Talk:Daniel in the lions' den

Omission: James B. Jordan content

I have made a bold move by removing the content as related to James B. Jordan for the following reasons:

• His publisher is American Vision, deemed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a Hate group.
• In Jordan's table of contents of The Handwriting on the wall, the chapter title for his commentary on Daniel 3 is called: "The Empire Strikes Back".^[1]

I mean come on... are you serious? So, I booted this crap out.

References

1. Jordan, James B. (2007). The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. American Vision. p. vii, 195

- Thanks for your time, Jasonasosa (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jordan is, or was, a Reconstructionist, which the SPLC hates, but that doesn't mean he isn't a good commentator, or that books published by American Vision can't be reliable sources. He's writing from a certain point of view, of course, but so is all biblical scholarship. As for cutesy chapter titles, that's also endemic in biblical scholarship. StAnselm (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Luftwaffe Freezing experiments compiled data that happens to be a reliable source of information for our medical understanding of hypothermia. But anywho... I can just picture Jordan thinking: Babylonian Empire... Empire... The Empire Strikes back! How can I use this in my book? Oh, that fits nicely in Daniel chapter 3! As he chuckles to himself thinking that his audience will love it...

Well I don't. I think it's hogwash and unprofessional.

- Jasonasosa (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

2015

Reading some of the drivel in the commentary on the account I can't help seeing the piffle as a fairy tale added to highlight the fact the whole story is unbelievable. However the most unbelievable thing in the story is that the king would allow himself to pass such a stupid law in the first place. It begs the reader to suspend his knowledge that the king had such an high regard for Daniel that he didn't understand his religious motivations.

Yet we know that ostensibly fine statesmen do get addled with their own power and prestige in old age. Look how many have fallen to the recent heel of history. Most of them too in love with themselves to see properly or think straight.

The other thing of course (missed by all the so called artists too) is the habit of well fed lions. They can easily sleep for a day or two before hunger makes them restless for hunting again. That angel guided by Hughie may well have been the zoo keeper, they were said to be hungry enough once Daniel had his release.

The account points out that this release took place early in the morning, whilst lions prefer to hunt at night. A small and maybe irrelevant point but slightly more germane to the account than some of the other stuff.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Fringe

Although it's unfortunate this discussion has gotten so sidetracked, it is probably worth knowing, Awerey, that you're just the latest in a long, long, long string of likely well-meaning people who have repeatedly shown up at this article or other Daniel-related articles opposing the 2nd-century date. So far, none of the attempts to oppose the 2d-century date have been successful. Sometimes experienced editors find it frustrating to have to deal with the same questions over and over. I'll be honest -- I don't think you're going to get anywhere with this. But if you are successful, it will mostly likely require you to find a good reliable source that says, specifically and directly, on a specific page that you can share with us, that there really isn't a consensus of scholars around the 2d-century date. Alephb (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

@Madcricketer: Copy/paste from Talk:Book of Daniel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Obvious, but if top 100 US universities don't teach that the plagues are historical, neither do we. If none of those 100 universities teaches that those plagues were historical, then for Wikipedia it is holy writ that those plagues are unhistorical. User:Tgeorgescu at Talk:Plagues of Egypt.

Quoted myself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

IP, the above concerns your recent edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

IP, the historicity of the Book of Daniel is dead in the water in top 100 US universities. And it has been consensually accepted for more than a century that it isn't a 6th century BCE book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

. . . all New American Commentary authors affirm the divine inspiration, inerrancy, complete truthfulness, and full authority of the Bible. The perspective of the NAC is unapologetically confessional and rooted in the evangelical tradition....

— from the editors’ preface

If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to "Biblical inerrancy" (to my knowledge) on the show.

— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series

In fact, this change of academic perspective was hard won — one need only think of the Fundamentalist crisis that divided American Protestantism at the beginning of the twentieth century.² In academic circles, that crisis is generally viewed as having ended in the defeat of the Fundamentalists. ... Fundamentalist readings of Daniel continue to flourish in the popular culture, as can be seen from the best-selling writings of Hal Lindsey,⁴ and conservative scholars have continued to fight rear-guard actions in defence of the reliability of the book.⁵ In mainline scholarship, however, the great issues that made Daniel the focus of controversy for centuries were laid to rest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.⁶ A broad consensus on several key issues has existed since then. It is agreed that Daniel is pseudepigraphic: the stories in chapters 1–6 are legendary in character, and the vision in chapters 7–12 were composed by persons unknown in the Maccabean era. The stories are almost certainly older than the visions, but the book itself was put together shortly after the Maccabean crisis. It must be read, then, as as witness to the religiosity of that time, not as a prophecy of western political history or of the eschatological future.

— Collins 2002, p. 1–2

The last quote fulfills WP:RS/AC. In the mainstream academia there no longer is a debate upon the historicity of the Book of Daniel: its historicity is dead in the water. So, yeah, Miller is invited to join scholars from the 19th century, when that discussion was still alive. WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP has stopped twisting that point for a long time. Wikipedia doesn't teach the controversy. Alas, Miller was born too long after that discussion to change anything about its outcome. It's like the germ theory, atomic theory and the theory of evolution—these are no longer live debates, these have been settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Tgeorgescu. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this all to me as (you can probably tell) I'm fairly new at this.

