Jump to content

Talk:Book of Daniel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.24.86.150 (talk) at 17:46, 28 June 2022 (→Over-strong assertion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Evidence of having been written in 6th century BC, not 2nd century BC.

Copyvio https://christian-apologist.com/2019/09/06/when-was-the-book-of-daniel-written/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C400:6070:9518:3115:6DD9:3B4B (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman has stated:

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!

The strongest argument about it is that post-Enlightenment historians do not work with precognition. So for historians, all prophecies about Jesus must be bunk, since the writers of the Old Testament had no interest of speaking about him, even if they would have known him. Hint: they weren't Christians.
Bart D. Ehrman (23 September 1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. p. 197. ISBN 978-0-19-983943-8. As I've pointed out, the historian cannot say that demons—real live supernatural spirits that invade human bodies—were actually cast out of people, because to do so would be to transcend the boundaries imposed on the historian by the historical method, in that it would require a religious belief system involving a supernatural realm outside of the historian's province.
We should obey WP:YESPOV. Bona fide history departments have been wholly sold out to methodological naturalism. Post-Enlightenment historians think that supernatural prophecies are bunk. So, no, Ehrman is not alone in endorsing methodological naturalism. In fact, its opponents are WP:FRINGE/PS by our book.
The problem at this article are POV-pushers who are unaware (ignoramuses) that the history has been purged of the supernatural. For these POV-pushers inside Wikipedia is Catch-22, if the source says those prophecies were genuine, it is not reliable, since it is WP:FRINGE/PS (pseudohistory). The claim of genuine prophecies about Jesus is methodologically unsound.
Tabor, James D. (2016). "Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Millennialism". In Wessinger, Catherine (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Millennialism. Oxford Handbooks Series (reprint ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 9780190611941. Retrieved 7 September 2020. The book of Daniel becomes foundational for the Jewish or Jewish-Christian millenarian vision of the future that became paradigmatic [...]. [...] One of the great ironies in the history of Western ideas is that Daniel's influence on subsequent Jewish and Christian views of the future had such a remarkable influence, given that everything predicted by Daniel utterly failed! [...] One might expect that a book that had proven itself to be wrong on every count would have long since been discarded as misguided and obsolete, but, in fact, the opposite was the case. Daniel's victory was a literary one. [...] Daniel not only survived but its influence increased. The book of Daniel became the foundational basis of all Jewish and Christian expressions of apocalyptic millenarianism for the next two thousand years.

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)

Conclusion: the people who claim that the book was written in 6th century BCE are completely ignorant of the historical method. They ignore that some claims are forfeited by the epistemology of history. So, it is futile to argue a bunch of facts, when its epistemology cannot deliver the begged conclusion. The Book of Daniel was written based upon some earlier sources, nobody has denied that. Epistemologically, history cannot have miracles (such as prophecies). That would be like saying that angels are living beings so the study of angels is part of biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jetstream423 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)While asserting the accuracy of a particular believe or prophecy clearly has no place in Wikipedia, the study of what various groups of people believe (or have believed) and the prophecies that may have motivated various actions at various points in history should certainly remain within the realm of legitimate academic pursuits. When a substantial group of people accept a particular interpretation, their acceptance itself is a fact that is worthy of being recorded in Wikipedia, even though no Wikipedia author should suggest that the interpretation itself is correct, since that is a matter of belief.[reply]
Yup, and we have a nice and neat solution therefore: Wikipedia only listens (in that respect) to mainstream Bible scholars. What they say Protestants believed in the 18th century, we report as fact (the fact that the Protestants believed such and such). Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the general tenor of the article.

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

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

— The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica

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

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

— The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica

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

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

Sorry, we teach it a fact (as opposed to teach the controversy) because that's the only mainstream historical view, from the Ivy League to US state universities. This has been discussed to death, and the academic consensus holds unchanged for more than one century.
"there was a famous professor at Oxford in the middle of the 19th century an imp you see who said that if Daniel did not indeed speak these things he must have lied on a frightful scale somebody must have lied at a frightful scale they say that is actually a lack of any kind of literary sensitivity of an appreciation of literary conventions". Quoted from Yale Bible Study, Daniel: Who Was Daniel? on YouTube. Either Joel Baden was drunken, or he is actually right that John J. Collins is the topmost worldwide scholarly authority on the Book of Daniel.

