Tag: Book of Daniel

Posted on

Historical criticism implies that the book of Daniel is a forgery.

Summary

When was Daniel written?

The book of Daniel itself claims to have been written in the 6th century B.C. by a person named Daniel and explicitly predicts the rise of Medo-Persia and Greece as dominant powers centuries later.

In contrast, the academic consensus today is that the prophetic visions in Daniel were written by an unknown writer in the second century B.C. – after Medo-Persia and Greece rose to power. For example:

“The Book of Daniel … was written … when the Jews were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164/163 BCE).” (Britannica)

In other words, the academic consensus is that Daniel was written after the events it pretends to predict.

Implications

For Christians, the implications of this view would be devastating:

Firstly, it would mean that one of the books of the Bible (Daniel) is a forgery. Could the same apply to the other books?

Secondly, Jesus regarded Daniel as a real person and as a prophet (Matt 24:15). If Jesus was mistaken, what other mistakes did He make?

Thirdly, Revelation is built on the foundation of the Book of Daniel. For example, the Beast of Revelation is the same as the evil king-horn in Daniel. Therefore, if Daniel is a forgery, then Revelation is fiction.

In fact, the academic consensus with respect to the rest of the Bible is similar to that of Daniel. For example, the consensus is that the five books of Moses were not really written by Moses but by people who lived long after Moses. Some even claim that the entire Hebrew Bible is propaganda for a Judaism that arose in the Persian period or later.

However, there are good reasons to reject the academic consensus:

Naturalism

The main reason is to understand that the ‘intellectual culture’ of our day is anti-theistic. In other words, it does not accept the existence of the supernatural. Science wants natural answers to all questions.

Unfortunately, over the last 300 years, the theological faculties of large universities have bought into this ‘intellectual culture’. In other words, these theological faculties also reject the supernatural. For example, they:

Regard as fiction the idea that God created all things and the miracles that are recorded in the Bible.

Do not accept that God supernaturally guided the production of the Bible. In other words, they do not regard the Bible as the word of God.

Do not believe that accurate long-term predictions are possible. It is for that reason that they argue that Daniel was written after the events it seems to predict.

Once we understand that the academic consensus is driven by naturalism (the belief that everything arises from natural causes) then the academic consensus should not be a problem for Christians.

It remains a mystery how the theology in the academic centers of the world could have moved so far from the simple faith of the Bible. But we must remember that Satan is the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). Christianity is marching through largely alien territory. The devil has come down to this world (Rev 12:12).

Furthermore, the letters to the seven churches (Rev 2-3) show that the Antichrist is inside the church. Babylon, the mother of harlots is a woman, implying that she claims to be the bride of Christ. One of the articles on this website shows that the Antichrist in Daniel (the evil king-horn) is the same as the beast of Revelation, namely, the mainstream church of Christianity.

In Jesus’ day, the scribes and Pharisees were the academic elite but, actually, they were controlled by Satan (Matt 23:27-36). Why should we expect anything different today?

Critical Scholarship

The Wikipedia article on Daniel 9 also says that Daniel was written in the second century B.C. but describes it as “the consensus among critical scholars.”

The consensus among critical scholars is that … the visionary chapters 7–12 were added during the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV in 167–163 BCE. (Wikipedia)

This “consensus among critical scholars” is the same as the academic consensus discussed above because Biblical criticism and historical criticism have become the standard approach to the study of the Bible in the theological ivory towers of the world.

The Wikipedia article on Biblical Criticism calls Johann Semler (1725–1791) the father of historical criticism because he argued for an end to all doctrinal assumptions. This is the main principle of historical criticism. An end to all doctrinal assumptions includes an end to the assumption that the Bible is God’s word. This has changed the nature of the study of the Bible at these academic centers over the last 300 years:

Traditionally, theology accepted the Bible as the word of God and studied it to understand what God is saying to us.

Claiming neutrality, from “all doctrinal assumptions,” historical criticism treats the Bible as a work of literature with human authors. It does not seek for ‘truth’ in the Bible. One indication of this is that, generally, “critical scholars do not ‘waste’ their time on … writing commentaries” (Quora).

As the word “historic” indicates, historical criticism evaluates the Bible against secular history, including ancient languages, documents, and artifacts. Historical criticism, therefore, is really a specialized form of Historical Studies. This is what the theological faculties have evolved into over the last 300 years due to the shift in the intellectual culture towards an anti-theistic position.

Reasons to trust the Bible

BibleIn spite of the explanation above, it remains difficult for the average Christian, who is quite far removed from the academic centers of the world, to understand how their approach to theology could be so far removed from the simple faith of the Bible. To help Christians, we can mention several good reasons to trust the Bible and to reject the academic consensus.

(1) Christians do not trust the Bible because it has been proven to agree with secular history. They trust the Bible because of the beauty and synergy and meaning that they find in it, revealing its supernatural Source.

(2) Daniel contains spiritual truths that were unknown in the second century B.C., such as the resurrection of the dead with consequent rewards and punishments (Dan 12:2-3, 13).

(3) Even if Daniel was written in the time of Antiochus IV, it still contains true prophecy. For example, it predicts:

        • The rise of the Roman Empire in the century after Antiochus (see here),
        • Jesus Christ in the first century A.D. (see Daniel Nine), and
        • The fall of Rome in the fifth century A.D. (see here) – eight centuries after Antiochus.

(4) Jesus and all Bible writers accepted Daniel as true prophecy (Matt 24:15). Therefore, we could safely do the same.

(5) To support their view, critical scholars point to several historical ‘errors’ in the book of Daniel. Over decades, numerous commentators have provided well-researched answers to these so-called ‘errors’.

(6) Good counterarguments exist for all the arguments of historical criticism (see here). For example, there are many differences between the historical Antiochus IV and the Antichrist that Daniel predicts. (See here.) As another example, the book of Maccabees was written to record the Maccabean struggle but it refers in the plainest terms to the Daniel of the captivity.

(7) Historical criticism is only possible if one presupposes that the Bible is NOT the word of God. Therefore, although it claims to be neutral, it is not: “Nothing in the Biblical text is accepted without support from an independent source” (Alan Millard). The presupposition that the Bible is NOT the word of God predetermines research outcomes.

(8) The documents and knowledge on which historical criticism relies are very old and limited. The certainty of the conclusions, therefore, is low. Alvin Plantinga has said: “There is no compelling or even reasonably decent argument for supposing that the procedures and assumptions of [historical Biblical criticism] are to be preferred to those of traditional Biblical commentary.”

Jesus warned that “many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.” “But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved” (Matt 24:9-13). Therefore, “if anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Matt 16:24).

– END OF SUMMARY –

When was Daniel written?

I have posted a number of articles on the book of Daniel on this website. In these articles, I have assumed that Daniel is what it claims to be, namely, that it was written in the sixth century B.C. by a person named Daniel (e.g., Dan 9:1) who received visions from God.

However, the Wikipedia article on Daniel 9 states:

The consensus among critical scholars is that chapters 1–6 of the Book of Daniel originated as a collection of folktales … in the Persian/Hellenistic periods, to which the visionary chapters 7–12 were added during the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV in 167–163 BCE.

If Daniel’s prophecies, which symbolize empires by means of beasts and other symbols, were added in 167–163 BCE, then Daniel was written after the events it pretends to predict. That would mean that Daniel is a forgery.

