St. Jerome's Interpretation of Daniel

[spiritmech]

In Augustine's City of God, he mentions Jerome's understanding of the four kingdoms in Daniel:


City of God, XX
Some have interpreted these four kingdoms as signifying those of the Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans. They who desire to understand the fitness of this interpretation may read Jerome's book on Daniel, which is written with a sufficiency of care and erudition.

So my question:

I'm guessing St. Jerome critiques this interpretation. What is the gist of it, if anyone knows? I tried finding a copy on the web, but google wasn't helpful in the searches I tried.

Thanks,
SM

[spiritmech]

I tried a better search, and found this (http://www.historicist.com/horae/local_appropriateness_of_scripture_symbols_footnotes.htm) link that says:

From the Fathers ample quotations have been already given to the same effect; showing especially that they regarded the Roman empire as the fourth of Daniel's prophecies. Jerome says it was the view of all previous ecclesiastical writers.

So ... maybe Jerome agrees with the interpretation that Rome is the 4th? Does Jerome disagree on the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd? Maybe the grammar is just unclear in the translation I have of Augustine.

SM

[Just The Facts]

Hi

Jerome changed Daniel for all time when he decide to alter the words of the book to fit his own Amill doctrine.

Example .......................it does not say messiah is Daniel 9: it says anointed one.............................

Example...................There is no 62 weeks plus seven weeks.

here is the proper translation

[25] Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

As we can see YOU DO NOT combine the seven weeks and 62 weeks

The prince ..The Anointed one comes 7 weeks after the decree Not 7+62 .............

The Truth is this Prince is not Jesus at all but is Joshua the first priest king of the second temple era.

And after 62 weeks of years this line of Priest Kings was cut off and their house left unto them desolate.

Jesus is not the prince in Daniel 9 nor is there one week left to be fulfilled….Daniel 9 was fulfilled when the Roman Prince destroyed the city.

[spiritmech]

Well I'm not really curious whether you agree/disagree with him or not. I'm curious as to *what* he said, specifically with regards to the four kingdoms.

Thanks,
SM

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Hi

Jerome changed Daniel for all time when he decide to alter the words of the book to fit his own Amill doctrine.

Example .......................it does not say messiah is Daniel 9: it says anointed one.............................
Looks to me like the pot calling the kettle black. It looks to me like you are changin Daniel 9 to fit your (I assume) Premill doctrine.

After all, what does the word messiah mean?

(Hint: It means "the anointed one" )

The transliteration of the Hebrew word used in Daniel 9 is Mashiyach, the Hebrew word from which we get the English word Messiah. The way you have it stated, you make it seem like Jerome just arbitrarily put the word Messiah in there, when in fact there is very good reason to do so.

Can you tell me why you think Jerome was wrong when he said that the Hebrew word that means Messiah, should be translated Messiah?

[Amazing Rando]

In Augustine's City of God, he mentions Jerome's understanding of the four kingdoms in Daniel:


City of God, XX
Some have interpreted these four kingdoms as signifying those of the Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans. They who desire to understand the fitness of this interpretation may read Jerome's book on Daniel, which is written with a sufficiency of care and erudition.

So my question:

I'm guessing St. Jerome critiques this interpretation. What is the gist of it, if anyone knows? I tried finding a copy on the web, but google wasn't helpful in the searches I tried.

Thanks,
SM

The problem there is that it's forgetting the Babylonians- if I'm not mistaken, they were the golden head of the statue (Dan 2:38). That bit is at least explicitly identified.

[Just The Facts]

Hi

No I did not write the text or do the translation to the vulgate...............Jerome did.

Now If you go to the original Text you will find that Jerome altered the punctuation..........joining two phrases that are not to be joined .ie the 62 weeks and the 7 weeks...................

In addition he replaced anointed one with Messiah.............This change has soooooo permeated Christianity and the Study of it.................. that now Strong’s list the Hebrew word for anointed one as meaning Messiah in Two places .......ie in Daniel 9 were Jerome changed it.

The Word

mashiyach is translated 37 times as anointed ..................then twice as messiah in Daniel 9: .............but it is the same word in the original text...........soooo what Jerome did in fact was change the meaning of the word mashiyach.............to as mean Messiah in Strong’s concordance.

If you investigate this you will see I speak the truth.

If by the four Kingdoms you mean the four Beast they are expalind in scripture as Babylon , Persia , Then two unknown Kingdoms to Daniel...........Greece , and the Fourth Beast was Rome.

[spiritmech]

Aye carumba. So much for staying on topic. :ale:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Aye carumba. So much for staying on topic. :ale:
:blush: Sorry SM. I posted a response to Just the Facts before I saw the above, but deleted it as it was off topic.

