Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Font for Akkadian[edit]

The page includes "font-family:Akkadian" to display the name in Akkadian cuneiform, but this font is not commonly available. A possible solution would be to add "<link rel="stylesheet" media="screen" ref="https://fontlibrary.org/face/akkadian" type="text/css"/>" to the head of the html page. See [1]. The referenced page says the font is free to use. I do not know how to edit the html header so help would be appreciated. Jony (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Book of Daniel being fiction[edit]

How is it relevant that the book of Daniel is fiction? I work as a teacher, and teach my students that anything not 100% relevant should be considered removed. Is the statement about Daniel really relevant to who Nebuchadnezzar II was? This is like an article about Gandalf discussing how Gollum is a work of fiction. It just isn't relevant.

Ader (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It is you who thinks that it would be irrelevant. Others might not think so. E.g. we have to state that such portrayal of Nebuchadnezzar is unhistorical. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Even if Daniel is invented, it does not mean that the portrayal of Nebuchadnezzar is incorrect? How is that good science? Do you throw away the entire source material just because one person in it is portrayed erroneously? Ader (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar has converted to Judaism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
See, that would definitely be relevant to mention. Daniel himself as a character is not interesting. How about a paragraph something like this:
Nebuchadnezzar is an important character in the Book of Daniel, a collection of legendary tales and visions dating from the 2nd century BC.[15] The book's portrayal of Nebuchadnezzar should be taken with a spoonful of salt, since it claims that Nebuchadnezzar converted to Judaism, a claim that no other sources back up.
Ader (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
All the information from our articles is a matter of WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I fail to find that principle in the guidelines. It must go something like this: "When discussing the portrayal of one person in a source, you should also mention whether or not the main character existed"? Ader (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that there would be such WP:PAG, but there is one about WP:CONSENSUS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't expect there to be either :) I think you misunderstand my argument. My issue is not with whether or not there is consensus for or against Daniel being a real person, my question is why that is relevant to this article. People wondering about things like that, could click on the link and read the discussion on the page about The Book of Daniel. There is no need to have it here. Including information that does not really shed light on anything but something vaguely related, will just lead to bloated articles.
So can you answer this: Why is whether or not Daniel is a real of fictitious person relevant to who Nebuchadnezzar is and how he is portrayed in the Bible?
Ader (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Because the whole story is fiction loosely based upon some really-existing historical persons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, why don't we write that? That's highly relevant because it tells the reader something about the source itself, and not just about one of the other characters. Suggestion: "The consensus among scholars is that this source is fiction loosely based upon some really-existing historical persons". Ader (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
If that's WP:VERifiable, I am not opposed to it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether it is verifiable. You coined most of the sentence and I am no expert on this issue, just an advocate for clear language :) But I assume that you have your sources? Ader (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Conversely, most critical scholars take for granted that the genre is not HISTORY.

— Collins, 1984: 41
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Is that the best source we have? That book is as old as I am. An entire generation of new scholars has arrived on the scene since then. Is it confirmed in any newer material? 84.210.68.172 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not the only source. The idea that Daniel was real and wrote the Book of Daniel is WP:FRINGE/PS. The only group of scholars who disagree with this are Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, who do so for theological reasons. What they state about Daniel is theology (apologetics), not history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Ader is correct that the sentence about the Daniel character never existing is actually superfluous at this article. The section only needs to make it clear that the presentation of Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel is not historical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I've tried making the change. I really don't want to be difficult, but a 34 year old book as a source on consesus among scholars, is not something I look upon as a good source. Most of the scholars Collins speaks about must be retired by now, so the only thing the source proves is that consensus existed 34 years ago. Does anyone know of any more recent metastudies on what scholars think of The Book of Daniel? Ader (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You may look for more sources at Book of Daniel. The consensus that it is a 2nd century BCE book did not change. Some things hardly change.

