Capes Trinity and Eternity, Saguenay River, Quebec, Canada

The doctrine of the Trinity is the most immense of all the doctrines of religion. It is the foundation of theology. Christianity, in the last analysis is Trinitarianism. Take out of the New Testament the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and there is no God left. Take out of the Christian consciousness the thoughts and affections that relate to the Father , the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and there is no Christian consciousness left. The Trinity is the constitutive idea of evangelical theology, and the formative idea of the evangelical experience. The immensity of the doctrine makes it of necessity a mystery; but a mystery which like night enfolds in its unfathomed depths the bright stars–points of light, compared with which there is no light so keen and glittering. Mysterious as it is, the Trinity of the Divine Revelation is the doctrine that holds in it all the hope of man; for it holds within it the infinite pity of the Incarnation and the infinite mercy of the Redemption.

And it shares its mysteriousness with the doctrine of the Divine Eternity. It is difficult to say which is most baffling to the human comprehension, the all-comprehending, simultaneous, successionless consciousness of the Infinite One, or his trinal personality. Yet no theist rejects the doctrine of the Divine eternity because of its mystery. The two doctrines are antithetic and correlative. On one of the Northern rivers stand two cliffs fronting each other, shooting their pinnacles into the blue ether, and sending their roots down to the foundations of the earth. They have name them Trinity and Eternity. So stand, antithetic and confronting, in the Christian scheme, the trinity of the eternity of God.

– William G. T. Shedd in his "Introductory Essay" to A. H. Haddan’s translation of On the Trinity by Augustine of Hippo as found in NPNF vol. 3, pp. 10-11.

After examining just some of the highlights and interesting exegesis contained in the commentaries of both Hippolytus and Jerome, what can be said about them? What, if any, is the relationship of one to the other? How do they compare? A cursory reading of both texts would readily yield to substantive remarks about their similarity and dissimilarity. Reasons as to why these comparisons exist may not be as readily ascertained. Here is a list of comparative differences:First, while both are relatively aware of the history of the Mediterranean world from Daniel’s day to their present situation, it seems that Jerome has a more firm grasp of it and a greater interest in it. This is evidenced by some of the gratuitous historical comments that he makes with regard to historical personalities and events. Hippolytus possesses a grasp of the history, but it seems of secondary importance to him.

Second, Jerome is almost decidedly anti-allegorical even if he does defend it. He makes few if any allegorical references, and even those that he does make seem more to be similitudes than allegories. Several examples were given above that illustrate the highly allegorical nature of Hippolytus’ exegesis (or shall we even use that word!). Jerome’s adherence to a literal understanding of the text may be attributed to his apologetic against Porphyry.

Third, related to the previous comment, Jerome reads the text more closely. He constructs his text in a verse-by-verse manner. Hippolytus, by contrast, seems to comment on what seems to be important to him at the moment. For instance, he almost completely ignores the text in Daniel that contains his preamble to the dreams, and many other items of lesser interest remain uncommented.

Fourth, Jerome’s work takes on a decidedly apologetic notion. Jerome defends the prophecy of Daniel from the skeptical Porphyry who employs a very early “hermeneutic of suspicion.” Hippolytus has only minor controversies with various conflicting viewpoints here and there throughout his commentary.

Fifth, a progression may be noted in eschatology from Hippolytus to Jerome. Whereas Hippolytus begins the destruction of an any-moment Second Coming; Jerome denies a literal millennium. Jerome goes further than Hippolytus, who still holds to the millennium as a Sabbath rest for the earth. Clearly, an evolution can be seen of which the only slightly later Augustine would transform into a non-literal Postmillennialism if not an outright Amillennialism.

Sixth, Hippolytus interacts more with other Scripture. Jerome does not fail to interact with other Scripture, but it does not become the very idiom in which he writes. Hippolytus carries on style that highlights his dependence on Scriptural modes of thinking much like the later Puritan divines:

Hippolytus’ commentary is inundated with biblical quotations: lengthy biblical pericopes or short passages constantly are interwove with his own comments, while on the other hand brief scriptural phrases or terms are so fully and subtly integrated into his own sentences that only a specialist’s eye can detect them. One could argue plausibly that the biblical texts cited verbatim by him cover more space than his own analysis of them.

Seventh, only Jerome critically examines and weighs the opinions of other commentators. It might be argued that Hippolytus writes for devotional purposes which would increase the piety of a Christian through a proper understanding of the Word. Jerome, on the other hand, seems driven by the need to answer Porphyry. His interest is not so much to encourage piety as it is to defend the prophecy of Daniel against the critics.

These seven (and Hippolytus would find this number fitting) differences may be demonstrated easily from the text. There are perhaps more and more subtle differences that would open to the interests of a longer and more involved study. To my knowledge there are no extant published articles or monographs that compare the two commentaries. Most comparisons occur in the brief venue of a patristics eschatology overview.

1. Trakatellis comments in footnote 5 on a study that revealed that a random sample of Hippolytus’ text demonstrated that three-fifths of the overall text was directly attributed to the text of the Bible. (Trakatellis, “LOGOS AGONISTIKOS: Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel,” 529.).

Biography

Scholarship on Jerome bears little doubt as to his identity. His slightly later date places him within the more mature age of the church and also during a time of when Christianity was no longer an illicit religion. Jerome was born in Dalmatia c. 340-342 and died in Bethlehem on September 30, 420. He was baptized in Rome and studied at Trier and Aquileia. He then went to Antioch where he was ordained. He traveled to Constantinople and became friends with Gregory of Nazianzus. Jerome moved to Rome and his career was nearly ruined because of a falling out that he had with Pope Damasus. The bulk of his career, that part for which he is best known, took place Bethlehem in 386 where he led an ascetic life.¹

Of course, church historians can hardly forget the correspondence carried on between Jerome and Augustine where two of the greatest minds of the early church differed and agreed on various matters of theological and ecclesiastical importance. Jerome played the archetypical melancholy recluse while Augustine fit the mold of the busy but studious Bishop who always had some opinion to share with the rest of the church.

Commentary Background

The text of Jerome’s commentary on Daniel is accessible to the contemporary reader through two venues. It is accessible in English by means of the translation by Gleason Archer.² It is also available via J. -P. Migne in Latin.³ Of this commentary, it may be noted that some of it may have written prior to his translation of the Old Testament from a predecessor to the Masoretic Text.⁴This is evidenced by the number of times in which clear Septuagintal influence is seen. There are other times when he references the Hebrew text.

There is somewhat of an interlocutor within Jerome’s text, the pagan Neo-platonist who was antagonistic to Christianity, Porphyry. Porphyry doubted the prophetic nature of Daniel and claimed it to be written by someone after the historical events prophesied had occurred. Jerome’s commentary is the single greatest witness to this work by Porphyry, Against the Christians, which was completely destroyed in 448. Jerome brings up Porphyry’s criticisms on a number of occasions (over twenty) and attempts to answer him.

