A letter from Jerome (407)

Translated letter:

Porphyrius wrote twelve books against the prophet Daniel, not wanting it to be composed by him whose name is inscribed as its author but by one who in the time of Antiochus in Judaea was called Epiphanes, and [claiming] that Daniel had not so much said what would come as related what had happened; indeed that whatever he had said up to Antiochus contained true history, whatever went beyond was conjecture, future things he knew were lies. To that Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, responded skilfully with three volumes, the 18th, 19th, and 20th, and Apollinaris with a large book, the 26th, and before them Methodius a partial response. Truly what we propose to do is not answer the libels of the adversary, which would require a long speech, but to examine what was said by the prophet to us, that is Christians, and I emphasize in this preface that none of the prophets spoke so openly about Christ. For he [Daniel] not only writes that he [Christ] would come, which others also do, but teaches at what time he would come, and disposes the kings in order and enumerates the years and foretells the most evident signs. Which Porphyrius, conquered by the truth of history, can not deny since he sees all completed and carried out, so he erupts into the libel that the future things which are said about Antichrist at the end of the world, because of the similarity of events in certain things, he contends were completed under Antioch Epiphanes. But his attack is witness to the truth: for the faithfulness of the sayings was such that the prophet did not seem to non-believers to have said future things but to have recounted what was past. Nonetheless, whenever the occasion arises to explain his volume, I shall try to answer his libel closely, and to oppose with a simple explanation the arts of philosophy or rather of secular malice and the tricks through which he strove to subvert the truth and obscure the clear light. So I pray you, Pammachius, “philomathestate” [Grk. lover of learning] and Marcella, unique model of Roman sanctity, joined by faith and blood, that you help my attempts with your prayers, so the lord and saviour answers for his cause with my mouth and his sense, who said to the prophet: "Open your mouth and I will fill it" [Ps.80:11]. For if he teaches that when we are brought before the judges and tribunals we should not think what to answer, how much more can he wage war and conquer through his servants against blaspheming adversaries. That is why in many psalms, where the Hebrew has “lamanasse” in the title, the Septuagint translate "at the end," the meaning is rather "for victory": Aquila translates it “to nikopoio” [Grk] that is "to him who offers victory," Symmachus “epinikion” which signifies "triumph and palm." But, and this we ought to know among the other things which Porphyrius attacks in the books of Daniel, it appears to be a fiction because it is not in Hebrew but in Greek, since in the fable of Susanna, Daniel says to the elders: "in the mastic-tree god will seize you, and in the holm-oak god will sever you" [Dan.13:54- 59], which “etymologian” [Grk. derivation] is more suitable to Greek speech than to Hebrew.(1) To which Eusebius and Apollinaris both answered that the stories of Susanna and Bel and the dragon were not in Hebrew but a part of the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus from the tribe of Levi, as according to the Septuagint, in the title of the story of Bel: "A certain man was a priest, by the name of Daniel son of Abda, companion of the king of Babylon," since holy scripture testifies that Daniel and the three boys were from the tribe of Judah. Wherefore we, many years ago when we translated Daniel, marked these visions with a dagger [editorial sign], signifying that they were not found in Hebrew. And I wonder that certain “mempsimoirous” [Grk. fault-finders] get angry with me as if I had shortened the book, when Origen and Eusebius and Apollinaris and other men of the church and Greek doctors declare, as I said, that these visions did not exist among the Hebrews, nor should they have to answer Porphyrius for things which have no authority of holy scripture. I also remind the reader that the churches read Daniel not according to the Septuagint, but according to Theodotion who was undoubtedly an unbeliever after Christ's coming, though some say he was an Ebionite, which is a Jew of another kind. But Origen put asterisks on the work of Theodotion published in his [Greek] vulgate edition, showing that added things were lacking and again marked with daggers certain verses, showing they were added. For since all the churches of Christ, Greek as well as Latin, Syrian, and Egyptian, read the text with asterisks and daggers, let the envious excuse my labor, since I wanted us to have what the Greeks read attentively in the editions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. And if they, with such riches of teachings, do not scorn the studies of Jewish men, why should Latin poverty despise the Christian whose good-will should be accepted, even if the work displeases? Truly, the time has come to weave the words of that prophet, not putting forth all things according to our custom and discussing them all as we did with the twelve prophets, but briefly and selectively explaining only those things that are obscure, lest the magnitude of numerous books cause aversion in the reader. To understand the farthest parts of Daniel, however, a multiplex history of Greeks is needed: Sutorius Callinicus, Diodorus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius, Claudius Theon, and Andronicus Alipius, whom Porphyrius says he followed, and also Josephus and those Josephus mentions, especially our Livy and Pompeius Trogus, and Justinus, who tell the whole history of the last vision and describe the wars of Syria and Egypt after Alexander up to Caesar Augustus, that is of Seleucus and Antioch and the Ptolemies. And if ever we are compelled to recall secular letters and to say some things from them which we formerly omitted, it is not of our will but of gravest necessity, so that we can prove those things which were predicted many centuries earlier by the holy prophets, are contained in the literature of other peoples, Greek as well as Latin.