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)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dilidor: I think that you should read the above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent reversion[edit]

This is regarding my reversion of this edit on the basis that it is original research (i.e. original conclusions were drawn from the sources which are not made in the sources themselves).

Firstly, this text was added:

This biblical portrayal of the King's descent into madness is consistent with modern and ancient historians' understanding that Nebuchadnezzar became increasingly irrational in his later years. [1].

This is what the cited reference says about this matter:

"According to a Babylonian poem, the king had begun to act irrationally: "He paid no heed to son and daughter, family and clan were not in his heart." Perhaps this is the basis for the later story that Nebuchadnezzar went mad."

The author doesn't mention the biblical account and makes no comment on the consistency of the biblical portrayal.

Similarly for this text that was added:

Daniel's prophecy of the downfall of Babylon, as described to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar in the Hebrew Bible, was also consistent with the eventual fate of the Babylonian Empire as described by historians.[2]

Again, I do not see where the source notes the consistency of Daniel's prophecy. It only speaks of the influence of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion on the Old Testament. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Foster 2009, p. 131.
  2. ^ Chisholm 1911, p. 106.

Critical scholars[edit]

Critical scholars are WP:MAINSTREAM: their vision gets taught from Ivy Plus to US state universities. Biblical inerrantists are WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

If by "fringe" you mean "complete jokes" with unconvincing arguments, I would agree. Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Barok777: The views of the Adventist scholars are considered marginal opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have truncated the claim that there is 'substantial evidence' supporting an earlier date for Daniel. The Ferch source that was added cites Wiseman and the existence of Belshazzar as 'evidence', neither of which actually substantiate an earlier date for Daniel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliability and Relevance[edit]

I recently erased a baseless statement at the end of the intro, citing some scholar named Collins, that the Book of Daniel is merely a collection of legendary tales and visions dating from the 2nd century BCE. User:Tgeorgescu seems to have a problem with that. The dating of the Book of Daniel by scholars to the 2nd century BCE refers to the sealing of the text by the Men of the Great Assembly (in it's original Hebrew version, see Great Assembly), not its original composition. Additionally, this statement is irrelevant in this entry, and if anything should be mentioned as a scholarly opinion in Book of Daniel (and definitely not as consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natorious (talkcontribs) 12:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be John J Collins " Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism & Interpretation at Yale Divinity School. He is noted for his research in the Hebrew Bible". See Book of Daniel#Dating for the reasons given for the dating. It's hardly a baseless statement and Collins is not just "some scholar". Doug Weller talk 13:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
In any event it must be relevant and neutral. The addition (end of intro) that the Book of Daniel is a "collection of legendary tales and visions.." is irrelevant to this entry. As to the dating - If you can't determine it's composition was initiated before the 2nd century BCE (when it itself declares to have been) then you can't determine it wasn't Natorious (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Let me spell out your choice: you either play by our WP:RULES or you'll get blocked and then banned. You have no right of undoing a more than hundred years old academic consensus and still actual. We side with Ivy Plus, not with true believers. If your view is unworthy of top 100 US universities, then it is unworthy for Wikipedia. As simple as that. If we mention at all the Book of Daniel, then we have to mention that it is a work of fiction, that it isn't history. We never conflate attested historical facts with fantasy stories. For WP:MAINSTREAM historians it is a historical fact that the Book of Daniel was composed in the 2nd century BCE. Of course, it includes stuff from older writings, nobody has denied that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Whether right or wrong, I don't think your hammer reply was necessary, Tgeorgescu. Natorious clearly doesn't understand modern biblical theory where true scholars don't believe in precognition. Telling him that he's going to be blocked for a misunderstanding, for disagreeing with concensus thought, and for deleting passages - once - based upon misguided POV (which are very easily restored) is not only completely false but would mean half of the current reviewers would have been blocked at one time or another in their editing history. The fact that he brought this to Talk in the first place rightly suggests that he's not an Anon rewriting things for kicks.
That being said, I do have to differ with you on one point. You can't state that Daniel was both written by someone who understood current events (therefore a book of at worst partial history) and turnaround and state that we "have to mention that it is a work of fiction". If you want to state that this Daniel isn't who he says he was and he didn't write when he said he did, he sure got alot of current events correct (if we go along with the "modern" dating method) and therefore the book is not "a collection of legendary tales and visions". I would suggest that this specific statement needs to be reworked within the context of what is already on the page - UNLESS - that's a direct quote from a citation that I missed. Ckruschke (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
I do get what you say. It's like describing three years of Obama's presidency and then tell about his reasons why he nuked Pakistan. Isn't that a work of fiction? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Natorious is rather unknown to other editors at this point. Despite registering as an editor back in 2012, he/she has a very small number of edits and Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II is the first time he/she wrote anything in a talk page. A clearer explanation of Wikipedia policies might be better here than going directly to threats. Dimadick (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Yup, I have seen many newbies indeffed because they did not want to listen to my honest advice. In fact, I suspect that some of them weren't newbies at all. If they listen and comply with WP:RULES I'm content. I cannot decide this matter instead them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Image of Nebuchadnezzar II[edit]