Observations From the Text

He makes the same error as Hippolytus in referring to the lion in Daniel 7:4 as female. Gleason notes that this is an error in the Septuagint or missing the pointing in the Hebrew.⁵ Jerome identifies the kingdoms of the four beasts as the Chaldeans, Medo-Persia, the Greek or Macedonian, and Rome. His discussion, compared to Hippolytus, of the dream involves more detail as to the historical facts, especially names. He also makes comparisons back to the statue vision.⁶

The three ribs in the bear’s mouth could be“three princes who were in charge of the one hundred and twenty satraps.” Jerome avers however that other commentators believe these to be “three kings of the Persians who reigned subsequent to Cyrus,” namely Cambyses, the magi (the translator notes a number discrepancy since there was only one: Smerdis), and Darius. Jerome goes on to mention a whole list of Persian kings, listing fourteen in all. But Jerome does not agree with either of these views. He believes the ribs to be the kingdoms of the Babylonians, the Medes, and the Persians.⁷

Of the Greek empire, he, like Hippolytus, identifies the four wings and four heads as referring to the four generals (Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip, and Antigonus) among whom Alexander’s empire was divided upon his death.⁸ There is an interesting historical note regarding Alexander:

There was never, after all, any victory won more quickly than Alexander’s, for he traversed all the way from Illyricum in the Adriatic Sea to the Indian Ocean and the Ganges River, not merely fighting battles but winning decisive victories; and in six years he subjugated to his rule a portion of Europe and all of Asia.⁹

Evidently, Jerome was impressed by historically pivotal events and compares them to others, taking in his scope an entire description of Alexander’s prowess. Commenting on “And power was given to it,” (Daniel 7:6) Jerome comments that as stunning as Alexander’s victory was; it was not by means of his own bravery but by God’s will.¹⁰

Jerome refers to the ten horns of Daniel 7:7-8. Rejecting Porphyry, he adheres to the traditional interpretation of the church, one that goes back to Hippolytus. “We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves.”¹¹ He identifies the little horn as a man, notthe Devil or a demon.¹² In a rare appeal to Revelation, Jerome remarks that the words of Daniel 7:9 ff. are similar to Rev. 4:2 ff.¹³ He also relates the rock of Nebuchadnezzar’s image vision as being Christ.¹⁴

In his comments on Daniel 7:14, we begin to see Jerome’s antagonism toward Porphyry. One of the contentions that Jerome seems to constantly battle is Porphyry’s opinion that the little horn or Antichrist is Antiochus Epiphanes. Jerome himself seems to favor a typological fulfillment in Antiochus, but recognizes that there are prophecies that relate to the Antichrist which were never fulfilled in Antiochus.¹⁵

An interesting anti-millennarian comment proceeds from Jerome on Daniel 7:17-18. He says:

The four kingdoms of which we have spoken above were earthly in character. ‘For everything which is of the earth shall return to earth’ (Eccl. 3:20). But the saints shall never possess an earthly kingdom, but only a heavenly. Away, then, with the fable about a millennium!¹⁶

Jerome identifies the ram of Daniel 8 as Darius, but in Daniel 8:4 he expands the referent beyond Darius to the kingdom of Darius and particularly to Darius II. This is the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward.¹⁷

Jerome mentions the comments of others who hold that Antiochus was only a type of Antichrist. This is a statement with which he seems to concur.¹⁸ Jerome relates the narrative inDaniel 9:2 to that of Jeremiah. The desolation of the temple had already been predicted by an earlier prophet.

In trying to determine the significance of the seventy weeks of Daniel, Jerome provides lengthy quotations from several sources: Africanus, Eusebius Pamphilii (of Caesarea) who has two views, Hippolytus (whom he correctly interprets to believe in a gap between the 69th and 70th week, the 70th being reserved for the end of the world), Apollinarius of Laodicea, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and then the views of the rabbis. This is a rather extensive treatment, but he does not seem to offer a firm opinion.¹⁹

On the comment about Daniel 10:4 where Daniel is by the Tigris river, Jerome notes that Ezekiel had a vision by the river, Chebar (Ezekiel 1) and that John the Baptist had one of Jesus at the Jordan (Matthew 3). He has this to say: “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 to destroy the historicity of rivers and trees and of Paradise.”²⁰ Apparently, Jerome did not take kindly to those who have doubts about typological references that employ actual place names found in history. He denies that signs and allegories destroy historicity.

Interesting study in textual corruption and vorlage as Jerome explains that Tarsus is not the city of Cilicia, but relates the Hebrew word found in Daniel 10:6 that sounds and looks similar but speaks of it being a stone. He opts for the Septuagint translation defining it as the sea. So, Jonah fled not to Tarsus the city after all, but to the sea.²¹

Jerome identifies the prophecy of Daniel 11 to Ptolemy.²² Comments on Daniel 11:42-45 constitute a fierce diatribe against Porphyry because, as Jerome alleges, these events did not happen to Antiochus.²³

---

1. Perhaps the best secondary and recent source on the life of Jerome is (J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writing, and Controversies [London: Duckworth, 1975])

2. Most English translation references in this paper will refer to this translation. (Archer, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel)

3. The edition used for this paper was the online subscription version offered through ProQuest Information and Learning Company. (J. -P Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina, vol. 217 vols. [Paris, 1844–64])

4. Kelly remarks parenthetically that the text Jerome used was the accepted text of the Jerome’s time and “substantially the same as our ‘Masoretic’ text.” (Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writing, and Controversies, 159)

5. Archer, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, 72.

6. Ibid., 73.

7. Ibid., 74.

8. Ibid., 75.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid., 77.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid., 80.

15. Ibid., 80–81.

16. Ibid., 81.

17. Ibid., 84.

18. Ibid., 87.

19. Ibid., 95–110.

20. Ibid., 112.

21. Ibid., 113.

22. Ibid., 120 ff.

23. Ibid., 140–44.

Hippolytus referred to his intention not only to comment on Daniel, but also to give an account of the Israelites while they were in Babylon. The reference to Daniel’s boyhood in Babylon more than likely includes the Susanna narrative.¹ One might take by inference that Hippolytus did not intend to place Susanna on a par with Daniel, but his comments on Susanna indicate otherwise. In his preamble to Susanna, Hippolytus compares the chronological inversion of placing Susanna after the rest of Daniel to the prophet’s practice, and that this practice was of the Spirit so as to confuse the devil.² From this later passage the implication could be that the Spirit was active in the placement of Susanna as well, but this is uncertain. For Hippolytus, there is no question concerning the historicity of the Susanna narrative. Daniel is considered her vindicator.³ Two things must be answered regarding the order of Daniel and Susanna: (1) did Hippolytus think that their order was also influenced by the Spirit, and (2) what did he believe was the relationship of the Spirit to the chapter on Susanna - mere placement or inspiration? It would seem odd to us to assume that he implies anything other than the equal authority of Susanna with Daniel and the other prophets. In Hippolytus’ time, without such a view of inspiration which would find it necessary to make fine distinctions about inspiration in order to answer the critics, might it be considered improbable to see this sort of advanced distinction? Nevertheless, the New Testament writers often make some fine distinctions regarding this doctrine.

