Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel update #12- Future Democracies?

February 7th, 2010

Last post I discussed how Hippolytus interpreted the first part of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Chapter 2 of the book of Daniel.  Though interesting, Hippolytus interpretation is rather standard among both Christians and secular scholars.  However the second part of the interpretation concerning the feet and toes of the statue has always been keenly debated.  I was quite surprised when I translated the following passage:

Next the toes of the feet, so that  in each place democracies may be shown, which are about to be, which are divided into the ten toes of the image, in which the iron will have been been mixed with clay.

Εἶτα δάκτυλοι ποδῶν, ἵνα δειχθῶσιν αἱ κατὰ τόπον δημοκρατίαι αἱ μέλλουσαι γίγνεσθαι, διαιρούμεναι εἰς τοὺς δέκα δακτύλους τῆς εἰκόνος, ἐν οἷς ἔσται ὁ σίδηρος ἀναμεμιγμένος τῷ ὀστράκῳ.

Does anyone know of another church father who talks about future democracies replacing the Roman Empire?  How should we interpret Hippolytus’ seemingly prescient prediction (though it took 300 or so years to be fulfilled after the fall of the Eastern Empire). For that matter does anyone have a better translation that they would like to contribute?

-UPDATE-

Hippolytus says much the same thing in his work On the Antichrist:

As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms, let us look at the subject a little more closely, and consider these matters as in the clear light of a personal survey.

τούτων οὖν ἐσομένων καὶ τῶν δέκα δακτύλων τῆς εἰκόνος εἰς δημοκρατίας χωρησάντων, καὶ τῶν δέκα κεράτων τοῦ θηρίου εἰς δέκα βασιλεῖς μερισθέντων, ἴδωμεν σαφέστερον τὰ προκείμενα, καὶ κατανοήσωμεν αὐτὰ ὀφθαλμοφανῶς. -On the Antichrist 27

Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel update #11

January 26th, 2010

Lots going on so my editing has been in fits and starts the past couple weeks.  The following passage concerns Daniel’s interpretation of the statue/image which was seen by Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapter 2. His interpretation is of great interest because he interprets the iron legs of the statue to be the Romans who were ruling during his lifetime.  Next week I will post Hippolytus’ rather intriguing interpretation of the feet of the statue, in which he predicts what the coming kingdom or kingdoms will look like.

And so how can we not consider the ancient things which were prophesied by Daniel in Babylon and are now still being fulfilled in the world? For the image which was portrayed according to that time, encompassed the type of the kingdom of all the world. In which time the Babylonians then reigned, as being the golden head of the image. Then after them the Persians ruled for two hundred forty-five years as they are shown to be silver. After them the Greeks ruled, beginning from Alexander of Macedon, for three hundred years, as they are bronze. After them the Romans, who are the iron legs of the image, being strong as iron.

Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel Update #10

January 12th, 2010

I’ve finished the rough draft translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel, which is about 50,000 words long.  Now I begin the process of editing the translation.  It has proved to be a good read and I’m glad that I have begun this project.  As I was reading the translation I noticed a passage that I had forgotten about, perhaps it refers to the Jewish attitude about the canonicity of the book of Susannah and alludes to why it was deemed apocryphal by some Christians.

And so the chiefs of the Jews now want to mutilate these things of the book of [Daniel? Susannah?], believing that these things did not happen in Babylon, because they were shamed by the Elders at that time,  failing to recognize the administration of the Spirit.

Next week I’ll start posting excerpts of Hippolytus’ interpretation of Daniel’s apocalyptic dreams.

Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel Part 9

January 5th, 2010

It has been a while since I have last updated, vacation can sometimes be more busy than regular workweeks.  Fortunately I’ve made great progress in the translation and will begin editing the rough draft in a few weeks.  Soon I will begin posting some excerpts on how Hippolytus interprets the prophetic dreams of Daniel.  For now however I would like to end the first post of the new year with what Hippolytus’ thought concerning the nature of the Church.