Original letter:

Contra prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum scribit Porphyrius, nolens eum ab ipso cuius inscriptus est nomine esse compositum sed a quodam qui temporibus Antiochi, qui appellatus est Epiphanes, fuerit in Iudaea, et non tam Danielem ventura dixisse quam illum narrasse praeterita; denique quidquid usque ad Antiochum dixerit, veram historiam continere, siquid autem ultra opinatus sit, quae futura nescierit esse mentitum: cui solertissime responderunt Eusebius Caesariensis episcopus tribus voluminibus, octavo decimo et nono decimo et vicesimo, Apollinaris quoque uno grandi libro, hoc est vicesimo sexto, et ante hos ex parte Methodius. Verum quia nobis propositum est non adversarii calumniis respondere, quae longo sermone indigent, sed ea quae a propheta dicta sunt nostris disserere, id est Christianis, illud in praefatione commoneo, nullum prophetarum tam aperte dixisse de Christo: non enim solum scribit eum esse venturum, quod est commune cum ceteris, sed quo tempore venturus sit docet, et reges per ordinem digerit et annos enumerat ac manifestissima signa praenuntiat. Quae quia vidit Porphyrius universa completa et transacta, negare non poterat, superatus historiae veritate, in hanc prorupit calumniam, ut ea, quae in consummatione mundi de Antichristo futura dicuntur, propter gestorum in quibusdam similitudinem, sub Antiocho Epiphane impleta contendat; cuius impugnatio testimonium veritatis est: tanta enim dictorum fides fuit, ut propheta incredulis hominibus non videatur futura dixisse sed narrasse praeterita. Et tamen sicubi se occasio in explanatione eiusdem voluminis dederit, calumniae illius strictim respondere conabor, et philosophiae artibus, immo malitae saeclari, per quam subvertere nititur veritatem, et quibusdam praestigiis clarum oculorum lumen auferre, explanatione simplici contraire. Itaque obsecro vos, Pammachi [Greek letters] et Marcella unicum Romae sanctitatis exemplar iunctos fide et sanguine, ut conatus meos orationibus adiuvetis, ut Dominus atque Salvator, pro causa sua, suo sensu meo ore respondeat, qui loquitur ad prophetam: Aperi os tuum et implebo illud; si enim cum apprehensi fuerimus ante iudices et tribunalia monet ne cogitemus quid respondere debeamus, quanto magis contra adversarios blasphemantes, sua potest bella bellare et in servis suis vincere! -- unde et psalmi plurimi illud hebraicum quod in titulis ponitur 'lamanasse,' pro quo LXX transtulerunt 'in finem,' magis 'pro victoria' continent: Aquila enim interpretatus est [Greek] hoc est 'ei qui praebet victoriam,' Symmachus [Greek] quod proprie 'triumphum palmamque' significat. Sed et hoc nosse debemus inter cetera Porphyrium in Danielis nobis libros obicere, idcirco illum apparere confictum nec haberi apud Hebraeos sed graeci sermonis esse commentum, quia in Susannae fabula contineatur, dicente Daniele ad presbyteros: [Greek], quam [Greek] magis graeco sermoni convenire quam hebraeo. Cui et Eusebius et Apollinaris pari sententia responderunt, Susannae Belisque ac draconis fabulas non contineri in hebraico, sed partem esse: Prophetiae Abacuc filii Iesu de tribu Levi, sicut iuxta LXX interpretes in titulo eiusdem Belis fabulae ponitur: Homo quidam erat sacerdos, nomine Daniel filius Abda, conviva regis Babylonis, cum Danielem et tres pueros de tribus Iuda fuisse, sancta scriptura