The editors take note that Hippolytus confuses Jehoiachin with Jehoiakim.⁴ This is most likely a textual issue. Another textual corruption is evidenced where it has Jehoiakim (act. Jehoiachin) as ruling three years before Nebuchadnezzar comes up against him. The text of II Chronicles 36:9 has him reigning 3 months and 10 days. The ANF text makes note of this with the alternate Greek word: trimenion⁵ versus tria in Bardy and Lefevre.⁶ Hippolytus may have conflated the accounts of Kings and Chronicles, and he appears to be using the Septuagint. Notably he does not mention the discrepancy between 1 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9. It might be inferred from this evidence that he either did not read the text closely or he was not interested in reading it critically. He seems to be inserting extra biblical tradition at the point where he speaks of Zedikiah grinding at the mill, dying and being thrown behind the wall of Nineveh, and thus completing Jeremiah’s prophecy of Jeremiah 22:24 ff. He finds two fulfillment cycles: the one concerning the curse in Jeremiah 22:24 ff. and the desolate sanctuary for seventy years of Jeremiah 25:11.⁷

Fragment II in ANF begins at Daniel 7 wherein Hippolytus feminizes the lion (“lioness,” see Jerome on this).⁸ Gleason points out that Jerome does this too, and gives the reason.⁹ Hippolytus identifies the lion with eagle’s wings as Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom, the Bear is the Persians, the three ribs are the Persians, Medes, and Babylonians. He references his comments on the gold and silver portions of the great image. The leopard is identified as the Greek empire and in particular Alexander. Its four wings and four heads are supposed to symbolize the four generals of Alexander upon whom he conferred his kingdom at the time of his death. The fourth beast is the Roman empire.

Hippolytus then begins to draw parallels between the two dreams, that of image and of the beasts. Hippolytus treats the toes of mixed iron and clay from the image. For him, ten toes equal ten kings which are pictured also by the ten horns. The three horns are plucked up, and he identifies them as Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia: all nations defeated by the Romans. Of course, then there is the stone which he identifies with Christ and his kingdom.¹⁰

Hippolytus perpetuates the interesting connection that is originally by Irenaeus, Hippolytus’ mentor according to tradition. That being that the period of time from creation to the birth of Christ is 5500 years, and that 6000 years need to pass in order for the earth to have her “Sabbath”. This, of course, parallels the creation account:

The Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” when He comes from heaven as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.¹¹

The view expressed above was the view that Photius condemned, but with which Irenaeus agreed, and this parallels with the Epistle of Barnabas. This was also in substantial agreement with the Jewish commentators.¹² Hippolytus, however, has an interesting way of proving that the Christ was born in 5500 (years since creation). After educating the reader as to the symbols and types expressed in the Bible, he moves to the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant. It was two and a half cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. This measures when “summed up together” five cubits and a half. This allegorically represents the 5500 years. No other proof is given. The ark is the type chosen because as the ark was wood overlaid with gold: “The Virgin, who was the ‘ark overlaid with pure gold,’ with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the ‘ark’ made manifest.”¹³ Later, he states, “And the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body, at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares: ‘Now it was the sixth hour,’ he says intimating by that one-half of the day.” So, 5000 adding that half day (500) equals 5500. Hence, there are only 500 years from the birth of Christ to the date he returns.¹⁴ Why is this delay necessary? Hippolytus provides a very evangelical response. The reason why the Lord delays his coming is so that the gospel be proclaimed to the world.¹⁵

Hippolytus seems most definitely post-tribulational in his relating the church to the tribulation. He will come when the ten horns spring up. These are the ten kings, and the Antichrist arises from among them. These, with the Antichrist, will make war against the saints, “then may we expect the manifestation of the Lord from heaven.”¹⁶ This may be one of the first church fathers to set the date far in the future, thus ruining the any-moment watchfulness of the early church. The date is set out in the future by several hundred years, and signs or prophecies precede Christ’s return. Others have noted this.¹⁷

Hippolytus identifies the ram of Daniel 8, who in verse four is pushing westward, northward, and southward as Darius the Persian. He identifies the he-goat from the west as Alexander the Macedonian who has victory over Darius. In this Hippolytus writes some on the history of Alexander’s empire and what happened upon his death. He identifies the four horns as the four generals of Alexander among whom the empire was divided. Of course much of this is identified in the text of Daniel, but the four generals are not. The horn that waxed great in Daniel 8:9, Hippolytus identifies as the Antiochus Epiphanes. Further, he gives the history of his pillaging of Jerusalem and the temple treasure.¹⁸

Hippolytus cross-references Daniel 9:24ff with Jeremiah 25:11. He equates the 70 weeks of Daniel with the 70 years of captivity of which Jeremiah prophesied:

Having mentioned therefore seventy weeks, and having divided them into two parts in order that what was spoken by him to the prophet might be better understood, he proceeds thus, “Unto Christ the Prince shall be seven weeks, “ which make forty-nine years. It was in the twenty-first year that Daniel saw these things in Babylon. Hence, the forty-nine years added to the twenty-one, make up the seventy years of which the blessed Jeremiah spake: “The sanctuary shall be desolate seventy years from the captivity that befell them under Nebuchadnezzar and after these things the people will return , and sacrifice and offering will be presented, when Christ is their Prince.”¹⁹

 

After digressing into the captivity and the relationship to the restoration under Ezra and Zerubbabel, he speaks of the sacrifice made by Christ and the blotting out of sins. Here he makes an interesting statement that is indicative of the kind of statements that the church fathers make, posing great problems for a Protestant understanding of justification: “But who are they who have reconciliation made for their sins, but they who believe on His name, and propitiate His countenance by good works?”²⁰

 

Some have noted, based upon his rendering of the prophecy of the lamb breaking the seal, that Hippolytus bears a familiar resemblance to Augustinian and Reformed exegetes in relating the Old and New Testaments. On Revelations 3:7 ff., he speaks of the Lamb breaking the seal of the scroll. This unsealing, for Hippolytus, underscores the kind of ministry that Christ performed who loosed the things of God for the church, ending their being sealed up. It is reminiscent of the statement that what is in the Old concealed is in the New revealed.²¹

The man whom Daniel sees in Daniel 10:5 clothed in linen is identified by Hippolytus as a Christ, “not yet indeed as perfect man, but with the appearance and form of man.”²² What interests us here is the phrase translated “appearance and form,” because it sounds so very docetic. The words, however, in the Bardy and Lefevre text are schemati and phainomenon.²³