Seems that there is historical depiction of Nebuchadnezzar II in the so called Tower of Babel Stele. Here is some info:

Anyone willing to upload it? 109.160.36.104 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

How about copyright? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I`m not competent on the copyright problems, but there might be some available images on google. Not sure about this: SOAS or this: [1] 109.160.36.104 (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Fundamentalist POV[edit]

This is a WP:MAINSTREAM history article, so Barok777 don't bother us anymore with the fundamentalist POV, which would be booed off the stage at WP:CHOPSY. That falls within WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed a mainstream article. And very informative. The inclusion of an orthodox point of view in no way makes my POV fundamentalist. Why are your responses to these type of edits tainted with aggression, derision and contempt? Does it not highlight your own POV? I am A VERY BIG FAN of WIKIPEDIA and would like to contribute in a helpful way. Including several points of view, from several scholarly groups should round out an article should it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barok777 (talkcontribs)
Adventists believe in a literal Adam and Eve, literal seven days of the creation week, i.e. they are fundamentalists in the original meaning of the word. Their scholarship is WP:FRINGE: fringe theologically and fringe historically. We don't infect the article Earth with the Adventist POV upon the age of the Earth, since that it banned by WP:RULES. That's why we don't take them seriously about the dating of the Book of Daniel. It's banned by WP:FRINGE. As I have told Natorious: if you have an axe to grind against Ivy Plus, Bar-Ilan University and Tel Aviv University you stand absolutely no chance of winning this dispute. Wikipedia simply isn't the venue for your WP:FRINGE WP:POV pushing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Have no axe to grind. I also do not speak in the "royal we' form. Wanted to include orthodox point of view to balance article. Not an Adventist, but I do not limit my reading to only material I agree with. Even if you take out the reference to the Adventist academic article, the orthodox view is still relevant as the WIKI article specifically mentions POVs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barok777 (talkcontribs)
"We" means the Wikipedia community, i.e those who have a WP:CLUE. This is a history article, not a religion/theology article. That's why your orthodox POV is irrelevant to this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zerotalk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Modernists won the debate about the dating of that book more than 100 years ago, so in the secular academia there is no other view. Theologically orthodox POV has been busted. So the WP:ONUS is upon you to show why a busted POV should be included as probably factual. If you are into shenanigans like "there is no empirical evidence for that dating" (see what you wrote at [2]) and "there is no empirical evidence for evolution", we don't play by your rules, you have to play by our WP:RULES or be blocked and then banned. This isn't a website wherein we weigh empirical evidence in order to establish WP:THETRUTH. This is merely a website upon which we parrot WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. What you have shown so far is that true believers dissent from mainstream history, and that they write pseudoscholarship. You have shown no reason why that would be germane to this article. What is so special about preaching to the choir employing pseudoscholarship? Instead of writing "our church believes that mainstream history is bull-crap" they write pseudohistory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
No need to misquote me. It makes you look sloppy (or sinister...) Empirical evidence is required in most Academic research, even for WP:THETRUTH - especially if you say things such as "MOST critical scholars". I removed no content. I added 2 references and a statement about the orthodox viewpoint, which is also based on several other academic references. Always speaking on behalf of the Wikipedia community makes you look desperate, or vain... I made absolutely no reference to "true believers", "evolution" etc etc - yet you went on a WP:RANT. I can almost see the spittle forming on your upper lip. "In the secular media there is no other view" - your own words are dripping with irony... If I am to be burnt at the WIKI-stake then so be it. Oh yes - I like your bull-crap quote. It made me smile. Genuine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barok777 (talkcontribs)
Let me tell you historical method 101: post-Enlightenment scholars don't work with precognition. It's called methodological naturalism. History well-done always endorses methodological naturalism. So, post-Enlightenment historians are compelled to accept Porphyry's explanation about the dating of Daniel.