For neither is a mere place able to be a called the Church, nor a house which is built with stone and clay, nor a man himself able to call himself the Church.  For a house is destroyed and a man dies. And so, what is the Church?  The community of saints participating in truth.  Therefore unanimity and the way of the saints added together, this becomes the Church the spiritual House of God.

How beautiful and true his words are.

Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel Part 8

December 17th, 2009

This week Hippolytus turns towards his audience and exhorts us to follow Susannah’s example of faith:

“For on account of this our Lord Jesus Christ also lived and died and rose again, so that he might reign over the living and the dead”  Long ago Susannah in every way  taught these things to us, foreshadowing  in herself, the mysteries of the Church from which faith and reverence and temperance of the body are preached in all the earth until now. Therefore I exhort all those who read this writing , women and virgins, the small and the great, who have before their eyes the judgment of God, take her as an example to be imitated  and just as Sussanah was justified by God and by the word which was administrated through Daniel, she was able to be delivered from the second death.

Hippolytus and December 25th, the birthday of Christ-Christmas

December 8th, 2009

*Scroll down for more updates*

Roger Pearse is discussing the dates of the Winter Solstice and “Brumalia” to see if and how they correspond with December 25th.  But why do we think Jesus was born on December 25th?  I thought that I would throw my hat into the ring and give the earliest reference to December 25 as the birthday of Jesus Christ.

Hippolytus in his Commentary on Daniel 4.23.3 says:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [December 25th], the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Augustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years.  He suffered in the thirty third year, 8 days before the kalends of April [March 25th], the Day of Preparation, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar [29 or 30 AD], while Rufus and Roubellion and Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus were Consuls.

I’m not sure how to calculate the 42nd year of Augustus and the 15th of Tiberius, do we count inclusively or exclusively?  Does a partial year reign count as a full one?  Or does the year begin on the day the man became emperor (March 15th 44bc in the case of Augustus?).  Lastly, don’t we date King Herod’s death to 4BC based only off of Josephus?  As I recall the contemporary historians Tacitus and Suetonius don’t give enough information about his reign.  If so, couldn’t Josephus be a year or two off?   Finally, where is a good source on lists of Consuls?

Thoughts?

-Update-

Peter (in the comments) rightly reminded me that some believe that Hippolytus’ reference to December 25 as the birthday of Christ is a later interpolation.  Quasten says this in his Patrology. The most modern edition of Hippolytus’ commentary GCS (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller) series number NF 7, puts the text in brackets indicating that it is a conjecture (or perhaps an interpolation), as does GCS #1 found here.  However the SC (Source Christianes) Series 13 edition (published in 1947), contains the text as I gave it above above.

Furthermore, the text that the most modern edition gives doesn’t seem to make sense.  It reads as follows:

“For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, four days before the Nones of April, 8 days before the kalends of January, the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Agustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years.  He suffered in the thirty third year, 8 days before the kalends of April [March 25th], the Day of Preparation”

Now in my photocopy of the page the German footnotes are partially cut off, making it very difficult to understand what actually is going on here. The older GCS edition seems to contain the same set of footnotes and it seems that there is conflicting manuscript tradition.   Anyone with a better knowledge of German able to sort this out?  You can see the footnotes here

Do scholars label this an interpolation simply because they think that the traditional date of December was not settled on until after Hippolytus?  Or are their more reasons?

-Update-

For those outside the US the GCS #1 volume is now on my website.  Look for page 242 or 295 of the PDF.

http://www.chronicon.net/GCS1hippolytusWerke.pdf

-Update-

Hippolytus has this to say in the ancient latin translation of his Chronicon about the birth and death of Christ (No Greek fragments survive from this portion of his Chronicon).  Chronicon Section 687:

And after the transmigration into Babylon until the birth of Christ, there were 14 generations, 660 years, and from the birth of Christ until the Passion there was 30 years and from the Passion up until this year which is the 13th year of the Emperor Alexander, there is 206 years.

