User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2019/October

Dispute resolution

Thank you for adding Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Daniel_7. I was just looking into how to go about dispute resolution. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 16:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't negotiate with WP:FRINGE pushers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe you just said that. Apparently, WP:Civility is not among the WP:RULES you ascribe to. It also appears that you have some sort of administrative authority and are not open to rational discussion, so I won't pursue this any further. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 17:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The history of Daniel’s influence has been chronicled by Klaus Koch, who has also noted the decline of that influence in modern times. Since the Enlightenment, scholars have increasingly come to view the book not as a reliable guide to history, past or future, but as a collection of imaginative tales and visions that reflect the fears and hopes of beleaguered Jews in the Hellenistic period. In fact, this change of academic perspective was hard won — one need only think of the Fundamentalist crisis that divided American Protestantism at the beginning of the twentieth Century. In academic circles, that crisis is generally viewed as having ended in the defeat of the Fundamentalists. Robert Dick Wilson, one of the scholars who consequently left Princeton Theological Seminary to found the more conservative Westminster Seminary, has been called “the last great defender of Daniel’s traditional authorship.” Fundamentalist readings of Daniel continue to flourish in the popular culture, as can be seen from the best-selling writings of Hal Lindsey, and conservative scholars have continued to fight rear-guard actions in defence of the reliability of the book. In mainline scholarship, however, the great issues that made Daniel the focus of controversy for centuries were laid to rest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A broad con¬sensus on several key issues has existed since then. It is agreed that Daniel is pseudepigraphic: the stories in chapters 1-6 are legendary in character, and the visions in chapters 7-12 were composed by persons unknown in the Maccabean era. The stories are almost certainly older than the visions, but the book itself was put together shortly after the Maccabean crisis. It must be read, then, as a witness to the religiosity of that time, not as a prophecy of western political history or of the eschatological future.

— John J. Collins, Current Issues in the Study of Daniel

So, you're re-litigating an academic consensus which remained the same for more than a century and it is still actual. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Hoopy Frood (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)