Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)

message: To finish my point, not all scholars accept Historical Criticism.  Claiming that a scholar is one who holds only to historical criticism is circular reasoning.  To be sure, MOST scholars accept historical criticism.  But even the Historical criticism page acknowledges that not all scholars accept it.  To quote the page: It "leads to conclusions that conservative scholars find unscientific." 
And remember, Wikipedia is not about what is someone's POV truth, it is about what is factual.  And it is a fact that not all scholars accept Historical criticism.  
Also, it is irrelevant how many do, or how many do not, accept it, but to those who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves, nor let others think for themselves.   --MindyWaters (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mindy, the source doesn't say that "all scholars" accept "historical criticism", it says there's a scholarly consensus that the figure of Daniel is legendary. It was you who introduced the word "all" and the idea of "historical criticism," a term that isn't in the source.PiCo (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: it was 180.200.143.109 who introduced the idea that ALL scholars held to historical criticism, even implying that only scholars who hold to historical criticism are scholars.  That is why I started this comment, because not all scholars hold to historical criticism.  And even if they did, the reader has the right to know that the view of this page is historical criticism or higher criticism.  My addition to the article ties the article to the topic of higher criticism article.  It isn't in the source, but it is part of wikipedia.--MindyWaters (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mindy, nobody "holds to" historical criticism, it's simply a collection of tools for investigating the origins of texts. Nor does the source, or our article, say that "all" scholars believe Daniel to be legendary/fictional - it says a consensus, not all scholars. Nor does the source mention "historical criticism". We need to stick to sources and not introduce qualifications without backup. PiCo (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mindy, I gather your problem is that you feel the article is saying that ALL scholars believe Daniel to e legendary. That's not the way I read Collins' use of the word consensus, and it's obviously not so - I can name half a dozen well-regarded books that treat Daniel as a real person. So I've added a little to the beginning of that line that makes clear this is the view of MOST scholars, not all. Believe me, I'm trying to accommodate you. PiCo (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I don't mean to be contrary, but would like to see the article reflect what really exist about what people and a variety of scholars think about Daniel, both the book and the person.  I disagree that Historical-criticism is just a set of tools.  It is also a belief system that starts with vaticintium ex eventu from which the set of tools are based.  I prefer the "grametico-historical" exegesis which has been traditional with and since the Reformation, which uses the tools of 1. Lexical, the meaning of the words in the time used, 2. Syntactic, interpret according to the grammatical principles know to exist at the time of the writing, 3. Contextual, looks at what was written befor and after the passage, 4. Historical, inquiry is made as to the circumstances that called for this particula writing, manners, customs and psychology of the people, 5. According to the analogy of Scripture, this principle recognized the divne unity running through the scriptures.  --MindyWaters (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mindy, all the sources I know of say simply that the mainstream/majority view is that Daniel (the book) is pseudonymous and that Daniel (the character) is legendary/fictional. We have Collins, who is a very eminent scholar, also Coogan, and many more. Even among conservative scholars who think Daniel was a real person and the real author, none that I can find say this is other than a minority view, and none make reference to any particular type of scholarship. We have to follow reliable sources, we can't put words into their mouths. PiCo (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

text:  However, if there indeed do exist conservative scholars who think Daniel was a real person and those scholars have published this view in works which are reliable sources, does the principle of Neutral Point of View allow, if not mandate, us to include this minority opinion.  If so, would it be ok to do so in this case?  Perhaps, would the source by Miller be one possible example of this which may be included on this page?  Yea, I would agree with you that Collins   would be one possible reliable source for the study of the existence or non-existence of a Historical Daniel.  However, there are other sources  out there as well which add additional information.  Penitentserf (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This is fringe, this not good (Collins, 1999 and Noegel & Wheeler, 2002). Saying that cloisters and our ancestors do not tell the truth is not good. Sitting in a round table and each citing his left is not scientific. I my opinion this is very bad and sad propaganda. Satanists, atheists, marxists want to burn the old and the new testament; as in North Corea. The Book of Daniel is relevant is our time, so no tale but bitter reality... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody here wants to burn your book, buddy. We just consider it fiction. Fiction does not mean false, it means unproven. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Penitentserf - I'm not sure why you want to revive this thread after so many years - it would be better to start a new one. Anyway, your question is whether we should/could mention reliable scholars who believe Daniel was a real person, on the basis of  reliable sources. That policy is indeed fundamental to Wikipedia, but it includes the concept of Due Weight, which means that we don't give all opinion the same attention, but instead favour them in the following order: (a) consensus, if one exists; (b) if not, then majority and important minority opinion. Note that we don't mention individual scholars, we find bodies of opinion, consensus, majority, minority (fringe we don't mention at all). The tricky part, of course, is discovering what is consensus, majority or minority. Personally I do this by googling whatever topic I need with the prefix "consensus" (or most, or whatever); if nothing comes up I try "majority"; and if still nothing comes up I go to major encyclopedias like Eerdmans or Oxford, on the basis that they'll try to present a "safe" picture. As for Stephen Miller, I don't see that he claims his view is a majority one, and we have other sources which say the majority view is that Daniel was fictional.Achar Sva (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your time and being patient with me on this issue.  I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues and to hear everyone out.  I am in no way making any claim to the historicity of Daniel being a majority opinion.  Rather, I am simply saying that the historicity of Daniel is a minority, but not fringe, position.  In my discussions elsewhere, I find that one major point of disagreement is over historical method.  Pope Benedict, who also happens to be a WP:CHOPSY level scholar, holds an alternate minority-view historical methodology which is not fringe.   As well, I find that Alvin Plantiga, who is a WP:CHOPSY level scholar, does a really good job explaining the historical issues present and that that Plantiga's explanation would have a place on a page which discusses the historicity of one of the books of the Bible..Penitentserf (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II#Fundamentalist POV: the thesis of real, fulfilled prophecies in the Book of Daniel is dead in the water as far as mainstream history is concerned. "Daniel was a real prophet" is pseudohistory. The Pope is a theologian, while Plantinga is a philosopher, neither of them wear the hat of historian. So they do not represent mainstream history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