This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!

Bart Ehrman quoted by Tgeorgescu. What you really ask from us is that we should teach the controversy about alternative historical facts, based upon pseudoscholarship. You're fighting against the luminaries of the Enlightenment, you fight against the scholars who shaped modern history, you fight against Ivy Plus, you fight against US state universities—your ambitions are too big for this venue, maybe at Conservapedia they will love what you write. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Copy/paste in case you missed it:

Critical scholars are WP:MAINSTREAM: their vision gets taught from Ivy Plus to US state universities. Biblical inerrantists are WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

If by "fringe" you mean "complete jokes" with unconvincing arguments, I would agree. Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Barok777: The views of the Adventist scholars are considered marginal opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I have truncated the claim that there is 'substantial evidence' supporting an earlier date for Daniel. The Ferch source that was added cites Wiseman and the existence of Belshazzar as 'evidence', neither of which actually substantiate an earlier date for Daniel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by. User:Kww

Copy/paste by Tgeorgescu. So, academically speaking, the Book of Daniel to contain both historical fact and accurate prophecy for a period during Daniel's lifetime and thereafter is dead in the water. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, no biblical literalism on Wikipedia please. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Barok777 asks from mainstream history something which it can neither do nor deliver. Stating that Daniel had real prophecies is a violation of WP:NPOV, since prophecies cannot be shown to be historical facts, since the historical method prohibits that. The Enlightenment has done away with all supernatural claims from history. What Barok777 is doing is called around here WP:RGW. I'm not angry at him/her because all the discussions we could have upon this subject aren't going to change a jot of the historical method, and therefore his/her attempt to change the article to include a fundamentalist POV is by default doomed to fail. Barok777 cannot change that and I cannot change that. It is simply a matter that the WP:RULES for WP:Verifying historical facts do not allow for such POV in an article about mere historical facts. No amount of edit-warring is going to change the historical method or the methodological naturalism. Barok777 thinks that I and other established editors would have much discretionary powers in allowing his edits to be. No, such edits simply violate basic WP:PAGs and are therefore unallowable. This has nothing to do with his/her person or with my own person. It's nothing personal. It is merely that his/her past edits are incompatible with Wikipedia. Many things would have to drastically change in the outside world in order for such edits to become allowable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vasyaivanov: Read the above. No bona fide history department could teach that Daniel had genuine prophecies, since the epistemology of history prohibits it. There is a difference between past (what really happened) and history (what historians can show in peer-reviewed papers that it happened). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. Where we draw the line? Daniel's prophecies probably factual? David Irving probably factual? Andrew Wakefield probably factual? Ryke Geerd Hamer probably factual? AIDS denialism probably factual? Young Earth Creationism probably factual? Moon landing probably hoax? It seems a complete mockery to poo on the historical method and then call your papers history writing. Since the Enlightenment the supernatural has been purged from history, yet some Wikipedia editors seem unaware of this fact. The edits at this article by Barok777, Natorious, Madcricketer and Vasyaivanov are a perfect example of how to flunk as a history undergraduate. If historians could prove paranormal claims, then you should expect peer-reviewed history articles like "Have leprechauns dictated the Book of Isaiah? An alternative theory for the claim that angels have dictated the Book of Isaiah." Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jmcsparin: Your stance is highly preposterous to anyone familiar with the historical method. See why above. The supernatural does not count in writing history, beginning with the Enlightenment. Historians do not work with the hypothesis that the supernatural is real when they write history, only theologians do that when they write theology. So, yeah, sooner or later inerrantists will find that the whole historical method is from Satan, just as they found that about evolution and about mainstream geology. I'd say wait till the conclusion that David did not rule a kingdom, he only ruled a village trickles down to schoolbooks. Then it will happen. This is all what WP:FRINGE/PS WP:POV pushers can do here: trolling with a complete mockery of the historical method. That is the rub.

