Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)

New layout

I have edited a new layout for the Daniel page on 03:13, 4 October 2011. I broke out some of the sections for easier reading and potentially adding more content. Pictures were realigned for a better lay. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk)

Not ALL scholars

To finish my point, not all scholars accept Historical Criticism. Claiming that a scholar is one who holds only to historical criticism is circular reasoning. To be sure, MOST scholars accept historical criticism. But even the Historical criticism page acknowledges that not all scholars accept it. To quote the page: It "leads to conclusions that conservative scholars find unscientific."

And remember, Wikipedia is not about what is someone's POV truth, it is about what is factual. And it is a fact that not all scholars accept Historical criticism.

Also, it is irrelevant how many do, or how many do not, accept it, but to those who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves, nor let others think for themselves. --MindyWaters (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mindy, the source doesn't say that "all scholars" accept "historical criticism", it says there's a scholarly consensus that the figure of Daniel is legendary. It was you who introduced the word "all" and the idea of "historical criticism," a term that isn't in the source.PiCo (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

it was 180.200.143.109 who introduced the idea that ALL scholars held to historical criticism, even implying that only scholars who hold to historical criticism are scholars. That is why I started this comment, because not all scholars hold to historical criticism. And even if they did, the reader has the right to know that the view of this page is historical criticism or higher criticism. My addition to the article ties the article to the topic of higher criticism article. It isn't in the source, but it is part of wikipedia.--MindyWaters (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mindy, nobody "holds to" historical criticism, it's simply a collection of tools for investigating the origins of texts. Nor does the source, or our article, say that "all" scholars believe Daniel to be legendary/fictional - it says a consensus, not all scholars. Nor does the source mention "historical criticism". We need to stick to sources and not introduce qualifications without backup. PiCo (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Mindy, I gather your problem is that you feel the article is saying that ALL scholars believe Daniel to e legendary. That's not the way I read Collins' use of the word consensus, and it's obviously not so - I can name half a dozen well-regarded books that treat Daniel as a real person. So I've added a little to the beginning of that line that makes clear this is the view of MOST scholars, not all. Believe me, I'm trying to accommodate you. PiCo (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't mean to be contrary, but would like to see the article reflect what really exist about what people and a variety of scholars think about Daniel, both the book and the person. I disagree that Historical-criticism is just a set of tools. It is also a belief system that starts with vaticintium ex eventu from which the set of tools are based. I prefer the "grametico-historical" exegesis which has been traditional with and since the Reformation, which uses the tools of 1. Lexical, the meaning of the words in the time used, 2. Syntactic, interpret according to the grammatical principles know to exist at the time of the writing, 3. Contextual, looks at what was written befor and after the passage, 4. Historical, inquiry is made as to the circumstances that called for this particula writing, manners, customs and psychology of the people, 5. According to the analogy of Scripture, this principle recognized the divne unity running through the scriptures. --MindyWaters (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mindy, all the sources I know of say simply that the mainstream/majority view is that Daniel (the book) is pseudonymous and that Daniel (the character) is legendary/fictional. We have Collins, who is a very eminent scholar, also Coogan, and many more. Even among conservative scholars who think Daniel was a real person and the real author, none that I can find say this is other than a minority view, and none make reference to any particular type of scholarship. We have to follow reliable sources, we can't put words into their mouths. PiCo (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thread revived in 2020