I will post no more off topic post in this thread.

[spiritmech]

Well, he's the one that pretty much started the off-topic-ness. My question is informational/hermeneutical. I don't care how Jerome is valued (or not) ... this thread is definitely not the place to beat up on St. Jerome. :)

Steve

[Just The Facts]

Hi Spirit mech


Was not trying to derail the thread just spread some truth and share what I have learned about Jerome and Daniel

Try this link

http://www.theworkofgod.org/Bible/Sermons/SJerome2.htm

[spiritmech]

Yeah I found that one. It had the preface but not the actual commentary.
Steve

[Amazing Rando]

I wasn't horribly off-topic, was I? I was just trying to point out that one of the four kingdoms must be understood as being the Babylonian empire.

[spiritmech]

No you're fine. I think everyone's fine now. I know next to nothing about St. Jerome and just wanted to keep it on topic. I found one guy saying it's not Rome, but Greece, that's the 4th kingdom. But you're right, the list missing quoted by Augustine definitely skipped Babylon.

SM

[InChristAlways]

No you're fine. I think everyone's fine now. I know next to nothing about St. Jerome and just wanted to keep it on topic. I found one guy saying it's not Rome, but Greece, that's the 4th kingdom. But you're right, the list missing quoted by Augustine definitely skipped Babylon.

SMHi sm,
There are so many commentaries on Daniel, may I ask why the interest in this particular person? Each one has their own translation and interpretation of this very highly debated book in the bible(John Calvin for example) and I would love to know of someone that has harmonized it and translated it as accurately as possible, otherwise the sky is the limit on the views of this devine book. These 2 links may help understand why this book is very difficult to interpret, depending on whether it was fulfilled in the first century or is yet future, also your views and beliefs on the Olivet Discourse and book of Revelation.God bless.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

A doctrine of the 'revived Roman empire' was then concocted, and at the time this happens, the clock will start ticking again and that last bit of prophecy will finally be fulfilled. This might explain chapter nine, if you choose to accept such nimble interpretation, but another excuse would have to be cooked up for chapters 10 to 12, for it is self evident that in this source (written in the second century in response to Antiochus IV) the world did not end immediately after Antiochus despoiled Jerusalem and the temple, Michael was not outraged enough to promptly end the world. This 'clock' must have 'stopped ticking' as well, awaiting the awakening and the rise of the 'revived Selucid Greek empire' at which time it will finally be fulfilled. This would, of course, require ending the world twice (once to Revive the Romans and thus salvage chapter 9, and a second go at it to revive the Greeks and salvage chapter 12. Whether or not we can all tolerate suffering through two ends of the world is a good question, but this would be required to salvage the doctrine of 'Biblical inerrancy.'

As I have noticed while comparing translations of different verses in the Bible, even the most literal translations can suddenly depart from literalism, perhaps visit the Greek Septuagint and abandon the Hebrew translation for a single verse, whenever some highly cherished doctrine might be threatened by a truly literal translation. Rule of thumb : you should never, ever rely exclusively on one single translation.)
As a final point I have to ask how, after those early churches embarrassed everyone by reading Daniel in an uncritical way and being gullible about the Bible, and prophecy in particular, you really have to wonder why any other modern church would want to do the same thing, repeat the same mistake, and embarrass themselves in the same way as those early churches did. It turns out that there are certain things you can learn by not taking the Bible literally all the time, and this lesson is certainly one of them.

[spiritmech]

Hi sm,
There are so many commentaries on Daniel, may I ask why the interest in this particular person? Each one has their own translation and interpretation of this very highly debated book in the bible(John Calvin for example) and I would love to know of someone that has harmonized it and translated it as accurately as possible, otherwise the sky is the limit on the views of this devine book. These 2 links may help understand why this book is very difficult to interpret, depending on whether it was fulfilled in the first century or is yet future, depends on your views and beliefs on the Olivet Discourse and book of Revelation.God bless.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

A doctrine of the 'revived Roman empire' was then concocted, and at the time this happens, the clock will start ticking again and that last bit of prophecy will finally be fulfilled. This might explain chapter nine, if you choose to accept such nimble interpretation, but another excuse would have to be cooked up for chapters 10 to 12, for it is self evident that in this source (written in the second century in response to Antiochus IV) the world did not end immediately after Antiochus despoiled Jerusalem and the temple, Michael was not outraged enough to promptly end the world. This 'clock' must have 'stopped ticking' as well, awaiting the awakening and the rise of the 'revived Selucid Greek empire' at which time it will finally be fulfilled. This would, of course, require ending the world twice (once to Revive the Romans and thus salvage chapter 9, and a second go at it to revive the Greeks and salvage chapter 12. Whether or not we can all tolerate suffering through two ends of the world is a good question, but this would be required to salvage the doctrine of 'Biblical inerrancy.'