The quote above attributes the view, that the prophecies were added in the second century, to “critical scholars.” The article in Britannica on Daniel contains a similar statement, but simply states this as a matter of fact; not as the opinion of a specific group of people:

“The Book of Daniel presents a collection of popular stories about Daniel, a loyal Jew, and the record of visions granted to him, with the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BCE as their background. The book, however, was written in a later time of national crisis—when the Jews were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164/163 BCE).” (Britannica)

Many Christians are not even aware of the view that Daniel was written in the second century B.C. It is not taught in churches. Those who share that view, simply avoid the topic. Those who believe that Daniel is true prophecy, written in the 6th century B.C., use Daniel as the cornerstone of their eschatology.

Implications

The implications of these conclusions by critical scholars are quite devastating to the Christian faith:

Firstly, if the book of Daniel was written in the time of Antiochus IV, then it is uninspired fraud, for then it was written after the events it pretends to predict. And its prophecies that go beyond the time of Antiochus IV are pure fiction. Then, any study of Daniel is a waste of time.

Secondly, Jesus regarded Daniel as a real person and as a prophet (Matt 24:15). But the academic consensus implies that Jesus was misinformed. In other words, we are no longer able to trust what Jesus said.

Thirdly, Revelation is built on the foundation of the Book of Daniel. There is just no way to understand Revelation without the Book of Daniel. For example:

        • The Beast of Revelation is the same as the Antichrist in Daniel; a continuation of the beasts of Daniel 7 (Dan 7:4-8; Rev 13:2).
        • Revelation uses the “time, times, and half a time” from Daniel 7:25 in various places and forms (Rev 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14).
        • The oath in Daniel is concluded in Revelation (Dan 12:7; Rev 10:6).

Therefore, if Daniel is a forgery, then Revelation is fiction.

In fact, all the writers of the New Testament assumed that the Old Testament is God’s word. Therefore, if the Old Testament is a forgery, then the New Testament also does not reflect truth.

Given these implications, the Biblical Research Institute claims that “the historical-critical method has emptied churches in Europe.”

Similar conclusions for the Bible

Historical criticism has not only concluded that Daniel is a forgery; it has come to similar conclusions for most of the Bible. For example

Little, if any, of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) comes from the hand of Moses (Alan Millard).

Rather than accepting the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in the middle of the second millennium B.C., source criticism, which is part of historical criticism, claims that scribes living after the Babylonian exile (after 539 BC) created the Pentateuch out of various pre-existent “sources” (Pete Enns).

“It is thus clearer than the sun at noonday that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses.” (Wikipedia staff)

David and Solomon, assuming they existed, were minor rulers of a small area around Jerusalem (Alan Millard).

Any oracles prophets may have uttered were adapted, expanded, and edited centuries after they were spoken (Alan Millard).

The Hebrew Bible is propaganda for a Judaism that arose in the Persian period or later; it has lost its claim to be an authoritative divine revelation (Alan Millard).

Overview of the History

Britannica provides a very useful overview of Jewish history from the exile to Babylon in the 6th century B.C. until Antiochus IV. This overview helps to explain the quotes above:

The exiled Jews had been permitted to return to their homeland by Cyrus II the Great, master of the Medes and Persians, who captured Babylon in 539 BCE from its last king, Nabonidus, and his son Belshazzar. The ancient Near East was then ruled by the Persians until Alexander the Great brought it under his control in 331. After Alexander’s death in 323, his empire was divided among his generals, with Palestine coming under the dominion of the Ptolemies until 198, when the Seleucids won control. Under the Persian and Ptolemaic rulers, the Jews seem to have enjoyed some political autonomy and complete religious liberty. But under Antiochus IV, Jewish fortunes changed dramatically. In his effort to Hellenize the Jews of Palestine, Antiochus attempted to force them to abandon their religion and practice the common pagan worship of his realm. Increasingly sterner restrictions were imposed upon the Jews, the city of Jerusalem was pillaged, and, finally, in December 167 the Temple was desecrated. The outcome of this persecution was the open rebellion among the Jews, as described in the books of Maccabees.

Mainstream Academic Consensus

After I attempted to add criticism in the Wikipedia article to the second-century authorship, Wikipedia responded to me as follows:

Unfortunately, the content you added to Prophecy of Seventy Weeks appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint.

So far, it looks as if the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus.

The idea that the Book of Daniel has historicity does not fly with mainstream academia. As a historical view, it is not even remotely tenable.

The dating in the 6th century BC is simply untrue. It’s pseudohistory. A dating of 6th century BC is not history, it is fundamentalist superstition.

Mainstream academic consensus owns Wikipedia articles, nobody else does: not Christianity. Scholars following a non-mainstream, fundamentalist view are regularly removed from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, therefore, distinguishes between “mainstream academia” and fundamentalists. By implication, “mainstream academia” refers to large universities and mainstream academic outlets. It excludes scholars and journals associated with specific denominations or interest groups. Encyclopedias such as Wikipedia and Britannica only accept the views of “mainstream academia” as ‘truth’. For example, the Wikipedia staff further wrote:

The paper on Daniel that you want us to use was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. The folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don’t publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in the Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism.

The question I’d like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars.

In other words, Wikipedia will only reflect a view as ‘truth’ when “a significant number of scholars” support it in the “mainstream outlets.”

Critical Scholars

As quoted above, the Wikipedia article attributes the view of second-century authorship to “the consensus among critical scholars.” It is, therefore, important to understand who they are.

A Modern Development

The Wikipedia page on Biblical Criticism comments as follows on the origin of Historical Criticism:

Most scholars believe the German Enlightenment (c. 1650 – c. 1800) led to the creation of biblical criticism. Biblical criticism reached “full flower” in the nineteenth century.

The view that Daniel was written in the 2nd century, therefore, was not the ‘scholarly consensus’ during the reformation. Luther and Calvin, for example, still believed that Daniel is true prophecy.

Historical Criticism

While Wikipedia staff referred to “mainstream academia,” the Wikipedia article itself (quoted above) refers to “critical scholars.” By implication, these terms refer to the same group of people, as confirmed by Pete Enns:

Historical Criticism has its roots in Europe and has governed the academic study of the Bible for about 300 years.

You’d be hard-pressed to find academic programs in Bible that don’t take as their axiomatic starting point a historical-critical approach to the Bible.

The Wikipedia article on Biblical Criticism states:

Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, is often called the “Father of Biblical criticism” because he was the first person to apply textual criticism (used to investigate Greek and Roman texts) to the Bible.

Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791) argued for an end to all doctrinal assumptions, giving historical criticism its nonsectarian character. As a result, Semler is often called the father of historical-critical research.

In the quotes above, Astruc is called the “father of Biblical criticism” and Semler is called the “father of historical-critical research.” The word “criticism” refers to the process of interrogation and evaluation of the text of the Bible (Biblical Research Institute). When the word “historical” is added, it means that the Bible is evaluated against secular history, including ancient languages and writing styles. As Wikipedia says, it is called the “historical-critical method” because it is mostly an analysis of history, as opposed to theology:

The Wikipedia article refers to people applying biblical criticism and historical criticism as “critical scholars.”

The Bible is not God’s Word.

The end to all doctrinal assumptions, as Semler argued for (see above), includes an end to the assumption that the Bible is God’s word. Quora states:

The biggest difference between evangelical/conservative biblical scholarship and liberal/critical biblical scholarship is their a priori theological and methodological commitments. Conservatives have prior commitments to the Bible being the Word of God or being divinely inspired. Critical scholars have prior commitments to a humanistic understanding of religion and the Bible.

