Talk:Belshazzar

In song

---

The story of Belshazzar is told in a song of the same name by Johnny Cash and the Tennessee Two in the early 1950s with Sun Records

And William Walton wrote a tone poem Belshazzar's Feast." Wetman 23:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--

Belshazzar

The Bible cannot factually be called a “work of fiction” since this is not an historically provable fact 2601:545:4403:7CF0:0:0:0:7685 (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You do not make the call. Mainstream Bible scholars make the call, e.g.:

The last quarter of the 20th century has also seen the development of a crisis in the historiography of ancient Israel, which shows no sign of abating in the early years of the 21st. This crisis takes the form of a progressive loss of confidence in the historical value of the biblical narratives. In the middle of the 20th century, English language scholarship on ancient Israel was dominated by the Albright school, which placed great confidence in the archeology as a a means by which to affirm the essential reliability of the biblical text, beginning in the time of Abraham. This approach found its classic expression in John Bright's History of Israel, an impressive attempt to contextualize the biblical story by interweaving it with what we know of ancient Near Eastern history. Even when Bright wrote, a more skeptical view prevailed in German scholarship, at least with regard to the early books of the Bible. But the scene has changed drastically in the last quarter century. In a book originally published in 1992, Philip Davies claimed that "biblical scholars actually know - and write - that most of the 'biblical period' consists not only of unhistorical persons and events, but even of tracts of time that do no belong in history at all.

— John J. Collins, The Bible after Babel. Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Academic consensus

@Lightest: Does Encyclopedia Britannica seek to pass Darius the Mede for a genuine historical person? Does Encyclopedia Iranica? Does Encyclopedia Judaica? So neither should we.

Larousse wrote "livre de Daniel Livre biblique composé vers 165 avant J.-C." Why? Because in the mainstream academia that's the only game in town. There is no recent mainstream dating of the Book of Daniel which places its composition outside of the 2nd century BCE. No WP:CHOPSY full Bible professor believes that would be the case, and no US state university and no Ivy League university would teach that for a fact. The historicity of Daniel is dead in the water. No kidding, this is the only view in mainstream academia. If you can show an alternative view from the mainstream academia you will win lots of money from Christian apologetics organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lightest: If you are behaving like WP:RANDY, there is no point editing our articles. See Yale Bible Study, Daniel: Who Was Daniel? on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The source is Yale Divinity School. Two full professors from Yale are discussing the Book of Daniel. One of them is one of the leading experts on that book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That the Book of Daniel was written around 165 BCE is one of the most certainly established facts in mainstream Bible scholarship, and such academic consensus rulez for more than one century. Doubting that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet is still within the bounds of mainstream Bible scholarship, but not doubting the dating of Daniel to the 2nd century BCE. Of course, the book used an older document containing stories about Daniel, nobody has denied that. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That is the "broad consensus" in "mainline scholarship" according to Collins. The question is, is that enough to put a statement of fact in WP voice? In other words, is it an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" in terms of WP:YESPOV? StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals disagree, of course, but I would not count them among "mainstream Bible scholars". WP:FRINGE applies, and biblical inerrancy is WP:FRINGE, certainly when discussing historiography instead of apologetics. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, but I think you knew that. But the point is, even within "mainline scholarship" we still have (only?) a "broad consensus". Is that enough for wikivoice? I don't think it is. I think the article should say "The broad consensus among scholars is that the Book of Daniel was compiled shortly after 164 BCE." StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Though as you indicate above, we may need to double check that year - it's not mentioned on p. 2 of Collins. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If Michael Coogan gives the lie to the theology of his own church, it is business as usual. If Dale Martin (scholar) gives the lie to the theology of his own church, it is business as usual. If fundamentalist and conservative evangelical scholars express doubt that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, they get fired ASAP. So, they will knee-jerk reject everything that contradicts the theology of their own church. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying here, nor what it has to do with the discussion about wikivoice. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Mutatis mutandis see https://web.archive.org/web/20210927021435/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/09/07/can-unique-byu-really-be/ tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

So... you agree with the change, then? StAnselm (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that casting doubt upon historical facts just because inerrantists disagree is not WP:NPOV, but perhaps this isn't the place to settle such dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

For sure, this may need a broader RfC regarding wikivoice in Bible-related articles. Here, anyway, there are two issues: (a) is "Daniel was compiled shortly after the Maccabean revolt" a "historic fact" (I think we can agree that "164 BC" is not), and (b) is prefacing it with "The broad consensus among scholars is that..." casting doubt upon that historic fact (regardless of anyone's motivations for wanting to include such words)? StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead. "Broad consensus" is construed around here as a stronger claim than simply mentioning in in the voice of Wikipedia, so I guess opposing it cuts no ice. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

164 BCE is a rather impossible date anyway. According to the main article on the Book of Daniel, the book's author was aware of the military campaigns of Antiochus IV Epiphanes but was unaware of the king's death. The suggested composition date is between 167 and 164 BC, prior to Antiochus' death. Dimadick (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Fringe views

@Kidzcool: WP:PROFRINGE is not appreciated. What you wrote there is definitely pseudohistory.

We don't accept ad populum, nor ad antiquitatem. We only accept present-day WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)