I vehemently disagree with your assertion that modern scholars are secretly in league with Satan, but, even if your accusation were true (which it certainly is not), it would not matter; Wikipedia is still bound to represent the views of modern scholars, regardless of whether or not they are secretly Satanists. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. Maybe he wanted to say "it doesn't derive from any ontological status". Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Think its time to close out this thread. The horse is dead, has been drawn and quartered, and each part has been sent to farthest points of the realm. Time to move on... Ckruschke (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
Tomelti has not dropped the WP:STICK. It is not known whether “most critical scholars agree” that the book of Daniel is historical fiction. — but, yes, it is known: for more than 100 years the claim "the Book of Daniel is real history" is WP:FRINGE/PS according to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Benimiah I suggest you drop the WP:STICK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Saxophilist Please read the above, it concerns your edits. WP:NPOV means especially WP:RNPOV, not what you think it means.

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)

If you think that the WP:ONUS would be upon me to prove that Ivy Plus got it right, you misunderstood the rules of Wikipedia. The WP:BURDEN is upon you, not upon me. You are the WP:FRINGE/PS WP:POV pusher. This isn't a level playing field, the sooner you learn it, the better. Wikipedia is very biased for WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM, so you don't get to define the terms of the debate; we do, WP:RULES do. Something makes you think that your traditional religious authorities trump the authorities from Ivy Plus, BIU and TAU. Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. Who has the power to decide upon this historical fact? Mainstream Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The gist[edit]

Wikipedia does not follow the Bible. Wikipedia follows mainstream Bible scholarship. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

The correct name is Nebuchadrezzar with an R; I've added this and given a source. We should move the page to Nebuchadrezzar II. (This has been discussed before at length at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II/Archive 2#"Nebuchadrezzar".) Richard75 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I oppose this. "Nebuchadnezzar" has been and remains the most common name in English. See Google ngram for both variations. -Ben (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reason. I'll add that move requests should be done per WP:RM#CM. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reason. BobKilcoyne (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2019[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per discussion here and at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar I. If revisiting this in the future, please use the procedure shown at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves and note Wikipedia:Correct; showing a preponderance of use in Wikipedia:Reliable sources would likely be necessary in order to gain consensus for this sort of change in the face of split usage. Less Unless began such a process below, but evidence in dispute of the assertion was also presented. Dekimasuよ! 05:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


