Commentary on Daniel

by Jerome, D.P. Curtin (Editor), Gleason L. Archer (Translator)

The most important single work produced by the Church Fathers on any of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, commenting upon the original Hebrew text, and showing a complete mastery of all the literature of the Church on the subjects touched upon to the time of composition, is without question St. Jerome's Commentary on the Book of Daniel. In Origen's work on Daniel much of the exegesis is spoiled by the author's allegorical principles of hermeneutics, and the later commentary by Chrysostom is more in the nature of a series of homilies than an attempt to wrestle with the problems of Daniel's prophecies. For over eleven hundred years after its publication, all who wrote on Daniel showed themselves more indebted to this work by Jerome than to any other commentary on the Old Testament Scriptures produced in the period of the Church Fathers. It is strange that though we have some sixteen thousand pages in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers, in the three major series of translations of patristic literature issued by Scribners some years ago, the Commentary on Daniel was passed by, as it was in the earlier series of translations undertaken by leaders of the Oxford Movement in the middle of the nineteenth century. The fifth volume of the Ante-Nicene Fathers includes fragments from the commentary on Daniel by Hippolytus, written about A.D. 230 and these fragments contain very important material, especially on the last of the seventy weeks, Antichrist, and the author's amazing identification of the toes of clay and iron of Daniel 2:43 with democracies; yet, the work is quite inferior in learning and insight to that of Jerome.

Genres: Theology, Catholic

139 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1958

About the author

St. Jerome (born c. 347) (formerly Saint Hierom) (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος) was a Roman Catholic priest, confessor, theologian and historian, and who became a Doctor of the Church. He was the son of Eusebius, of the city of Stridon, which was on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia (possibly in modern Croatia or Slovenia). He is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), and his list of writings is extensive.

He is recognized by the Catholic Church as a saint and Doctor of the Church, and the Vulgate is still an important text in Catholicism. He is also recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church, where he is known as St. Jerome of Stridonium or Blessed Jerome.

Reviews

[Alan Fuller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Saint Jerome (347-420) was a theologian, and historian. His main concern when writing his commentary on Daniel was to refute the ideas of the anti-Christian philosopher Porphyry. Porphyry claimed that the person who composed the book under the name of Daniel made it all up after the events took place in order to revive the hopes of his countrymen. Jerome would agree with Porphyry on the earlier parts of some visions which were apparently historical. Then he would abruptly switch to a future interpretation which included the Antichrist and end-time events.

Jerome was an expert in ancient languages and history. He wasn’t a huge fan of allegory.

“Therefore those critics should leave off their foolish objections who raise questions about the presence of shadows and symbols in a matter of historical truth and attempt to destroy the truth itself by imagining that they should employ allegorical methods…”

However, he was no stranger to figurative methods himself. He offers this remarkable interpretation of Daniel ch. 5.

“I think that the golden ones are those which consist of earthly reason. The silver gods are those which possess the charm of eloquence and are fashioned by rhetoric. But those which bring in the fables of the poets and employ ancient traditions containing marked divergences from one another in respect to good taste or folly, such are described as bronze and iron. And those who set forth sheer absurdities are called wooden or stone.”

For Daniel ch. 9:24-27 he offers differing opinions of nine ancient interpreters, including Eusebius who had several different theories.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I finished this commentary a couple of weeks ago but neglected to read a few pages at the end after Jerome had finished dealing with the canonical text. Compared to Augustine, Jerome is a much better exegete, though is inferior as a theologian. Thus, Jerome is useful to consult on the meaning of the text but is not so good at drawing theological deductions from it. He is still worth reading, however.

[Kenneth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Saint Jerome is best remembered for his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate but he also wrote commentaries and other writings, including this commentary on the Old Testament book of Daniel. He defends the historicity of Daniel and discusses the meaning of the text, over against other writers including the pagan philosopher Porphyry. In the later prophetic chapters, which reflect the doings of Alexander the Great and his generals who divided up his conquests after his death in 312 B.C., he argues that kings like Antiochus Epiphanes who desecrated the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (described in First and Second Maccabees and in Josephus) were types of the Antichrist to come at the end of history. He primarily deals with the Hebrew/Aramaic text but also refers to the Greek Septuagint version, which includes the additions which Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox accept as fully canonical but excluded by most Protestants as apocryphal.

[Eli · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must read for anyone studying Daniel. Jerome's commentary is the earliest Christian commentary on the book of Daniel, and it is a defense of Daniel against the skeptic Porphyry. Jerome defends the late date and authenticity of Daniel, as well as the traditional Christian interpretation of his prophecies. Jerome cites various Christian interpretations, but emphasizes repeatedly that the traditional and essentially unanimous interpretation by the Christian Church is the futuristic interpretation: of a literal coming Antichrist who will desecrate the future temple in Jerusalem before the second coming of Christ. Well done, Jerome! A highly recommended read.