It's amazing how they avoid interpreting the text accurately. They think these various numbers were just appended onto the text when the previous predictions failed. Their commentary is quite useless, because if they took the text seriously they would see that the numbers are referring to different events.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, what's the conclusion from this review of this Wiki article? If you want to get a better understanding of something biblical, do not read Wikipedia. It is overtly anti-Christian and will deceive and mislead the reader to achieve its end. Go to one of the good, reputed bible commentaries. https://biblehub.com/ is a great place to start.

I haven't addressed damaging claims in other Wikipedia articles, such as:

• Darius the Mede was fictitious
• Belshazzar was fictitious

These probably come up in other Wikipedia articles, though they are easily answerable.

Again, another anti-divine claim made as a lone statement, alleging to be a fact. The atheistic agenda is apparent, so there's little reason to take all its claims at face value without getting the other side of the story from a bible-affirming source.

First of all, according to the text in Daniel itself, it was written around 530 BCE. That is a far cry from the 165 BCE date claimed by this article. Whilst there are good reasons for landing on the earlier date, scholars who don't actually believe the bible prefer the later date for Daniel. That is because it would put Daniel's book after the main events it prophesies about. That means Daniel was not writing prophecy, but simply recording history, pretending it was originally a prophecy. Many modern scholars like this because it removes the supernatural element from Daniel.

The Wiki author says this view is the 'consensus of modern scholarship'. Understand that 'modern scholarship' is not referring primarily to bible-believing scholars, but those who study the bible as a piece of ancient literature, usually saying it is a mixture of myths and history. They are secular scholars, often not even believing that God exists. They study the bible and other ancient texts for their literary and cultural value. It is therefore not surprising that the later date for Daniel -- the date that essentially makes the book out to be fake -- finds a lot of acceptance amongst 'modern scholars'.

Regarding the apparently failed prophecies of Daniel mentioned here, those prophecies have not failed. As you might know, when it comes to biblical prophecy, there are often different interpretive theories (the book of Revelation is a prime example). In this case, this article has chosen an interpretation that does not fit the data in Daniel.

This is where the intentions of the author (that is, of 'modern scholars') shines through. Instead of presenting other options which do work for Daniel's prophecy, the Wiki author sticks to this failed interpretation, and leverages it to claim support for his erroneous dating of Daniel.

The author's argument is false. Daniel's prophecy was referring to the Roman Emperor, not the Syrians, and in this the prophecy works simply. Daniel spoke the plain truth, and there's no reason to doubt that the book was written when it says it was, in the 6th century BCE. That, of course, would not be discussed or admitted in an article on Wikipedia, because it gives too much legitimacy to the bible, and particularly to Divine realities.

Their selective analysis makes one laugh and cry at the same time. Yes, if we insist on interpreting Jeremiah's prophecy only through the lens of the Maccabean era, then it is wrong. But why would you do that? The Maccabean era has nothing to do with Jeremiah's prophecy. If we interpret it instead through the lens that Jeremiah gives us -- the exile of Judah -- then the prophecy is spot on. The Wiki author has no real interest in the facts, only in pushing their worldview, regardless of how dishonest they must be with the facts along the way. There is no reason, from Jeremiah's words, to bring in the Maccabeans.

There are actually two options to see the 70 years fulfilled:

1. The temple of Solomon was destroyed by Babylon in 587 BC. The Second temple was completed and dedicated in 517 B.C., which is exactly 70 years. Notice that Daniel prayed in Daniel 9: "Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary," suggesting a prophetic focus on the temple.

2. Calculate the date from the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B.C. to the laying of the foundation of the Second Temple in 536 B.C. That was exactly 70 years (to the very day, apparently).

(Source: https://www.robertjmorgan.com/uncategorized/jeremiahs-seventy-years/ )

Notice how this article's author (i.e. 'modern (secular) scholars') bypass data that doesn't fit their narrative? Then they pretend that's all the data there is to see. They simply cannot allow the possibility that Scripture is divine, that prophecy is real, and that God reigns over the earth.

The author is suggesting that Daniel supposedly noticed that Jeremiah's 70-years prophecy (about the exile of Judah) was supposedly wrong, so Daniel decided to 'reinterpret' Jeremiah's prophecy, turning it into a new 70-week (490 year) prophecy (which is found in Daniel 9), hoping that by extending the timeline of the prophecy by 490 years, it might eventually come to pass. Thankfully that is not what biblical prophecy is like!

This line of reasoning would never be entertained by a Christian scholar, only by someone who has interest in dismantling the accuracy of Scripture. Needless to say, they are wrong. Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy was fulfilled quite nicely.