An example of Hippolytus’ extreme allegory may be found in his description of the man in Daniel 10:5 and his clothing:

 

Now the word “Ophaz,” which is a word transferred from Hebrew to Greek, denotes pure gold. With a pure girdle, therefore he was girded round the loins. For the Word was to bear us all, binding us like a girdle round His body, in His own love. The complete body was His, but we are members in His body, united together and sustained by the Word Himself.²⁴

He even allegorizes a misleading transliteration (Tharseis as “Ethiopia.”²⁵ This is rendered as beryl in the KJV in Daniel 10:6. The Hebrew (with prefix) is ctharisish and it is probably best defined as possibly yellow jasper.²⁶

The king of the south’s daughter of Daniel 11:6 is identified as Ptolemaïs, queen of Egypt, who made an agreement with Antiochus. This treaty subsequently failed.²⁷ The king of Daniel 11:36 is called “Shameless” by Hippolytus and is identified as the Antichrist. He is involved in “the abomination that maketh desolate” (KJV) in verse 31. Interestingly, Hippolytus distinguishes between two types of abominations. One is destruction and the other is desolation. Antiochus performed the destruction, but the desolation will be done by Antichrist.²⁸ Hippolytus identifies the two men by the bank of the river in Daniel 12:5ff as the law and the prophets, and he parallels the last few verses of Daniel 12 which speak of the taking away of the sacrifice and the period of waiting to Matthew 24:12-13.²⁹

---

1. Hippolytus, On Daniel, 177.

2. Ibid., 191.

3. Ibid., 178.

4Hippolytus, On Daniel, 177 See the top of Bardy and Lefevre page 74 wherein the Greek is clearly Jehoiakim when Jehoiachin is in view. Bardy and Lefevre also points to some manuscripts that omit the name altogether. Hippolyte, Bardy, and LeFevre, Hippolyte Commentaire sur Daniel, 74.

5. Hippolytus, On Daniel, 177.

6. Hippolyte, Bardy, and LeFevre, Hippolyte Commentaire sur Daniel, 74.

7. Hippolytus, On Daniel, 178.

8. Ibid., 2.1 (ANF5:178).

9. Gleason L. Archer, Jr., trans., Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1958), 72.

10. Hippolytus, On Daniel, 178.

11. Ibid., 179.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. John G. Gammie, “A Journey Through Danielic Spaces: The Book of Daniel in the Theology and Piety of the Christian Community,” Interpretation 39 (1985): 148.

18. Hippolytus, On Daniel, 2.8–10 (ANF 5:179–80).

19. Ibid., 2.13 (ANF 5:180).

20. Ibid., 2. 16 (ANF 5:181).

21. Ibid., 2.21 (ANF 5:181–82).

22. Ibid., 2. 24 (ANF 5.182).

23. Hippolyte, Bardy, and LeFevre, Hippolyte Commentaire sur Daniel, 4.25.5 (336).

24. Ibid., 2.25 (ANF 5:182).

25. Hippolytus, On Daniel, 2.25 (ANF 5:182).

26. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, “A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament,” in A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), 1076.

27. Hippolytus, On Daniel, 2.33 (ANF 183).

28. Ibid., 2.38–40 (ANF 5.184).

29. Ibid., 2.43–44 (ANF 5:185).

Biography

While scholarship might be able to define the rough period of time in which Hippolytus lived, it is more difficult to identify who he is and how this identity correlates with the various references made to a Hippolytus in the early history of the church.¹ Several options have existed since the fifth century for the identity of the author of the alleged third century Hippolytian corpus: 1. a single western author - Hippolytus of Rome, 2. a single eastern Hippolytus, 3. a single author named Hippolytus who traverses from the east to Rome, writing in both places, 4. a single author named Hippolytus who carried on an itinerate ministry, writing as he traveled, and 5. two Hippolyti during the 3rd century, one Roman and one from the east.² Incidentally, a number of martyrs are identified with the name Hippolytus. For the purpose of our discussion, the identity of Hippolytus is not necessary. There is enough extant evidence to warrant confusion of an eastern or western provenance for the author of the Hippolytian corpus. The question of authorship and provenance is of particular interest to those trying to understand the authorship and provenance of the Apostolic Tradition.³

All scholarship seems to concur that the author of the alleged corpus in question was Greek or at least wrote in Greek. None, to Cerrato’s knowledge, believe that he ever “wrote in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, or any other ancient language.”⁴ All authentic works of the corpus based upon the testimony of Eusebius and internal evidence strongly suggest (Cerrato: “assure”) a late second century to early third century date (198-235) which is pre-Diocletian. Other views put the corpus in the mid third and late third century.⁵

Commentary writing is a sort of genre. Christian sentiments concerning Scripture are adaptations of Jewish sentiment. Early Christianity focused on the exegesis of biblical books. “Fear of the new heresies became formative within the life of the early churches and also affected commentary activity.” Style, however, was borrowed from “Hellenistic academic models.” Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel is just such a work.⁶

Several commentators preceded Hippolytus. In Palestine (c. 75-100) there was Justus or Justinus of Tiberias; among the Gnostics (c.140-180) there was Ptolemy, Heracleon, and Basilides; in the Roman Province of Asia (c. 100-212) there was Papias of Hieropolis; Melito of Sardis; and Rhodo, in Syria (c. 160-180) there was Theophilus of Antioch; of unknown provenance (c. 80-212) there was Candidus, Apion, Heraclitus, and Judas; in Egypt (c. 180-230) there was Nepos and Pantaenus of Alexandria.⁷ Interestingly, Nepos writes against allegorical interpretation with respect to the apocalypse.⁸

The chiliasm of Papias was expressed in a work on the millennium, known to Jerome as annorum mille iudaicum ?????????? [deuterosin](vir. ill. 18). The approach was perhaps exegetical in form, drawing on the Apocalypse, other chiliastic sources, and the oral traditions. It became, according to Eusebius and Jerome, a chief influence on the later millenarians of both the east and west. Papias, therefore, bears similarities to our author. He is an exegetical writer and prominent interpreter of apocalyptic eschatology, whose literary activity served to establish chiliasm as a doctrinal tradition in the second and early third centuries.⁹

Cerrato maintains that exegetical commentaries were a distinctive endeavor well before Rome’s attempts and even those early commentators of Rome, Justin and Tatian, came to Rome from the east.¹⁰ The earliest reference by Eusebius to Hippolytus is made in HE 6:20 and occurs as a passing reference to the works contained in the library in Jerusalem established by Alexander of Jerusalem.

Jerome is also one of the early and prolific writers who attests to Hippolytus. Himself a transcultural figure, as he moves west to east, Jerome refers to the commentary material of Hippolytus as contained in Hippolytus’ commentary on Zechariah, Daniel, and Isaiah.

