Talk:Book of Daniel

2025 dating

See Video on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Meaning: efforts like that study should be encouraged, but also not declared to be the most reliable view on this topic. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2026

after The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse with a 6th-century BC setting. put or by common facts and opinion it was written in 6th century Bc Thenobody2 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done WP:FRINGE. Both Britannica and Larousse date the Book of Daniel to the 160s BCE. So do Iranica and Judaica.

E.g. Ginsberg, Harold Louis (2007). "DANIEL, BOOK OF". In Berenbaum, Michael; Skolnik, Fred (eds.). Encyclopaedia Judaica: Coh-Doz. Vol. 5 (2nd ed.). Thomson-Gale. p. 423. Retrieved 2026-01-10. THE FOUR AUTHORS OF DANIEL B. Daniel B is in its entirety a product of the reign of Antiochus IV, but it is not all from a single hand. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

"but it is not all from a single hand" What difference does it make if the book had one or several writers? Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't wish to get accused of quoting out of context. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2026

Remove this 2nd Century BC nonsense. Daniel was written in the 6th Century BC.

You can not just make a claim like this with no proof as there is way more evidence for the original 6th Century BC. ~2026-20735-28 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done biblical literalism is WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Lerner, Robert E. (20 July 1998). "Description, End Times, Eschatology, Prophecy, & Examples". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 22 June 2025. The most famous and influential of the early Jewish apocalypses is the last part of the biblical Book of Daniel (chapters 7–12), written about 167 BCE and attributed to a revered wise man who supposedly lived some four centuries earlier at the time of the Babylonian captivity.
• Éditions Larousse. "livre de Daniel". Larousse (in French). Retrieved 30 July 2023. Livre biblique composé vers 165 avant J.-C.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

"Daniel was written in the 6th Century BC." That is an absurd lie. It is a Hellenistic era-text about a fictional prophet and a number of largely nonsensical prophecies. Dimadick (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I would not call it a lie. There are some conservatives who have come to the defense of the book (Gleason Archer Jr., Edwin M. Yamauchi, Thomas E. Gaston, and Alan R. Millard come to mind, but there are surely others, all normal scholars, not unaccredited). And other moderate ones propose dates between the 6th century and 2nd century. It is true that the majority proposes a 2nd century dating. And since Wikipedia follows the majority, that will be the opinion here. In the main article, I would phrase it like "according to the majority of scholars..." Should we mention the conservatives and moderates in the main article? I don't know. In any case, even if we choose not to, we should not say the minority scholars LIE. That cannot be sustained. So, please do not say they lie. The minority scholarship can say their opinion. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

As a Bible scholar, if you come to conclusions that violate the statement of faith in your institution, you might just find yourself fired. If you stay within the guardrails of that statement of faith, you can enjoy a long and happy career at an evangelical institution. But if you cross it, if you do something that challenges the statement of faith and especially when the statement of faith is biblical inerrancy, if that is part of your statement of faith and you say anything that questions the inerrancy of that Bible, you might find yourself on the wrong side of it and you might find yourself out of a job. [...] So I absolutely respect somebody who thinks that the pastorals are authentic because they've made a argument for it that they consider to be reasonable. I don't respect somebody who says the pastorals are authentic because their job depends on it. That's not biblical scholarship. [...] I looked at conservative Bible scholars and I met a couple when I was young. I looked at them as heroes, as people standing on the front lines against the evils of secular academia that were trying to destroy the Bible and people who stood up and defended it and gave me the feeling that the stuff I believed, I didn't just believe because it was what I wanted to believe. Let's go back to that Scopes Monkey trial. A community that had been embarrassed and humiliated and was desperate to show that it was intellectually serious that was desperate to have people who could stand up on the international stage as apologists and speakers and thinkers and say we have come to the best conclusions. We have used our brain and we have come to the conclusion that all of these fundamentalists in some cases or all of like inerrancy or all of these doctrines that we hold so um so faithfully aren't actually just things we hold because we're like stupid religious people. They're things we hold because they have been tested. But in reality they haven't. It's just a performance.

