I believe Origen (185-254 CE) had a unique way of interpreting things. He saw in all Scripture a literal, moral, and spiritual side. His methods were not that popular. Perhaps he started with the primary and secondary fulfillment of prophecy?
Here's a few study notes I made a while back in connection with Daniel's prophecies to make sense out of the whole thing.
Prophetic interpretation, or exegesis, is subjective to an extreme degree. To lessen the subjective impact, John J. Collins describes Daniel’s prophecy as ex eventu, i.e., “written after the fact.”[1] So, in order to counteract subjectivity, one needs to add historical reality to the mix. In so doing, one strengthens the objective element.
Historical reality : This is the sum of present and past realities, based on undisputed, historical fact.
Eisegesis : The interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas (Webster). This is a criticism that the prophetic interpreter has to live with. However, one should keep in mind that many an exegete, ancient and modern, would endeavour to apply prophetic interpretation to his own time. Those that believe the Bible to be God’s Word, looks to the prophecies for guidance, a natural response to life’s challenges.
E.g., in the straits of the times the breakaway Essenes of Qumran, responsible for the DSS collection, would explain the Scriptures in the light of current events. Later R. Akiba, would give his blessing to Simon Bar Kochba, viewing him as the messianic king, thus triggering the Bar Kochba Revolt (132-135 CE).[2]
Josephus inferred that the Medes and Persians would be replaced by “another king from the west,” i.e., Alexander the Great. A fourth kingdom will follow “like iron and will have dominion forever because of it’s iron nature.” There can be no doubt that Josephus identified it as Rome.[3]
Jerome also viewed the fourth kingdom as Rome. The feet of iron and clay he specifically applied to his day (Jerome, Commentary on the Book of Daniel, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., on Dan. 2:40; 7:7).
Martin Luther affirmed that the end of days was at hand. He recognized a dual reference to Antiochus and the Antichrist in Dan. 8 and 11, and a direct reference to the Antichrist (the Pope) in Dan. 11:36-45.[4]
Sir Isaac Newton viewed the final King of the North as the Empire of the Turks and the last King of the South as the Empire of the Saracens ( Isaac Newton, Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of John, p. 155 (published by M. Olckers) .
*
In the history of prophetic interpretation, it has been established that a prophecy often has a primary as well as secondary fulfillment. This is most clearly demonstrated by the composite sign of Jesus’ end time prophecy, dealing with the conclusion of the Jewish system, yet corresponding to his parousia at the conclusion of the present system (cf. Matt. 24, 25; Mark 13; Luk. 21). The reader should therefore be the sole arbiter in the light of the evidence. And yes, eventually and inevitably, time itself have the last word, whether an interpretation is to stand or to fall.
[1] John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia-series, p. 60.
[2] Akiba ben Joseph. (2011). Encyclopædia Britannica. E ncyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
[3] John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia-series, p. 85.
[4] Ibid., p. 119.