The 13th year of Emperor Alexander Severus was 235AD [which makes 29AD for the death of Jesus according to the Latin].  Another Latin manuscript reads that it was 207 years from the passion of Christ until the 13th year of Alexander [28 AD for the death of Jesus].  The Armenian manuscript claims Christ was 32 when he died and that there are 205 years from Christ’s death to the 12th year and 6th month of Emperor Alexander’s reign [3BC].  It  is interesting to note that in his Chronicon Hippolytus claims that Jesus died when he was 30, but in his Commentary on Daniel he says he was 33 years old.  However, if we assume that the Armenian manuscript is more accurate than the Latin (Armenian often is more accurate) in which case what Hippolytus states in his Chronicon agrees pretty well with what he says in his Commentary on Daniel.  Read Hans Dampf’s insightful comments below about Jesus being born in 3BC.

Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel Part 7

December 7th, 2009

After Susannah was threatened with death she cried:

I am in dire straits  for if I would do this now, it is death to me, yet if I would not, I will not escape your hands, but it is better for me, having not done this, to fall into your hands than to sin against the Lord.

In commenting on this Hippolytus firmly declares that it is better to die for God, than to deny Him and live in this world.  From what we know of Hippolytus, he followed his own advice and died as a martyr and witness of Christ.  I am reminded once more of the countless believers who have died and still do die for Christ, surely God Himself will be their blessing.

Behold the words of the temperate woman who heeded God .  She says ‘I am in dire straits,’ for the church is persecuted and oppressed  by the Jews, but also the Gentiles  and by those who falsely call themselves Christians, who always behold the temperance and tranquility of the church and use force to destroy her.  Susannah says “Therefore if I would do this, it is death to me.”  For to disobey God and to obey men is death and makes for eternal chastisement. “Yet if I would not, I will not escape your hands.”  And she has said this truth, for those who are brought forward for the sake of the Name of Christ, if they would do what is commanded by men, they die to God, but live to the world, if they do not do what is commanded, they do not escape the hands of the judges, but being condemned by the same judges, they die.

For it is better for you, having not done what is commanded by men, to fall into their hands, than to sin before the Lord.  For this is more profitable: to die at the hands of unrighteous men, so that we live with God, than, consenting to them and after being ruined by them, to fall into the hands of God. “For on account of this our Lord Jesus Christ also lived and died and rose again, so that he might reign over the living and the dead”

Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel part 6

December 1st, 2009

This week Hippolytus discusses the passage in the book of Susannah where the two wicked elders trap her in her husband’s garden and try to force her to commit adultery with them.

And as her maidens went out of the garden, the elders rose and said to Susannah “Behold, the doors of the garden are locked and no one can see us and we lust for you.  Therefore consent to use and sleep with us.  But if not, we will testify against you that a young man was with you”

The elders are here essentially threatening Susannah with death if she does not consent to them.  Hippolytus had previously stated that  the two elders represented two people groups, the Gentiles and the Jews, who were persecuting Hippolytus’ fellow Christians.  He further elaborates on this:

For you may now also find these things fulfilled in the Church.  For when the two peoples agree to destroy the lives  of saints, they observe  a fitting day and, after rushing in to the house of God, where people pray and hymn to God, they lay hold of them and drag them off and arrest them saying “Come, consent to us and sacrifice to our gods, but if not we will testify against you.”  Of those not willing to sacrifice, they lead them to the court, charge them as practicing what is contrary to the decree of Caesar and condemn them to death.

Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel 5

November 21st, 2009

Hippolytus first touches on the theme of persecution in the church when he comes to the passage of the two wicked elders spying on Susanna walking in the garden.  He allegorically interprets the story and applies it to the contemporary situation in the church, later on in his commentary he becomes more explicit about the persecution that his fellow Christians suffered.