Nebuchadnezzar IINebuchadrezzar II – The correct spelling is Nebuchadrezzar; the second n is an error which crept into the Bible (which uses both spellings). There is a source for this in the article. (This has been discussed before here, and see the section immediately above.) Richard75 (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This ngram does not show the "correct" spelling increasing in usage, which is odd if it is correct, because it has been known forever (it is just as biblical). Likewise, I get orders of magnitude more results for the -n- form over the -r- form in Google Scholars searches limited to after the year 2000: 2,670 to 227, and the latter may be an overcount. It is not obvious that this is because of a preponderance of biblical scholarship, since at a glance I see non-biblical scholar like Olof Pedersen and Daniel Potts using the -n- form. The fact is that both forms are attested in antiquity and from the same source. Neither is an attempt to represent his Akkadian name accurately to English speakers. Moreover, Akkadian wasn't the language of the empire. Aramaic was. Donald Wiseman in Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (1983) writes that "the writing of the name with n is possibly attested in an Aramaic tablet dated to Nebuchadrezzar's thirty-fourth year" and "the shift r>n occurs in other transcriptsion of names in Babylonian". I do not know if this is correct, but I know that Nebuchadnezzar is a correct/reasonable transcription and the claim that it is an error depends on the original biblical text being in error. Given that Nebuchadrezzar is also a KJV term, this claim (that the -n- form is simply an error or corruption) needs more solid backing. Finally, this should have been a multi-move. My arguments here apply at the other pages as well. Srnec (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Per the very valid argument presented by Srnec.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Neutrality[edit]

I have changed the final sentence of the opening to reflect a neutral stance. It is as follows:

"He is an important character in the Book of Daniel, a collection of writings and visions that were perhaps written in the 2nd century BC."

Saxophilist (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your WP:TE has to stop. See #Fundamentalist POV for details. You're not making the article more neutral, you're making it more akin to true believers' stance. You have no WP:CONSENSUS, gain first consensus for your edits.

Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zerotalk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not a fundamentalist point of view. You think it's a fundamentalist point of view. Your opinion is not fact. Rejecting scholars you disagree with is not neutral. Saxophilist (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Saxophilist: Wikipedians reject WP:FRINGE/PS "scholars" all the time. In WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP "the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE" is the only game in town. That's academic consensus which holds true for more than a century. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You claim scholars that you disagree with are fringe and not real scholars. I know your game. It's a great way to shut down any real debate. The Book of Daniel may very well have been written in the 2nd century BC. I'm taking issue with it being called "legendary tales". Saxophilist (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Saxophilist: The consensus is that it's not history. It's tales of court conquest + Vaticinium ex eventu.

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)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
That quote shows a lack of understanding of the book. None of the prophecies are wrong. Some prophecies are about the end of time. That time obviously hasn't occurred yet. Do you honestly think you (or the quoted person) know more about the meaning of the book than 2000 years worth of theologians? Saxophilist (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You do not make the call, I do not make the call, mainstream Bible scholars (WP:CHOPSY) make the call. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You only consider scholars you agree with to be "mainstream". Saxophilist (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Nope, Wikipedia has clear WP:RULES for determining who's mainstream.

And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Issue over editing[edit]

Who crowned Tgeorgescu as king of this page? If anyone disagrees with his opinions or his preferred scholars, then they are fringe fundamentalists. Really? Saxophilist (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As I told you, read #Fundamentalist POV. You will see that the regulars agree with me. Oh, yeah, I received thanks for reverting you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You disagree with it, therefore it's fundamentalist? Daniel being a real person has been the belief of Christians (and Jews) for 2000 years. How is a standard belief of a religion considered a fundamentalist view? I realize some Christians might not consider Daniel to be a historical figure, but they are a minority. Saxophilist (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
And congrats on being thanked for your revert. Do you want a prize? Saxophilist (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The basic editorial rule on WIkipedia is that we use sources for our statements - every statement beyond the most basic should be sourced, and the source should be reliable and accessible. In this case, there are multiple reliable sources saying the Book of Daniel is not a history book (which should be obvious to any reader), and that Daniel is a legendary figure. This has always been the position of Jewish scholars,or at least since the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt, but Christians see it in prophetic messianic terms, and so it becomes problematic for them. Anyway, the converse of the rule about using reliable sources is that we don't delete sourced statements when we disagree with them. Achar Sva (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Most Christians did not read the Bible.
  • We have to distinguish between a subjective religious opinion and an objective historical fact.
@Saxophilist: I advise you that you should refrain from maiming the academic consensus at this article. Just like I avoid the articles Abortion and Health effects of salt. The difference between you and me is that I know where my edits are unwelcome. To be specific, we don't use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for WP:RS/AC sort of claims. Or if we do, we say something like "The consensus of mainstream scholars is...". It's not just Collins' POV: the consensus existed before he was born and will continue to exist after his death. There isn't any alternative to it, precisely as for evolution the only credible alternative is or was lamarckism not intelligent design. Once the Enlightenment purged history of all miracles/supernatural, there was no other option left for historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Akkadian[edit]