Conservative Christians accept that the content and production of Scripture resulted from the will of God, namely, that the prophet operated within a historical situation and within a particular language, culture, and thought-form, but that he was nonetheless guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way that the result was the Word of God. Therefore, although there is a distinctive human component in it, the Bible has authority. And because God inspired the entire Bible, one part of the Bible explains another.

Critical scholars, on the other hand, as Bible Odyssey states:

Do not accept that “the Bible is the ‘word of God’ because … faith claims … are inherently unprovable.”

“Most scholars treat the Bible as a work of literature with human authors.”

They assume that the Bible has come about in the same manner as has any other piece of literature. Consequently, in their view, the Bible has evolved over many centuries as it was rewritten, extended, and amended by different layers of people – without divine guidance – and, therefore, is subject to error.

And, since the Bible claims to be God’s word, by implication, historical criticism presupposes that the Bible is a forgery.

Reject the Supernatural

It is also important to understand why Semler called for an end to all doctrinal assumptions and why critical scholars reject the Bible as the word of God. Plantinga stated:

“The intellectual culture of our day is for the most part profoundly non-theistic and hence non-Christian … More than that, it is antitheistic.”

This “intellectual culture of our day,” therefore, does not accept the supernatural. The world of science seeks to find natural explanations for all things. This “culture” has taken root also in the theological faculties at large, independent universities. As Plantinga also stated:

“A good bit of allegedly Christian theology is animated by a spirit wholly foreign to that of Christian theism.”

Critical scholars, therefore, reject the existence of the supernatural, including the idea that God created the universe, and the miracles recorded in the Bible, and they reject the possibility of God-given accurate long-term predictions.

But this assumption is challenged by Daniel, for it contains explicitly refers to “Media and Persia” and “Greece” (Dan 8:20-21; 11:2-3), which became ‘world empires’ after Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C., as the book Daniel itself claims. In defense, critical scholars propose that Daniel’s prophecies were written after these empires had already come to power.

To support this view, they point to several historical ‘errors’ in the book of Daniel. Over decades, numerous commentators have provided well-researched answers to these so-called ‘errors’. Critical scholars, largely, ignored this evidence because the critic must give up his “faith” in naturalism and, in humility, admit that the supernatural God has the ability and desire to foretell the future. This the critic cannot afford to do without suffering a great loss of credibility within academia.

What motivates Historical Criticism?

People believe what they want to believe.

The Pharisees – the intellectual elite of that day – did not believe Jesus in spite of all His miracles. Why? Because people believe what they WANT to believe. The Pharisees did not WANT to believe. Therefore, they found evidence that He is NOT the Christ. They said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons” (Matt 9:15) and, after He healed a man that was born blind on a Sabbath day, they said, “this man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath” (John 9:16).

People prefer to be honored by people rather than by God.

Jesus said to the Pharisees, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?” (John 5:44) and, “Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places” (Luke 11:43; cf. Luke 20:46).

A Different Discipline

Consequently, historical criticism and theology, in practice, are two distinct disciplines:

Theology, as practiced by conservative scholars, takes the text of the Bible seriously as the word of God and strives to learn FROM it.

Historical criticism does not seek for ‘truth’ in the Bible. It does not seek to learn FROM the Bible. It wants to learn ABOUT the Bible. One indication of this is that, generally, “critical scholars do not ‘waste’ their time on … writing commentaries” (Quora).

As stated, historical criticism evaluates the Bible against secular history, including ancient languages, documents, and artifacts. It is mostly the study of history, as opposed to theology (Wikipedia). Historical criticism, therefore, is really a specialized subset of historical studies. “Their concern was not about the text per se but the history behind the text” (Biblical Theology).

Since historical criticism requires detailed knowledge of secular history and of ancient languages and documents (see, for instance, When was the Book of Daniel Written?), a person with a standard training in theology is not equipped to do historical criticism. For that reason, it is unfair to expect ‘theologians’ to refute the claims of Historical Criticism.

Theology Evolved

Over the last 300 years, as the intellectual culture shifted towards an anti-theistic position, the theological faculties at large independent universities have evolved into faculties of historical criticism.

Arguments

The following are examples of the arguments used by critical scholars:

Old Testament Generally

Firstly, with respect to the Old Testament in general:

Excavations at the site of Jericho, which according to Joshua 6 had walls in the period of the Israelite conquest, have revealed no walls for the historical period in which the conquest is supposed to have happened, thus indicating that the biblical account cannot be entirely historical. (Bible Odyssey)

If Abraham really existed 2000 years before Christ, Genesis, in its description of Abraham, would have mentioned tents more often (Alan Millard).

The description of Goliath’s armor (1 Samuel 17) does not fit the time in which the Bible says David lived (Alan Millard).

Moses could not have written the preface to Deuteronomy because he never crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 31:9 references Moses in the third person.

Egyptian historical records do not mention the Passover, in which the firstborn son in every household was killed.

The purpose here is not to discuss or refute such arguments; simply to show the type of arguments used. There are counter-arguments for all such arguments. For example, with respect to the Passover, we would not expect the proud Egyptians to document their own humiliating defeat. And the Passover was a very long time ago. Perhaps it was recorded in some documents that have since been destroyed.

Daniel

Secondly, with respect to Daniel specifically, Britannica gives some of the reasons why scholars do not accept that Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C.:

The writer’s knowledge of the exilic times was sketchy and inaccurate. His date for the fall of Jerusalem, for example, is wrong; Belshazzar is represented as the son of Nebuchadnezzar and the last king of Babylon, whereas he was actually the son of Nabonidus and, though a powerful figure, was never king; Darius the Mede, a fictitious character perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, is made the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus.

I have addressed these and other arguments in my article on this subject.

Purpose

One thing that we must realize is that it will require a miracle for conservative scholars to change the consensus any time soon. Since we do believe in miracles, that is possible. However, it has taken more than 200 years for the current consensus to develop. Since historical criticism is a very specialized field, in which conservative Christians typically have very little interest, to refute the consensus by using the same methods as used by critical scholars will be very difficult.

This is the challenge that faces Christians. If they want to believe that the Bible is true and proclaim it as God’s word, they need a sensible response to the academic consensus. They would need good reasons to reject the conclusion of historical criticism. It is the purpose of this article to propose such reasons.

Arguments against Historical Criticism

I propose that conservative Christians have sufficient reasons to trust the Bible and distrust historical criticism:

Reasons to trust the Bible

Firstly, conservative Christians do not trust the Bible because it has been proven to agree with secular history. They trust the Bible because of the beauty and synergy and meaning that they find in it, revealing its supernatural Source. Therefore, while Biblical criticism ‘criticizes’ the Bible against external documents and sources, I propose that conservative Christians defend the Bible from the Bible itself. For example:

(1) Daniel contains theological truths that were not available in the time of Antiochus IV.

For instance, the resurrection of the dead with consequent rewards and punishments (Dan 12:2-3, 13) is a truth that was only clearly revealed for the first time by Jesus Christ (e.g., John 5:25, 28-29). 

(2) Even if Daniel was written in the time of Antiochus IV, it still contains true prophecy. For example:

(2a) Daniel 9 points to Jesus Christ in the first century A.D.

Daniel 9:24-27 Daniel says that a Messiah will appear within 500 years after the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, therefore before the destruction of AD 70. But it also says that the Messiah will be killed, that reconciliation will be made for iniquity, and that sacrifices will be stopped. In the light of the New Testament, this describes Jesus Christ and His death on the Cross in the first century A.D. (See here for a further discussion.)