A significant feature of the witness of Jerome to be noted in closing, is the exemption of any Hippolytus from his lists of early Christian chiliasts, implying that he understands the Hippolytian eschatology to be moderate in form. His chief criticism of the older millennarianism, that it advocated an earthly and self-indulgent, materialistic, eschatological kingdom, is not applied to the corpus. The commentator Hippolytus, whom he thought he knew, was one who had revised the chiliasm of the early age and avoided its excesses.¹¹

Irenaeus and Tertullian both express a fairly specific millenarianism that is consonant with Hippolytus. This early chiliasm contains the prophetic concepts of the fall of Rome, the rise of ten empires, the subsequent rise of an antichrist who dominates the earth for seven years, the appearance on earth of Enoch and Elijah, the persecution of the church by antichrist, the parousia of Christ from heaven destroying the antichrist and his allies, the resurrection and judgment of mankind, a literal earthly millennial kingdom, and the separation of humans to heaven or hell. Hippolytus differs from Irenaeus and Tertullian in that he is the only one to identify all four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7 as Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Irenaeus fails to name them and Tertullian only identifies Rome with the last of these kingdoms. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus all outline history in terms of a cosmic week with each day representing 1000 year epochs of history.¹²

Commentary Background

Textual issues abound regarding Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel due to its fragmentary existence. The text in ANF includes the preamble, commentary Daniel beginning with chapter 7 and ending with 12; there is the Scholia on Daniel which is more of a verse-by verse gloss on the commentary; there is another shorter fragment covering something in chapter 2 and chapter 7; there is the commentary of the Song of the Three Children, and finally a commentary on Susanna. The Bardy and Lefevre text with French translation utilizes the Old Slavonic to fill in some of the gaps in the texts that ANF utilizes. These portions do not have any of the Old Slavonic printed, but the translation in French is available. The Bardy and Lefevre text is divided up into the traditional four books of Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel.¹³
________________________

¹Ceratto frames the question of the identity of Hippolytus: The questions to be answered are as follows:1.Who were the early church leaders who identified him? 2. Which of these church leaders wrote? 3. Is there a unity to the ante-Nicene writings attributed to Hippolytus that bespeaks a single author? 4. If it is a single author, what can be known about him? 5. If authorship is multiple, how do we separate out the veriegated writings? 6. If the authorship is multiple, what can be known about them? Essentially, these questions bring to bear the old source critical theories to patristics. (J. A. Cerrato, Hippolytus Between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus, Oxford Theological Monographs [Oxford:: Oxford Univ Press, 2002], 3–4)
²Cerrato, Hippolytus Between East and West, 4–5.
³Those involved in this debate include J. A. Carrato, Alistair Stewart-Sykes, David Dunbar, Allen Brent, Paul Bradshaw, and J. Baldovin among others.
⁴Cerrato, Hippolytus Between East and West, 6.
⁵Ibid.
⁶Ibid., 15–16.
⁷Ibid., 17–22.
⁸Ibid., 21–22.
⁹Ibid., 19.
¹⁰Ibid., 25.
¹¹Ibid., 67–68.
¹²Ibid., 236–38.
¹³I have not found anywhere a means whereby to compare the text of Lefevre and Bardy: Hippolyte, Gustav Bardy, Maurice LeFevre, trans. and ed., Hippolyte Commentaire sur Daniel, Sources Chrétiennes (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1947) to ANF Hippolytus, On Daniel, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), (ANF 5:177–94), Reprint. Trakatellis gives the outline for the Bardy-Lefevre text, but does state how it compares to the translation in ANF.( Demetrios Trakatellis, “????? ???????????[LOGOS AGONISTIKOS]: Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel,” in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World [Leiden: E J Brill, 1994], 527 ).The ANF translation is obviously fragmentary, but that still leaves the question of what parts parallel it in the Bardy-Lefevre text. Without doing a verse-by-verse analysis, this seems to be the layout:
(1) Bardy and Lefevre Book I “On Susanna and Daniel” comments on Susanna (the thirteenth chapter in the Septuagint) and provides a background preamble for Daniel. It roughly corresponds to ANF “I. On Daniel” Hippolytus, On Daniel, 1.1–44 (ANF 5:177–85) and “VI. On Susanna .“ Hippolytus, On Daniel, 6.1–61 (ANF 5:191–94) There is also the Old Slavonic material which appears in French but not in the text. The page is blank where this material would be inserted in parallel with the French translation. Book I.XII and following is also not included in ANF. Although there is information from ANF “II. On Daniel” included in Book I
(2)Bardy and Lefevre Book II “On the image which Nebuchadnezzar the King made” comments on roughly Daniel 2-3 and apparently has no parallel in ANF.
(3) Bardy and Lefevre Book III “On Nebuchadnezar and on Daniel when he was cast into the den of lions” comments roughly on Daniel 4-6 and has no parallel in ANF.
(4)Bardy and Lefevre Book IV “On the vision of the prophet Daniel” comments on Daniel 7-11. ANF “II. On Daniel” Hippolytus, On Daniel, 2.1–44 (ANF 5:178–85) begins with with Bardy-Lefevre IV.II.4 Hippolyte, Bardy, and LeFevre, Hippolyte Commentaire sur Daniel, IV. II. 4 (262) and continues with it until nearly the end of Book IV.

The author is terribly sorry that he cannot seem to get the fonts to display properly. Two times he resorted to transliterating the text in Latin characters.

There exists a present and abiding interest in the exegesis done by the Fathers of the church. In addition to the well known Roman Catholic ressourcement movement, of which the current Pope has been a contributing member, Protestant evangelicals also desire to be knowledgeable in what the Fathers had to say about Scripture. Thomas Oden’s “paleo-orthodoxy” and his Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series give evidence of this impetus. Recently, the conversion of Francis Beckwith, now former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, to Roman Catholicism by his own admission was made after careful reflection upon the biblical exegesis of the early church:

I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries.1

It is needless to say, that the import for an understanding of what the church Fathers had to say about the Bible, what they believed the Bible to say, and how they related what they said about the comments of their ecclesiastical contemporaries impinges upon our scholarly conscience. We must understand these things. We must be conversant on what the Fathers taught and how they viewed their own understanding of Scripture relative to what other highly esteemed colleagues thought.

A comparison between the commentaries of church Fathers affords us some opportunity here. It allows us to examine what they believed Scripture to say in light of our current understanding of what it says. It allows us to understand how they viewed each other’s comments. It gives us a sense of how authority is maintained and even transmitted. Further still, it helps us determine where the locus of authority resides: text or church. These are the sort of questions which ought to be kept in the back of our minds while studying the Fathers. Ironically, it was these same questions that allowed Luther to so ably debate Eck, and it is these same questions that cause evangelicals to reexamine their assumptions and enter communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

There are many patristic commentaries, but I have chosen to compare two commentaries on the book of Daniel. These commentaries are the fragment of Hippolytus on Daniel and Jerome’s complete commentary on Daniel. Separated by about 150 years and delving into the apocalyptic genre of the Old Testament, they provide a perspective as the two thought patterns of east and west are placed in juxtaposition. The latter, Jerome, does draw upon the former, Hippolytus. One more important comparison exists; both represent a view that transcends eastern and western factions of the church. Hippolytus, if tradition bears any similarity to the facts of history, is the first post-Apostolic western exegete; but he comes from the east. Jerome, erudite scholar of Bethlehem, makes his pilgrimage from west to east. Both, then, have their ideological “feet” placed in a sort of transculutral melieu.

