. This is not a "fact" that we put into WP voice; this is an opinion which may or may not represent a consensus or majority view. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki works by using reliable sources. Coogan is a reliable source. What's your point? (Re that pdf of Berlin's you link to above, she says that Esther is a fictional work - again, what's your point? or are you indulging in POV-editing?)PiCo (talk) 05:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He is certainly a reliable source, but that does not mean (and has never meant) that everything he says can be stated as fact. Per WP:YESPOV, we avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Now, with Berlin, she does argue that Esther is fictional, but she names several mainstream scholars who disagree - on the basis, of course, that the author thought it was historical and/or intended it to be read as history. Now, that article is about Esther (though she does also mention Daniel), but the definition (within biblical studies) of "fictional" is the important thing. It is not the same as unhistorical (or ahistorical, for that matter). StAnselm (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

When reliable sources disagree on the same subject, the proper way is to summarize their arguments and present them together. "Neutral point of view states that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." "Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether individual editors think it is true or think they can personally verify it."

Please stop arguing and start summarizing your sources. Dimadick (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on PiCo to demonstrate that Coogan's view is mainstram/majority/universal. To some extent I am forced to argue from silence: for example, the main work in the area, The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, only mentions "fiction" twice in volume 1 and once in volume 2. But I can easily produce a contrary view: "the first six chapters, while presenting themselves as historical narrative, are surrounded by issues of historical accuracy..." (Tremper Longman, Daniel, p. 22). Interestingly, some interpreters opt for both: "Daniel must be classified as a fictional tale... [but] also a distinctive variant of late biblical historiography." (Shemaryahu Talmon, "Daniel" in The Literary Guide to the Bible, p. 355. StAnselm (talk) 07:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The onus is not on me, we have a very reliable source telling us what the genre is. If you want to challenge that, find another reliable source. Longman isn't that other source, he's simply saying that the first six chapters raise issues of historicity (which they do - Darius the Mede is a famous example, as is the supposed siege of Jerusalem described in chapter 1; they both look real at first glance, but in fact neither of them check out; on the other hand, the story of Belshazzar almost does check out, since there was a royal figure of that name, even though he wasn't a king; this is what Longman is saying, and he's quite right). I'm sorry but you're being blinded by your prejudices.PiCo (talk) 08:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No - "presenting themselves as historical narrative" (Longman) means they are not "fiction". Maybe your own prejudices stop you seeing that. StAnselm (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is another source rejecting (or at the very least, avoiding) the "historical fiction" label: "Judith has been classified a historical fiction or a romance, while the narratives of Daniel 1–6 have been called folktales, court tales, or diaspora stories." StAnselm (talk) 09:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A source that calls Judith a historical fiction, is somehow a source saying it's not a historical fiction? A romance is somehow not a fiction? A folktale is not a fiction? I must admit I have no idea what your mind is thinking here.PiCo (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, according to this source, the best generic classification of Judith would be "historical fiction" or "romance"; while Daniel is not to be classified as "historical fiction", but rather "court tales", etc. In other words, the source is saying that Judith is historical fiction, but Daniel isn't. StAnselm (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As Dimadick says (below), the first half of Daniel is made up court tales. The second half is an eschatology and apocalypse. The book overall is historical fiction. It can be, and is, several other things a well. All books, including modern ones, belong to more than one genre. PiCo (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Observation. The source is speaking about the first 6 chapters of the Book of Daniel, while the book has 12 chapters and a number of contested additions. This is not a comment on the historicity of Daniel himself, nor the genre of the entire book. Per our summary of the book:

• Chapter 1 is the introduction of Daniel the character, the closest thing he has to an origin story, and his induction in the court of Nebuchadnezzar II (reigned 605-562 BC).
• Chapter 2 features a strange dream by Nebuchadnezzar II, Daniel's interpretation of it as a prophecy, and Nebuchadnezzar rewarding him by raising his social status.
• Chapter 3 has little to do with Daniel himself. Nebuchadnezzar II punishes Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego for refusing to worship his statue, they survive the punishment unharmed, and Nebuchadnezzar comes to appreciate the power of their protective deity.
• Chapter 4 features a second strange dream of Nebuchadnezzar II, its interpretation by Daniel, and a subsequent period of madness for Nebuchadnezzar.
• Chapter 5 skips ahead in time. Daniel is now serving in the court of Belshazzar (reigned 550-539 BC). Belshazzar has a feast where a strange writing appears in the wall. Daniel offers his interpretation of it, which is apparently followed by the Fall of Babylon (539 BC). The conqueror is identified as Darius the Mede.
• Chapter 6 features Daniel serving in the court of Darius the Mede. He violates an order of Darius about the worship of other gods and men, and is thrown into the lions. He survives the ordeal and is restored in the favor of the king. Darius next throws Daniel's enemies to the lions, along with with their wives and children.
• Chapter 7 switches gears. It features a strange dream of Daniel himself and its interpretation as a prophecy.
• Chapter 8 features another prophetic dream of Daniel and its interpretation.
• Chapter 9 features Daniel reading the Book of Jeremiah and meditating on the meaning of one of the prophecies. An angel reveals the true meaning of the prophecy.
• Chapter 10 features Daniel having a prophetic vision about princes and wars yet to come.
• Chapter 11 features Daniel's detailed prophecy about princes and wars in the future.
• Chapter 12 features Daniel's prophetic vision about the apparent end to the world as he knows it. This is the finale of the book.
• The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children is a lengthy passage attached to Chapter 3, involving a prayer, a miracle account, and a celebratory hymn.
• Susanna appears in her own chapter, though its placement in the book differs among versions. It is sometimes placed as chapter 1, chapter 12, or chapter 13. It is a rather entertaining tale about lascivious behavior, voyeurism, blackmail, and slander. Daniel finds out the truth by separating the two false witnesses of the tale and asking them about details of what they have supposedly seen. When their accounts differ, he knows they are lying. It has been argued to be an ancient example of detective fiction (see chapter "In ancient literature").
• Bel and the Dragon appears as its own chapter of the book, often as chapter 14. Daniel now serves in the court of Cyrus the Great (reigned c. 559-530 BC). He is called to solve a classic locked-room mystery and discovers that there was a secret passage. He then slays a dragon. Its an entertaing tale, but not exactly a standard for the Bible.
  • Now please provide sources on the literary genre of the various chapters, as there is no uniformity in this book. Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you suggesting Dimadick? That the book may have more than one genre? If that's so, that suggests we should indeed attribute the quote to Coogan, who is focusing on one particular genre. StAnselm (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The book spends 6 chapters as a narrative work, and then switches to a prophetic work with only a frame story connecting the various visions. It seems to switch genres quite a bit. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It does, but one label that's certainly applicable to the whole is "fiction" - the events in the book never happened.PiCo (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but others would disagree with you; e.g. Alan Millard: "Daniel retains a high proportion of correct detail". StAnselm (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"A. R. Millard" is Alan Millard, an author which has an article in Wikipedia. He might be somewhat biased, though, because he is a believer of Evangelicalism and supports the essential historicity of the Bible. Now on the essentials of the article you cited:

• Millard starts by presenting the mainstream view of the 1970s, that the Book of Daniel was based on traditional tales of the Hellenistic period (c. 323-30 BC) and that the writer was associated with the Maccabees. The dating of authorship is assumed to be the 2nd century BC.
• He then quotes Kenneth Kitchen, who believes that the matter of dating is not that clear-cut. Kitchen places the dating of the work as anywhere between the late 6th century BC and the 2nd century BC, based on the state of the Aramaic language used in the text. Millard mentions some scholarly support for Kitchen's views and concludes: "So far as the Aramaic is concerned, therefore, the stories of Daniel may be dated anywhere in the Persian or early Hellenistic Period.
• Millard then starts analyzing the historical setting and details of the first 6 chapters, the narrative ones.
• The first difficulty of the text cited by Millard is the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem mentioned in the beginning of the first chapter. It is dated to the 3rd regnal year of Jehoiakim and the king of Babylon is identified as Nebuchadnezzar II. Millard points that new king Nebuchadnezzar gained the upper hand in the region following the Battle of Carchemish (605 BC) and that he then spend months campaigning to gain control of Syria and Palestine. Millard points that there is no possibility of a Babylonian army campaigning as far south as the Kingdom of Judah before the Battle of Carchemish, because Judah and its vicinity were dominated by Necho II of Egypt.
  • The problem, according to Millard, is that the exact year Necho II appointed Jehoiakim to the throne of Judah is uncertain. It has been estimated to 609 BC, shortly following the Battle of Megiddo, or 608 BC (the year after the battle). A siege of Jerusalem in c. 605 BC could be in the 3rd or 4th regnal year of Jehoiakim, and the siege is not covered or mentioned by Babylonian sources. Millard then goes in detail about different dating schemes, though he feels confident that the dating of the event in the Book of Daniel can be reconciled with the historical record.
• The second problem mentioned by Millard is that the author of the Book of Daniel uses the term Chaldaeans for both the Babylonians in general and for "a special class of learned men". The latter sense of the term seems to match Herodotus, who describes the Chaldaeans as priests of Bel. The term is missing from the Babylonian records of the era, though it does appear in the Assyrian records as the collective name of a group of tribes. Millard mentions that the term has been claimed to be an anachronism for a 6th-century BC narrative, but does not believe it to be so. He then offers an analysis of the historical background of the term and its uses across several languages.
• The third problem mentioned by Millard is the exact position of Belshazzar in the political system of Babylon. The author of the Book of Daniel presents him as the last king of Babylon, but the Babylonian sources do not feature him as a king. His position was unusual for the time and he seems to have been a regent during the lengthy absence of his father, Nabonidus. Millard mentions scholars who view this as an inaccuracy in the Book of Daniel, and others who suggest that he was a de facto king and the Book acknowledges this.
• The other problems in the depiction of Belshazzar is the dating of the king's vision, to which Millard makes a suggestion, and the fact that Belshazzar is featured by the author of the Book of Daniel as a son of Nebuchadnezzar II. Millard points that Belshazzar was neither a son nor a known descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. His father Nabonidus was a usurper who had a part in deposing his predecessor Labashi-Marduk. Labashi-Marduk was a son and legitimate successor of Neriglissar, but his father was also a usurper. Neriglissar had deposed and succeeded Amel-Marduk, the actual son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar II.
  • Millard points that while the succession of the throne of Babylon involved several usurpations and coups, these kings were not completely unrelated to each other. Neriglissar is considered a son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar II and a brother-in-law of Amel-Marduk. Labashi-Marduk was thus a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Marrying the daughter of a king was apparently enough to make you a candidate of the throne. Since we do not who Nabonidus married, Millard speculates that he could be another son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar another grandson. He admits,however, that there is not enough evidence to confirm his speculation.
• The next problem is not much of a problem. Daniel and his friends Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego receive Babylonian names while in court, but these do not match known names of the era. The prevalent theory of the 1970s was that these were bowdlerized forms of Babylonian originals, possibly theophoric names with references to pagan gods. Millard mentions a then-recent theory that connects the names to plausible Babylonian expressions that were only slightly altered in translation. He explains this in detail.
• Millard bypasses the problem of Darius the Mede with little comments, mostly because it was already known to his audience. Then comes the comparison to other early Jewish writings about the history of the Persian period, who are characterized by "confusion and error". He mentions the Book of Judith which describes Nebuchadnezzar II as a king of Assyria and makes other errors, while the Book of Daniel in contrast "retains a high proportion of correct detail". He concludes that there is no reason "for treating everything in the book that relates to earlier days as likely to be valueless."
  • In conclusion, Millard does not argue that the Book of Daniel should be seen as an accurate record of the 6th century BC. He lists in detail various details of the first 6 chapters that may preserve historical facts of the time, whenever the book was actually written. He thus treats it as a historical source, despite its problems. That is a far more modest proposal than treating everything in it as history, or rejecting everything as fabrications. Some of this text can be used as a source in the article on the Book of Daniel, though it is mostly irrelevant to the article on Daniel the character. Millard does not write about him, other than interpreting his Babylonian name. Dimadick (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you've put your finger on the issue when you say "That is a far more modest proposal than treating everything in it as history, or rejecting everything as fabrications." Most biblical scholars are somewhere on a spectrum on this issue; it is not just a matter of between choosing between "fact" and "fiction". PiCo's summary of the dispute as "the events in the book never happened" vs. "cold sober history" may be a false dichotomy as the majority of biblical scholars is concerned. StAnselm (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to stop edit-warring. As I said over on WP:AN3, I think attributing the overview as Coogan's opinion is more neutral as it clearly shows the reader that it is a viewpoint and who holds it. Leaving it out risks showing the opinion as cold hard facts, which isn't necessarily the case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Alan Millard: "Daniel retains a high proportion of correct detail". StAnselm (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)" Sure - and so does Harry Potter :). Our source (Coogan) doesn't say "some" and neither can we without putting words in his mouth. Nor can we say "According to Michael Coogan", because that would imply that his is a disputed opinion. We have to use our sources as we find them (after judging reliability, of course - but i believe Coogan is regarded as reliable).PiCo (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiasm

The division of the 'tales' and 'visions' in this article does not properly reflect the chiastic structure of the Aramaic portion of the book of Daniel. Chapters 2 and 7 present parallel themes (as do 3 & 6 and 4 & 5). Despite the obvious connection in themes between the 'visions' in chapters 2 and 7, the problem is compounded by the article's false statement that there is "no apparent connection to the apocalyptic visions of the second half".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What the article says is that there's no connection between the character Daniel in the first half and the same character in the second. In the first half Daniel is the active proponent of each story, in the second half he's the passive recipient of heavenly revelation. It's sourced from Towner's commentary.PiCo (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of the book is that the same Daniel who was so good in interpreting others' dreams is clueless when it comes to his own visions. StAnselm (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed yes - you'll find that discussed in Seow and Collins and others. As I understand it, the current view is that there was an original collection of tales in which Daniel figured as the hero. They were no doubt originally oral, but may have been collected and written down in the early Ptolemaic period, when Alexandria was replacing Babylon as the centre of the Jewish diaspora. That collection then formed the basis for the visions, written in the period 167-164 - the tales establish Daniel as a holy man favoured by God, the visions tell how he was was then uniquely favoured by God with a glimpse of God's coming kingdom. PiCo (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say Daniel is the "active proponent of each story" in the 'first half' (from which chapter 7 is incorrectly excluded). The tale in chapter 4 is (purportedly) narrated by Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel isn't in chapter 3 at all. In chapters 2 and 7, Daniel receives the interpretation of the dreams from God, and he is at least as much the proponent in chapter 7 as he is in chapter 2.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making, Jeffro. Surely it would be more fruitful to look up the sources? Also, it seems to me that you're discussing the book of Daniel rather than the character. PiCo (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I realise the article is about the character, but where the article deals with content of the book, that should also be presented accurately.

Additionally, whilst Daniel is certainly a fictitious character, the statements about 606 BCE and no confrontation prior to 598 BCE are misleading. The Babylonian chronicle BM 21946 indicates Nebuchadnezzar demanding tributes throughout the region in his accession year, and it was a subsequent refusal to pay tribute after some years that led to the siege in 598 BCE. Whether or not there was actually a 'siege' in 605 BCE, there is still an indication of Nebuchadnezzar's presence prior to 598 BCE, and it is unremarkable that the author(s) of Daniel could have known of these events. Further, a Nisan-based accession-year reckoning (which would be employed by a source purporting to be someone educated in Babylon, and was also used in other post-exilic biblical sources) of Jehoiakim's reign places his third year in 605 BCE rather than 606 BCE. So, at best, it appears that not all views are being properly represented.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand what you're trying to say. In your first post at the top of this thread, you say that the article's statement that there is "no apparent connection to the apocalyptic visions of the second half" is false. It's sourced from Towner's 1984 commentary. On pages 8 and 9 Towner identifies the Daniel of chapters 1-6 as a typical "wisdom" hero, while the Daniel of chapters 7-12 is an "apocalypse" hero, which is a different tradition. The "wisdom" her is one who survives oppression and groifies God through trust and faith in God (meaning, among other things, that he or she is "active" - he has to demonstrate faith through action); the "apocalypse" hero is passive, a man of virtue to whom God entrusts a revelation about His plans for humanity in general and the Jews in particular. Thus the Daniel of the Book of Daniel combines two traditions, quite successfully (Daniel's demonstration of his righteousness in chapters 1-6 prove him worthy the visions of chapters 7-12). PiCo (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

the Daniel of the first half of the book is a figure from the Jewish Wisdom tradition, with no apparent connection to the apocalyptic visions of the second half

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

At the end of the first paragraph, it was stated that the "broad consensus is that Daniel never existed". This statement is very misleading, as there are many evidences that the prophet Daniel was at least existed(source: http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/ot-difficulties/daniel-amos/authorship-of-daniel/).

Suggestion: Please remove that statement.

SciWalker (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC) --SciWalker (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In order to make sure you understand our rules, I offered a summary of policies and guidelines on your talk page. Basically, that WP:RS/AC claim means that most Bible scholars teaching at major universities agree that Daniel never existed. It does not mean that every scholar or every Christian priest or pastor would agree. Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists certainly don't agree, but they are a minority among the mentioned Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

See e.g. [5], [6], and [7]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Including attribution of statement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the words "According to the prominent biblical scholar Michael Coogan" go in front of the statement "the Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction"? StAnselm (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not only the view of Coogan, and the article should not imply that it might be a fringe view. It's not so bad since the phrase indicates that he is a prominent biblical scholar and not just 'some guy', but it still suggests it's just the view of one person, which may be misleading. Ideally, additional source(s) should be provided to indicate that it is in fact a broader scholarly view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Coogan, Michael (28 March 2008). The Old Testament: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 5–6. ISBN 978-0-19-971946-4. The third part of the Jewish scriptures, the Writings, is a collection of works in several different genres, a kind of anthology within the larger anthology that is the Bible. There is poetry of various kinds in the books of Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Lamentations. There are reflections on the human condition in the book of Job, also mostly in poetry, and the book of Ecclesiastes. There is historical fiction, as in the books of Ruth, Esther, and Daniel. The Writings also include historical narrative: the books of Chronicles cover the same chronological span as the Torah and Former Prophets, and conclude with the return from exile in Babylon in the second half of the sixth century race. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah continue this narrative, relating the history of the Jews in the late sixth and fifth centuries BCE.  06:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ideally we should say that "according to a non-religious academic point of view the book is a work of historical fiction, based partially on factual events", and find a source for that. That statement would be more correct, more neutral, and more acceptable to all. It would avoid the question raised in this Rfc, which indeed would involve some misrepresentation of the facts, as Jeffro77 rightly pointed out. Debresser (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The wording "according to a non-religious academic point of view" is not really ideal. The view that the book of Daniel, as part of the Writings, was written in the 2nd century BCE and not by a 6th century BCE 'prophet' is not restricted to 'non-religious' people. Saying it was "based partially on factual events" is also awfully ambiguous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder if there's any reliable source stating the reverse, that Daniel is anything other than fictional?PiCo (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There certainly is: "There are good reasons to presuppose, therefore, that Daniel should be considered an historical figure..." StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice book Anselm. But it supports our paragraph, which simply says that the Book of Daniel is fiction: the authors (Vriezen and van der Woude) say that Daniel himself could be modeled on a real Jew who could have attained high office in Babylon/Persia - I recall Collins saying something very similar to the effect that the Daniel stories show that Jews could reasonably aspire to high office; but as for the stories, he says that while they could have stemmed from the early Persian period they "have clearly been reworked at a later date." He sets that later date (the date for the composition of the book) as shortly before 164 BC. In other words, he says that the book is a late fiction drawing on folktales about a Jewish hero who might have existed in the neo-Babylonian period - pretty much what every other source says.PiCo (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• There is a practical reason for avoiding attribution unless the view is disputed by mainstream scholars: we would have to fill all religion articles with "According to this or that scholar, ..." instead of writing "...". This would be bad prose, and would leave the impression that there is no consensus among scholars when in fact we may speak of consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Actually that entire section "Tales and Visions" could go - it's about the Book of Daniel, and simply repeats/summarises what's already in the other article. PiCo (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think it's really necessary since the lead already states that "Daniel never existed." The Book of Daniel also states the book was most likely written in the Maccabean era, and most academic sources support these views. It's probably best to just remove the sentence since it will most likely cause unnecessary problems. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead is generally a summary of article content. It is not sufficient to only mention it in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeffro, sorry I reverted your edits just now but there was an edit conflict before I'd finished. Feel free to go ahead now.PiCo (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstanding. The bulk edit you did messed the article up a little, which was probably because of the edit conflict. It might be best to edit one section at a time. There were some errors in the summary I have corrected. If you want to discuss any of those details, they might warrant a separate section here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