(2b) Daniel predicted the rise of the Roman Empire.

Daniel 8 explicitly identifies the two beasts in that chapter as Medo-Persia and Greece (Dan 8:20-21). Daniel 7 uses four beasts as symbols for four sequential empires. Both Daniel 7 and 8 describe the physical appearances of their beasts (heads, horns, wings, etc. – Dan 7:4-7; 8:3-8). One of the articles on the website compares the beasts of Daniel 7 to the beasts in Daniel 8 and concludes that the two beasts of Daniel 8 (Medo-Persia and Greece) are equivalent to the second and third beasts in Daniel 7. This means that the dragon-like fourth beast of Daniel 7 is the next empire, namely the Roman Empire.

But, at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c. 165 B.C.), the Roman Empire did not yet dominate Palestine. Pompey the Great took over that part of the Near East only in 63 B.C. It is true that Antiochus III had been crushed by the Romans at Magnesia in 190, but the Romans had still not advanced beyond the limits of Europe by 165, except to establish a vassal kingdom in Asia Minor and a protectorate over Egypt.

Therefore, as things stood in 165 BC, no human being could have predicted with any assurance that this Italian republic would become more ruthless and widespread than any empire that had ever preceded it.

Therefore, even if the book has been written c. 165 BC., it still contains accurate long-term predictions.

To avoid the interpretation of the fourth beast as the Roman Empire, and to identify it as Greece, critical scholars interpret the second and third empires of Daniel 7 as the Medes and Persians. But this divides the Medo-Persian Empire into two separate kingdoms and ignores the fact that, in Daniel, the Medo-Persian Empire is always a single kingdom (Dan 5:28; 6:8, 12, 15; 7:5; 8:20; cf. Esther 1:3, 14, 18-19; 10:2).  

Furthermore, if the fourth beast is the Roman Empire, the Antichrist (the evil 11th horn-king that comes out of that beast) comes out of the Roman Empire and cannot be a Greek king. (See here for a further discussion.)

(2c) Daniel predicted HOW the Rome Empire would fall in the fifth century A.D.

Both Daniel 2 and 7 symbolize four sequential empires. The first three come to their end when the next one conquers them. But the fourth breaks apart into many kingdoms (the divided kingdom in Daniel 2:41 and the eleven horns of Daniel 7:7-8). Another article shows that that was a remarkably accurate prophecy of HOW the Roman Empire was subdivided into many kingdoms in the fifth century A.D. In other words, Daniel predicted events eight centuries after Antiochus!

(3) Jesus and all Bible writers accepted Daniel as true prophecy.

Jesus’ teachings are filled with supernatural wisdom and miracles. Since He accepted the book of Daniel as true prophecy (Matt 24:15), we could safely do the same.

Conclusion

These are only examples of reasons that we may trust the Scriptures. Many more may be added.

Reasons to distrust Historical Criticism

Secondly, there are good reasons to distrust historical criticism:

(1) Good counterarguments exist for all the arguments of historical criticism.

I have done such a study with respect to the book of Daniel and came away from that study satisfied that abundant evidence exists to reject the critical consensus and to maintain the view that Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C. (See here.) For example:

(1a) Antiochus IV does not fit the description of the Antichrist.

There are many similarities between the historical Antiochus IV and the Antichrist predicted in Daniel but another article shows that there are also many differences. Antiochus IV by no means exhausts the passage. For example, Antiochus IV did not:

        • Exalt himself above every god (Dan 11:36),
        • Serve a “strange god” unknown to his fathers (Dan 11:38),
        • Seize the kingdom by intrigue (Dan 11:21),
        • Cause deceit to succeed (Dan 8:25),
        • Distribute plunder (Dan 11:24),
        • Begin small (Dan 7:8; 8:9; 11:23),
        • Become greater than all of his predecessors (Dan 7:20), or
        • Expand his kingdom “toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land (Judea)” (Dan 8:9).

Therefore, Antiochus IV was only a type of a later and much more powerful Antichrist. See here for a further discussion.

(1b) Fiction does not motivate people to fight to the death.

According to critical scholars, the Book of Daniel was composed during the crisis under Antiochus to encourage the beleaguered Jews to be faithful to death in their fight against Antiochus. However, if the book was written at that time, the Jews would have known that Daniel was fiction. It would not have encouraged Judas Maccabeus and his heroic rebels for their deadly conflict. People do not die for fiction.

(1c) The heathen kings are different from Antiochus.

If Daniel was written during the Maccabean era, it would have presented the kings of Babylon and Persia as similar to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who persecuted the Jews and sought to destroy Judaism. But Daniel presents them as very tolerant of the Jewish religion. 

(1d) Maccabees does not mention a book written in the time of Antiochus.

The book of Maccabees was written to record the Maccabean struggle. If Daniel was written during that time, the book of Maccabees would have mentioned the book and its author. But it makes no such mention. In contrast, it refers in the plainest terms to the Daniel of the captivity.

While critical scholars deny the existence of the person of Daniel as presented by the book of Daniel because he is not mentioned outside the Bible, they pronounce a person that is not mentioned either by the Bible or by other literature as the real author!

(2) Historical criticism is not neutral.

Historical criticism claims to be neutral (Wikipedia) but it is important to understand that it is not:

“Nothing in the Biblical text is accepted without support from an independent source” (Alan Millard).

In other words, as also argued above, historical criticism presupposes that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. And, since the Bible claims to be God’s word, historical criticism presupposes that the Bible is a forgery. To say it differently, critical scholars assume that the Bible is guilty until proven innocent.

Integrated into the Method

If the Bible is the word of God, then historical criticism is inappropriate. The very fact that historical criticism feels that it is appropriate to verify the Bible against secular sources confirms their assumption that it is not the word of God.

Some argue that the methods of historical criticism are fine and that the problem is the presuppositions. However, the presuppositions are part of the method. They make the method possible. For example, one of the three principles of biblical criticism that Ernst Troeltsch listed is “searching for certainty by doubting everything” (Wikipedia). When the presupposition that the Bible is not the word of God is removed from the historical-critical method, one no longer has the method. Critical scholarship, therefore, cannot be unbiased.

Presuppositions predetermine Outcomes

All human cognitive activity is heavily influenced by presuppositions that are firmly settled in our subconsciousness, mostly completely out of sight. When we search for truth, any input we receive will invariably be sifted through these subconscious ideas and biases. People with different presuppositions will recognize and emphasize different things.

For example, given that we read in Daniel 9 of a Messiah that will be killed while atonement will be made of iniquity, that chapter, for somebody who comes to it with the presupposition that the Bible is God’s word, is a clear prediction of Jesus Christ. But if you come to the chapter with the presupposition that the Bible is NOT God’s word, you will want to find a different explanation.

In other words, to a large extent, presuppositions predetermine the outcome of research.

(3) Historical criticism works with a low level of certainty.

The documents and knowledge on which historical criticism relies are very old and limited. Relative to current languages, documents, and events, our understanding of ancient languages, documents, and history is very limited. Conclusions may change as new data becomes available. Consequently, similar to any field where the data is distant from us in terms of space, time, or culture, critical scholars are accustomed to working with low levels of certainty. Therefore, the certainty of the conclusions from this data is low. For that reason, I would accept what Alvin Plantinga – probably the best-known Christian philosopher today – has said:

“There is no compelling or even reasonably decent argument for supposing that the procedures and assumptions of [historical Biblical criticism] are to be preferred to those of traditional Biblical commentary.”

