Upvote:2
A massively documented history of the interpretation is given in the online article by Gerhard Pfandl, 'Interpretations of the Kingdom of God in Daniel 2:44'. According to it, Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews and the Jewish author of IV Ezra (around 100) are the first, though they are implicit rather than explicit.
Upvote:9
Several commentators before Jerome make this connection. We'll mention three,1 starting with Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386), who indicates that he is not the originator of this interpretation:
The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall surpass all kingdoms. And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, has been the tradition of the Church’s interpreters. For as the first kingdom which became renowned was that of the Assyrians, and the second, that of the Medes and Persians together, and after these, that of the Macedonians was the third, so the fourth kingdom now is that of the Romans. (Catechetical Lectures, 15
Over a century earlier, Hippolytus (170–235) had written:
Then he says: “A fourth beast, dreadful and terrible; it had iron teeth and claws of brass.” And who are these but the Romans? which (kingdom) is meant by the iron—the kingdom which is now established; for the legs of that (image) were of iron. (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist)
See also Scholia, Daniel 7.9 for similar analysis.
But Hippolytus seems to draw this interpretation from his teacher, Irenaeus (d. 202). In Against Heresies, 5.26.1, he writes of the connection between Daniel 7 and Revelation 17, and puts the empire in which he lives – Rome – in the middle of it:
In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules (the earth) shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel. [emphasis added]
So it does indeed seem that we can trace this view back even further, all the way to the second century. It's likely that even Irenaeus is not the originator of this idea, but it seems that his works are the earliest surviving that make the connection.2
Notes:
1 Another would be Victorinus (d. 304) (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 17). Shortly after Jerome, Theodoret (393–460) says the same (Commentary on Daniel, 7, p203)
2 Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 31) and the Epistle of Barnabas, 4 quote the relevant passage, but don't directly connect the fourth kingdom to Rome.