Talk:Book of Daniel

The Kingdoms

Resolved

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

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

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

When the author comes to the 'post Roman' scheme, we again find this riddled with errors. When Jewish and later Christian interpreters started to reapply the image of the fourth kingdom to Rome, this was done much earlier that the fourth century CE. It is already found at Qumran long before the common era. For the Jews, there was no 'future antichristian empire' and for the early Christians this was already present in the form of the Rome. The early Christians lived in hope of an imminent end to the world and this belief is found throughout the New Testament. Only after the apocalyptic fervor of the first and second centuries subsided did writers like Hippolytus begin to suggest that the end may lie many centuries into the future. Additionally, there was no standard interpretation of Daniel 8 that included the Roman empire. This chapter was still interpreted by both Jews and Christians as referring to Antiochus Epiphanes' attempt to wipe out Judaism. Even when later Christian commentators saw a prototype of a future Antichrist in this chapter, it was grounded in the historical type of the Seleucid emperor. This interpretation was standard right up to the period of the reformers and beyond. Where the description of 'the son of man [cleansing] the sanctuary during the Roman occupation' comes from, I have no idea. Finally, the concluding statements about historicists, dispensationalists, preterists, and reconstructionists may have a place in a section on history of interpretation but is frankly just irrelevant here. Like the similar emphasis on these older, conservative Christian schemes in the article on Revelation, they merely serve to obscure the clear scholarly consensus on the original intent of the biblical author. Sineaste (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, but for one thing. You assume that the best interpretation is the modern scholarly one. This is very whiggish. It is simply the latest one, not necessarily the best nor most important. I think that there should simply be a section that lists various interpretations in historical order. RVscholar (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major re-edit of article

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV-section tag removed

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

MOVE NOTICE: Darius the Mede

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

The "new look" article

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

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

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

• yes, these are definite problems. I would suggest you jump in and fix them - perhaps it is mostly a question of changing the emphasis slightly (and correcting the errors you note above). 20:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL... Standing behind Sineaste with my handy dandy editing chainsaw. Jasonasosa (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with modern scholarship being a part of the article so long as the conservative position (which has been around for more than 2000 years) is represented also. The idea that one is better than the other, or that one should reinterpret the other, should never be a part of the article, that would be POV. A NPOV article would simply state the conservative and critical interpretations without any comment over which is better.

It seems to me that the differences between the two interpretations suggests that there should actually be two articles on the topic. This is simply because of the vastly different approaches to the text. The conservatives believe that the historical content of Daniel is true and that the visions are prophetic of future events to happen. The modern scholarship approach is that the historical content is fabricated and that the visions are pseudo-prophecies written after the fact. Trying to blend these approaches into a single article is very difficult. And I think that the current article is an example of that. Perhaps there could be articles entitled Book of Daniel (conservative interpretation) and Book of Daniel (modern critical interpretation) with a disambiguation page somewhere. This may reduce arguments over reliable sources and a whole host of other issues. Johnjonesjr (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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