A Unicode rendition of the Akkadian script for the name Nebuchadnezzar "𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀" has recently been added to the article. That rendition appears to be frequently used online (though it seems to transliterate as ANAKKUDUURRIŠEŠ). In any case, it does not take an expert in cuneiform to see that Nebuchadnezzar in Akkadian.png and 𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀 are not the same word. Can somebody verify the form from the image from the original source (Bertin, G. (1891). "Babylonian Chronology and History". Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 5: p. 50; [@User:Ichthyovenator]?) and either replace with the correct form or add a note to the article explaining why the two forms are different? Ideally, if someone can also confirm the accuracy of the Unicode form too.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I uploaded the image version and I can confirm that it is correct in so far that this is the form given by Bertin in the cited source. The reason I replaced the original unicode version with the image is that cuneiform changed over time (signs and grammar are for instance noticeably different in Sumerian and Neo-Assyrian writings); the unicode version (the accuracy of which I can't verify since it is uncited) seems to use older signs while Bertin presents the actual Neo-Babylonian rendition. Another advantage of Bertin is that he presents the name of a vast amount of kings, making it convenient to use him as a source for these articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Do we know that the 1891 source is accurate? Do we know that the Unicode form is accurate? If the Unicode text shows only an earlier Sumerian or Assyrian form of the letters, it is probably misleading to use it if it were not the form used in the Neo-Babylonian period? That said, the glyphs in the Unicode form provided do appear in cuneiform from the Neo-Babylonian period. Perhaps an excerpt showing the context of the images in the Bertin source would help. In any case, the presentation of two obviously different forms without explanation as in the article presently is unhelpful. It probably also is not useful in the context of the article to note that the text form is "Unicode", and if, for example, it is an Assyrian rather than Neo-Babylonian form of the name, it would be more helpful to note that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally I automatically trust the 1891 source more since it's actually cited (unlike the unicode version). In the source itself, the names of various Mesopotamian rulers are presented in cuneiform and transliteration. Of course, a more modern "dictionary" of names in cuneiform would be preferrable, but I haven't found any. I agree that both the 1891 version and the unicode version should not be in the article, at least not in the way they are now. For a similar situation, see Ashurbanipal, whose lede presents his name as written by the Neo-Assyrians, with a unicode version in older script added as a note. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
More to the point, how many of us can read Akkadian?Achar Sva (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
A fair point, I would be more than happy to completely do away with Akkadian script in the ledes since it's difficult to find sources for the names for some kings (notably I haven't found anything for Sin-shumu-lishir and Labashi-Marduk). I'm not sure if there are guidelines in regards to this, but other ancient rulers appear to use ancient scripts as well, such as Cyrus the Great (has his name in Old Persian script) and Bahram V (has his name in Middle Persian script). Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Apart from an extremely small number of readers, inclusion of a cuneiform form of the name is really just a novelty, but if it is included, it should be accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree on both points. What I was showing with the Ashurbanipal example is that both could very well be accurate renditions of Nebuchadnezzar's name, in different scripts/contexts; I trust the 1891 source more since it is a scholarly source. The unicode rendition completely lacks a source as it stands and if one is not added, must be considered original research. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)