— C.J. Cornthwaite, Evangelicals were humiliated. & invented "Conservative" Bible scholars

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

"at conservative Bible scholars and I met a couple when I was young" Not real scholars. Pay them enough, and they will tell you what you want to hear. There is no research involved in that. Dimadick (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Those that I have in mind were honest and really made their arguments, especially those moderates that propose dates between the 6th century and 2nd century (which does conflict with total Danielic authorship, but is still not totally minimalist). And even the more conservative ones are honest and really believe what they say.

And I find it appaling some people just call others that disagree "not real scholars." These scholars can give arguments as they please!

The quote says, "So I absolutely respect somebody who thinks that the pastorals are authentic because they've made a argument for it that they consider to be reasonable. I don't respect somebody who says the pastorals are authentic because their job depends on it." Look, even this man says some really do give their arguments.

What if the maximalists said the opposite: "Look, the minimalists, even being a majority, are evil because they just argue to get around God and/or tradition." What kind of argument is that? It is a dumb rhetoric that we can just ignore others because they have ulterior motives. That is not an argument and that does NOT JUSTIFY ANYTHING. Even if it were true (let's just say that): All conservatives ever lie. None believes anything they say. All are evil. Well, even so, it might be the case they are 100% right, anyway. An ad hominem argument does not PROVE ANYTHING. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Biblical inerrancy is WP:FRINGE. Kowtowing to biblical inerrancy isn't WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it's apologetics. Apologists are not in the same league with scholars.

Mainstream Bible scholars readily agree that some pieces of the Book of Daniel are older than 2nd century BCE. But the mainstream scholarly consensus strongly disagrees that it has valid prophecies. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia says that the majority opinion will be reflected in the article, the article will not be changed. My proposal, however, stands: That we should say in the article "the majority of scholars date ..." or Something like that.

Why is that?

"Biblical inerrancy is WP:FRINGE."

Fallacy of red herring. Doesn't matter now. People could assume the the Book of Daniel has errors and still support dating it entirely before the Maccabean era. And some scholars do say exactly that. I think stating a minority disagrees is fine. Again, the article should not be changed, since it's not a majority. But I just want to say: Scholars can disagree without being called liars like done above!

"Kowtowing to biblical inerrancy isn't WP:SCHOLARSHIP,"

Fallacy of red herring.

"it's apologetics. Apologists are not in the same league with scholars."

I think William H. Shea, Gleason L. Archer Jr., Edwin M. Yamauchi, Thomas E. Gaston, and Alan R. Millard, etc. are normal, credited scholars, with degrees. They can write whatever they want. And they think whatever they think. And they are not just hired by apologetics ministries.

"Mainstream Bible scholars readily agree that some pieces of the Book of Daniel are older than 2nd century BCE."

You talk about the majority. But minority scholars may be in the minority and yet not necessarily outside the mainstream. To repeat: Minority positions are okay.

And that is the case for the liberal wing, also. H. H. Rowley and others in the minority (but this time minimalist minority) said: The entire book is from the 2nd century. It is entirely a late fake. Yes, even the stories from 1 to 6 have hidden clues about Antiochus IV Epiphanes being bad. And that is also a position scholars can say. Again: Scholars can say whatever they want.

"But the mainstream scholarly consensus strongly disagrees that it has valid prophecies."

Red herring.

To summarize, while it is fine to say this on Wikipedia, "a majority of scholars date...," I will not be bullied to accept that scholars AS SUCH say this and NO scholars can say anything else. Actually, there are a lot of scholars. And all are fine scholars and can utter their opinion. So, while I concord that the Wikipedia article will not be changed (contra the original user who complained), let me say: It is fine for scholars to say: (1) The entire book is from the 6th century. (2) The entire book comes from between the 6nd century and the 2nd century, but none is from Maccabean times. (3) The entire book is from the Maccbean era, as Rowley and others said. Again, other scholars can disagree. None needs to be pressed into what the majority says. I will not be bullied to accept normal scholars lie or are not scholars. Far maximalist and far minimalist scholars are fine. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The Princeton Theological Seminary teaches it was written in the 2nd century BCE. Because the PTS takes the historical method seriously. The PTS has no anti-supernaturalist bias.