@PiCo: However, if there indeed do exist conservative scholars who think Daniel was a real person and those scholars have published this view in works which are reliable sources, does the principle of Neutral Point of View allow, if not mandate, us to include this minority opinion. If so, would it be ok to do so in this case? Perhaps, would the source by Miller be one possible example of this which may be included on this page? Yea, I would agree with you that Collins would be one possible reliable source for the study of the existence or non-existence of a Historical Daniel. However, there are other sources out there as well which add additional information. Penitentserf (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. This is fringe, this not good (Collins, 1999 and Noegel & Wheeler, 2002). Saying that cloisters and our ancestors do not tell the truth is not good. Sitting in a round table and each citing his left is not scientific. I my opinion this is very bad and sad propaganda. Satanists, atheists, marxists want to burn the old and the new testament; as in North Corea. The Book of Daniel is relevant is our time, so no tale but bitter reality... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody here wants to burn your book, buddy. We just consider it fiction. Fiction does not mean false, it means unproven. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I might add to my reply above: if at WP:CHOPSY it is considered pseudohistory, it is dead in the water as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Penitentserf: To pass pseudohistory as credible would be to compromise basic policy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Penitentserf - I'm not sure why you want to revive this thread after so many years - it would be better to start a new one. Anyway, your question is whether we should/could mention reliable scholars who believe Daniel was a real person, on the basis of reliable sources. That policy is indeed fundamental to Wikipedia, but it includes the concept of Due Weight, which means that we don't give all opinion the same attention, but instead favour them in the following order: (a) consensus, if one exists; (b) if not, then majority and important minority opinion. Note that we don't mention individual scholars, we find bodies of opinion, consensus, majority, minority (fringe we don't mention at all). The tricky part, of course, is discovering what is consensus, majority or minority. Personally I do this by googling whatever topic I need with the prefix "consensus" (or most, or whatever); if nothing comes up I try "majority"; and if still nothing comes up I go to major encyclopedias like Eerdmans or Oxford, on the basis that they'll try to present a "safe" picture. As for Stephen Miller, I don't see that he claims his view is a majority one, and we have other sources which say the majority view is that Daniel was fictional.Achar Sva (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your time and being patient with me on this issue. I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues and to hear everyone out. I am in no way making any claim to the historicity of Daniel being a majority opinion. Rather, I am simply saying that the historicity of Daniel is a minority, but not fringe, position. In my discussions elsewhere, I find that one major point of disagreement is over historical method. Pope Benedict, who also happens to be a WP:CHOPSY level scholar, holds an alternate minority-view historical methodology which is not fringe. As well, I find that Alvin Plantiga, who is a WP:CHOPSY level scholar, does a really good job explaining the historical issues present and that that Plantiga's explanation would have a place on a page which discusses the historicity of one of the books of the Bible..Penitentserf (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II#Fundamentalist POV: the thesis of real, fulfilled prophecies in the Book of Daniel is dead in the water as far as mainstream history is concerned. "Daniel was a real prophet" is pseudohistory. The Pope is a theologian, while Plantinga is a philosopher, neither of them wear the hat of historian. So they do not represent mainstream history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I found this critique of Plantiga on a website called LibraryThing:

Mr Plantinga's new book is ostensibly about the conflict between theism and science. The goal is to establish that they are not in conflict. It is a strange book in that it is part philosophy, part theology, part Christian apologetics and in part a religious devotional tract.

Before I criticize the author's position, let me first contextualize it a bit.

Mr. Plantinga is a thinker in the Dutch Reformed (Calvinist) philosophical tradition. Until the latter half of the 19th century, one could claim to be a Christian and claim to be rational at the same time. However, along came critical biblical studies undermining the accepted view of the bible's authorship and historicity, and then came the onslaught of geology which established the fact that no biblical flood occurred, dinosaurs predated humans by eons and evolution was a fact( even if the path and mechanisms are still in dispute ). This thoroughly discredited the veracity and credibility of the bible. If something as basic as the creation story and the biblical flood never occurred, what else didn't occur? Maybe we evolved after all. Maybe there was no Garden of Eden. Maybe Jesus never rose from the dead (For why a group might invent the resurrection story read Festinger's When Prophecy Fails). What's a believer to do? The only option left is retreating to commitment. Theology went from a scholarly science to an ideology. This response expressed itself as fundamentalism among the low-brow, neo-orthodoxy among the high-brow and presupposionalism among the Dutch Calvinists (For someone who still maintains that one can do scientific theology, see Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science. For a discussion of this process of Protestant theology becoming an ideology see, Retreat to Commitment, W.W. Bartley III).