testetur. Unde et nos ante annos plurimos cum verteremus Danielem, has visiones obelo praenotavimus, significantes eas in hebraico non haberi; et miror quosdam indignari mihi, quasi ego decurtaverim librum, cum et Origenes et Eusebius et Apollinaris aliique ecclesiastici viri et doctores Graeciae has, ut dixi, visiones non haberi apud Hebraeos fateantur, nec se debere respondere Porphyrio pro his quae nullam scripturae sanctae auctoritatem praebeant. Illud quoque lectorem admoneo, Danielem non iuxta LXX interpretes, sed iuxta Theodotionem ecclesias legere, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit, licet eum quidam dicant Ebionitam, qui altero genere Iudaeus est. Sed et Origenes de Theodotionis opere in editione vulgata asteriscos posuit, docens defuisse quae addita sunt, et rursum quosdam versus obelis praenotavit, superflua quaeque designans. Cumque omnes Christi ecclesiae, tam Graecorum quam Latinorum Syrorumque et Aegyptiorum, hanc sub asteriscis et obelis editionem legant, ignoscant invidi labori meo, qui volui habere nostros quod Graeci in Aquilae et Theodotionis ac Symmachi editionibus lectitant. Et si illi in tantis divitiis doctrinarum non contemnunt studia hominum iudaeorum, cur latina paupertas despiciat christianum cuius, ut opus displiceat, certe voluntas recipienda est? Verum iam tempus est ut ipsius prophetae verba texamus, non iuxta consuetudinem nostram proponentes omnia et omnia disserentes ut in duodecim prophetis fecimus, sed breviter et per intervalla ea tantum quae obscura sunt explanantes, ne librorum innumerabilium magnitudo lectori fastidium faciat. Ad intellegendas autem extremas partes Danielis, multiplex Graecorum historia necessaria est: Sutorii videlicet Callinici, Diodori, Hieronymi, Polybii, Posidonii, Claudii Theonis et Andronyci cognomento Alipi, quos et Porphyrius secutum esse se dicit, Iosephi quoque et eorum quos ponit Iosephus, praecipueque nostri Livii, et Pompei Trogi, atque Iustini, qui omnem extremae visionis narrant historiam et, post Alexandrum usque ad Caesarem Augustum, Syriae et Aegypti id est Seleuci et Antiochi et Ptolomaeorum bella describunt; et siquando cogimur litterarum saecularium recordari et aliqua ex his dicere quae olim omisimus, non nostrae est voluntatis sed, ut ita dicam, gravissimae necessitatis: ut probemus ea quae ante saecula multa a sanctis prophetis praedicta sunt, tam Graecorum quam Latinorum et aliarum gentium litteris contineri.

Historical context:

Jerome sent his commentary on Daniel to Pammachius and Marcella and addressed the prologue to them, which defends the authenticity of Daniel's prophecies against Porphyrius who claimed they were forged after the fact. The commentary is not to be confused with his translation of Daniel, which he did for Paula and Eustochium.

Scholarly notes:

(1) Jerome gives the passage in Greek in which the nouns for the trees are related to the verbs describing God's actions: schinou/schisei, prinou/prisei. Jerome cites the same passage in the preface to his translation of Daniel, addressed to Paula and Eustochium, where he puns on the Latin name of the mastic-tree, “lentiscus.” In the New Revised Standard Version of the bible, the passage is found in Susanna, 54-59.

Printed source:

Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 75a, pp.771-75, Prologus in Danielem.

Date:

407