Plantinga believes that interpreting the Bible by means of historical Biblical criticism is like “trying to mow your lawn with nail scissors or paint your house with a toothbrush.” In other words, it’s basically a waste of time and effort. (BAS Library)

(4) This world is Satan’s territory.

Satan actively opposes God’s work. As Alvin Plantinga stated, “Christianity … is marching through largely alien territory.” Satan brought sin to the earth when he led Adam and Eve into sin (Gen 3). After Satan was defeated in heaven, he was thrown down to earth and we are warned:

“Woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has come down to you,
having great wrath,
knowing that he has only a short time” (Rev 12:7-9, 12).

The letters to the seven churches (Rev 2-3) show that the Antichrist is inside the church. Babylon, the mother of harlots is a woman, implying that she is a church. One of the articles on this website shows that the Antichrist in Daniel (the evil king-horn) is the same as the beast of Revelation, namely, the mainstream church of Christianity.

In Jesus’ day, the scribes and Pharisees were the academic elite but, actually, they were controlled by Satan (Matt 23:27-36). It was not the people of Israel that rejected Christ—it was their scribes and Pharisees. Why should we expect anything different today? Where in history, as recorded in the Bible, was the academic elite ever ‘right’?

A Call to End-Time Christians

Daniel is the key to Revelation.

The reason for this massive attack on the Book of Daniel, I believe, is to keep God’s people in the dark concerning what God revealed about the end-time in the Book of Revelation.

We need to take up our cross and follow Jesus.

The historical-critical method not only is based on an aversion to the supernatural and the prior commitment that the Bible is not God’s word; it also highly damaging to confidence in the reliability of the Bible. This is often the snare of bright young people who, in furthering their preparation to serve Christ, wind up chasing academic recognition, often shipwrecking their faith. The thorns choke the seeds that God has planted (Mark 4:7).

The Savior had to die. Similarly, He warned:

“You will be hated by all nations because of My name” (Matt 24:9).

“Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.” “But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved” (Matt 24:9-13).

He advised:

“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Matt 16:24).

We, therefore, must not expect that this road will be easy. On the contrary, if it becomes easy, we must know that we are on the wrong road. The strategy of the evil one is to gain control of the places of high influence. In this world, where dark scholarship dominates almost every discipline including theology, it is hard to believe in God. But God, in His immeasurable wisdom, allows the thorns to grow. We may not be able to understand today, but we have to trust and we have to choose.

Other Articles

Posted on

The Fall of Rome shows the Book of Daniel to be true prophecy.

ABSTRACT: The Book of Daniel itself claims to have been written in the 6th century B.C. but critical scholars believe that it was written in the second century B.C. This article shows that the Fall of Rome proves Daniel to be true prophecy, for Daniel correctly predicted HOW the Roman Empire would break apart in many kingdoms in the fifth century A.D.

SUMMARY

PURPOSE

Daniel the prophetsThe Book of Daniel claims to have been written in the 6th century before Christ as a prediction of future events. Critical scholars, however, do not believe that Daniel is true prophecy. They argue that Daniel describes past history in the form of prophecy. However, that would mean that Daniel is a fraud. The purpose of the current article is to support the view that Daniel is true prophecy by showing that it correctly predicted HOW the Western Roman Empire would fall in the fifth century after Christ.

THE FALL OF ROME PREDICTED

Consider HOW Daniel predicted the Fall of Rome would occur:

The vision of Daniel 2 presents the Roman Empire as the iron legs of an image of a man, followed by “feet partly of iron and partly of clay.” The feet “will be a divided kingdom.”

Daniel 7 depicts the Roman Empire as a fourth beast that will be “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong.” “It devoured and crushed and trampled down.”  Eleven horns grow out of it.  These are eleven “kingdoms” are equivalent to the “divided kingdom” in Daniel 2.

These prophecies predict that:

      • The Roman Empire will be very cruel;
      • It will be subdivided into many kingdoms; and 
      • These kingdoms would be a continuation of the Roman Empire. 

The purpose of the current article is to show that historians confirm these three facts. 

FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

The vast Roman Empire was a unity of many different nations; enforced by violence.  The emperors and Roman aristocrats became very wealthy by looting other nations.  

DECLINE AND FALL OF ROME

It is possible to identify major milestones or events in the decline of the Roman Empire, but it is more important to identify the underlying trends. 

The first major trend was the immigration of Germanic tribes into the Empire throughout the 4th and 5th centuries.  The immigrants did not intend to destroy the Roman Empire or to replace it with something new, but to become part of it and to enjoy the benefits offered to citizens of the Roman Empire.  They sought permission to settle in Roman territory, and Imperial Authorities also granted such permission.  However, severe conditions were set for them which made them second-class citizens. 

The second major trend was that many ‘barbarians’ were recruited into the Imperial Forces.  To make things worse, the ‘barbarians’ eventually controlled the Roman military machinery.  Some of them became top generals.  Since the real power of the Empire always was its army, the top general in the Roman Army often became the emperor.  For ‘barbarians’ to become top generals, therefore, meant that ‘barbarians’ effectively became the real rulers of the Western Empire, even though they were not allowed to become emperors.  The consequence was that the emperors in the West Roman Empire in the 5th century became mere figureheads.

‘CATASTROPHIC’ FIFTH-CENTURY EVENTS

‘Barbarians’ sacked Rome in 410 and again in 455.  They deposed of the last Western Emperor in 476.  These major events did NOT CAUSE the Empire to fall or decline.  These events should rather be seen as indications of how weak the Empire has become by then.  These ‘catastrophes’ subdivided the Empire into separate political entities.  But, what really happened? 

Firstly, it was not foreign armies that sacked Rome in 410 and 455, or that deposed the last Roman Emperor in 476: It was the Gothic component of the Roman Army that revolted.

Secondly, it was the severe conditions under which the ‘barbarians’ were allowed to reside in the Empire that triggered these ‘catastrophes’. 

Thirdly, the Goths did not aim to replace the Roman Empire with something new. Their demand was to be treated as equal citizens; as part of the Empire.

Fourthly, the Empire approved the ‘Barbarian’ Rule. After Odoacer conquered Italy in 476, the Eastern Emperor Zeno granted Odoacer the title of patrician, effectively recognizing his rule as King of Italy in the name of the Eastern Empire. A few years later, Zeno appointed the Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great to be king of Italy. 

The Western Roman Empire, therefore, did not come to an end in 476, when Odoacer deposed the last emperor.  Deposing the emperor was simply a formality that aligned outward form to existing reality, for the ‘barbarians’ were already in control of the Western Empire since soon after the beginning of the fifth century.  Roman power, practices, economy, and culture continued after Odoacer deposed the emperor.  Even the Roman Church, whose bishops were appointed by and accountable to the emperor, was allowed to continue to function. 

CONTINUATION OF WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE

After the ‘barbarians’ assumed control of the Western Roman Empire, there always remained a desire and pressure to reunite the empire:

In the fifth century, after the Western Roman Empire was divided into many fairly independent ‘nations’, the Roman Church played a cohesive role between the ‘barbarian’ nations and the Empire.  

In the sixth century, to strengthen the Church in Rome, and to strengthen Roman control of the Western Empire through to church, Justinian I neutralized some of the Arian ‘barbarian’ nations.  This resulted in the Byzantine Papacy; about two centuries during which the Eastern Roman Empire controlled the nations in the West through the church.