However, I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I can see only one source (Collins) that states that there is a consensus. Unfortunately for Collins, that's just not good enough and it's not good enough according to Wikipedia's own rules.

Now whether or not someone subscribes to biblical inerrancy is completely irrelevant to this topic. It's akin to claiming that an argument is wrong because Republicans are making it. The right thing to do is to engage with the argument that's being made, not attack irrelevant views. Besides, fI don't subscribe to biblical inerrancy myself so although I appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me, I really don't appreciate the suggestion that I'm spreading fringe information.

What I would appreciate, however, is how a 2nd-century book (Daniel) ended up in a 3rd-century collection (Septuagint.) Perhaps Collins has an ingenious explanation of this very fact.

I just thought the article should have arguments presented in favor of a 6th-century date. That's all. I'm apparently not the first person to suggest so. I see that all attempts have been stifled and stopped. If editors are only going to push their own point of view to the detriment of all others and present their own point of view as "consensus", I don't really see the point anymore.

73.220.101.59 (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

73.220.101.59, it is, in fact, enough to have Collins saying there's a consensus, and it is within Wikipedia's rules to cite him to this effect. If you want to argue that there's not, you need to produce another reliable source saying that.

No, you don't subscribe to biblical inerrancy. I suspect, however, that you subscribe to the idea that Daniel is a book of prophecy directed at the coming of Jesus.

The Septuagint is not a 3rd century translation - the earliest part of it was translated then (the torah), but the remaining books were translated in the following centuries. I can provide sources for this if you wish.

Anyone who wishes to see the arguments for a 6th century date is welcome to follow the links in our article - Seow and Collins, for example. But our task on Wikipedia is to present the consensus, if one exists (and it does - see Collins), and to give minority views in due proportion - and since the idea of a 6th century Daniel has effectively zero support among scholars outside SDA circles (and Miller is SDA), that means zero representation.Achar Sva (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

How to edit

A recent editor changed this paragraph in the lead:

• Daniel in the lions' den is a narrative in chapter 6 of the Book of Daniel. Modern scholarship agrees that Daniel is a legendary figure.(Collins 1984,p.28) The book of which he is the hero comprises two parts, a set of tales in chapters 1–6, and the series of visions in chapters 7–12:(Collins 2002,p.2) the tales are no earlier than the Hellenistic period (323-30 BC), and the visions date from the Maccabean era (the mid-2nd century BC).(Collins 1984,p.28) The stories were probably originally independent, but were collected in the mid-2nd century BC by the author of chapter 7, and expanded again shortly afterwards with the visions in chapters 8-12 to produce the modern book.(Seow 2003, pp7-8)
  

to this:

• Daniel in the lions' den is a narrative in chapter 6 of the Book of Daniel. There is considerable debate among scholars whether Daniel is a legendary or a historical figure.(Collins 1984,p.28)(Stephen Miller, "Daniel (New American Commentary, 18)", 1994, pp.57-74). The book of which he is the hero comprises two parts, a set of tales in chapters 1–6, and the series of visions in chapters 7–12.(Collins 2002,p.2) Some scholars argue that the tales are no earlier than the Hellenistic period (323-30 BC), and the visions date from the Maccabean era (the mid-2nd century BC).(Collins 1984,p.28). Because of this, they propose that the stories were probably originally independent, but were collected in the mid-2nd century BC by the author of chapter 7, and expanded again shortly afterward with the visions in chapters 8-12 to produce the modern book.(Seow 2003, pp7-8) Others argue that because of its resemblance to the Book of Ezekiel, the similarity of its Hebrew and Aramaic style to known 6th century works, and its inclusion in the Septuagint (a third-century Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture), a second-century date for Daniel is impossible.(Miller, pp.57-74)
  

The older paragraph states a scholarly consensus (meaning that the overwhelming majority of scholars think this), while the edited version says in effect that there is no consensus, or at the very least that the view of Miller represents a significant minority worthy of inclusion. What's wrong with this:

• Miller is cited as pages 57-74. I cannot find the specific points being made in those pages.Citing has to be very specific - note how the statements sourced from the three other books are cited to one or two pages.
• The edit uses phrases such as "there is considerable debate among scholars" over Daniel's historicity. Phrases like this are crucial, as they establish the balance of scholarly debate, but I cannot find this phrase used in Miller in relation to this subject. (Again, the need for specific page citation is crucial - I may have missed something in pages 57-74).
• The edit ignores the existing source citation - the phrase "modern scholarship agrees that Daniel is a legendary figure" has been deleted, but it's the direct phrase used in the source. Similarly elsewhere - if we say in an article that "scholars agree" (or disagree), specific and accurate citation is needed.

To sum up, you need to establish that there actually is debate on these issues - your use of Miller doesn't do that. Achar Sva (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)