Yes, which is why the name 'El' is used of God Most High in the bible (https://hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html ). It is an ancient term for God. It is not surprising that other people's also understood that El reigns over the divine council. This is simply the truth. It doesn't mean Daniel borrowed the concept from anyone.

However, for an atheist who does not believe that God exists, then they would see the same idea in other literature and think that Daniel got this 'mythical' idea from there. Thus this Wiki author's reasoning is wrong, but it makes sense in light of their disbelief in God to start with.

This is an extremely loose correlation. Look up Hosea 13:7-8 and see if you can find Daniel's vision reflected there. One would not in the least think of Daniel's vision of four kingdoms reading these two verses.

By writing that Daniel "reflects Hosea 13:7-8", this article is attempting to build up the narrative that the book of Daniel is not an authentic work on its own, but that it largely borrowed and embellished other people's works a long later in the 2nd century BCE.

To conclude that an entire vision in Daniel is actually just reflecting a brief passing comment in Hosea, even though the two passages have no contextual correlation or relevance at all, is poor scholarship, and it shows the Wiki author is grasping at straws to delegitimise Daniel.

This is truly laughable. Again, looking at the source material (Niskanan, 2004, pp.27,31, see URL below), we see that two Persian texts are of interest here. They are 'Zand-i Wahman yasn (Bhaman Yasht)' and 'Denkard'. There is only one problem though... the former text is from the medieval period, and the latter is from the 9th century CE. The author there (Niskanan) even states explicitly that they came after Daniel. So unless Daniel could time-travel to many centuries into the future, then guess who got the idea from whom? The Persians got it from Daniel, not the other way around.

The willful aberration of facts by Wikipedia to peddle their own narrative is shocking and truly unscholarly. It's no wonder that their conclusions differ so much from genuine biblical scholarship.

Niskanan, 2004: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=G0YFSrClQOkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false

Not true if Daniel was written when the book says it was written, in the 6th century BCE. That's too early for there to have been any Greek influence. Of course, the Wiki article cannot accept that date because it would legitimise Daniel's prophecies, so they go with the 2nd century BCE, which would theoretically allow the possibility of Greek influence.

However, even then, the correlation with Greek thought is barely there, and certainly not to the extent that this article intimates. If one refers to the source cited in this Wiki article (Niskanan, 2004, pp.27,31, see URL below), then it is seen that the concept in Greek thought was not specifically four successive world empires as in Daniel's vision, but simply the general notion that empires will routinely come and go in succession throughout history, instead of one empire ruling the world forever. This basic idea was, apparently, a particularly Greek perspective on world history. That is a very small correlation. Suffice to say, if anything, it is the Greeks who got the idea from Daniel, for his vision predates them by a couple of centuries.

Niskanan, 2004: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=G0YFSrClQOkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is an assumption. You see, the Wiki author would like to attribute as much of Daniel as they can to 'other sources'. This would delegitimise Daniel as an authentic, divine revelation, which is what the Wiki author wants. However, as we shall see, the 'other sources' that this article mentions are not so compelling. Daniel remains unique and authoritative in its own right, not simply a mish-mash rehash of other people's ideas.

This is not of concern to us. Some books of the bible had anonymous input or authorship, though what these anonymous authors recorded was accurate history. For example, we say Moses wrote Deuteronomy, but the end of Deuteronomy includes Moses' death and the events immediately afterwards. Moses would have provided the primary source material, and scribes after him would have filled in the missing details. It would appear that a scribe after Daniel compiled some of Daniel's history with Daniel's own records of his visions, and put them together into one book, the book of Daniel today. This is fine. It is not an issue for Scripture.

Wikipedia is not the place I would go to for anything related to the interpretation or critique of Scripture. The simple reason is that Wikipedia is moderated by the culture at large, and our culture has an active interest in de-affirming Scripture. The desired (and intended) outcome is to downplay the authenticity of Scripture, and remove all its divine/supernatural realities.

Removing the divine is done by:

1. Ignoring the historical fulfillment of prophecies, re-casting prophecies as incorrect/unfulfilled, and thus claiming the prophecies were not divinely sourced but merely guesswork.
2. Revising timelines to ensure the prophecies were written after the events, and thus explaining away their great accuracy.
3. For all other supernatural elements, they simply get re-cast as myths and tales.

For an example of all this, look at Wikipedia's treatment of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Historicity_and_origin_of_the_resurrection_of_Jesus). Note how brief the section is for such an immense topic, and note the absence of any suggestion that there is actually a logical, evidenced-based case for the resurrection.

Taking Wikipedia as an authority on Scriptural matters is like taking Richard Dawkins as an authority on biblical creation. It's shooting yourself in the foot.

We should therefore approach the claims of this article with due skepticism.