In this case the historical method leaves no other option. All major universities teach it was written in the 2nd century BCE. It is one of the most securely dated books of the Bible, because the evidence is crisp-clear. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No, they don't. The majority opinion is that Daniel was written between the 3rd and 2nd century BCE.

But minority scholars can have their opinions. And minimalists can say that, contra the majority, the entire book is a later fraud from the 2nd century, even chapters 1–6 containing clues about Antiochus IV Epiphanes. And maxminalists can say the entire book was finished in the early Persian period, with even chapters 8 and 11 containing nothing concerning Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the clues not matching (yes, even before vs. 40ff). Both positions are academically fine and have been defended in detail.

Again, that a majority says X does not mean not-X is intellectual suicide. I have always respected ultra-minimalist scholars and ultra-maximalist scholars. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC).

WP:FRINGE is what matters. I know there are many conservative evangelical scholars. But they are not mainstream Bible scholars.

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 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Many of the once I listed operate and work with non-supernatural assumptions and still disagree with the majority one way or the other (e.g., Antiochus secretly appears even in ch. 1–6, or, alternatively, not even in 8 and 11). Much of the dating has does not even touch the philosophy of miracles. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

tgeorgescu July 30, 2021 at 3:34 pm - Reply

Quote: 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!

Can I receive a formal confirmation that you have actually written this? It has been lost somewhere in comments and I cannot find it again. It is important because I quoted it inside Wikipedia and needs a source.

BDEhrman BDEhrman July 31, 2021 at 7:35 am - Reply

The first part sounds like something I would have said. The second part not so much. BUt I sometimes do say things that are phrased more strongly than I would typically phrase them (unless it’s over drinks). Are you quoting this from one of my comments? Then yes, that’s what I said. If I did, I was stressing the point “describes.” THat is, if you have an account that refers in some detail to airplanes striking the Twin Towers, then the account was certainly written after 9/11, even if it is phrased as a prophecy.

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) 12:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, that, while being the majority position and thus being what Wikipedia will say, is one scholarly idea of many. Other scholars say Antiochus IV Epiphanes does not even appear in Daniel 8/11.

Again: Others can say whatever they want. I hate it when peoplecon Wikipedia all others liars or not real scholars. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that Shea was in any way a mainstream scholar. He worked for a small sect which despises intellectualism, mainstream science, and mainstream archeology. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That's your ad hominem attack. He represented a respectable minority position. Andrews University is a fine university with a good Old Testament studies program.

But that's just one out of many.

On the other hand, H. H. Rowley said the entire book is from the Maccbean era, even chapters 1–6. Are you going to say he is evil because he is in the minority, as well? No, because he was an even better scholar. There are a lot of good scholars with differening positions. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary, stating that Shea is WP:FRINGE is entirely germane to our discussion. Young Earth Creationism is WP:FRINGE by definition. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I obviously don't think a normal Old Testament scholar at Andrews University is outside the academic norm just for having a minority position.

In any case, the claim was not that Shea is fringe. The claim was "He worked for a small sect which despises intellectualism, mainstream science, and mainstream archeology." That is a disgusting ad hominem attack. Why should I tolerate that tendentious language?

What next? Will you say Rowley worked for Satan because he said none of Daniel is before the Maccabean era? Why can't we just say, "The majority dates...," while allowing more pressing minimalist and maximalist voices their opinion? I have seen many works of normal scholars that allow all sorts of non-majority positions. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Establishing the reliability of a source/scholar is business as usual at Wikipedia. You cannot muzzle other Wikipedians from saying certain scholars are subpar. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the statement "He worked for a small sect which despises intellectualism, mainstream science, and mainstream archeology." is not equivalent to "I think he is unreliable." I denounce it as tendentious incoherence. That it is small is tendentious garbage. That it is a sect is tendentious language. That somebody despises something is propaganda. Etc. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

You do not get to make our WP:RULES. Arguments about scholars are business as usual. Wikipedia would close shop if such discussions weren't allowed.

And yup, YEC means despise for mainstream science. It isn't libel because it's true.

You confuse "they're free to publish such claims" with "they're bona fide scholars".