Following Calvin, leading Dutch reformed thinkers like Nicholas Wolterstorff and Alvin Plantinga developed what has become known as the 'New Reformed Epistemology.' (You can Google to find other notable Dutch Reformed presuppositionalists). The thinking was, since there is no longer any evidence for Christianity, let's abandon evidentialism altogether. The new mantra is: "The Holy Spirit' creates its own listeners." From now on, we'll just assume god exists and Christianity is true.

In fact on pages 167-168, the author says, "My evidence base is the set of beliefs I use, or to which I appeal, in conducting inquiry...It is important to see in this connection that the evidence base of a Christian theist will include theism, belief in God and also the main lines of the Christian faith" The point of the book is not to establish the truth of Christianity. That option has been forever foreclosed to Christian apologists. Instead, the author wants to establish that belief in god is rational and that a certain type of Christian theism is not incompatible with science. The purpose is to immunize the Christian faith from rational and scientific criticism and falsification.

However, it is a stripped down version of Christian theism and not the Classical Christianity of our ancestors that he defends. The author accepts evolution, and since he says he accepts the findings of science, he would no doubt also accept the ancient age of the earth, the fact that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood, and that there is no archaeological evidence for the Jewish exodus from Egypt. He argues for theistic evolution and god's continual intervention in the world. He says that god intervenes at the quantum mechanical level by collapsing the wave function to achieve his results without violation of natural law (because the collapsed eigenstates are unpredictable anyway). Through this process, god can also guide and orchestrate the direction of evolution. This definition is therefore not incompatible with science. However, this definition of god's intervention makes his presence and activities undetectable. From an explanatory standpoint, this addition of god into the mix adds nothing.

Rather than comment on every twist and turn of the author's argument, let me just comment on a few: the rationality of belief in god, faith as a form of knowledge and the evolutionary argument against naturalism.

The author defends the thesis that belief in god is rational. To make his point, he asks if we can prove (I guess in the mathematical sense) that other minds exist. He claims we can't do it, yet we accept that other minds exist. We believe all kinds of things we can't prove. That's rational he claims, so what's so irrational about believing god exists then? Belief in god is on the same order as believing other minds exist. Except that it isn't. I interact with other people all day every day and use a common language and cooperate on common tasks. The brute facticity and immense weight of the world and other minds confronts me constantly. This does not occur with belief in god. Where is the immense weight of evidence for god? If there is, why struggle with doubt, dear believer? I have never once in my life doubted whether my children have minds.

Secondly, the author claims that there are other sources of knowledge than science, namely religious faith. He claims that since we accept the reliability of rational intuition, memory, and perception, we should accept religious faith as reliable knowledge. Once again, the author ignores the brute facticity and immense weight of the world that confronts every living thing. Reality constrains our perceptions, intuition and memory. We constantly interact with the world and the feedback we receive corrects our cognitive mistakes. What are the corrective constraints on religious faith knowledge?

Thirdly, Plantinga argues that if evolution is true, our cognitive faculties would be unreliable and we could not obtain reliable knowledge (our cognitive faculties have a very low probability of being reliable). Only a god who created us (i.e., guided our evolution) could guarantee the reliability of our cognitive faculties. This is his famous evolutionary argument against naturalism. We do have reliable knowledge. Therefore, naturalism is false.

I, however, I accept evolution and fully accept that our cognitive faculties are unreliable. So how is reliable knowledge possible then? It is possible by means of a method external to us. It is called scientific methodology. It is an intersubjective activity that corrects for the unreliability of our cognitive faculties in order to arrive at reliable knowledge. Plantinga thinks that science's lack of apodictic certainty is a weakness. It is its strength. The scientific community is constantly correcting itself, making knowledge more reliable and thereby overcoming individual cognitive flaws. Hence, from this perspective, evolution and naturalism are consistent with reliable knowledge. Religion is just the opposite.

This book is a case in point. Plantinga assumes the truth of theism and has to do mental gymnastics to argue for the compatibility of a watered down Christian theism and science.