I will proceed first describing the men and their corpus. Then there will be space for some of the interesting points of their respective commentaries. Finally, a description of the comparisons and contrasts between the two commentaries will be set forth. To my knowledge, this is the only work dedicated to this study, so a close reading of the texts is necessary. We have few secondary sources, especially on Hippolytus’ Daniel fragment, from which to draw. Therefore, we must concentrate on their own reflections upon the text rather than our contemporaries’ reflections upon the reflections of these two men.

---

1. Francis J. Beckwith, “My Return to the Catholic Church,” n. p., [Cited 8 May 2007], Online: http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/my_return_to_th.html.

N.B. Please bear with me if you have seen this before. I believe that I may have run this introduction solo at an earlier date. This publishing will be followed by the rest of the paper in serial. The next installment covers the biography of Hippolytus. Thank you for your patience - thank you just for reading!

Recent Wyclif scholarship has taken note of the significance of Wyclif regarding an understanding of a text and its implied authority. This proves to be the case particularly when the text involved carries transcendent significance. Ghosh’s thesis is that Wyclif’s work in the field of biblical interpretation blurred the line of demarcation (“elided”) between the world of the speculative theological specialists and the non-specialist vernacular Englishmen during the genesis of a new middle class.1 From the Carolingian educational revival to the time of Wyclif, theological discussion had gradually become governed by a religious technocracy. Wyclif’s life’s work began to dismantle the middle wall of partition that divided the world of the Latinate from that of the vernacular. Furthermore, Ghosh presents Wyclif as a sort of ideologue who ruptures the interested interpretive discourse that plays with meaning depending on personal ambitions and competing theological schools in the context of the politics of the religious environment. In a sense, for Ghosh, Wyclif deconstructs a closed field of deconstructive play by opening the field of play to the vernacular, forcing the Latinate technocracy to debate the meaning of the biblical text with a vernacular laity. While not broaching the mechanics of Wyclif’s hermeneutic Margaret Aston provides the case study for this debate in Wyclif’s understanding of the Eucharist:

One received the presence of Christ on the alter as one received the consecrated host, as something given by the clergy. The mystery of the sacrament was veiled. The terminology used by schoolmen in discussing this theology formed part of the veil, as expression of the world beyond the laymen’s ken. Words such as transsubstanciacio, accidens, substancia, subjectare, quidditas, belonged to quite another sphere of discussion and explication from that of popular preaching. They were alien to vernacular religious instruction up the [sic] third quarter of the fourteenth century. Unneeded by laity, they had no English equivalents. [. . .] Belief of heart called for no quiddities, but for worship and devotion. The sacrament of the altar received by communicants at Easter was ‘Christ’s own body in likeness of bread’. Their participation was an act of faith, not comprehension.2

Aston remarks that Wyclif preached his views on transubstantiation in the vernacular.3 Wyclif’s difficulty with transubstantiation was that these terms belonged to the vocabulary of the Schools and not to the laity. They were ideas that were superimposed upon the text of Scripture, and they were not present in the liturgy of the ancient church. The church and Schools had obfuscated the meaning of the eucharist behind the barrier of Latin in terms that were fraught with ambiguity, couched in uncertainty. To introduce such a doctrine in the vernacular would reveal that dubious mystery of the novel doctrine. In fact, it would be one of the first doctrinal battles in which both sides felt compelled to state their case and explain their meaning in the vernacular, although some churchmen would blush that the intimate language of sacred science was thus vulgarized.3

It remains to be seen if Ghosh’s understanding of Wyclif’s hermeneutic will last the test of time. No other scholar of Wyclif has written anything correlating Wyclif’s hermeutic to Heidegger, Husserl, Gadamer, Derrida or Ricoeur. There is certainly some room to do this, but most have have taken on the task of describing the literary theory of the late Middle Ages rather than its hermeneutics. Rita Copeland is one such scholar who is seeking to understand the relationship of rhetoric and hermeneutic within the Middle Ages. Wyclif studies and the study of late medieval exegesis seem ripe for a work that connects these areas of study with postmodern hermeneutics. The reason why this may not have happened yet, probably lies in the obvious fact that postmodern proclivities were very foreign to the minds of late medieval exegetes. However, the small matter of an exegete’s personal lack of awareness of postmodern sensitivities has not stopped postmodernity for claiming an ancient as their own eleswhere.

Conclusion

Wyclif understood the problems of a strict literal reading, but he equivocated on the notion of authorial intent. While evidence exists within Wyclif’s De veritate of an attempt to proscribe boundaries for fanciful interpretation, he seemed unable to place boundaries on this nefarious sort of interpretation anymore than Augustine. This should not be considered abnormal, but his attempt alone is significant. In the twilight of the Middle Ages, Wyclif’s work gives evidence that there was an uneasiness with the popular hermeneutic. The existence of Wyclif’s sophists bears evidence of another hermeneutic ready to take the place of classic Augustinianism, but Wyclif sensed that these views were not friendly to orthodoxy. His response was to reiterate and hopefully clarify the established view in much the same way that he had championed Augustinian realism. The two were linked in Wyclif’s mind, but Wyclif never fully appreciated the danger of polyvalence as his own exegesis attests.

---

1. Ghosh, The Wycliffite Heresy, 1–2.

2. Margaret Aston, “Wyclif and the Vernacular,” in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 303.

3. Ibid., 292.

4. Ibid., 299–300.

Much of the discussion in the past surrounding Wyclif’s understanding of Scripture has only touched on some of the subsequent questions it has raised, and no one has really attempted a description of how his system of hermeneutics works. Ghosh’s description seems to be the best on record in describing Wyclif’s hermeneutic feature by feature, but it waxes long on its difficulties and not enough on a reasonable summarization. Even the translator of De veritate, Ian Christopher Levy, gives only the most cursory explanation concerning Wyclif’s hermeneutic in his introduction to this work. In making the attempt here to provide a compact synopsis, it is hoped that soon more works will be available to discuss this vital part of Wyclif’s scholarship.

Wyclif, in his De veritate sacrae scripturae, taught that the Bible is the standard by which theology and even the church are judged. His hermeneutic relied heavily upon authorial intent as expressed in his commonly used phrase, de virtute sermonis. Wyclif was not unaware of the problems concerning associating the locus of meaning with the author, especially in a text that claimed a divine author working through a human agent. The difficulties with authorial intent are enough without direct access to the author, let alone this unique sort of blend of the human and divine. In De veritate, Wyclif works out a hermeneutical method of determining authorial intent with respect to the Bible, and he does so in a way that belies some knowledge of these aforementioned difficulties. One can identify at least five significant characteristics of Wyclif’s hermeneutic.

