Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)

New layout

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

Article stating that Daniel was a real person

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

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

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

From the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You cannot change the WP:RS/AC by handwaving at 68 years old news. Hard evidence is required. And no, real historians will never abandon methodological naturalism. Only clowns will.

The majority of people in the world don't believe that your God is real. So, historians, being a religiously diverse bunch, cannot assume that your God is real. Theologically, it makes sense that God can talk to people and that God can predict future events; historically, it doesn't.

No more than 2.38 billion people believe that God is Trinity. 2.04 billion believe that God is Allah (i.e. not Trinity). 15.7 millions believe in HaShem. Samaritans are less than 1000. Baha'i are 8 million people. 1.2 billion Hindus do not believe in the Abrahamic God. So, you see, on any of those variants, less than 30% of world's population believes in your God. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

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

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

Arabic transliteration

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

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

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

Tales of Daniel

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2025

Painting of Daniel in the lion's den was painted between 1613-1615. it says 1616-1640 Bchungustwerkgod (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Updated to c.1614-1616 per the image information [5] and museum [6]. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2025

Please add [sic] after the following: In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_(biblical_figure)#Islam the quote of Abdullah Yusuf Ali states that: "He was carried off to Babylon in 605 B.C. by Nebuchadnezzar, the Assyrian".
The author was mistaken, Nebuchadnezzar is factually Babylonian, not Assyrian, and even though Babylon conquered Assyria, Nabuko's origins are still Babylonian. 217.132.71.158 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)