What I am saying is that bona fide Bible scholars put a wall of separation between their own religious beliefs and their own historical scholarship. You can't be a bona fide Bible scholar while being the servant of theological orthodoxy. I.e., historia ancilla theologiae. See https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/09/07/can-unique-byu-really-be/

Because the requirements of writing verifiable history are at odds with theological orthodoxy. Liberal Christianity accepted historical scholarship, the conservative churches didn't. The ideal of verifiable history is in itself heavily biased against conservative and traditionalist Christians.

Part 1: How to reconcile orthodox Christian theology with historical criticism. on YouTube tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

So far, what I saw was pretty weak. That Prof. Shea was a creationist is hardly relevant for his other qualifications. Let's say somebody is anti-vax and a New Testament scholar. What has one thing to do with the other? Even if you are bad in one science field, you might be right in others. So?

And even if one person, Shea, was bad (and I have not seen any documentation from his writings he is unqualified, since there is none, ans he was, after all, the leading Old Testament professor at the accredited Andrews University for years), I maintain that the other fellows I listed are normal scholars, anyway.

But here is the thing, to make a long story short: Many maximalists (prominently Hoffmeier, Kitchen, etc.) make their minority cases with the tools of liberalism. They don't assume any miracles. They say one can ignore the miracles and still say there is more historical truth than accepted by the majority.

And I would say that we must not just dismiss minority scholars. Although I don't propose editing the article, since Wikipedia follows the majority, I felt the need to speak out against what I consider to be condescending incoherence.

And that applies to the ultra-liberals also. I am also tired of the majority saying they are fringe. H. H. Rowley argued that Daniel 1–6 is also from the Maccabean era. And I also like this source T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison (Sheffield: JSOT, 1995), 278, where the author says the Aramaic of Dan. 2–7 could still be late, of the Maccabean era. So, at the end, there are all sorts of scholarly opinions. Some very liberal ones outside the majority say the whole book is from the Maccabean era. The majority say partly. And others say all is earlier (but it may still not be predictive, as they also disagree with seeing Antiochus in the cryptic passages). I always enjoyed Rowley on the left and Millard on the right. And I would just be a little bit less evil and not call scholars names like "liars," etc., as has been done above. While I do not want to change the article, I wanted to call attention to what I considered very bad behavior. Look, I can understand why people are angry at the behavior of ~2026-20735-28 or others who want to always edit these articles. But that does not mean we can call scholarly people names. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Some people got the point that verifiable history is against their own church. Some people did not realize it, yet dodge the rules of verifiable history.

I think Kitchen comes up so often in these sorts of discussions because he's a serious, credible scholar on Egypt but super-maximalist on ancient Israel and the Bible. It's like a trained rocket scientist opposing evolution -- the rhetorical gambit used is to transfer credibility from one field onto another one. That and his avoidance of full-blown Young-Earth-Creationism can create an impression that his works on the Bible are somehow mainstream. Alephb (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu. Since you spoke of propaganda: verifiable history is anti-religious propaganda. Verifiable history is designed as a weapon against religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That Ladd is not really a practitioner of modern, critical historiography is obvious in what he insists must be accepted as “historical.” To remind ourselves: what should be accepted, at least in principle, as historical is an account that could and most likely would be accepted as historical by modern, professional historians—say, those holding professorships in the best universities and colleges regardless of their religious inclinations or lack thereof. If an account is put forward by a conservative Christian as historical and yet it is quite unlikely that anyone but a Christian would find the argument persuasive, that account is not granted the status of history. History is what is made by historians. Ladd seems not to understand that.

— Dale B. Martin

Quoted from Martin, Dale B. (2017). Biblical truths: the meaning of Scripture in the twenty-first century. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-300-22283-8. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned Prof. Kitchen to highlight this: The maximalists do not say, "Start believing in miracles and prophecies." That was not his logic in On the Reliability of the Old Testament.

The logic was: The Bible contains many accuracies even if nothing supernatural therein is true. And that is possible and could be accepted by all historians. After all, most ancient historians also record miracles (e.g., that Vespasian could do healing miracles), yet they are not thrown out. So, the maximalist case does not need inerrancy or the supernatural. And just because people like Kitchen are in the minority does not mean they are discredited. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that verifiable history is against what Shea and Kitchen are doing. They put a performance of competence, instead of being competent historians. Verifiable history is anti-biblical, and they cannot change that. They just pretend that it isn't. One cannot serve two masters: historical scholarship and evangelical orthodoxy. Cornthwaite's point is that "conservative Bible scholars" are a farce.