My second edit shortened the summary and added links to the various articles on the chapters on Daniel. I'm ok with things as they are (can't be bothered redoing it :) and perhaps it's best now to ask what others think.PiCo (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• There are really two independent questions here:
  1. the book's historical basis (which itself can be divided into two parts, whether there was such a figure, and whether the events described actually happened). This should be treated first
  2. the extent to which the historical basis, assuming there is one, was expanded upon or reimagined as a work of historical fiction.

In any case, the qualifying statement, "like Ruth and Esther," is a direct paraphrase of Coogan. If we drop the specific attribution, we should drop the reference to these other Biblical books. In fact, even if we keep this attribution, we should probably drop the reference to other books. Clean Copy^talk 10:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Daniel did not exist ?

Somebody here wrote that "most scholars have a consensus that Daniel did not exist". How was this approved and how can I help revoke this comment ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaleekan (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Provide reliable secondary sources that indicate consensus among scholars for a differing view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Secular scholars basically can't accept the fact that some people, blessed by God or with supernatural talent, depending on your viewpoint, can predict the future and must fictionalize them in order to protect their beliefs.

The prophecy of Daniel predicting that a Greek king (Alexander), would conquer Persia, die young, have his kingdom split into 4 parts, and none of those parts were to be ruled by his progeny, is so indisputably accurate that you must either accept the fact of prophecy, or use any and all means to discredit it, including making the author of said prophecy a fictional character.

The first half Daniel was written in Chaldean, the second half had many Persian load words, and the whole has a total of THREE Greek words. Re-dating the work to about 150 BC to a place where Greek was the lingua franca, is like saying that a modern US author wrote part of a work in Aztec, and then switched to Spanish, using only a few words of English, like Micky Mouse, Disney, and Coca Cola. A garbage argument if there ever was one.71.174.129.238 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Portions of Daniel were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and had a level of corruption in their text that indicated that they had either been copied and recopied many times or that the scribes copying this work, and only this work, were incompetent boobs. Good luck with that second option.71.174.129.238 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

First, drawing your own conclusions is prohibited by WP:NOR. Second, there is a difference between history and theology. It may be fine and dandy to say that Daniel predicted the future as theology, but not as history. The post-Enlightenment historical method is by default heavily biased against the supernatural/prophecies. It works with methodological naturalism, whether you like it or not. See e.g.:

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!

— Bart Ehrman, ehrmanblog.org

So do not conflate theology/apologetics with history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"the scribes copying this work, and only this work, were incompetent boobs"

Why do you think the scribes copying the other works were not also incompetent? Scribal errors are commonplace in both ancient and medieval sources. Scribes encountered terms they were unfamiliar with and tried to "correct" them to something more familiar to them, scribes made spelling or grammar errors which changed the meaning of the text, and is some cases, they were copying from already corrupt sources. Dimadick (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That was sarcasm. The article I read on the subject stated that the parts of Daniel had variations (typos) that must have crept into the text after being copied and recopied many times. The only other explanation I can think of for variations in the text is that the scribes copying Daniel were all dunces. You could make the case that they were trainees gaining experience by working on fiction, but then why would you bother to save bad copies of fiction? If Daniel was fiction why were bad copies of it even stored with religious writings

This source gives the same the same reason I gave for making Daniel a "FICTIONAL" person. Some people just can't deal with the fact that there are some with supernatural talents (God given or otherwise) with the ability to accurately predict events over hundreds and thousands of years. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/31/New-Light-on-the-Book-of-Daniel-from-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls.aspx? This article was republished in an full-color format in the Spring 2011 issue of Bible and Spade.

Excerpt This article was originally published by Dr. Hasel in 1992, and was reproduced in Bible and Spade with permission. Though the article is 20 years old, it has still significant information about the Book of Daniel found amongst the Dead Seas Scrolls. Most importantly, the existence of Daniel in the DSS disproves the skeptical position that Daniel was originally written in the 2nd century BC. This position has been taken by skeptics to avoid the detailed prophecies in Daniel that ultimately came to pass, strong evidence for the divine authorship of Scripture.71.174.133.249 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It sounds as though you don't really have a good understanding of the original purpose of the book of Daniel. Ancient cultures didn't have the same view of recording 'history' as we do now. It was frequent to mix fiction into historical narratives, and liberally mix their theological views into actual events. Further, the book of Daniel presents by allegory a description of events in the 2nd century BCE regarding the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV and its subsequent restoration. Claims that Daniel said anything at all about Jesus is a later Christian invention. Your chosen 'expert', Gerhard Hasel is a Seventh Day Adventist theologian, and it is entirely unsurprising that he presents Adventist theology. It's quite humorous that Hasel's 'best explanation' for Daniel being considered 'canonical half a century after it was written' (not remarkable for something in the Writings, and not regarded by the Jews as prophetic) is that it 'must have been written centuries earlier by someone with magical powers'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's only fiction if you don't understand it. Again, How was a fictional character able to predict the death of the Anointed One (Christ) either exactly or to withing a few years in the span of about 500 years?

The book of Daniel says nothing at all about Jesus; that's a later Christian interpretation. (And Adventists also misinterpret who was 'cut off' at 'the half of the week' from that section of Daniel too.) In the context of the allegorical narrative in Daniel, the 'anointed one' referred to Cyrus who liberated the Jews from Babylon (compare Isaiah 45:1). In the context of the time of writing of Daniel, the 'anointed one' who was 'cut off' was the priest who Antiochus IV replaced with his own chosen Hellenised priest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The article already states that some conservative scholars regard Daniel to be an actual historical figure. The SDA source you provided doesn't add anything in addition to what is already stated, and you don't seem to be suggesting any other change to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a certain person hounding me who insists that he is fictional. Perhaps you cvan point out to him that SOME scholars believe that Daniel was an actual historical figure.