Francia at its greatest extent in 814

The Kingdom of the Franks (481–843), which at its greatest expanse covered much of the previous Western Roman Empire, actually was a continuation of the Roman Empire.  

The civilization of Medieval Europe emerged from a SYNTHESIS between the Graeco-Roman world and the Germanic civilizations penetrating the Roman Empire.

CONCLUSION

In summary, over centuries, ‘barbarians’ migrated into the Empire and were absorbed into the Empire.  Many of them were recruited into the Imperial Forces until they controlled the military machinery.  From that point forward, the ‘barbarians’ were the real rulers of the Western Empire, but they were still treated as second-class citizens. In the fifth century, they rebelled against their Roman overlords and took by force what the Empire was not willing to award them voluntarily, namely permanent residency and equal rights. 

The Western Roman Empire did not fall in the fifth century.  The ‘barbarians’ did not replace the Roman Empire with a different political system.  They did not drive the Graeco-Roman population or the Roman church out of their territories.  Their purpose was to remain part of the Empire.  What happened, in reality, was that the ‘barbarian’ immigrants wrestled control of the Empire from the original Graeco-Roman population. 

The ‘barbarians’ simply contributed to an ongoing process of transforming Roman institutions. It was a complex cultural transformation of Rome, rather than the Fall of Rome.

PROVES DANIEL AS TRUE PROPHECY

This confirms Daniel’s prophecies:

Daniel predicted that the Roman Empire will be very cruel: The vast Roman Empire was a unity of many nations, held together by violence; by military force.  “It devoured and crushed and trampled down.” 

Daniel predicted that Rome will be subdivided into several kingdoms.  It is amazing that Daniel could predict, a thousand years before it happened, that the fourth empire would not be conquered and replaced by another mighty empire, but would be subdivided.

Daniel predicted that these kingdoms would be a continuation of the Roman Empire: The substance of the Roman Empire continued in the kingdoms that arose from it; particularly in the form of The Evil Eleventh Horn.

– END OF SUMMARY –

PURPOSE

IS DANIEL A FRAUD?

The Book of Daniel itself claims that it was written in the 6th century before Christ (e.g. Dan 2:4).  It presents itself as a prediction of future events.  For example, the book explicitly refers to “the kingdom of Greece” (Dan 9:20-21; cf. 11:2), which only became a ‘world empire’ in the fourth century BC (see Alexander the Great). 

However, many, perhaps even most, theologians do not believe that God knows the future.  Many accept that God knows everything, but argue that the future does not yet exist, and is therefore not knowable.  The point is, if true prophecy does not exist, then Daniel is a fraud, for then it was written after the events it pretends to predict. 

The article Daniel is not a Fraud presents much evidence from within Daniel (internal evidence) and from outside Daniel that argues against the view that Daniel is a fraud. 

Correctly predicts the Fall of Rome

In the fifth century, the vast territory of the Western Roman Empire was divided into several independent ‘nations’, each controlled by a different ‘barbarian’ group, such as the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Alans and the Sueves, Lombard or Huns.

The purpose of the current article is to provide further evidence of the reliability of the Book of Daniel by showing that it correctly predicts HOW the Roman Empire will fall in the fifth century after Christ.  Copies of the book of Daniel are available that have been dated undeniably to the second century BC.  If Daniel correctly predicts events in the fifth century AD, then it is a true prophecy, and God does know the future.

DANIEL 2 – DIVIDED KINGDOM

The vision of Daniel 2:30-35 depicts the history of mankind using an image of a man, consisting of various metals:

Daniel explained the head of gold as the Babylonian empire (v38).  The phrase “another kingdom” in verse 39 indicates that the head of gold does not refer to King Nebuchadnezzar himself, but to his entire empire.

The other parts of the man are identified in the article series on the Prophecies of Daniel as follows:

        • The “breast and its arms of silver” represent Medo-Persia.
        • Its “belly and its thighs of bronze” represent Greece.
        • The “legs of iron” are the Roman Empire.
        • The “feet partly of iron and partly of clay” is a historical period after the Roman Empire came to an end.

All these kingdoms are destroyed by the Return of Christ (Dan 2:34, 44-45).

The important point, for the current article, is the difference between what happened after these empires:

The first three empires are replaced by the next empire.  For example, “After you there will arise another kingdom” (Dan 2:39-40).

But the fourth empire becomes divided.  The iron of the legs continues into the feet, but the feet are a mixture of iron and clay.  “It will be a divided kingdom” (Dan 2:41). “It will have in it the toughness of iron” (Dan 2:41). In other words, the nature of the Roman Empire will continue after the demise of that empire. See Daniel 2 for a more detailed discussion.

DANIEL 7 – ELEVEN HORNS 

Daniel 7 elaborates on the prophecy of Daniel 2.  It presents the same four empires, but now as beasts of prey.  We focus on the fourth beast, which is the same as the fourth metal (iron) in Daniel 2.  The fourth beast is not identified as any known animal but is described as “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong” (Dan 7:7). “It had large iron teeth” (v7), which is the same metal as the fourth empire in Daniel 2.  “It devoured and crushed and trampled down” (v7), which describes its cruel nature.

Eleven horns grow out of that fourth beast.  These are eleven “kingdoms” (Dan 7:24) into which the Roman Empire subdivides.  (See Daniel’s evil horn.)  These eleven horns are equivalent to the “divided kingdom” in Daniel 2.

These prophecies contain at least the following predictions concerning the Roman Empire:

It will be very cruel. It “devoured and crushed and trampled down.”

Second, while the previous ‘world’ empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece) were all replaced by another single large empire, but the Roman Empire will be subdivided into many empires.

Third, since the eleven horns grow out of the fourth beast, they are a continuation of that beast.

HISTORIANS CONFIRM THESE PRINCIPLES

Lately, I have been studying the development of the Trinity doctrine, from the very earliest church fathers, through the fourth, fifth, and later centuries.  In the process, I read up on the Fall of Rome, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that historians confirm the three principles above.  The purpose of the current article is to reflect on the Fall of Rome, as explained by historians.  The goal is for the reader to understand that the Empire did not really fall but simply was transformed and continued to exist even into the Middle Ages. 

For that purpose, much of the information in this article is a summary of Wikipedia’s articles about that period, particularly the articles about the Events and the Historiography of the Fall of Rome, but also a summary of many other Wikipedia articles. The Events article has an excellent animated map showing the growth and decline of the Roman Empire.  The events described by the Wikipedia articles are summarized on this website by the article on the Decline and Fall of Rome.

FALL OF ROME

ORIGINATING RATIONALE

The vast Roman Empire was a unity of many different nations.  These nations were not held together by culture or religion or economy.  It was a unity that was enforced by violence.

Rome became prosperous, not through trade or manufacturing, but by looting other nations.  The Roman Empire reached its peak in the 2nd century. There-after, when it no longer expanded, and therefore no longer was able to derive wealth from looting other nations, it started to decline.  It slowly declined over many centuries. 

IN-MIGRATION

It is possible to identify major events in its decline, but it is more important to identify the underlying trends.

The Roman Empire conquered the previous Greek (Macedonian) Empire and established an empire that was much larger than the Greek Empire. Still, there always were areas and peoples outside of the Roman Empire that it was not able or interested to conquer.

The first major trend was the migration of Germanic tribes from outside its borders into the Empire.  Historians mention the year 376 and the Crossing of the River Rhine in 406 as decisive events, but throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, in what is known as the Migration Period, large numbers of ‘barbarians’ migrated into Roman territories.  It was one of the first signs of weakness, for it means that the Empire became unable to repel invading ‘barbarians’. 