The Enlightenment consisted of two camps: moderates, who wanted a Christianity wherein the Bible is rendered powerless, and radicals, who wanted to destroy Christianity. They realized that the Bible cannot possibly be historically accurate, so they promoted verifiable history in order to destroy it. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree with characterizing normal maximalist scholars as merely "performative." They are normal scholars with accredited degrees, expertise in their field, working at accredited universities.

And I don't see any point of substance. Any atheist or agnostic could believe, as an example, the Israelites really came from Egypt. (Of course, the miracles will be denied, for example, the plagues will be explained naturalistically.) Whether there really was is a different question. But it is by no means just ruled out in principle. And that can be said for many other Bible events. Academia tolerates a lot of views from pretty maximalist to pretty minimalist. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Miracles, whether they exist or not, cannot be objective historical facts. That's widely agreed by historians. So, disputing that would be moot.

Again, we are entitled to say that some scholars don't abide by the rules of writing verifiable history, or that they play fast and loose with the facts.

As Peter Enns said, there are dissenters in every academic field, n.n.: including science. I would add, there are pseudohistorians, pseudoscientists, and quackademics. And we are entitled to discuss that.

Discussing this is definitely allowed, even if other Wikipedians don't agree with my point. If you don't agree with me: fine, but banning such discussions goes against the grain.

Even if there's no consensus in sight, it is entirely germane to discuss whether they are pseudohistorians of the Bible. E.g., there have been discussions whether Bart Ehrman is a pseudo-scholar. While the claim is ridiculous, such discussions are allowed. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

But not the mocking tone! I objected to remarks I considered sneering. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Sneering is not banned. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Something does not need to be banned for me to urge people to stop doing it. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Sneer is business as usual. Quacks, pseudoscientists, and pseudohistorians routinely get sneered in the talk pages. We have a low tolerance for their claims.

"However, Kitchen will go beyond this, arguing for the historicity of both the Exodus, Conquest, and the patriarchal narratives." Paul Stein. Well, that characterizes Kitchen as not writing anything like verifiable history. See https://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/ (meaning two of those POVs are shoddy, and the other completely debunked). tgeorgescu (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the people I listed are "pseudo" in any way. They had normal degrees, worked at normal institutions. But even if others are (let's say, anti-vaxxers): Why not show a little meekness? That has nothing to do with respecting opinions. I also don't personally respect some opinions, but it's about people.

Here is one example: Dr. Robert M. Price is an accredited scholar, having worked at an accredited institution, though holding some views considered "fringe". (but not even "pseudo" here). But is it good to sneer at such an individual? I don't think so.

Regarding Kitchen: He is not outside the mainstream. He is not fringe when he argued for, e.g, the Exodus. He was in the minority, yes, but that is not totally outside the mainstream discussion. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Arguing that the Israelite conquest of Canaan was real is WP:CB. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Minority academics are fine, in both directions. I think the previous harsh language was bad. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Let me say this: some statements are from crazy town, and he should have known this better than me.

Also, the mistake is thinking that Kitchen was a Bible scholar. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Kitchen was an Egyptologist. And the Exodus fell in his area of expertise. The topic (like the conquest) is not just for Bible scholars. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Whatever, his claim about the Conquest cannot be taken seriously. It is historical denialism.

"Having already shown me the earth from an orbiting spaceship, Kitchen then proceeded to argue that the earth was flat. For the first time it began to dawn on me that the critical arguments regarding the Pentateuch were far better, and carried much more explanatory power, than the flimsy broom that Kitchen was using to sweep them away." Kenton L. Sparks.