I have started my comments in the section, 'Historical Background', and they continue sporadically for nearly the rest of the article. So head down there now and click on the highlight texts to read my comments. I have not commented on everything that is questionable, only what particularly caught my attention.

So because they deviously apply Daniel's 70-week prophecy to the exile, instead of to the time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Dan 9:25), they think the 'anointed one' in the 70th week is Onias III. I'm sure Onias III would be quite chuffed that he gets a mention here, but he'd be scratching his head at their logic. Their intent to avoid the obvious conclusion of Daniel's prophecy is quite shocking.

If we don't say that Daniel was 'reinterpreting' Jeremiah's prophecy, and we just let Daniel's 70-week prophecy stand on its own merits, applying it to the inter-testimental period as it is supposed to be, then guess who the anointed one in the 70th week turns out to be who? The date lands right in the lap of the Messiah, Jesus, in the very week of his death in fact, when he is 'cut off' as Daniel says.

In fact, this 70-week prophecy is possibly the most amazing prophecy in all Scripture, for it accurately predicted when the Messiah would die, yet the prophecy itself spans nearly five centuries of history (70 weeks of years = 490 years). Again, secular scholars would not go anywhere near admitting all that, so they prefer to come up with really odd ideas instead.

See again how secular their view is? They say that Daniel was merely attempting, of his own ability, to predict how long until 'the end'. There is no room for the Holy Spirit in their view. We should not be surprised, then, that their conclusions drift so far from any true biblical scholarship. They don't even think Daniel was talking to a real angel (for it was the angel telling Daniel when the end would come, not 'Daniel attempting' it by himself). They essentially think Daniel was making all this up about the angel, etc.

Notice which part of Daniel they call 'real prophecy' (i.e. a real prediction of the future) -- only the last part of chapter 12, supposedly about the death of Antiochus. That's because the rest of what Daniel prophesied before that is so unavoidably historically accurate that they are forced to say, "It can't be prophecy, there is no God, and no human can predict things that accurately, so it must have been written after the events." So for the Wiki author, the only bit they would concede as an attempt at prophecy is a bit that they explain away as wrong. (As I said at the start, they either reinterpret a prophecy to make it look wrong, or they will change the date of writing to be after the events, not before.)

Since they interpret last part of chapter 12 wrongly, they escape its real fulfillment and claim Daniel was just guessing.

That is the only form of biblical prophecy which they will allow... just people taking a human-minded guess at what might happen in the future, with no divine input.

A misleading statement. Yes, the Sirach was written in the 2nd century BCE as claimed, however the Sirach omits other key figures like Ezra. Does that mean Ezra wasn't written until after the Sirach as well? No, not according to Wikipedia. This time, Wikipedia accepts the biblical view that Ezra was written about 450 BCE, a very long time before Sirach. So why does Daniel's omission from Sirach mean it was written after Sirach? That's only because Daniel contains prophecies, and the atheistic scholar can't allow the Divine. Ezra does not contain prophecies, it is just historical narrative, so there is no problem accepting its textual date of ~450 BCE, despite the Sirach not referencing it.

Again, keep in mind that we're reading an atheist's opinion on the book of Daniel where their agenda is to support their own worldview, not the facts. I see the same thing in evolutionary literature regularly -- contradictory reasoning, dubious reinterpretation of data, and selective omission of unwanted data.

Yes, the canonicity of the Nevi'im was settled around 200 BCE, but this is a moot point since Daniel was not grouped with the Nevi'im writings, but with the Ketuvim writings (which was also part of the Hebrew canon). It does not matter when the Nevi'im was closed. What matters is when the Ketuvim was closed (but the author won't discuss this, because it does not support their agenda).

Regarding the Ketuvim, it is actually hard to get data on when its canonicity was settled, but the general consensus appears to be that it was anywhere from the 6th to the 2nd centuries BCE. That means Daniel was written anywhere in or before that time (which is consistent with the text of Daniel), not strictly in the 2nd century BCE as this Wiki author claims.

As with the other dating claims made in this article, there is a clear bias away from a plain and reasonable assessment of the information at hand. There is, instead, a clear priority to only permit discussion on what fits the atheistic worldview.

This statement is misleading and is worded as a deliberate attack on the authenticity of Daniel. It sounds like the Hebrew people EXCLUDED Daniel from their original canon of Scripture.

Note that the text mentions not 'the canon', but 'the canon OF THE PROPHETS'. That is just one section of the Hebrew canon. It's just like we divide the Old Testament into the Pentateuch, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, etc. It's just categories, but it's all Scripture.

Daniel was not EXCLUDED from the Hebrew canon in any sense. Using that word 'excluded', as if there was an active renunciation of the book of Daniel by the Hebrews, is not only factually false, but it is designed to lead the reader against accepting Daniel as legitimate.