The interpretation you are citing is also fiction. Per the "day is a year" interpretation method, Daniel is talking about a period of almost 500 years to the time of death of an ANOINTED ONE. Your points are from the FICTIONAL DANIEL invented by modern historians. My points are about the PROPHET DANIEL that existed two and a half thousand years ago. If you feel that we are talking about two different things, it is because we are. A fictional Daniel cannot predict something that will happen a few hundred years after the fiction is written, from a starting point of a few hundred years in the past. A PROPHET however can predict what he is given to predict. (given in the form of visions, voices in the head, etc) 71.174.133.249 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

My chosen expert is currently Ellis Skolfield. His books can be found here http://www.ellisskolfield.net/books for download. He is dead and it is specifically stated on the website that his books are free to the public after his death. Although Wikipedia may get in trouble for hosting them whole, you as a person can download and read them for free. I am working on Daniel out of Order and Islam in the End Times, which is where most of the material I posted here comes from. I have some slight differences with his work, but nothing material. Click on the books to get the download screen, and then download by clicking on the lower right hand side. Happy reading!71.174.133.249 (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your chosen religious beliefs. Daniel never mentions "a day for a year", and there is no reason to arbitrarily apply that reference from a passage in Ezekiel to other Bible verses (and Adventists don't even consistently apply the 'rule' to other periods in Daniel). As far as the Wikipedia article goes, it presents the mainstream view as supported by historical facts. The fact that some conservatives have an alternative view of Daniel is already suitably presented in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