There is no polite way of saying that someone is a pseudohistorian of the Bible. Yet it needs to be said. Not everything is a matter of opinion, nor one of devising logical arguments. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The majority denies that. But it is not that a conquest view is totally out (like it was considered years ago). There appeared new evidence related to the excavations of Hazor (which has a destruction layer at Kitchen's time) and Jericho, e.g., https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391507704_Interim_report_on_the_excavations_at_Tell_es-Sultan_ancient_Jericho_2019-2023_the_Bronze_and_Iron_Age_cities

While other models (e.g., the Israel evolution model) are the majority, that does not mean the side of biblical maximalism is fringe, outside the academic discussion. There is an academic discussion going on.

So, I think the minority position of these maximalists is fine to hold. It is not "crazy town", as claimed. Let's see what comes in when more of Jericho is investigated. Until then, let's not exclude some minority academics. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not a "minority view", it's negationism. There is no other way to put it than "they are negationists".

See also New Jericho Evidence? What the Excavations Actually Say on YouTube

Jews from the modern state of Israel use a Canaanite alphabet, speak a Canaanite language, and have Canaanite DNA. So, yup, Canaanites are the ancestors of modern Jews. Fact, not opinion. People who seek to dispute this fact are religious fanatics, ignoramuses or insane. Some people will dispute such a fact because they are shameless propagandists, who live in an intellectual ghetto, and are preaching to the choir. They have severed ties with the reality-based community. They fit the definition of "playing chess with a pigeon". They defend the faithful against knowing the reality. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

You claim that. I think a smaller conquest where the Israelites destroyed some cities (Hazor as prime example) with fire is within the bounds of the academic discussion. The maximalists usually don't claim every single city was razed. Look, Kitchen is not excluded from the discussion! I think maximalists deserve respect even if they are in a scholarly minority and others disagree. That was my whole point in this discussion. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

a smaller conquest—the whole point is that the Israelites were the offspring of the Canaanites, so the Israelites weren't invaders.

where the Israelites destroyed some cities—well, that's possible, but, again, there was no "conquest" by invaders.

The point is that full-blown maximalism it's nothing like mainstream history, it's cult propaganda. WP:GEVAL.tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Summary:

• "use a Canaanite alphabet"—only delusional people deny it;
• "speak a Canaanite language"—only delusional people deny it;
• "have Canaanite DNA"—only delusional people deny it.

The gist is that some claims about the history of Israel are not WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but delirium. Books by "scholars" who claim that dinosaurs did not exist are not WP:RS. For the same reason, books by "scholars" who claim that the Canaanites were not the ancestors of the Israelites are not WP:RS.

Very small groups of slaves might have escaped from Egypt, but they were assimilated by the descendants of the Canaanites. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The maximalist Richard Hess has commented on a lot in Israelite Religions, published by the staunchly conservative Baker Academic. There is also his commentary Joshua in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series, where he says there are ancient elements. I don't think his maximalism is outside the mainstream. Hess is a normal scholar. But he is a minority.

I just want that these minority conservative scholars are respected. But minority liberal scholars should also be respected. Some of them say the Pentateuch is entirely from the Persian and Greek eras. Both right and left minorities deserve respect. Anonymous Editorial Help (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Respect has to be earned. When the predefined conclusion is that the orthodox theology is essentially right, they don't deserve respect. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Nabonidus Cylinder

A reference to the Cylinders of Nabonidus should be added here as evidence pointing to the book's accuracy and earlier chronology. The book refers to Belshazar who was unknown to ancient historians and was proven to be accurate as per the Cylinders, indicating obscure firsthand knowledge of Babylonian history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinders_of_Nabonidus ~2026-37397-58 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You need WP:RS for unknown to ancient historians. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Belshazzar was not unknown to ancient historians of the Near-East, he was lost specifically for those in the Western traditions. Moreover, in Babylonian administrative records and cuneiform archives (around 60 tablets mention him) he still lacked the official title of king or "sharru". He was also not the son of Nebuchadnezzar II, but Nabonidus (which was a completely different usurper dynastic lineage, who is never mentioned by the 2nd Century BCE authors), and the anonymous writers of Daniel were aware of and used the Prayer of Nabonidus. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

General question and related observations

Why does this article remain restricted, in terms of its editing, when it is attracting so few registered editors, in general (and to evaluate the suggested edits to be made, in particular)? On this page, I count very, very few editors as being responsibile for all edit request responses. As a WP retiree after long years of editing here, dating to the very early years of the encyclopedia, I would strongly argue that this proscription is not an editorial design that the founders (or those codifying WP policy and guidelines) intended, even if a case can be made for careful oversight to prevent vandalsim.