I'm interested in Jerome because he and Augustine have been foundational to very large/important streams of Christian thought. I'm not a Catholic, but I'm wondering how the history of ideas plays out and why it has done so in particular ways.

Specifically, I'm curious as to whether Jerome rules out a preteristic interpretation of Daniel. Somewhere along the line Catholic thought decided to stick with a basically futurist interpretation of the great tribulation.

Steve

[InChristAlways]

I'm interested in Jerome because he and Augustine have been foundational to very large/important streams of Christian thought. I'm not a Catholic, but I'm wondering how the history of ideas plays out and why it has done so in particular ways.

Specifically, I'm curious as to whether Jerome rules out a preteristic interpretation of Daniel. Somewhere along the line Catholic thought decided to stick with a basically futurist interpretation of the great tribulation.

SteveOk. I understand now. Thanks for clarifying that. I am of the preterist camp and since the book of revelation wasn't canonized till about the 4th century, it doesn't appear that revelation was used to perhaps solve Daniel. A lot of Daniel's prophecies had probably already passed by the time revelation was written and revelation appears more concerned with "churches" than kingdoms, as it mainly was jews(jerusalem) and gentiles(rome) and christians around that time. I thought a "third of the stars" in chapt 12 might be symbolic of "4 kingdoms" being thrown down before the birth of "Christ" but not really sure.
Anyway, good luck and if I find anything I will let you know. God bless.

Revelation 12:1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. 3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.

[eschaton]

Jerome's commentary on Daniel can be found here:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/

[spiritmech]

You are the man, Eschaton. Much thanks.
sm

[InChristAlways]

No post. Wrong forum. I thought I was on the "Unorthodox" as I saw previous posts of mine LOL. Blessings.

[ross3421]

Jerome's commentary on Daniel can be found here:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/

It appears that Jerome applied his understanding to current events and quite obviously did not understand future prophetic meanings.

However in defence of Jerome's ignorance, the book of Daniel was not to be understood UNTIL THE TIME OF THE END and was to be sealed unto this time.

Da 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:

Has this time now come ?

In Christ, Mark.

[spiritmech]

Please quote the portions you think are relevant to your question. I'm still reading through it and haven't finished it.
Thanks,
sm

[James Peter]

It appears that Jerome applied his understanding to current events and quite obviously did not understand future prophetic meanings.

However in defence of Jerome's ignorance, the book of Daniel was not to be understood UNTIL THE TIME OF THE END and was to be sealed unto this time.

Da 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:

Has this time now come ?

In Christ, Mark.

The problem I see is that if this is the case, and the time has come, then it came centuries ago. I mean unsealing it after 500 years when it was still 2000 years from the end doesn't seem very logical...

[ross3421]

The problem I see is that if this is the case, and the time has come, then it came centuries ago. I mean unsealing it after 500 years when it was still 2000 years from the end doesn't seem very logical...


JP,

Not sure if I understand your response. What I am saying is that Jerome's interpetation is incorrect. See my post on "the future fourth kingdom - the final empire" and check my web site on the 70 weeks of Daniel for certain interpetations of the book of Daniel.

Again, has the time now come ?

In Christ, Mark.

[ross3421]

Please quote the portions you think are relevant to your question. I'm still reading through it and haven't finished it.
Thanks,
sm

Spiritmech,

Verse 40. "And there shall be a fourth empire like unto iron. Just as iron breaks to pieces and overcomes all else, so it shall break to pieces and shatter all these preceding empires . ..." Now the fourth empire, which clearly refers to the Romans, is the iron empire which breaks in pieces and overcomes all others.

Clearly ? this is a major error in interpetation of Jerome. The "ten toes" represent the 10 kings which did not exsist during the Roman Empire and do not have dominion or power until near the time of Christ. These kings do not arise until there are only 42 months remaining (Rev. 13) and will have power as kings for only 1 hour (Rev. 17).

In addition, they arise out of the "sea" (bottomless pit) which parallels the understanding of the "miry" clay. The fourth kingdom is a "demonic" kingdom.

The fourth Kingdom is a "future" kingdom.

Dan. 2:40-45.

A. States that "ten toes" (reference to the future ten kings) will arise out of this kingdom.

B. That in the days of these 10 kings God will set up an future everlasting Kingdom which will consume all four kingdoms. We see this illistrated in verse 35 as these kingdoms are made like chaff and are found no more (reference to the return of Christ upon his return).

