Hippolytus “Commentary on Daniel”

Tom Schmidt writes to say that he has started a translation of the Commentary on Daniel by Hippolytus, which he mentions here.

Fragments of the work appear in the ANF collection, but a nearly complete Old Slavonic version exists (used by the Sources Chretiennes) and likewise a Greek version, which was published by GCS.  So this will be the first complete English translation. 


11 thoughts on “Hippolytus “Commentary on Daniel”

  1. There’s a Greek version of Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel?! Where?

    I think that part of Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel is embedded in Jerome’s commentary on Daniel, which you already have onsite. It would be nice to have the full text though.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  2. I have posted a short answer at my blog. Basically it seems that the editor was able to use ultra-violet light to read illegible parts of the main manuscript. Catenas and perhaps another manuscripts were also used.

  3. I have closely read the first 30 or so pages of PDF of the Commentary on Daniel which you link to and, I need to say, it contains numerous transcription errors. I actually had to abandon the idea of translating from it altogether because there were so many. However, for simply reading from it, it wouldn’t be too bad. If you come to a sentence that doesn’t make any sense, be sure to check the original GCS NF 7 volume.

    I suppose scribal errors will never go away.

  4. Tom’s post is here. The text comes from an ms. from Vatopedi.

    Interesting that there are transcription errors! That’s inevitable, really. We need to be careful not to discourage Arnd Rattmann and the GCS, just as they begin. How bad is it, really?

  5. On every page I estimate there are probably 1 or 2. So its not bad. They also tend to have the same mistakes, like they will have μη instead of με. The main issue for me was that I would wrestle with a sentence that didn’t make any sense before finally realizing it was a transcription error. I can only imagine how scholars like Bonwetsch and Richard made due with medieval manuscripts riddled with errors.

  6. One more thing, and I should have said this earlier (thanks for pointing it out Roger), I am very grateful that this was digitized and placed online for free. If I myself had done the transcribing I would have certainly made far more errors than currently exist. Thank you to all who made this possible.

  7. I am reading Hippolytus now, and there are two references that caught my attention in his commentary on Daniel. I was searching for commentaries on the web and found this thread.

    Do you have any thoughts on the fifty days and the days that he mentions? I dont believe these days are in Daniel, and if they are, I’m not sure where they came from. Do you have any insight?

    He discusses the 1290 days and the 1335 days – and 45 days in between. Then he says, “while the other period of fifty days advances, to him the kingdom of heaven comes. Antichrist, indeed, enters even into part of the fifty days…”

    And then a little later: “And the thousand and four hundred days are the light of the world…”

    Any thoughts?

Leave a Reply