This brings up a larger problem I have with Plantinga's position. He completely ignores the social determinants of knowledge. To him, we are isolated social atoms trapped in a Cartesian bubble struggling to establish warranted and justified true belief. As I just mentioned, we are born into a society with pre-given meaning and knowledge. I learn the knowledge from credible community leaders knowing that I can retrace the steps that establishes this as knowledge if I need have to justify it. Science is a community activity and not a solitary activity. It assumes the immense weight of the facticity of a world where no one has witnessed people rising from the dead or water being turned into wine.

In the end, Christian theism can be defined in such a manner to make it compatible with science, but the resulting religion will doubtless be unsatisfying to most people. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. According to many of them, your eternal destiny is uncertain unless you pick the right one. What's a prospective Christian to do? I guess the Holy Spirit will guide them to the right one. Who needs evidence? ( ) 2 vote PedrBran | Dec 14, 2012 | Achar Sva (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This critique of Plantinga is not very relevant to the article, don't you think? The talk page is to discuss the article, not to promote your opinion on some unrelated philosopher. Seb773 (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Penitentserf has WP:CITED Plantinga in defense of the historicity of Daniel. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but this critique of the EAAN is irrelevant to the historicity of Daniel. Seb773 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Article stating that Daniel was a real person

http://tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.php

To me, the most easily grasped point is that, if the Book of Daniel was authored in the 2nd century BC it would have had many Greek load words. It only has 3 and those are for musical instruments. A discrepancy of EPIC proportions.

On the other hand it has 15 words of "OLD" Persian, mostly used in government. This would support the claim that David was some sort of government official under the Persians as well as under Nebuchadnezar, and knew the names of OLD (pre Greek) Persian titles and positions.

From the article

We are often solemnly told about the presence of "Greek and Persian words" in Daniel that require us to late-date it - but you would never know that:

the Persian words are only 15 in number, and are largely government and administrative terms;

the Greek words are only THREE in number - and all refer to musical instruments (Kitharos, Psanterin, and Sumphonyah).

This is done by both Katz [Kat.McD] and by Callahan [Call.BPFF, 151], who writes solemnly of "a number of Greek and Persian words" that are "salted" throughout the text - never once telling his readers what they are, or how many there are. Is this an honest way to present one's case? [see also Town.Dan, 46; Porte.Dan, 20, 58]71.174.127.2 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Tektonics is no WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Pope continues to issue encyclicals in Latin; he never, ever, slips in a word of Italian.PiCo (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup, for those who keep their faith in a historical Daniel: possibly he was Danel, a legendary Pagan king, not an exiled Israelite. Otherwise, the Enlightenment and the historical method have cornered historians so that they may only rubber-stamp Porphyry's argument. See WP:RGW. Lasciate ogni speranza, Bible thumpers ch'entrate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: And do you think this scholarly article [1] can be considered a reliable source? I think its author has some training and provides a reasonable defense of the historicity of the Book of Daniel, appealing only to archaeological and textual evidence and without employing theological or sectarian arguments. Potatín5 (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Wikipedia is severely biased against WP:FRINGE.

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

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Ok, so the basic claim is that the article was written in a journal of apologetics and that contenders of the authenticity of Daniel don't publish in other more mainstream outlets. Was this article [1] then not published in a mainstream outlet? Is its author a fringe scholar too? Potatín5 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: The author or authors copied older stories/legends. But I think every mainstream scholar already granted this point. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: both articles (MacGregor and Noonan) qualify as reliable sources. They are both published in peer-reviewed journals. StAnselm (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course I am. Applying our policies and guidelines on sources is not censoring. Our articles are based on reliable sources, almost always mainstream sources except where there is a significant non-mainstream view. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

More clearly, the view that Daniel is historical is a significant theological view, but as a historical view it has been rejected by the mainstream academia.

You should generally assume that Wikipedia has the same view of what is WP:SCHOLARSHIP as https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Daniel#ref597857 and https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/oeuvre/livre_de_Daniel/115594 . Wikipedia isn't their dumber sister.