C. The kingdom will be destroyed by a future stone "made without hands". Babylon, Media / Persia were not destroyed in this manner, this stone "made without hands" is Jesus Christ.

Dan 8:22-25

A. In the latter time of this fourth kingdom a future king of "fierce coutenance and dark sentences" arises (reference to whom we call the Antichrist).

B. Power is not of his own (Satan, Rev. 13:4)

C. Manifies himself in his heart (Is 14:13).

D. By peace he destroy's many.

E. Stands up against the Prince of peace but it is destroyed.

It is a "broken" kingdom.

Dan 7:3-27

A. This future fourth kingdom is broken into four parts out from the kindom of brass (Dan. 8:21,22). This fourth kingdom is comprised of four kings pictured as these four beasts (Lion, Bear, Leopard, Beast).

B. We see the future "little horn" arise out of the fourth beast of this fourth kingdom.

C. Daniel sees this vision by "night" (a reference to the kindom of literal darkness Rev. 9:2).

D. The four beasts are the same which arise in Rev chapter 13 in which the last king (little horn) will only have 42 months till the end and the return of Christ. Note also that these four beasts parrallel the four around the throne.

(The four beasts around God's throne which tell John to "come and see" the first four seals, represents these four beasts of the Devil.

It is a "demonic" kingdom.

A. We see this kingdom arise out of the pit with all it's parts in Rev. 13.

B. The fourth seal states that "Hell will follow him". This is seen in the 5th trumpet as demonic spirits indwell the inhabinants of earth.

C. The reference to "miry" clay (Dan. 2), the mixture of the seed of men and these spirits during the fourth beast of this fourth kingdom.

It is a "nameless" kingdom.

Daniel gives no name to this fourth kingdom but is only described by beasts. This kingdom has no name, it is to be likened as the kingdom of God. In addition, as no one knew the name written as Christ returns (Rev. 19:12) neither will no one know the name of the Antichrist.


But its feet and toes are partly of iron and partly of earthenware, a fact most clearly demonstrated at the present time. For just as there was at the first nothing stronger or hardier than the Roman realm, so also in these last days there is nothing more feeble (D), since we require the assistance of barbarian tribes both in our civil wars and against foreign nations.

Since Jerome did not understand "who" or "what" the fourth kingdom represents he also does not understand the prophetic meaning of the "miry" clay.

Da 2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided

Potter's Clay and Iron do not mix, but they will be divided from each other. Why can't they mix?

Side note, try at home to mix a clump of clay with iron it will neither mix nor stick to the metal.

Potter's clay is a reference to believers

God is the potter, we are the clay....

Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

So there is a prophetic understanding in which Daniel is saying here. The fourth kingdom is of iron and clay as we shall see part "potter's and part "miry". The potter's clay is that part which shall not mix.

It is divided because under the fourth beast when a person of fierce countenance arises (little horn) people need to chose whom they will serve; God or mammon, Mark or no Mark, beast or Christ. The potter's clay represent those who will not mix with this system and fornicate with this whore nor receive his mark The potter's clay is the belivers which shall be on earth during this time. This clay cannot mix.

Now, let's go to the clay which shall mix......

Dan 2:41 but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

Miry - full of, or having the nature of mire; swampy. covered with mire; muddy.

"miry clay" or better termed "mud" can mix and stick to iron. You cannot mold mud thus this is not molded by God.

So where does this "miry" clay come from? The pit.

Ps 40:2 He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.

Their father is the devil and molded after him....

Now we see this "miry" clay mingle with the seed of men. Interesting. The understanding is that this is the demonic indwelling; miry clay from the pit + the seed of men.

Da 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves * with the seed of men:

When does Daniel state when this is to occur? In the future....

Da 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Who does this this iron miry clay mixture represent in this time? The ten horns of the Beast.

Re 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Re 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

We see this Beast arising out this pit with these ten horns.

Re 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Re 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:

We see the city has become the habitation of devils.....

Re 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

"As in the days of Noah so shall the coming of the son of man be".

This is the understanding of miry clay, the demonic indwelling upon the return of Christ.


I will continue to breakdown the interpetation however it appears that Jerome like most today have failed to correctly understand the words of Daniel.

In Christ, Mark.

[eschaton]

Jerome's method of interpretation seems inconsistent to me. An example of this can be seen in comparing his interpretation of Daniel 7:5 to that of 11:2. He compares historical facts to conclude that the three ribs in the bear's mouth in Daniel 7:5 are the kingdoms of the Babylonians, Medes, and Persians. He draws this conclusion after comparing historical facts. But later about Daniel 11:2 he says.