First, Wyclif developed rules for determining when the univocal sense or the equivocal sense constituted de virtute sermonis. At the very beginning of his De veritate, Wyclif makes this very clear statement: “I have often said that Scripture is true in all of its parts according to the intended literal sense (de virtute sermonis). This is why professors of Holy Scripture ought to imitate its manner of speaking, adhering to its eloquence and logic, more so than any foreign pagan writing.”1 What Wyclif means by this and what this statement implies becomes the subject of his discourse for the entire treatise. The difficulty that Wyclif tries to resolve is the relationship of the literal sense, which is generally thought to be univocal, to the frequent use of the equivocal sense which manifests itself in a variety of ways within the biblical text. He appeals to the intended sense which he roughly accords with the literal sense. This seems to be a bit of a contradiction, but it must be understood in light of what he says about the way in which he determines the intended sense. Much of his method has to do with a constant opening up of the context and letting Scripture interpret itself. If the immediate context provides no salient clues as to its spiritual meaning, then another text’s clearer spiritual truth must be brought to bear upon the passage. Wyclif makes the assumption that Scripture’s purpose is spiritual. Thus, when its meaning is not overtly spiritual, it must carry the spiritual meaning in a less than literal way, and the meaning of this less than literal way may be found in other texts. This spiritual meaning than fills out the meaning that, in the literal sense, might be untrue or preposterous:

In regard to the exposition of the senses of Scripture, the Church and the holy doctors readily grant that according to the intended literal sense (de virtute sermonis) Christ is a “lamb, sheep, calf, bull, serpent, lion, worm,” though he is such according to the mystical sense, which belongs to the fullness of the literal sense.2

By no means should Wyclif’s stress on what is often translated as literal sense be understood to be bare literalism, but it must also be recognized that Wyclif’s understanding of literal goes beyond the immediate context. In this way, what may not be considered literal could be conceived as literal once the context is opened up to include more of the biblical text. For Wyclif, then, the sensus plenus, is not foisted upon the sensus litteralis; but it is bound up by the de virtute sermonis which is dictated by the limits of the corpus scripturae.

Furthermore, Wyclif believes that this is the natural progression of understanding the text. The interpreter first understands the basic straightforward meaning before pursuing the more equivocal meaning:

For just as a child first learns the alphabet, second to spell, third to read, and fourth to understand, he retains in each of these levels his own sense, distinctly oriented toward what he had first learned. but later, given the confusion, he casts off the first sense. Similarly, the theologian, having received grammatical instruction, then learns the grammar of Scripture secondly, adapting to that sense, having left behind the first. And thirdly, having set aside the sensible signs, he devotes his attention to the sense of the author, until at the fourth stage, he might gaze upon the unveiled Book of Life.3

Second, Wyclif prescribed boundaries for multivalence, limiting it to de virtute sermonis. It must be admitted, however, that he was generous with equivocal meanings that were read as allegory and analogy on top of the literal sense. Wyclif attempted to allow for equivocation without losing the certainty of the truth contained within Scripture. He gives evidence that at one time, in order to preserve the certainty of truth, he adhered to only the ad literam and had no use for the equivocal. He found this to be an implausible position and developed a way in which equivocation might be allowed and the meaning of the text kept certain:

In the days when I spoke as a child, I was anxiously perplexed in my efforts to understand and defend these Scriptures according to the strictly literal sense (de virtute sermonis), since it was clear to me that they did not derive their truth from the animal hides. Yet at last the Lord revealed the sense to me by his grace, through which I could then understand the aforesaid equivocation of Scripture. Therefore, I understand that Holy Scripture speaks in one instance according to the literal sense (ad literam), singularly pertaining to Scripture in the aforementioned first manner, and then again plurally in regard to the aforementioned second and third manner of Scripture.4

In Levy’s translation, It is not entirely certain what the first, second, and third manner are. There are many such triplets, quadruplets, quintuplets, etc. utilized in De veritate, but none in Levy’s translation seem to correlate directly. What may be adduced from the context is that Wyclif moves from accepting only bare literalism to valuing a more mystical or spiritual understanding. Yet, Wyclif contends that Scripture confines its meaning to that of the author. Wyclif appeals to authority when he states that “for this reason the doctors often counsel that a sense which is contrary to the intended sense of the author should be dismissed.”5

Wyclif’s reasons for adhering closely to the intended sense of the author even while allowing, very generously, for equivocal interpretation may be found in his over-arching paradigm for Scripture. It forms the touchstone for his De veritate and his understanding of Scripture. Wyclif’s model of Scripture consists of “five levels of Holy Scripture.” The first level is the Book of Life mentioned in Revelation 20 and 21. He identifies the second level with the truths inscribed in the Book of Life. The third level systematizes the truths of the second “which are to be believed according to their proper genus.” The fourth level consists of truths found within in the soul of man. The fifth level consists of the particulars of Holy Scripture written in manuscripts or spoken aloud by using sounds or signs.6 In such a system, Wyclif’s view of the written Word of God is that it may only be understood as the Word of God in an equivocal sense, for the Word of God encompasses all truth and exists transcendently.7 Contrary to negating the importance of the written Word, Wyclif only seems to be accounting for the distinction between the temporal, fallen, and shadowy nature of this world in the classic Platonic-Augustinian sense. The written Word, then, is the best that can be had in this life.8 Wyclif retains the medieval exegetical concept of the quadringa or four-fold sense of Scripture wherein the literal, allegorical, tropological and anagogical senses are valid.9

Third, Wyclif followed the tradition of the catholic understanding of the text. The church Fathers and the holy doctors must not be ignored on an exegetical matter, but they were not without error. This is the very essence of Oberman’s understanding of Wyclif’s use of Tradition I and rejection of Tradition II. Contrary to the opinions of Minnis, Hurley, and Ghosh; Wyclif discounts only meanings added to or contrary to the text of Scripture by the Fathers. Throughout De veritate Wyclif makes frequent appeals to the auctoritas, he upholds the validity of canon law, he warns against interpreting in a way that contrary to the catholic sense.10 But, Wyclif admits that only Scripture may be considered unquestionably true, that even Augustine could err,11 and that current papal decrees often go unnecessarily beyond the bounds of Scripture:

But alas! The queen of the sciences has been mingled with spurious doctrines, because an exceedingly large part of canon law itself has been mixed up with pagan traditions, though not according to that portion which natural law relates so thoroughly, but rather according to the portion which human traditions and ambitions have taught. Though canon law ought to remain purely evangelical, at the time of the Church’s Donation it was turned into a law even more vile than the laws of the pagans. And all of this leads one to conclude that clerics should be ruled under civil dominion.12

This Tradition I stance of Wyclif evidences itself in the constant sort of rebuke exemplified above. Wyclif holds to a view of the authority of Scripture in which the church, by its fathers and holy doctors, helps to explicate the sense of Scripture, but is never able to escape its judgment. The church remains subservient to the text even if it is only within the church that the text is explicated properly. Wyclif decries the doctrine of Boniface VIII as issued in the Unam sanctum (1302) because it places him above Scripture. Wyclif laments that “he [the Pope] is able to render Holy Scripture heretical and make catholic what is the opposite of the Christian faith.”13 Against this hierarchy of authority, Wyclif places Scripture, the law given to the church, in which “a people are obliged to understand, defend and preserve it, since according to it all are bound to serve the Lord in hope of eternal reward.”14 It is in this sense that Scripture is deemed by Wyclif to be evangelical law and earned him the sobriquet, Evangelical Doctor.