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

This is the judgment of one of the more conservative historians of ancient Israel. To be sure, there are far more conservative historians who try to defend the historicity of the entire biblical account beginning with Abraham, but their work rests on confessional presuppositions and is an exercise in apologetics rather than historiography. Most biblical scholars have come to terms with the fact that much (not all!) of the biblical narrative is only loosely related to history and cannot be verified.[1]

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

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

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

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" that whoever wrote the Book of Daniel was a fraud and a liar" I don't see a problem with that statement. Most of the books in the Old Testament are pseudepigrapha written in the Achaemenid Empire or the Hellenistic era and attributed to mythical or outright fictional characters from the distant past. Seeking truth in the Bible is a fool's errand.Dimadick (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia Britannica article is based on an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. (Sorry, but EB uses Wiki quite a lot). The author of Daniel was writing an apocalypse, not a prophecy, and he followed the rules of Jewish apocalypse (there are quite a few of them, though Daniel is the only one that made it into the Bible). Achar Sva (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Collins, John J. (2008). "Old Testament in a New Climate". Reflections. Yale University: 4–7. ISSN 0362-0611. Retrieved 23 May 2022.
@Achar Sva: what evidence is there that the EB article copied from Wikipedia? NyMetsForever (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the evolution of the Wikipedia article over the years, and the EB article quoted above is very close to one of them. The Wikipedia article was written from sources which did not include the EB. You can look far back into the history of this article, to the time when it was extensively rewritten by PiCo. Achar Sva (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Achar Sva: I don't know the details, but I thought that generally, it was Wikipedia consensus that EB is generally a reliable source NyMetsForever (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NyMetsForever: The two claims are not mutually exclusive. If Britannica wants to become the vetted Wikipedia, it has the right to do so. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NyMetsForever: Not when it uses Wikipedia as its source. Achar Sva (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Achar Sva: @Tgeorgescu: even more damning, I checked my 1991 paper Encyclopedia Britannica, and it says virtually the same thing as the online version last edited in 1998. I think Achar Sva needs to apologize for lying. NyMetsForever (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PiCo rewrote the article years before 2018. I don't see what you're getting upset about. EB today is written the same way as Wikipedia, by volunteers. That 1998 date is the date EB added the article to its database, not the date of the most recent revision. Let's move on to soomething substantial, the scholarly view of the composition of Daniel. The consensus is that the date at which it first appeared in its modern form was about 164 BCE. The court tales in the first half are older and date back to the Babylonian diaspora, but they were gathered together as a collection around 200 BCE. That's what our article says, and to check that you can look at the sources we use. Achar Sva (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Achar Sva: I am upset because you said that Britannica copied Wikipedia when my paper Encyclopedia Britannica of 1991 says the same exact thing that the 1998 addition to the online database. (Also, Online Britannica records revisions as well and edits as well) Unless user PiCo somehow edited Wikipedia before the paper Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition, it is literally impossible for the EB article to have copied user PiCo. NyMetsForever (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Achar Sva: I don't particularly care if we add EB here, since while EB is reliable, it's not required to be here. It just felt wrong to be misled about EB. NyMetsForever (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that Wikipedia:Civility is policy? Avoid making personal attacks. Dimadick (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: maybe I was too harsh. I am sorry @Achar Sva: I did not mean to be harsh. It's a minor point anyways. Both EB and WP are on the same page. NyMetsForever (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Josephus

According to the Historian Josephus, Alexander was shown the prophecies that the Greeks would destroy Persia, written in the Book of Daniel. If Daniel was written around 165 BC, that would date Alexander to about 100-150 BC - a totally hopeless position to take. LOL!!

Josephus wrote his Histories toward the end of the 1st century AD and is the main source of information on that era.

“. . . he [Alexander the Great] gave his hand to the high priest and, with the Jews running beside him, entered the city. Then he went up to the temple, where he sacrificed to God under the direction of the high priest, and showed due honour to the priests and to the high priest himself. And, when the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated; and in his joy he dismissed the multitude for the time being, but on the following day he summoned them again and told them to ask for any gifts which they might desire. . .”

from Jewish Antiquities by Josephus. 108.20.180.22 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus is not a modern historian, so, no, Josephus did not write WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERA

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

It was certainly a BC article originally. There have been a few discussions about changing it, most recently in 2016 (featuring both you and me), but there has never been any consensus. Perhaps this discussion will produce one. StAnselm (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, it was edited in late 2020 by user : @2001:16B8:C111:2100:8CAD:6CF2:848:14E2 who switched the BC and AD to BCE / CE respectively with no explanation or reason why.
This goes against Wikipedia's policy that both the Common Era and Before Christ methods of notation are acceptable, and not to change them for no reason.
In this context (a Biblical book) it make far more sense to use the more Biblical approach of using BC and AD rather than the secular version BCE and CE. @Paokara777 Paokara777 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A Biblical book." It is book primarily in the Hebrew Bible. It is, by onward adoption, a book in the Christian Bible. So the term "Biblical approach" is ambiguous; and doesn't resolve anything. The origins in Hebrew Bible, and its derivative use in Christian Bible lean quite strongly in the opposite direction: towards BCE/CE rather than BC/AD. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BCE is a secular term. It removes the reference to "Christ" who was a prominent Jewish historical person of to which the dating method is based around. Regardless of if you think that the Book of Daniel is more Hebrew than Christian it doesn't change the Wikipedia rules. A BC article stays a BC article, which this one was. It was changed randomly by an anonymous IP user in late 2020 for no reason with no notation. Paokara777 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a RfC about it, which is going nowhere, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Big surprise. Discussions on the topic of ERA seem to be circular. Dimadick (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yes, that would make sense, but that is not how WP:ERA works. Of course, logically all the Hebrew Bible articles would use the Hebrew calendar instead of BC/BCE. StAnselm (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For info: I've just opened a discussion "MOS:ERA on multiple related articles" at the MOS talk page. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Era: BC or BCE, please vote

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

But why not all OT books? If we change the status quo on this article, why not all of them? StAnselm (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because I don't know enough about all of them, there might be good arguments for BC for all I know. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are OT books that are not in the HB, the Deuterocanonical books, such as the Book of Judith. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the Septuagint version of the HB (later adopted into some versions of the OT) include the deuterocanonical books (+/- edge cases)? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not "currently" Jewish, ie not included in the Jewish canon for over 1,500 years, but in some Christian canons. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BC, Daniel is as much a Christian book as a Jewish one, its cultural influence in English has come through Christianity (all those Catholic Renaissance paintings), and it's a common text for sermons, to the point of cliché. Whether we use BC or BCE here is just a matter of personal preference imo 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BCE as originally & currently a "Jewish" book, but that should not automatically apply to all OT books. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curious. By way of example, could you provide two HB/OT books where differing particular criteria could be in operation, and why, please? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was wondering about that. In fact, the heading says "please vote", and indeed there are straw polls here on Wikipedia. So it would be unfair for the closing editor to ignore those votes. I see most people are including reasons, but when it comes down to it, era styles are very much a matter of personal preference. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the closing editor has to follow the guidelines, plus policy says “ Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” Doug Weller talk 18:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BCE as people have noted above. This is a Jewish book. Unrelated to this question, I'm sure there could be a programmatic solution that changes the visual text between "BC" and "BCE" depending upon user's preference, but that is not part of this RFC. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except this isn't actually an RfC. It's a vote. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a vote in the sense that only numbers count. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BCE. As a text with importance to both Jewish and Christian traditions, the article should not use a dating style that favours one of those religions over the other when a common neutral option is available. Also, endorse Doug Weller's comment above. The relevant guideline only sets out how to resolve a dispute in the absence of consensus. It doesn't provide any guidance on how to form a consensus as to which style an article should use, other than to say that it should be based on "reasons specific to its content".--Trystan (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BC. Because that is what the original non-stub article used and the MOS says nothing about dividing it down religious lines (nor should it as that could get really messy and confusing). Masterhatch (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over-strong assertion

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

  • It's been a few days, no response, I will edit accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now User:Achar Sva has reverted, saying only "restore sourced text." Obviously, both versions are equally "sourced." The question is whether Daniel R. Schwartz is enough of an authority that we should accept a counterfactual scenario from him without indicating where it came from. I would say emphatically that he is not. Achar Sva, please explain how you see this. - Jmabel | Talk 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Daniel R. Schwartz is an authority; you, on the other hand, are not. Achar Sva (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Achar Sva: What "would've" happened to Christianity without a hyper-specific belief is WAY TOO subjective to state as a basic fact. I concur with @Jmabe: that we need to specify its author. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Daniel&oldid=1095493580"