And it happened as the people departed in the middle of the day Susanna entered to walk around in the garden of her husband and the Elders saw her everyday and became inflamed in lust for her .

For concerning what happened to Susanna by the Elders, these things are even now in the same way done by the chiefs of the people in Babylon.  For Susanna is a foretype of the church, Jehoiakim her husband is Christ.  The garden was the calling of the saints as the fruit bearing tree produces fruit in the church.  Babylon is the world. But the two Elders represent the type of two peoples scheming against the church, one who is of the circumcision and one who is of the gentiles.  For it is said, “They were appointed as chiefs and judges of the people,”  signaling that in this age they have authority and power, unrighteously judging the righteous. But they zealously watched Susanna walking in the garden every day, this signals that until now they, who are both from the Gentiles and the Jews from the circumcision, watch and interfere in the business of the church, wishing to bring false testimonies against us, just as the apostle says, “On account of the secretly introduced false brethren, who were brought in to spy out the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus.”

-update- Fixed a grammatical error

Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel 4

November 16th, 2009

Last week we spoke about how Hippolytus claims that Susanna was the daughter of Jehoiakim who was the son of the last king of Judah.  This week we will see that Hippolytus goes even further, claiming that Susanna was the daughter of Hilkia the high priest and that her uncle was no other than Jeremiah the prophet.  Further Hippolytus goes on to say that the great-grandson of Susanna was Zerubabbel who laid the foundation of the 2nd temple.  For a much needed picture of the genealogy go here. Hippolytus also points out a gap in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus

She was a daughter of Hilkia the priest, who found the book of the law in the house of the Lord, when Josiah the king ordered him to cleanse the Holy of Holies.  His brother was Jeremiah the Prophet… And so these, being from priestly lineage, from the tribe of Levi, mixed with the tribe of Judah, so that through the two righteous tribes, by their unity, the righteousness of Christ according to the fleshly seed, may be shown,  so that He who was born from them in Bethlehem may be proclaimed as Christ and Priest of God.

For also Matthew, wishing to trace  the pure and faultless descent of Christ according to the flesh until Joseph, coming to Josiah he omits his five sons and names Jeconiah, who while in Babylon was begotten from Susanna, skipping  from righteous seed to righteous seed. For he says, “Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers during the deportation to Babylon.”    How is this declared? For Josiah reigned in the land of Judah thirty-one years and he died there.  Therefore how is it possible that having died there he begot Jeconiah in Babylon?    From this it is necessary to observe that Matthew traced the genealogy of him who was begotten from Jehoiakim and from Susanna, as Jehoiakim was the son of Eliakim who was called Jehoiakim the son of Josiah.    For Matthew was not able to trace the genealogy of him who was banished by the Holy Spirit, as being in the line of this Jeconiah,  as some deceivers maintain.  For this cripple was brought into Babylon and there as a prisoner was turning the mill childless and died. So that scripture does not idly teach us saying, “And there was a man living in Babylon and his name was Jehoiakim and he took a wife, Susanna by name, a daughter of Hilkia, who was exceedingly beautiful and feared the Lord.”    And so Jeconiah was begotten by her, and Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel.  He together with Ezra the scribe and Joshua the son of Jehozadak came up to Jerusalem according to the command of Cyrus the Persian.   And thus continued the pure race of the fathers until the generation of Jesus Christ.

Hippolytus explains the gap in Matthew’s genealogy by claiming that Matthew simply skipped the generations of those who were deemed too evil to be named as an ancestor of Christ.  Much the same argument is used by “old Earth” Christians who say that the genealogies in Genesis may very well be filled with gaps.  Hippolytus does draw some interesting conclusions, but we cannot be sure of his accuracy.  To this day scholars still struggle to successfully identify the names of those involved in the Babylonian captivity in the rebuilding of Jerusalem.  If any experts on Biblical genealogies are reading this, please comment!

Next week we will turn to a primary theme in Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel: persecution.