Fourth, Wyclif believed that there must be congruence between text and the life of the interpreter. Charity always invoked understanding and understanding reciprocated. For Wyclif, the interpreter must possess a piety equal to that which the Scripture promotes in order to understand what the Scripture says. Although Smalley contended that Wyclif is anti-fideistic, it seems that the admission of this connection between faith and piety or between faith and charity mitigates against this. But, Smalley did admit the connection.15 Toward the middle of De veritate, Wyclif argues that with regard to seeing the truth in Scripture despite the wranglings of the sophists and their misuse of Aristotle’s logic,

any Christian will come to the conclusion that the proof derived from the authority of Holy Scripture, which is proof from faith, is the most fitting possibility of all. It is evident from the faith of Scripture, which one must believe, that a person can acquire nothing superior, nor more certain, or more efficacious.16

Later, within the same paragraph, he makes the connection to affections or charity: “As I said above, it is absolutely essential that every person be a theologian, having first set his own affections in proper order. For then the Truth will deign to descend and instruct him in [sic] manner free from all deception.”17 In Wyclif’s description of this person, who is the theologian by becoming Scripture’s disciple, he says that the character of this disciple rests upon three requirements: the “humble acceptance of the authority of Scripture, conformation to its own reason, and adherence to the witness of the holy doctors.”18 On this last point, Wyclif again confirms the third point made above in this paper. Reaching back earlier in the book, Wyclif affirms his agreement with the Augustinian connection between faith and charity:

That many evils arise when people either disbelieve Scripture or maintain some perverted understanding of it. This is what prompts a person to be offended by Scripture, what leads him into contradiction and worst of all, what persuades him to abandon the very faith which he ought to receive from Scripture. Augustine says, “Faith will falter if the authority of Divine Scripture wavers. Moreover, when faith falters love itself languishes. For if anyone were to fall away from faith, he will necessarily fall away from love.”19

Wyclif, then, demonstrates that he is not very far removed from the standard Augustinian tradition, and views the reception of truth to be consonant with a love for truth.

Fifth, Wyclif viewed Scripture as a mirror of metaphysical truth. In a sense, it would seem that Scripture could be validated apart from faith in its statements, but Wyclif never goes this far in his alleged anti-fideism. Instead, he seems to promote the view that Scripture is the best judge of Scripture. Tresko raises the possibility that Wyclif’s understanding of Scripture would be out of step with those of a more conservative orthodoxy. Noting that Wyclif did not place the supreme locus of Scripture within the hide-bound text communicated in artificial signs, Tresko assumes that Wyclif’s foray into speculation about the ontology of Scripture might “be unrecognizable and perhaps even monstrous to those who now like to honour his name.”20 It does not take much of an imagination to think that Tresko links those “who now like to honour his name” to the fundamentalism which he mentions, as having been attached, rather erroneously, to Wyclif’s views by Robson.21 To be sure, many may be uncomfortable with Wyclif’s speculation about the ontology of Scripture; but none would deny the fact that it was the way, and perhaps the only way, that Wyclif could attach as closely as possible the truth of God to the written book we call the Bible within the framework of the Platonic-Augustinian tradition.

In the Platonic tradition, nothing in the visible realm identically corresponds to the transcendent realm of truth and the universals. At best, this world is only a shadow or a reflection of the truth of the transcendent realm. The cosmos exists as a tiered universe, in which nothing moves easily between tiers. Within this context, Wyclif’s explanation of the written Scriptures gives the written Word the highest possible place within this transient created order. Interestingly enough, while quoting the Wisdom of Solomon (7:26), Wyclif makes this remark: “The truth is present there more permanently, because it is eternal and indelible, a book so majestic because it is ‘the radiance of the eternal light, the flawless mirror.’”22 Earlier in the paragraph Wyclif gives his reasons for viewing the written word in such a manner. By Wyclif’s reckoning, if the Truth of God were contained only in the written manuscripts or subsequent copies, “then all Holy Scripture could be damaged by a leather-worker, authorized by a scribe, torn apart by a dog, and corrected by a buffoon.”23 The written Word was Holy Scripture in the equivocal sense just as a picture of a man is identified with the man because in bears his resemblance.24 This did not undercut the written Word’s veracity or faithfulness but, as Robson observes, preserved the written Word as the very emanation of God based upon Truth that existed before its writing in time and space.25

These five characteristics lend some description to Wyclif’s hermeneutic. It cannot be emphasized enough, however, that his hermeneutical method did not preserve him from straining the text. His rather vague idea about the locus of truth allowed him to explicate the truth of one passage of Scripture with another passage Scripture without any significantly explicit connection. Sometimes the truth is not even connected to a concrete portion of Scripture. In this way, Wyclif is able to interpret allegory upon allegory as in Judges 9:8-15:

When a doctor digs more deeply into Scripture, which appears so barren, and presses beyond some small aspect of the signified sense, he will find hidden with it the mystical sense concerning the state of the universal Church. In this way the trees are understood to be the baser members of the human race who, on account of their own bestial servitude, subject as they are to their own passions, crave secular power over their fellow man.26

With this example Wyclif appears unable to extricate himself from his own historical situation. Indeed, Wyclif almost seems to give creedence to his own version of a reader-response hermeneutic.

---

 

1. Wyclif, On the Truth of Sacred Scripture, 41.

 

2. Ibid., 43.

 

3. Ibid., 65.

 

4. Ibid., 101.

 

5. Ibid., 93.

 

6. Ibid., 97.

 

7. Ibid., 99.

 

8. Ibid., 99–100.

 

9. Ibid., 104.

 

10. Ibid., 156.

 

11. Ibid., 61–62.

 

12. Ibid., 304.

 

13. Ibid., 114.

 

14. Ibid., 115–16.

 

15. Smalley, “The Bible and Eternity,” 75.

 

16. Wyclif, On the Truth of Sacred Scripture, 200.

 

17. Ibid.