174.126.168.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – WP:DENY, I was banned from Wikipedia by overtly, unabashedly biased people who were portraying opinions as if they were facts. 17:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC) at User talk:Cullen328.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The opening paragraph says that a "consensus" of scholars indicate Daniel was not a real person. This should read, that "some scholars" believers this. Davidritsema (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed repeatedly on this page previously, going back to at least 2015. (Mildly ironic that we need consensus to change the word consensus, I suppose.) ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC) It is really irritating (and a little scary) when wiki is deliberately abused to mislead its readers. I'm a scholar with degrees relating to the ANE, many of my friends are too and none would agree with the outdated theory behind this wiki entry. Few scholars have doubted the existence of an original Daniel figure though the forms of this vary - here he has been etched out of history by promoting a very dubious theory as if it were a fact. But when some group gets their teeth into an entry as has happened here there is no way to reverse it until they all die off (or go offline at least!). Recommendation: get your information about Daniel from somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnrobb (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC) The germane content guideline is WP:RS/AC, which the source (Collins) passes with flying colors. The consensus claim is accurate: the views about Daniel of biblical inerrantists, who dissent from the general consensus, carry no weight in mainstream history, in a bona fide history department their claim would be treated with ROFLMAO or they would be booed off the stage. See WP:CHOPSY. The view that Daniel was real and wrote the Book of Daniel is fundamentalist or conservative evangelical theology, it isn't history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC) @Jonnrobb: Actually, the Collins quote is explicitly covering the Daniel as he is described in the book and says nothing about an original Daniel figure. The lead should probably be changed to reflect this. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC) St. Anselm is correct. The lead should be reworded, at the very least, to reflect the view of Collins that this scholarly majority is against the existence of Daniel as described in Daniel. If most scholars really do that there was a historical person who is at the root of the biblical Daniel story, it would help if we had a reliable published source that said so. Alephb (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure that an editor saying he's a scholar who believes in Daniel constitutes a suitable source for this change. A hypothetical person who might have existed during the Babylonian exile has little do to with the story as depicted in the Bible. Perhaps someone could furnish extrabiblical reliable sources that such a person was an official in the Babylonian court in support of the spurious assertion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Suppose that there was a historical Daniel, a wise man. All the writers of the Book of Daniel had about him was a legend. So they thought that he must have been such official, although the legend did not say that. How could you prove such scenario wrong? The same goes for Moses: the leader of the Exodus is bogus, but there might have been a tribal leader who got hugely embellished. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC) Though I'm not for treating any Wikipedia editor as a WP:RS, and though this runs the risk of veering a ways off the original topic here, I've done a little of chasing down this wild goose. The Daniel article argues that the biblical Daniel figure might be based on the mythological Danel figure. The Danel article is about a character in the Tale of Aqhat, which unfortunately does not have a Wikipedia page. I've started assembling one. As it turns out, I've already found that, at least as of 1957, it was still uncertain whether the Danel figure was based on an actual historical king. I figure I'll pop Tale of Aqhat over into Wikipedia space once I've filled out some more of it. Alternately, if anyone wants to contribute to Tale of Aqhat before that, I'll pop was I've got into a new article (there's already about twenty-six citations, and it's in such a state that it wouldn't get deleted at this point). Alephb (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC) How much more controversial can you be than to claim that Daniel is not who the entire Jewish religion thinks he is, that he didn't exist, that the whole story was made up centuries after it occurred, that none of the actual sources are relevant, and that you can overrule the most ancient records we have of Daniel with some obscure modern writer, who is obviously biased against religion and Jews, and who offers absolutely no evidence to contradict the Jewish beliefs about Daniel. All of the sources on Daniel are of Hebrew origin. Like all other history of this period, all we know about the people who lived during this period are the written, historic records, and all of the written historic records we have are recorded primarily in Hebrew literature. Just as you cannot reasonably claim that all of the history of Sparta was false and happened centuries after all of the written records say it happened, just because you want to say so and you don't like the general narrative of Spartan philosophy, you cannot do this with Jewish history either, regardless of what Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle and Xenophon say to the contrary, you cannot un-write all of recorded written Jewish history with a single modern book or two (I see that all of your sources on this are from one or two modern authors of a distinctly anti-religious, and therefore anti-Jewish persuasion), when those books contain zero evidence. Show me some evidence that A. There is proof that Daniel never lived, when there is evidence of Daniel in both Hebrew and Babylonian literature of the period, and then B. prove to me that the claim that Daniel never lived and everything about the book of Daniel occurred after a certain year is not extremely controversial. Whether a story was written down by a certain date has zero bearing on when it occurred. All of the events of Homer were written down long after they occurred, as were most of the events in the Old Testament, and everything we know about the history of Gaul and Britain before the arrival of the Romans. IF most Jews believe that Daniel actually lived at the time of Nebuchadnezzar, which they do, then at a minimum, claiming that he did not live, or that the events did not occur, or the story was invented centuries after they occurred, is controversial. Wikipedia does not prohibit the removal of controversial and baseless claims, but it does prohibit the removal of the actual historical accounts that form the basis of a figure that an article is about (such as Daniel), and it does prohibit posting controversial claims that have no supporting evidence, especially when there is a very aggressive effort in the world to destroy and ridicule everything about the Jewish culture, Jewish beliefs, Jewish philosophy, and Jewish history, when we all know that the Jewish culture, beliefs, philosophy, religion and history are very real and have a right to be accurately recorded and represented in any encyclopedic work, based on what on the contents of the original Hebrew sources, just as every other culture does, especially when the article in question is about one of the most important Jewish characters, and the most sacred Jewish beliefs and values, as those that pertain to the Book of Daniel are. Remove the references claiming that Daniel did not exist, that Daniel is fiction, that everything about Daniel was invented centuries after the fact, that Daniel is not a Jewish concept but comes from some idolotrous, polytheistic anti-Jewish civilization instead, etc., etc. This is not the place for trying to destroy the Jewish faith. Leave that in 1930s Germany.174.126.168.126 (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Well, considering that your comment here starts with an analogy to Nazism, the very first thing you'll need to read before commenting is WP:CIVIL, a Wikipedia behavioral guideline that all users are expected to follow. The second thing to read will be WP:RS, which explains what kinds of sources Wikipedia uses as reliable and what kind it doesn't. Alephb (talk) It would be the anti-Jewish propaganda that is so reminiscent of Goebbels that is not civil, not the act of calling it out and condemning it. Your arguments have no basis in reality. There is no evidence that Daniel did not exist, or that he was not a contemporary of Nebuchadnezsar. All the sources we have on Daniel say that he existed and he lived at that time. At a minimum, your edits are controversial, at worst, they are a deliberate attempt to make a mockery of Jews everywhere, which is not a new behavior, but it is an uncivil one. Sources must be based in fact. They cannot present opinion as if it is fact. The sources we have are all ancient Hebrew sources, with some corresponding information from Babylonian sources. You cannot re-write history 2,500 years later without any facts to support your arguments. You can't get away with doing that with any other kind of history, so what makes you think you can do that with Jewish history and beliefs? You deleted content from the Talmud about what Jews believe about Daniel. That is not a controversial source about what Jews believe about Daniel. That is the only relaible source. You deleted the perspective of Isaac Newton on Daniel. That is not a controversial or unreliable source. You deleted the writings of the most widespread Jewish Orthodox Jewish organization in the world on their views on what makes Daniel a visionary and a diviinely inspired Jew, but not necessarily a prophet. These sources are all well-established references to Jewish belief, culture, values, and understandings of the history of Daniel. Your atheistic, anti-religion, anti-Jew, fringe writers, who have no evidence, whose far-fetched opinions you portray as fact, are far, far less reputable, and the very definition of controversial. You have no right to delete actual well-respected, reliable sources that have been accepted for thousands of years, and then claim that everything we've always known about Daniel is completely wrong without any evidence to support your argument, and you are extremely un-civil for doing so, and then claiming that anyone who objects to you behaving like a fascist propagandist historical revisionist is the one who is un-civil.174.126.168.126 (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Repeatedly comparing other editors on Wikipedia to Nazis is the kind of thing that leads fairly quickly to getting blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'd strongly recommend you don't keep doing that. Alephb (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC) If you've got more to say, you need to say it as a new comment at the bottom of the page. Going back to your older comments and then adding more content after other users have already responded to those comments messes up the history of the talk page by making it look like you said things earlier than you did. Alephb (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC) And what does actually behaving like a NAZI propagandist revisionist result in? Some kind of award? The content is controversial, it is false, it is an opinion masquerading as a fact without any supporting evidence, you deleted four of the most well-established and reputable sources there are on the subject, on the absurd basis that some obscure, fringe controversial writer that no one has ever heard of is somehow more of an authority than the actual source documents, and your behavior and tactics are in fact identical to the actual NAZI reich, which also claimed that Jewish history does not exist and was completely different than what the Jews themselves claim that their culture is, with the intent of undermining, de-legitimizing, and negatively portraying the Jewish people and the Jewish faith. That is a shameful act. This is the place for non-controversial, factual information based on the original sources, not for trying to contradict and undermine everything people have known and believed about Daniel for thousands of years with no evidence to support your claims. Open up any other encyclopedia, paste its article on Daniel here instead of what is there now, and I will be more than satisfied with that outcome, if the only alternative to that is to endure your slander of the Jewish beliefs and culture, and your claims that the truth about who Daniel was and what his story is about are not at all what they in fact are, and are instead what only those who are either on the fringe, hostile to Jews, or hostile to all religious civilizations think the story and history of Daniel Daniel is. I will post another Encyclopedia's article on Daniel here to prove my point.174.126.168.126 (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC) If you look at the above comments, and the one I added to, they all say the same thing, with the same complaints, because everyone who actually knows the history and the story of Daniel knows that the information in this article is not only controversial, it is also contrary to well-established history and understanding of Jewish beliefs, it is innacurate and it is morally wrong.174.126.168.126 (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Consider this your third warning. Comparing other users to Nazis is a violation of WP:CIVIL and is likely to get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Consider this your final warning. You are not allowed to post controversial content. You are not allowed to undermine and ridicule people's faiths and beliefs, or to claim that events did not occur when all of the actual sources claim they did. You are not allowed to re-write history without evidence. You are not allowed to treat Jews like they were treated by the Romans and the Babylonians, or by any other historical empire that tried to erase their history and culture with lies, censorship, oppression and injustice. You are not allowed to remove sources such as the Book of Daniel itself on an article about Daniel, or the Talmud or Chabad on an article about Jewish beliefs, faith, philosophy and literature, nor are you permitted to claim that Jews are liars with no real history of their own, while it is universally accepted that the original source documents of the Greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians, and the Egyptians are not only allowed to be posted on Wikipedia, but are the most valuable information we have about their history. You are being uncivil, you are being controversial, and you are acting malevolently and derogatorily toward the Jewish people and culture, and it is impossible not to associate that kind of behavior with those who have behaved that way in the past. If you do not want to be associated with the people who have done that in the past, then you should not behave in a similar way, rather than trying to silence and punish anyone who notices and mentions the similarity. You are now accusing me of everything that you have apparently been doing to me and everyone else who has tried to fix this article and make it representative of reality and the Jewish religious story that the article is supposed to be about. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC) You are wrong, morally, factually, and in terms of wikipedia policies. Now you are trying to abuse some sort of power that you imagine you have, to force your false narrative on the world, the internet and this website. How exactly do you think the world is going to see that, when the agenda is to ridicule and defame the Jewish culture, faith, beliefs, writings and society? Since apparently I'm not getting through on the civility issue, I've passed this along to WP:ANI. Alephb (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC) I look forward to their decisions, if they are just. But like Daniel said, Justice will be restored, even if it requires the downfall of Empires and the death of Kings. There is a higher authority, whether you believe it exists or not. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC) And what precisely does "the death of Kings" mean in this context? Alephb (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC) By the way, you're free to tell your side of things over at WP:ANI in the section at the bottom of the page. It would probably be a good idea to start with an apology over there rather than rehashing all that Nazi stuff, because they tend not to like that kind of thing. Alephb (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC) "How much more controversial can you be than to claim that Daniel is not who the entire Jewish religion thinks he is, that he didn't exist, that the whole story was made up centuries after it occurred" Not controversial at all. The Bible is a dungheap of unreliable material, and many of its figures are either purely mythological or do not resemble the historical personas which they represent. Dimadick (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC) So you don't think it is controversial to label the most commonly published book in the world and the beliefs of the majority of the world's population, 4.2 Billion people, a "dungheap"? That is extremely controversial. That is one of the most controversial things a person could possibly say. That is not at all an Encyclopedic position, or anything remotely resembling a "consensus" of scholars or of anyone else. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Nope, some if not most of the Christians believe that the Old Testament is obsolete in some way or another; Muslims usually take the view that the Bible is crammed with mistakes. Biblical inerrancy (when literally interpreted) is numerically the view of a tiny minority. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "There is a higher authority, whether you believe it exists or not. " Oh, really? And what authority is that? Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC) The Flying Spaghetti Monster. EEng 22:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC) So you respond in that way to that statement because you made the world with your own hands, you understand how it came into being, you answer to no one and no forces of nature, all religious people are fools, science is your creator, you are certain that that which made your intelligence is not intelligent itself, and there are no consequences for injustice or falsehood and never have been, nor are there any consequences for your own actions? Is that your position? Thank you for helping to at least partially confirm precisely what I expected about the nature and the motivations of those who would force this kind of opinionated, demeaning, fringe narrative onto a website viewed by the entire world on a topic that is literally sacred to the majority, as if their highly unusual views were indisputable fact, and as if that which is sacred to billions of people, and views which are not only plausible but likely, and are more insightful, instructive and influential than almost any others that have ever been published, should be treated without anywhere near the level of respect or appreciation that is appropriate for such a topic, much less revered as the origin of many of the most important and beneficial attributes of our civilization's laws, philosophies and values. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC) There are some editors here that like the Bible, and some that don't like it. That's to be expected on any international project of this scale. But the policy here is not for the editors who dislike the Bible to put their views into the article, or for the editors who like the Bible to put their views into the article. The question is, what are the views of mainstream, academic, peer-reviewed outlets like the major university presses or mainstream peer-reviewed journals? That's the kind of sources that Wikipedia tries to build itself around. Alephb (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Yup, we don't do WP:GEVAL between a subjective religious belief and an objective historical fact. A matter of policy, we cannot compromise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "There are some editors here that like the Bible, and some that don't like it." Oh, I do like it. I spend much of my teenage years reading and studying the Bible, and I still have 7 volumes of Biblical translations in my bedroom. No single book did more to convince me that there is no god and no truth in this entire collection than the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus. Similarly my atheist grandfather kept a translation of the Bible close at hand, because he liked to point to all the contradictions and the absurdities in there. Frankly, if I want the truth, I will not seek it in "sacred" narratives. Dimadick (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Your responses sound reasonable (except for that last one), but the problem is that you are indeed putting your biases into the article, and that is painfully apparent to anyone who doesn't have those biases. Would you expect there to be a dozen articles by a dozen scholars about how Daniel might have lived, but that there is also not any evidence that he either did or did not? That would make no sense to write an article for an academic journal or a book about that. People write articles based on evidence, or based on an opinion that is different from the opinion that almost everyone already has and has had for thousands of years, such as the opinion that Daniel was, according to the sources, a real person, but the evidence to support the belief is minimal and not concrete. When there is no evidence, you generally do not propound your unfounded thesis for all the world to see, and you definitely do not claim that you speak for everyone when you do so, or for all mainstream scholars. You can never print a scholar's opinion in Wikipedia as a fact unless it really is a fact based on hard evidence, not just based on claims made in the article itself, period. Unless the opinion is grounded in fact, it is an opinion, and it is inherently controversial, because it lacks supporting, objective, definitive, incontrovertible evidence. Facts are: "something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality", according to Merriam-Webster. If the article does not provide definitive evidence, then it is not factual, it is an opinion. Definitive evidence that Daniel did not live does not exist, and most evidence we have suggests he did, although it does not prove that he did. Proof he lived would be something like signed copies of his original writings in his tomb with DNA evidence tying him to Belshazzar's feast. Equally elusive is evidence that he did not live, such as historical accounts from Belshazzar saying he had heard a story of a Jew named Daniel, but he never met such a person, and did not believe he exists, supported by similar statements from the Jews who were said to have been imprisoned and sent to the lions with Daniel. Obviously, we have neither of these kinds of affirming or negating pieces of evidence, yet we do have hundreds of ancient accounts of Daniel dating back thousands of years, we do know how closely the actual history correlates with much of Daniel's accounts, we do know that the stories of all semi-legendary figures change over time and many were passed orally before they were written down or between written copies, and we know that Daniel supposedly had a tomb with his remains in it that was worshiped by Jews and Muslims for centuries, and that tomb was frequently moved back and forth, but a certain Muslim leader supposedly decided it would be best to throw it in a river, so now we have no way to confirm or deny that it was his tomb. Furthermore, we also know that 4.2 Billion people are either Jews, Christians or Muslims, that a very high percentage of Bible scholars enter their profession out of love and reverence for the Bible, and the bulk of these people are biased on the side of believing the Bible, yet this mainstream majority of Bible scholars does not propound to have evidence that Daniel lived, nor do they propound the contrary, i.e. to have evidence that he did not live, because such evidence does not exist, or what little evidence there is on that question is extremely sketchy and open to interpretation at best. No one can claim to speak for all of those scholars, but the odds are, most of them do not agree with the articles quoted in this Encyclopedia article, they just haven't taken up the topic themselves (largely due to lack of evidence to support any conclusion one way or the other, and lack of a reason to write such an article about how uncertain a certain topic is). The articles that claim they speak for the mainstream also provide no actual evidence to support their claim that they are the indisputable voice of all mainstream scholars, such as a study of the opinions of Bible scholars on the issue of Daniel's existence or lack thereof, so again, that also is an opinion which is equally unfounded and highly controversial. Finally, while religious people of any faith can and often do say many things that would be insulting to each other, or to atheists, heretics, and presumptuous scholars who claim to speak for others when they do not, it would be best if religious people did not do so, at least not in an Encyclopedia that the whole world reads, so obviously it would be best if atheists, technocrats and Californians (who have such an unusual culture and way of thinking in the eyes of the vast majority of the world) would not insult the religious majority (the religious mainstream) on an Encyclopedia seen by the entire world, either on the talk page or in the way they insert their biases, and even their ideological animosity, into the actual Encyclopedia articles (and sometimes into scholarly articles), lest we descend into declaring each other's ideologies, cultures, beliefs, opinions, etc. to be "dungheaps" and the like, even if it is no secret that many do feel that way, and even if the feeling is generally mutual. The bottom line is: Daniel should be represented essentially the same way that Homer, Aeneas, Odysseus, Numa Pompilius, and Romulus are, with the same degree of respect and reverence for their influence and impact on human civilization, and with the same benefit of the doubt regarding their historicity, unless there is concrete proof that the ancient sources we had were undeniably lying. There is no evidence that any of those characters did or did not live. Reading any of the Wikipedia articles on those semi-legendary figures does not give one the impression that those figures, who were central to their civilization and its history, were totally fabricated, and that people who believe those figures did live and did something like what the sources say they did when they lived are misguided fools and dungheaps. It is rather disturbing to see such a starkly different standard applied to similarly culturally important and historically revered semi-legendary figures from Jewish culture and history, compared with the aforementioned semi-legendary figures from Greco-Roman civilization and history, when far more people alive today believe in and are influenced by Daniel than they are by any semi-legendary Greco-Roman figures.174.126.168.126 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Consider, for example, the scholarly opinions of G. Ch. Aalders, where line by line he explains how each supposed reason for questioning the historicity of the Book of Daniel is really quite baseless and lacking in any supporting evidence which itslef is not as controversial as the claims that rest on that supposed "evidence". While Aalders' article does not offer proof of Daniel's life, it does offer proof that the topic is disputed and hotly debated by scholars of widely differing opinions on Daniel's historicity, and it also offers sound arguments showing that any claims that there is proof that Daniel did not live in the time he is said to have lived are purely hypothetical and should not be presented as fact by any reputable scholar. Or, in the words of Aalders himself: We now may come to the conclusion, that there is no sufficient ground to impute to the Book of Daniel historical inaccuracies and incongruencies, which should induce us to dispute the historical trustworthiness. Even Driver expresses himself in a very cautious manner after discussing the alleged arguments, when he says: “they do not show positively that the Book is a work of the second century B.C., but they point with some cogency to the conclusion that it reflects the traditions, and historical impressions, of an age considerably later than that of Daniel himself.” Next to this statement of a decided advocate of the critical view I wish to cite the opinion of one of the best connoisseurs of old Persian history, the famous Elamist, George Husing, who declares that he does not see any necessity of imputing to the author of the Book of Daniel erroneous conceptions with respect to the Chaldean and Persian period. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Dated, WP:FRINGE sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC) References Aalders was a leading figure of the Neo-Calvinist movement and a professor of Old Testament studies at Free University of Amsterdam, one of two large publicly funded universities in Amsterdam, where he was acting in the same academic role as the supposedly mainstream scholar cited in the article already. You cannot label the sources you agree with as mainstream, and the sources you disagree with as fringe, in order to censor out differences of opinion, and to present your favored opinion as indisputable fact, rather than the opinion that it is. While the article may be dated, it deals with arguments and issues that have not changed at all since they were written, and remain as disputed today as they were then. As evidence of that, consider this talk page. The exact same arguments made in that article when they were written are still being debated on this talk page and by the cited editors in the article today, and no new evidence has been provided to counter the arguments I cited in the article above. If you disagree, cite the evidence on which you base your claim, not an article full of opinion but lacking any new evidence that has emerged since the aforementioned article was written. Your claims of "fringe" and "dated" are on the one hand inaccurate, and on the other hand irrelevant. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Date of Daniel's birth