text: This critique of Plantinga is not very relevant to the article, don't you think? The talk page is to discuss the article, not to promote your opinion on some unrelated philosopher. Seb773 (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  has WP:CITED Plantinga in defense of the historicity of Daniel. tgeorgescu (talk)  00:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but this critique of the EAAN is irrelevant to the historicity of Daniel. Seb773 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not ALL scholars 

message: :::::: However, if there indeed do exist conservative scholars who think Daniel was a real person and those scholars have published this view in works which are reliable sources, does the principle of Neutral Point of View allow, if not mandate, us to include this minority opinion.  If so, would it be ok to do so in this case?  Perhaps, would the source by Miller be one possible example of this which may be included on this page?  Yea, I would agree with you that Collins   would be one possible reliable source for the study of the existence or non-existence of a Historical Daniel.  However, there are other sources  out there as well which add additional information.  Penitentserf (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This is fringe, this not good (Collins, 1999 and Noegel & Wheeler, 2002). Saying that cloisters and our ancestors do not tell the truth is not good. Sitting in a round table and each citing his left is not scientific. I my opinion this is very bad and sad propaganda. Satanists, atheists, marxists want to burn the old and the new testament; as in North Corea. The Book of Daniel is relevant is our time, so no tale but bitter reality... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody here wants to burn your book, buddy. We just consider it fiction. Fiction does not mean false, it means unproven. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Penitentserf - I'm not sure why you want to revive this thread after so many years - it would be better to start a new one. Anyway, your question is whether we should/could mention reliable scholars who believe Daniel was a real person, on the basis of  reliable sources. That policy is indeed fundamental to Wikipedia, but it includes the concept of Due Weight, which means that we don't give all opinion the same attention, but instead favour them in the following order: (a) consensus, if one exists; (b) if not, then majority and important minority opinion. Note that we don't mention individual scholars, we find bodies of opinion, consensus, majority, minority (fringe we don't mention at all). The tricky part, of course, is discovering what is consensus, majority or minority. Personally I do this by googling whatever topic I need with the prefix "consensus" (or most, or whatever); if nothing comes up I try "majority"; and if still nothing comes up I go to major encyclopedias like Eerdmans or Oxford, on the basis that they'll try to present a "safe" picture. As for Stephen Miller, I don't see that he claims his view is a majority one, and we have other sources which say the majority view is that Daniel was fictional.Achar Sva (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your time and being patient with me on this issue.  I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues and to hear everyone out.  I am in no way making any claim to the historicity of Daniel being a majority opinion.  Rather, I am simply saying that the historicity of Daniel is a minority, but not fringe, position.  In my discussions elsewhere, I find that one major point of disagreement is over historical method.  Pope Benedict, who also happens to be a WP:CHOPSY level scholar, holds an alternate minority-view historical methodology which is not fringe.   As well, I find that Alvin Plantiga, who is a WP:CHOPSY level scholar, does a really good job explaining the historical issues present and that that Plantiga's explanation would have a place on a page which discusses the historicity of one of the books of the Bible..Penitentserf (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II#Fundamentalist POV: the thesis of real, fulfilled prophecies in the Book of Daniel is dead in the water as far as mainstream history is concerned. "Daniel was a real prophet" is pseudohistory. The Pope is a theologian, while Plantinga is a philosopher, neither of them wear the hat of historian. So they do not represent mainstream history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

text: This critique of Plantinga is not very relevant to the article, don't you think? The talk page is to discuss the article, not to promote your opinion on some unrelated philosopher. Seb773 (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  has WP:CITED Plantinga in defense of the historicity of Daniel. tgeorgescu (talk)  00:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but this critique of the EAAN is irrelevant to the historicity of Daniel. Seb773 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Thread revived in 2020

message: Please read WP:NOBIGOTS. tgeorgescu (talk)  14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No bigots 

message: 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)
replies: text: " 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Daniel is considered to be a prophet by Judaism, Islam, Christianity 

message: Please remove Quran from Prophet Daniel.- 69.221.106.255 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. This section looks reasonably well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2022 

message: @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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Arabic transliteration 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023 

message: I must correct the statements about Daniel..you likely know what I mean 🙂 CappedOut (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk)  00:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024