What did the immigrants want?

Henri Pirenne published the “Pirenne Thesis” in the 1920s. This thesis remains influential to this day. It holds that the Germanic ‘barbarians’ migrated into the Empire not to destroy it or to replace it with something new, but to take part in its benefits, and thus they tried to preserve the Roman way of life.

They sought permission to settle in Roman territory, and Imperial authorities also granted such permission, on certain severe conditions.  As early as 376, Emperor Valens allowed Goths to settle within the borders of the Empire.

Second Class Citizens

‘Barbarians’ were accepted into the Empire, but as second-class citizens; as cheap labor, or even as slaves.  Alaric, for example, through his siege of Rome in 408, liberated 40,000 Gothic slaves in Rome.  As another example, it was the foederati that revolted and deposed the last emperor in 476. Foederati were ‘barbarians’ whom the Roman Empire allowed to remain in the Empire in exchange for military assistance. 

There always remained friction and even hatred between the original Graeco-Roman inhabitants of the Empire and the increasingly dominant ‘barbarian’ peoples.  At times, the Graeco-Romans massacred the ‘barbarians’.  For example:

In 400, the citizens of Constantinople massacred 7000 armed Goths and as many of their people and their families as they could catch.

In 408, the western Graeco-Roman population massacred tens of thousands of wives and children of Goths serving in the Roman military.

RECRUITED INTO THE ARMED FORCES

The second major trend was that many ‘barbarians’ were recruited into the Imperial Forces.  For example, the great Roman General Stilicho urged Roman soldiers to allow their slaves to fight beside them.  And, after he defeated the Gothic invaders, he drafted 12,000 prisoners from the defeated invaders into his service.

One may speculate about the reasons for this dangerous practice, for its armed forces were the basis for the Empire’s power.  Perhaps the armed forces were insufficiently funded, and only second-class citizens, such as these ‘barbarians’, were willing to work for such low wages.  Other historians estimate that the Graeco-Roman population in the Western Empire declined, and became too small for the size of the army required by the Empire.  Therefore the Imperial Forces became dependent on the service of Goths. 

Goths became Top Generals

A related trend was that the ‘barbarians’ eventually controlled the military machinery.  They became generals and even top generals.  For example:

Gainas was a Goth but was promoted to magister militum (literally, master of the military) in the Eastern Roman Empire.  For a few months in 399, he was in control of Constantinople; the Eastern capital. 

Stilicho’s mother was Roman but his father was a Vandal cavalry officer. Nevertheless, after Theodosius died in 395, Stilicho came to be the commander-in-chief of the Roman armies in the west.  In a few years, he became the most powerful man in the Western Roman Empire. 

Alaric also was a Goth but Theodosius appointed him as leader the army’s 20,000 Gothic troops.  After Alaric became a threat to the eastern capital, the emperor appointed him as magister militum (master of the military).

Fifth Century Western Emperors were figureheads.

The real power of the Empire always was its army.  As stated, the Empire was a unity of many different nations which was enforced by violence.  Consequently, in the Roman system, the top generals often became emperors:

For example, both Constantine the Great and Theodosius, two key emperors in the fourth century, first earned their reputations as top generals. 

As another example, in 475, Orestes, the Magister militum (master of the military) in the west, drove the emperor out of Italy and proclaimed his own young son Romulus as emperor.

For ‘barbarians’ to become to top generals, therefore, was a most significant development.  It means that ‘barbarians’ have progressively become the real rulers of the Western Empire.  

Note that the examples above (Gainas, Stilicho and Alaric) are all from the few years after Theodosius’ death.  It is perhaps true to say that the ‘barbarians’ were in control of the Western Empire as from Theodosius’ death.

The consequence was that the emperors in the West Roman Empire in the 5th century became mere figureheads: The military power came to reside in the hands of ‘barbarians’, but they were not allowed to become emperor.

When Odoacer—a Germanic chieftain—deposed the last emperor in Italy (Romulus Augustus) in 476), he chose neither to assume the title of Emperor himself nor to select a puppet emperor.  This confirms that the position of Emperor in the West no more had any value.

MAJOR EVENTS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY

‘Barbarians’ sacked Rome in 410 and again in 455.  They deposed of the last Western Emperor in 476.  These major events did NOT CAUSE the Empire to fall or recline.  They should rather be seen as indications of how weak the Empire has become by then. 

Under Theodosius, the entire Roman Empire—east and west—was still controlled by a single emperor.  He died in 395.  Fifteen years later, Rome was sacked.  The decisive events of THOSE 15 YEARS WERE A TURNING POINT in the history of the Roman Empire.  But the causes of these events have existed for much longer. 

A separate article discusses the causes of the Fall of Rome.  These must include Theodosius’ decree that his two underage sons would rule the Empire after his death.  These boys were not capable of keeping the nations of the vast empire united, which was a very difficult task.

The major events of the fifth century divided the Empire up into separate political entities.  The question is, what really happened?  Did the ‘barbarians’ replace the Roman system, or did they remain part of the Roman system?  Did they seek to control the Empire or did they merely want to have equal rights with the Graeco-Roman population? 

Not Foreign Armies

Firstly, it was not foreign armies that sacked Rome in 410 and 455, or that deposed the last Roman Emperor in 476: It was a part of the Roman Army that rebelled.  It was, namely, the Goths in the Roman army that rebelled.

To become equal citizens

What triggered these decisive events? 

It was after the massacre of tens of thousands of wives and children of Goths serving in the Roman military that the Gothic soldiers defected to Alaric, and they sacked Rome in 410.

It was the foederati, under Odoacer’s leadership, that deposed the last Western Roman Emperor in 476 because they were no longer willing to suffer the harsh conditions set for them to remain in Italy. 

Furthermore, what motivated the Goths? The following are indications that the Goth rose up—not to make an end of the Roman system, but to be treated as equals with the Graeco-Roman population:

In 399, the Ostrogoths in the Eastern Empire demanded to be allowed to settle within the boundaries of the Empire.

The Visigoths laid siege to Rome in the years 408 to 410 to secure rights to settle within Roman territory.

Our second conclusion is therefore that the Goths did not aim to replace the Roman Empire with something new but to be treated as equal citizens with the Graeco-Roman population, as part of the Empire.

The Empire approved the ‘Barbarian’ Rule.

It has been traditional to refer to the year 476, when Odoacer—a ‘barbarian’ soldier and statesman—deposed the last western emperor, conquered Italy, and proclaimed himself ruler of Italy, as the Fall of Rome.  However, the following indicates that this is not an appropriate view of history:

After Odoacer conquered Italy, the Eastern Emperor Zeno granted Odoacer the title of patrician, effectively recognizing his rule as King of Italy in the name of the Eastern Empire.

Odoacer issued coins with both his image and that of the Eastern Emperor Zeno. 

In 484 Zeno appointed the Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great to be king of Italy.  Zeno, thereby, turned one troublesome, nominal vassal against another. Theodoric invaded Italy in 489 and by August 490 had captured almost the entire peninsula.

Peter Brown concluded that the Ostrogothic rulers of Italy considered themselves upholders of the Roman tradition.

JB Bury (see Odoacer) wrote that 476 stands out prominently as an important stage in the process of the division of the Empire into different parts, but that it is not more important than other similar events, such as:

The largely powerless but still influential Western Roman Senate continued to exist in the city of Rome under the rule of the Ostrogothic kingdom.