The article presently says:

Daniel was descended from one of the noble families of Judah (Daniel 1:3), and was probably born in Jerusalem about B.C. 538, during the reign of Josiah.

Yet that doesn't make sense. Daniel would have been taken into captivity around 600 BC. I figured Daniel's birth closer to 620-ish BC. Comments?

Ian Yorston on 23 Apr 2006 at 15:00 GMT writes: I was equally confused and did the same Math. There is a link at the very bottom of the page to "Births 623BC", so I'm guessing that is what should be there. I ran through the page History but failed to identify any vandalism that might explain this error. I did a brief web search and found the date of B.C. 620 repeated on http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04620a.htm. Based on my rather poor research, I've taken the brave/foolish step of correcting the article to read "about B.C. 620". Apologies if I shouldn't have done this - at least it should force the issue...

James B. Jordan (1995). "Daniel: Historical & Chronological Comments (II)". Biblical Chronology. 7 (1). puts the death of Josiah in 608 BC, and Daniel (and Jehoiakim) being taken to Babylon in 605 BC. This agrees with the source that you cite above. Jordan assumes that Daniel was about 20 at the time, which would put his birth in about 625 BC. The source that you cite above (explicitly) assumes that he was 14. The basic problem is that we're not told how old Daniel was when he went to Babylon, so his year of birth is necessarily speculative. "About 620 BC" seems like a pretty reasonable number. --Waitak 07:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

PeterParslow (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC): None of the discussion above relates to the article as it stands now.

Date of story vs date of writing

PeterParslow (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC): Whatever your view on the historicity of Daniel, I think the opening paragraph would benefit from a simple statement like "The story is set in about 600-540 BC".

This could sit with the sentence on the probable date of writing, giving something like "The story is set in about 600-540 BC, but the consensus of modern scholars...." or "The consensus of modern scholars .... Epiphanes, but the story is set in about 600-540 BC".

That seems reasonable to me. Alephb (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Daniel the Prophet, c. 1325, Ugolino di Nerio, pinnacle from an altarpiece, tempera and tooled gold on panel (Philadelphia Museum of Art).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Cuneiform Name

The article claims that Daniel's Chaldean name, Belteshazzar, was written as [Akkadian: 𒊩𒆪𒈗𒋀, romanized: Beltu-šar-uṣur, written as NIN9.LUGAL.ŠEŠ]. No source is provided, and it's almost certainly incorrect since 𒊩𒆪 means sister (which makes no sense in this context). The first character is probably the theophoric 𒂗 (Bel), same as in the name of Belshazzar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IYY (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)