This also applies to https://iranicaonline.org/articles/darius-ii and https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/philosophy-and-religion/biblical-proper-names-biographies/darius-mede . Belief in a real Darius the Mede is restricted to pseudohistory.

The difference is that Britannica, Larousse, Iranica and Judaica do not have talk pages wherein random visitors complain those encyclopedias are biased. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, no, and thankfully our Darius the Mede article doesn't say that. "Most scholars view him as a literary fiction, but some have tried to harmonise the Book of Daniel with history by identifying him with various known figures..." is correct. StAnselm (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That there are/were other views is true. However, mainstream historians generally regard these views as failed attempts at finding a historical Darius the Mede. E.g., according to those alternative view (alternative facts) he mostly wasn't called Darius and generally not a Mede.

Also, someone who reads this exchange of opinions might think that mainstream historians hotly debate the historical existence of Daniel. While in reality in mainstream history the historicity of Daniel is dead in the water. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: E.g., according to those alternative view (alternative facts) he mostly wasn't called Darius and generally not a Mede. Nope; according to those views, he may have had a different personal name but his throne name was Darius, and he was a Mede or was related with Media too. Check, for example, one of proponents of those alternative views HERE. Potatín5 (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

But that fails WP:RS Only 5 dubious citations.[1] For example, the first one '

When the Towers Fall: A Prophecy of What Must Happen Soon published by[2] which is a publisher for the Churches of Christ. And the author published his PhD that you cite via CreateSpace[3] as he has his other works.[4] Doug Weller talk 11:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I note that Google Books shows a few more citations. E.g. Mark D. Thompson, The Doctrine of Scripture: An Introduction (Crossway, 2022), p. 151 - though this is citing the CreateSpace publication. StAnselm (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a valid and significant theological view. But it is bunk as a historical view. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It certainly passes WP:RS, as a real PhD dissertation from a real seminary. But what does it mean to say that it's a reliable source? WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." All we can conclude from is that some scholars believe that Darius the Mede existed. StAnselm (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@71.174.127.2 In light of the dead sea scrolls has anything changed about the historicity of daniel? Or status quo never changes? 2600:1011:B152:E1F6:F99D:A2B5:8832:BCB8 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The status quo only changes based upon objective evidence. Dead Sea Scrolls are a really old story. The news of their discovery is from 1956. E.g. Eugene Ulrich agrees with the mainstream dating of Daniel. And, no, he did not "hear" about the Dead Sea Scrolls. He was the chief editor for publishing them.

You cannot change the WP:RS/AC by handwaving at 68 years old news. Hard evidence is required. And no, real historians will never abandon methodological naturalism. Only clowns will. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2022

In the introduction it is stated that most modern scholars believe Daniel to be a historical fictional character as allusion to a Hellenistic reign. This is a generalization which is very controversial and offensive to religious beliefs of some. Although it might be true that some do according to a book by one self proclaimed scholar. Saying most is an opinion and cannot be proven by any source. 207.141.87.104 (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you have a source of equal reliability as John J. Collins that contradicts this, please provide it. Cannolis (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In the mainstream academia it is not controversial at all: it is and has been WP:RS/AC for more than a century. The IP seeks to manufacture a controversy where there is none.

Daniel is a historical fictional character is what students learn in every major US or European university, if they study the Hebrew Bible. And also in every secular university from Israel.

And if it ever turns out that the historical Daniel existed, he was a Pagan king, not an exiled Israelite.