The truth is that Daniel was in the Hebrew canon, but just classified in the section called the Ketuvim ('Writings'), along with Ezra, Nehemiah and 10 other books of the Old Testament (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketuvim). Daniel was no doubt classified there because so much of his book is historical narrative (like Ezra and Nehemiah), not primarily prophetic like Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. Daniel was in the canon, and was not excluded from it at all.

Again, it is clear this Wiki author has an agenda and will deceptively present his ideas accordingly.

Note that the author claims they're citing "evidence of the book's date", in a general sense. The unsuspecting reader would assume that what they are about to read is a good summary of all the data pertaining to the book's date. In reality, however, the author is only going to cite (loose) evidence of the date that THEY want to support, which is the 2nd century BCE. Why do they want this date, and what other dates might we consider?

They want (need) this date because then Daniel's amazingly accurate prophecies are not prophecies at all, and were actually just someone writing known history well after the events, and PRETENDING it was originally a prophecy. Thus this Wiki author avoids the notion of divine prophecy in Daniel and attempts to refute the inspiration of Scripture.

This would put the book in the inter-testimental period (that period of silence between the close of the Old Testament and Jesus' birth). But this is in contrast with the actual text of the book, which says it was penned in the 6th century BCE.

Normally, the actual text of the book would be considered primary evidence of when it was penned, but in this case it's ignored entirely because that would mean accepting that divine prophecy is real. Their materialistic worldview cannot tolerate a Divine essence. In the words of evolutionary Professor Richard Lewontin, "Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Notice that the claim that Daniel is essentially 'court tales' is made as a statement of fact, not an opinion, and to the exclusion of all other perspectives. The author's mind is already made up -- the book of Daniel is false -- and they write in a way to condition the reader to not consider or be aware of other possibilities. That's the definition of propaganda (https://www.wordnik.com/words/propaganda). This article is not a scholarly investigation. We need to read it like propaganda, as it truly is.

(Wikipedia is framed as an Encyclopedia, yet it is often 'hijacked' for very biased and closed-minded reporting. It is thus often simply a propaganda tool, and I don't think many people realise this, wrongly treating it as an unbiased source of information. As I've said, it is decidedly atheistic and I would not use it for serious biblical analysis. There are plenty of good bible websites for that.)

Note that they don't actually believe Daniel asked an angel anything. At this point they are just reciting the 'mythical story' that they think Daniel was telling.

If only the author knew how correct he was in this.

Notice their worldview shining forth here. Anything they see of the supernatural realm they call mythical. The secular bible scholars cannot tolerate a spiritual realm with real beings who do real things.

Their way of assessing the date of composition is very deviant. If they can't explain away the fulfillment of a prophecy, they it wasn't a prophecy, it was written after the events and only recounting known history. If they can explain away the fulfillment and make the prophecy out to be wrong, then they say, "Aha, that was when the biblical author was trying to predict the future, and he got it wrong, so the book must have been written before those events."

If they weren't so intent on distorting the text to try and diminish the bible's authority, then they would see that these prophecies were comfortably fulfilled.

Another baseless claim instead of reviewing the evidence.

This is wrong, but they say it is because Daniel's prophecies are so precise. It was written about 540-530 BCE, not in the second century BCE as they say here. For more discussion on Wikipedia's treatment of the date of Daniel, see my annotations at: https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBook_of_Daniel&group=__world__

Again it is seen how they frame it as recounting history (that is, written after the events), not prophesying events that were still in the future at the time of writing. They are essentially saying the author was being deceptive, deliberating seeking to mislead the reader into thinking that they received divine insight when it was all just written after the events (so they say).

Because many modern scholars deny the existence of the supernatural realm, the idea of accurately predicting future events is too far fetched to entertain. So any accurate prophecies get recast as history written after the fact. They do this with Isaiah and other prophets who accurately foretold events in advance.

Essentially, don't read Wikipedia for any true biblical scholarship. You will only get a view that is stripped of all divine and supernatural elements, which amounts to not much value or accuracy in the end.

That is, they say chapters 1-6 were written about 350 to 300 BCE. Notice how far removed it is from their opinion about when chapters 7-12 were written: ~165 BCE. That's a gap of about 150-200 years between when chapters 6 and 7 were penned. Since they deny that Daniel ever existed, they remove any need to fit the writing of the book into one person's lifetime. In an effort downplay its authenticity, they have instead chosen to view it as a compilation of tales and history, not visions and prophecy. They can therefore flex with whatever dates will make it most unsupernatural and palatable to a secular mind.

A baseless claim, but quite convenient if one wants to dismiss the authenticity of the book and its excellent prophecies.