(I believe we would all agree, disagreements regarding article content, and bold edits that sometimes might accompany such disagreements, are not vandalism, whether made by registered or unregistered editors. Annoying, perhaps; vandalism, no. True vandalism is easily reverted; and the work of maintaining concensus, though at times troublesome, is not a thing to be avoided with editing restrictions.)

Our urging—open the editing up, engage a wider variety of editors—as no article or subject is the domain of any single or few interested editors—and then, with this widened interest, demonstrate that there is clear need from actual vandalism to restrict access.

Otherwise, please note—this article is awash with firm, often broad and general opinions on interpretive matters, many of those statements being accompanied by a single citation, in some cases dating to the nineties and early 2000s (i.e., 20-30 years old). Our scholarly perspective on reading this, is that far greater substantiation is required in support of such statements, in order to establish that the encyclopedic content reflects the consensus of scholarly opinion.

Absent that, making broad claims hints that we stray from the principles of WP:OR, insofar as a broad claim is being made from just one (often old) source, such that source's selection (from among all that might have been chosen) is solely a matter of WP editorial opinion/perspective (and therefore OR rears its head). We would be far more trusting of this text, were the more general claims accompanied by 2-3 secondary sources, at least, and among those, something clearly scholarly and recent.

With regard, we are... [former faculty and former WP editorial] ~2026-40531-97 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

See Yale Bible Study, Daniel: Who Was Daniel? on YouTube: Collins is the world leading scholar on the Book of Daniel. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This reply does not begin to address what was expressed above. (The forest is missed for a tree.) ~2026-40531-97 (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I WP:CITED two scholars published at Oxford University Press, 15 and 12 years ago. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2026

• Change from:

[No article tags.]

• Change to:

[Article tag appears:]

• Justification: While the lead is often quite good, it appears that some content of the final paragraph may have been added to the lead, uniquely, so that paragraph does not adequately serve as a summary of content appearing in the main body of the article. (Note, we do not argue that there is no basis in the main body for the statements of the third paragraph, only that a naive reader of the lead would have a difficult time connecting that paragraph in the lead with the content in the article that it is summarising.) Hence,

• the sentence on "themes" is not summarising a clearly identifiable subsection or paragraph in the main body,
• there is no mention, per se, of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the canonical gospels, or of Revelation as a NT book, apart from the lead (with mention of John's Revelation only being in lead, and main body mentions of Qumran and specific gospels being insufficient to connect the main body to this lead statement),
• and support in the main body for the lead's contention regarding "Reformation and later millennialist movements" seeming to present an opposite chronology (in main body, see "Montanists of the 2nd... persecuted for their millennialism, to the more extreme elements of the 16th...").

As well, presuming that we all desire to comply with WP:OR, such lead generalisations as those regarding cosmic scope, political focus, intended audience message, etc.—these are all too diffusely drawn from the main body to allow identification of the sources from which the perspective was drawn, or when identifiable, are lacking in broad enough scholarly basis, see last Talk entry above. (In our view, one cannot establish the consensus of scholarly opinion, that the intended message to audience was this-or-that, via citation of the perspective of a single Jewish scholar writing more than two decades ago.)

With regard, we are... [former faculty and former WP editorial] ~2026-40531-97 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Change what to what? Your change requests does not seem to make sense. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you want to tag the article, but that's not needed for a single line.

Brettler sides with mainstream Bible scholars vs. conservative Christians and fundamentalists. Since this is the rift line between them, it is unlikely to change in mainstream Bible scholarship. Meaning almost all mainstream Bible scholars agree with Brettler. If they didn't, they wouldn't be mainstream. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Please read in full what was written, and reply to what was written, not to an assoication you generate. Neither here nor above do I mention the people you write to defend. Grasp the actual issues being raised. Move beyond what immeditely comes to your mind whern you read it—read for the meaning of the other, please. ~2026-40531-97 (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Did the academic consensus change? My two cents are that it did not. Putting a badge of shame upon the article for one line of text seems too much. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)