So, yeah, how they stand about the historical existence of Daniel, tells you extremely quickly if the Bible scholar is mainstream or belongs to the fundamentalist fringes. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Daniel is considered to be a prophet by Judaism, Islam, Christianity

I believe the citation in this article is specious. Daniel is considered a 'Navi' according to Jewish, Islamic and Christian literature. His book is enumerated as a prophetic books, although it is not considered contemporary with the works in the 'Naviim'. The visions of Daniel were not dreams but direct communication with G-d, which is the sole arbiter of whether a figure is considered a prophet. His vision was of an apocalyptic future that seems shockingly relevant today. I will be doing more research and re-cite this error. Here are some examples that counter the outrageous claim of Daniel not being a prophet:

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3630049/jewish/Daniel-the-Prophet-of-the-Bible-His-Life-and-Accomplishments.htm

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/daniel/

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/list-of-jewish-prophets

It should be noted that some Jewish scholars (most notably Rambam) did not consider Daniel a true prophet, but an interpreter of dreams, similar to Joseph (son of Jacob/Israel). After being renamed Israel, he had no further communication with G-d, and none of his many children did either. Joseph is not considered a prophet, nor a patriarch, due to his lack of direct connection to the divine. G-d did not speak to another living man until Moses ascended Mt. Sinai. Zelator (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

" which is the sole arbiter of whether a figure is considered a prophet." That is for secular sources to determine, not fictional deities and their fanboys. Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I am here to remind you that this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article of Daniel, it is not a soapbox for you to make statements about the existence of "fictional deities". Seb773 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Silly answer Seb773. How can we improve the article if direct communication with a deity is considered factual? Dimadick (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

Please remove Quran from Prophet Daniel.- 69.221.106.255 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This section looks reasonably well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Arabic transliteration

@StAnselm, @S Marshall, the original transliteration was added by an IP. The IP did not claim to speak Arabic, but had some colorful ideas. Nevertheless, the Arabic دانيال remained unchallenged in the article for 16 years. @دانيالوه's edit supersedes that, and since دانيالوه speaks Arabic, دانيالوه is now the reliable source for this transliteration: دَانِيَال, Dāniyāl. How shall we record دانيالوه's attestation so that they can be contacted for verification? Elizium23 (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

In fact, if the transliteration is not present in a reliable, published, source, then it should not be included. StAnselm (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the difference just one of diacritics, anyway? I note that the name wasn't changed in the Islam section, nor was it changed in the Daniel in Islam article. I'm inclined just to revert the change. StAnselm (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

Daniel is widely considered to be a historical figure and not allegorical as described on this page. 80.6.223.137 (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. small jars tc 09:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Daniel is widely considered to be a historical figure and not allegorical as described on this page very much not true for the mainstream academia, for more than a century. Sorry, this is a reliably sourced encyclopedia, not a democratically sourced one. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@small jars & @Tgeorgescu: Do you think that any of these sources are reliable? Both of them are scholars who defend the historicity of Daniel.--Potatín5 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

J. Paul Tanner is certainly a reliable source, and is recognised as an authority in the field: his journal articles on Daniel have a solid citation history. StAnselm (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Then WP:CITE him using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But in the mainstream academia (as opposed to the evangelical academia), the historicity of Daniel is dead in the water. A very short overview at https://ehrmanblog.org/charges-and-anti-supernatural-biases-readers-mailbag-august-6-2017/ So this is a dispute between fundamentalist Christians and conservative evangelicals, on one side, and everybody else, on the other side. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

My problem with that is, however, that if Wikipedia admits that fundamentalist Christians do Bible scholarship (as in history), by the same standard we will be compelled to admit that Ken Ham writes WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Otherwise there's no denying that they can write superb exegesis, but when they step on the turf of historical criticism, their claims are often WP:FRINGE. Their position is denialism of mainstream historical claims about the Bible, Judaism and Christianity. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

I must correct the statements about Daniel..you likely know what I mean 🙂 CappedOut (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Tales of Daniel

If the writer maintains "Daniel" is cryptic allusion then do not call it "tales" 2600:1011:B152:E1F6:F99D:A2B5:8832:BCB8 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It is roughly 50% tales and 50% vaticinium ex eventu. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@2600:1011:B152:E1F6:F99D:A2B5:8832:BCB8 "tales" is mildly derogatory "stories" is more accurate. Is Quran material ever called tales? I doubt it. 2600:1011:B152:E1F6:F99D:A2B5:8832:BCB8 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Tales" is WP:V in WP:RS. "Stories" isn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)