The Goths did not drive the Graeco-Roman people out from their territories.  Not did they persecute the previous citizens: The two groups existed fairly peacefully on the areas conquered by the ‘barbarians’.

The Roman Empire did not Fall.

The Western Roman Empire, therefore, did not come to an end in 476, when Odoacer deposed the last emperor.  Deposing the emperor was simply a formality that aligned outward form to existing reality, namely that the ‘barbarians’ were already in control of the Western Empire since the beginning of the fifth century.  The ‘barbarians’ were no longer scared of the Eastern Roman Empire but still submitted to it.  Roman power, practices, economy, culture, and religion continued after the emperor was deposed.  

CHURCH IN ROME

There are at least two reasons why the ‘barbarians’ should have made an end to the Church in Rome. 

Firstly, the Church was part of the State. The separation of Church and State is a modern concept. After Christianity was legalized in 313, the emperors became the real heads of the church and the church became part of the Roman Government. Bishops received their appointment and duties from the emperors and were accountable to the emperors. 

Secondly, in those years, Christology was the main controversy in the church. The Church in Rome accepted Nicene Christology but the Goths were Arian Christians.  In the fourth century, the emperors persecuted people with opposing Christological views. 

Despite these factors, when the ‘barbarians’ took control of the Western Empire, they allowed the Nicene Church in Rome (the Papacy) to continue unhindered in their areas.  One may ask why, but it is at least an indication that the ‘barbarians’ did not intend to destroy or replace the Roman system.  Rather, they continued it, and the Church in Rome was part of the system which they continued.

ROMAN EMPIRE MORPHED INTO THE MIDDLE AGES

After the ‘barbarians’ assumed control of the Western Roman Empire, there always remained a desire and pressure to reunite the empire.

The Roman Church played a cohesive role.

In the fifth century, after the Western Roman Empire was divided into many fairly independent ‘nations’, the Roman Church played a cohesive role among the ‘barbarian’ nations.  The Church was better organized than the ‘barbarian’ nations and the bishops continued to play a political role, even though they now had to depend on the Arian ‘barbarian’ nations for military protection.

In the sixth century, to strengthen the Church in Rome, Justinian I neutralized some of the Arian ‘barbarian’ nations.  This resulting in the Byzantine Papacy; about two centuries during which the Church in Rome was both protected and controlled by the Eastern Roman Empire (also called the Byzantine Empire).  To some extent, Roman control was re-established in this period, namely that the Byzantine Empire ruled the nations in the West through the church.

The Frankish Empire continued the Western Empire.

The Pirenne thesis was published in the 1920s. It remains influential to this day and has been supported by recent historians such as François Masai, Karl Ferdinand Werner, and Peter Brown.  This thesis:

Regards the rise of the Kingdom of the Franks (481–843) as a continuation of the Roman Empire.  (This empire was the largest post-Roman barbarian kingdom in Western Europe and the predecessor of the modern states of France and Germany.  The greatest expansion of the Frankish empire was secured by the early 9th century.  By this point dubbed as the Carolingian Empire.)

Validates the crowning of Charlemagne (AD 800), one of the main kings of the Franks, as the first Holy Roman Emperor as a successor of the Roman Emperors. 

Morphed into the Middle Ages

The Pirenne thesis also concludes that the Roman world underwent a gradual (though often violent) series of transformations, morphing into the medieval world.  In other words, the transformed Roman Empire continued right into the Middle Ages.

The French historian Lucien Musset argued that the civilization of Medieval Europe emerged from a SYNTHESIS between the Graeco-Roman world and the Germanic civilizations penetrating the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire did not fall or decline; it just TRANSFORMED. The same applies to the Germanic populations which invaded it.

Late Antiquity – Period of Transition

Traditionally, historians spoke of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire as the marker of the end of the Ancient Era and the beginning of the European Middle Ages.  Since historians have largely turned away from the idea that the Roman Empire fell, accepting instead Pirenne’s thesis of the CONTINUITY of the Roman Empire before and after the Germanic invasion, more recently they have defined a period which they call Late Antiquity. This is the period of transition from classical antiquity to the Middle Ages, with the roots of MEDIEVAL culture contained in Roman culture.  They see a gradual process of TRANSFORMATION, with no clear breaks, occurring over centuries. 

Brown proposed that Late Antiquity stretches more or less from the 3rd to the 8th centuries. 

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, what happened, over centuries, is that ‘barbarians’ migrated into the Empire.  They were absorbed into the Empire and its culture and many were recruited into the Imperial Forces until, eventually, they controlled the military machinery, soon after Theodosius died in 395.  From that point forward, the ‘barbarians’ were the real rulers of the Western Empire.  They were still treated as second-class citizens; often without the assurance of permanent residency. But they continued to tolerate figurehead emperors for some centuries before they deposed the last emperor in 476.  They successfully rebelled against their Roman overlords and took by force what the Empire was not willing to award them voluntarily, namely permanent residency.  This was a gradual (though often violent) process of decline over centuries. 

The ‘barbarians’ did not intend to replace the Roman Empire with different political or legal structures and they did not drive the Graeco-Roman population or the Roman church out of their territories. Their purpose was to remain part of the Empire.  The nations into which the Roman Empire was divided, continued Roman culture and economy in most parts of the former Western provinces into the 6th century and beyond (Historiography). 

The Western Roman Empire, therefore, did not fall.  What really happened was that the ‘barbarian’ immigrants wrestled control of the Empire from the original Graeco-Roman population.

Observing the cultural and archaeological continuities between the Roman Empire and the post-Roman Germanic kingdoms, Fustel de Coulanges (1875–89) argued that the ‘barbarians’ simply contributed to an ongoing process of transforming Roman institutions. (Histoire des institutions politiques de l’ancienne France)

Bowersock (2001), similarly, described the process as a complex cultural transformation, rather than a fall. (Bowersock 2001, pp. 87–122)

CONFIRM DANIEL’S PROPHECIES

Daniel describes the fourth beast as “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong.” “It devoured and crushed and trampled down” (Dan 7:7).  The Roman Empire was a unity of many nations, held together by violence; by military force.

In Daniel 2, the fourth “iron”-empire goes over into the “divided kingdom” of the feet.  In Daniel 7, eleven horns (kings – Dan 7:24) come out of the fourth empire.  “Horns” in Daniel do not represent individual kings, but empires, each consisting of a series of kings (Dan 8:20-22). (For a detailed discussion, see the article series on the prophecies of Daniel, including Daniel 2, Daniel 7, and the Evil Horn.)  The fourth empire in Daniel, therefore, subdivides into ten + one kingdoms.  (The number “ten” should be understood as “many;” not as exactly ten (cf. Dan 1:20).  The Roman Empire did divide into many different empires.  The exact number varied continually.  Since previous empires were conquered by a new empire, it remains amazing that Daniel could predict, centuries before it happened, that the fourth empire would not be conquered by another mighty empire, but that it would subdivide.

Since the eleven horns grow out of the fourth beast, they are a continuation of that beast.  Historians confirm that the Roman Empire, in reality, did not fall or decline, but continued right into the Middle Ages.  This was particularly in the form of The Evil Eleventh Horn. In Revelation that horn is the Sea Beast (Rev 13:1).  It received a deadly wound (Rev 13:3), but in the end-time, an image to the beast will be made and come alive (Rev 13:14-15).  In other words, the culture of the Roman Empire will be revived, and it will again devour and crush and trample down (Dan 7:7). 

OTHER AVAILABLE ARTICLES