>>11:2 Moreover it should be observed that after he has specified four kings of Persia after Cyrus, the author [i.e., Daniel] omits the nine (C) others and passes right on to Alexander. For the Spirit of prophecy was not concerned about preserving historical detail but in summarizing only the most important matters. <<

Jerome says the Spirit of prophecy doesn't include unimportant matters. How does Jerome know what is important? Did the Spirit of prophecy tell him? Jerome includes the Magus named Smerdis in his interpretation. Encyclopedia summariess about this period of time probably won't even mention Smerdis. He is a very minor historical character. How does the Spirit of prophecy, or Jerome decide he is important?

According to Justo L. González in “How the Bible Has Been Interpreted in Christian Tradition.” In New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1, 83-106. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994, the early church interpret the Bible as prophecy, allegory or, typology.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021203211848/www.ot-studies.com/Documents/gonzalez.htm

http://www.bible-researcher.com/links16.html

He says:
>>Although in the Bible a "prophet" is not necessarily nor primarily one who foretells the future, but rather one who speaks in the name of God, in most early Christian literature the term prophecy is already used, as it is today, in the sense of prediction. That is what is meant by most ancient Christian writers, and by modern historians of biblical interpretation, by a "prophetic" method of interpreting scripture. Briefly stated, this method sees in the words of an ancient text an announcement of something that would happen in the future-most commonly at the time of Christ, but also at the time in which the interpreter is living. <<

Where as allegory or typology would be Christ-centered, or in some way about Christ, prophecy was more apt to be a literal prediction of earthly events. As time passed, allegory and typology became less and less favored. Jerome was no big fan of allegory. When discussing the seventy weeks, Jerome says:

>>When Origen came to deal with [reading praefuisset instead of profuisset] this chapter, he urged us to seek out what information we do not possess; and because he had no leeway for allegorical interpretation, in which one may argue without constraint, but rather was restricted to matters of historical fact, <<

Jerome feels that one using allegory can "argue without constraint." Perhaps the reason he feels this way can be seen in his own interpretation of symbols.

>>2:39"And a third empire of bronze (the Vulgate LXX has "made of copper"), which shall rule over the entire earth." This signifies the Alexandrian empire, and that of (p. 504) the Macedonians, and of Alexander's successors. Now this is properly termed brazen, for among all the metals bronze possesses an outstanding resonance and a clear ring, and the blast of a brazen trumpet is heard far and wide, (634) so that it signifies not only the fame and power of the empire but also the eloquence of the Greek language.<<

Where in the Bible does it say brass rings clear, or makes a good trumpet? 1 Cor. 13 doesn't really explain that. And where does it say the Greek language is eloquent? Jerome takes things out of his own experience and interprets the Bible with them. Is this the method of searching the scriptures that the Bible speaks of (Acts 17:11 2Ti 3:15-17 1Pe 1:10-12 2Pe 1:19-21) ?

Compare to the way Origen interprets things in the earthly world by those things in scripture and not vice-versa when explaining how philosophy might be used in explaining scriptures.

>>CHAP. XIII. ---- When and to whom the lessons of philosophy may be profitable, in the explanation of the sacred Scriptures, with Scripture proof. The letter to Gregory. From the Philocalia of Origen.

2. Perhaps something of the kind is hinted at in the command from the mouth of God Himself that the children of Israel be told to ask their neighbours and companions for vessels of silver and gold,224 and for clothing, so that by spoiling the Egyptians they might find materials to make the things of which they were told 225 for the Divine service. For out of the spoils which the children of Israel took from the Egyptians came the contents of the Holy of Holies, the ark with its cover, and the Cherubim, and the mercy-seat, and the golden pot wherein was treasured up the manna, the Angels' bread. These things, |58 we may suppose, were made of the best of the Egyptian gold. From the second best came the candlestick throughout of solid gold, standing near the inner curtain, and the lamps upon it, and the golden table upon which was placed the shew-bread, and, between the two, the golden censer. If there was any third- or fourth-rate gold, the holy vessels were made of it. And from the Egyptian silver, also, came other things; for it was through sojourning in Egypt that the children of Israel had abundance of precious material to make things for the service of God. <<

Although Origen might have indulged in speculative philosophy frome time to time, he sought unity in the scriptures. Augustine later explained in On Christian Doctrine that words are signs of things, and things are signs of other things. Ultimatly all signs point to the Creator God. Comparing scripture to scripture leads to oneness and purpose, while drawing out into personal experience or secular history scatters or divides into meaningless confusion.

Alan