Could Daniel and Revelation be forgeries?

[Barraco]

After several years of researching prophecy, I found that the apocalyptic writings of Daniel and Revelation leave more questions than answers. Yet, these books are considered authoritative and perfect for spiritual growth; not to mention the Word of God. But are those books really the Word of God? If they are not, but are rather forgeries, then Christians are making huge interpretive mistakes in trying to force the fulfillment of prophecies throughout history. This has allowed so many Christians of all periods of history to conclude that they must indeed be living in the end times. The failure of these movements have actually been counter-productive in making the hearts of new believers like "good soil" toward the Gospel.

Daniel was written to the Jews and Jerusalem. Although the book states that it was written during the sixth century BCE, its prophecies create problems with the dating, especially after Daniel 11:36. It was written in both third and first person as well as in Hebrew and Aramaic; all in the same book. All the prophecies, save perhaps for chapter 9, point to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The author concluded that the Messiah would come and overthrow Antiochus IV's kingdom. Therefore, the author was encouraging his readers to patiently endure persecution until the Messiah delivers them. What actually happened was the Maccabean Revolt.

Likewise for the book of Revelation, regarding the reign of Domitian. Revelation 17 pointed to Domitian being the eighth head of the beast from the bottomless pit that would be defeated by Jesus in battle, also supported in Revelation 19. The main focus was for people in Asia-Minor, however, and there is very little historical information about Domitian's influence in that area. Likely, that is because the Senate passed a damnatio memorae on his name, attempting to eradicate Domitian's entire reign from Roman history.

So, in light of this all, I open this topic for discussion. Were the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation really just forgeries that were pseudonymously written to encourage the believers of their respective times to act faithfully in the midst of pressure and persecution?

 

[timewerx]

Maybe.

However, what I think is that they are written by prophets for real, only that they probably went wrong with the dates and timescales, probably too overwhelmed by the visions or we simply erred with interpretation.

The persecutions and the "abomination that causes desolation" is happening already probably since thousands of years ago. The beast, the antichrist is here also and the mark of the beast and a lot of people had already received it. The mark is what causes greed, people to accumulate wealth, to become blind to the truth.

The only question remaining, when will all these end?

 

[James Bejon]

After several years of researching prophecy, I found that the apocalyptic writings of Daniel and Revelation leave more questions than answers. Yet, these books are considered authoritative and perfect for spiritual growth; not to mention the Word of God. But are those books really the Word of God? If they are not, but are rather forgeries, then Christians are making huge interpretive mistakes in trying to force the fulfillment of prophecies throughout history. This has allowed so many Christians of all periods of history to conclude that they must indeed be living in the end times. The failure of these movements have actually been counter-productive in making the hearts of new believers like "good soil" toward the Gospel.

Daniel was written to the Jews and Jerusalem. Although the book states that it was written during the sixth century BCE, its prophecies create problems with the dating, especially after Daniel 11:36. It was written in both third and first person as well as in Hebrew and Aramaic; all in the same book. All the prophecies, save perhaps for chapter 9, point to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The author concluded that the Messiah would come and overthrow Antiochus IV's kingdom. Therefore, the author was encouraging his readers to patiently endure persecution until the Messiah delivers them. What actually happened was the Maccabean Revolt.

Likewise for the book of Revelation, regarding the reign of Domitian. Revelation 17 pointed to Domitian being the eighth head of the beast from the bottomless pit that would be defeated by Jesus in battle, also supported in Revelation 19. The main focus was for people in Asia-Minor, however, and there is very little historical information about Domitian's influence in that area. Likely, that is because the Senate passed a damnatio memorae on his name, attempting to eradicate Domitian's entire reign from Roman history.

So, in light of this all, I open this topic for discussion. Were the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation really just forgeries that were pseudonymously written to encourage the believers of their respective times to act faithfully in the midst of pressure and persecution?

Hi Barraco.

I personally, for whatever it's worth, find the 2nd cent. view of Daniel hugely problematic. For a start, it asks us to maintain a set of claims (two of which you allude to above) which stand in considerable tension with one another, namely,

i] the Book of Daniel contains false prophecies (those who date Daniel to the 2nd cent. dismiss 11.36-12.3 as a series of false predictions),
ii] the Book of Daniel was basically ignored by its readers (who began a revolt rather than patiently enduring), and
iii] despite these things, the Jewish people chose to canonise Daniel's writings.

More importantly, I can't imagine Jesus attributing the writings of a pseudonymous forger to "Daniel". Ultimately, a low view of Scripture ends in a low view of Christ.

James.

 

[John777111]

The only reason Daniel is dated after the time it is stated it is written is because the prophecies came true. People who do not believe that is possible have no choice but to try and date it to - at the least - after the time of the Maccabees.

Rarely, if ever, do those "scholars" put their judgments of the dating of the book in such direct terms. Yet, why? Why not be upfront about not believing people can predict the future dramatically through the intercession of God?

There is another problem with that manner of analysis: where are books similar to Revelation or Daniel, anywhere, in history, outside of Judeo-Christian?

Put another way, has anyone been able to write that well, either intending to, by fiction, or intending to, to show it can be done?

In forensics, this is called "attribution", and attempting attribution by attempting to measure the degree of the sophistication of the work is very often done, in the computer sciences, anyway. For instance, one can look at some extremely sophisticated malware which has been captured in the wild and effectively prove the sophistication is well beyond the capacity for a single individual and it is likely the author was a nation state.

Measuring the sophistication of these books, however, would be difficult to do. But, there are many launching points there. For instance, where, in the history of the world, has anyone put in such obscure code such a massive array of global events as we see in the Book of Daniel? It not only predicts with stunning accuracy much of what would come in the global stage after Babylon and Daniel -- but it predicts in amazing terms the specific ins and outs of Israel during and around the time of Maccabees.

 

[lesliedellow]

Exactly what does "forgery" mean in this context?

Revelation probably wasn't written by the apostle John, but so what? The only claim it makes is to have been written by somebody called John, and that John, whoever he was, must presumably have been well known to the churches he addresses himself to.

 

[mizzkittenzz]

I believe Revelations WAS written by the Apostle John, remember he was in exile many tried to kill him, but they couldn't. I think that is proof that God used him for that.

I think Revelations and the book of Daniel is very real. I'd avoid calling ANY book from God a forgery.