Talk:Hippolytus of Rome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The introduction to this article is horrendous. There are several broken and/or immensely confusing sentences, and I think a lot of work is needed to make this article clear. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Prophetic exegesis or barrow pushing?[edit]

Does anyone else get the feeling that the main intention of the section headed "prophetic exegesis" is to broadcast the author's views on the book of Daniel? It certainly doesn't appear to give any sort of overview of Hippolytus' exegetical methods, his opinions on other eschatalogical issues of the period, or his position in the stream of christian tradition.

--Sineaste (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I say we just delete the section. There's nothing we can take away from the antichrist section, and since his understanding of Daniel is the standard one, there's no need to make note of it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. After only two years. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be re-instated? There is virtually no prose, just extensive quotations from his writing. That can surely be linked to if it is really so important. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions)

I'm having a hard time understanding the logic behind deleting information that is both relevant to the topic and properly referenced. The reasons given above don't seem logical, I suppose, because they are based on some kind of point-of-view. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with POV. I agree with Hippolytus' view on Daniel, in fact. However, nothing of importance is dealt with here. There are two sentences that are not a block quote from his writing. I see no reason to include them when we can link to his writings. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
"Nothing of importance" to you, doesn't mean what Hippolytus said isn't important to anybody else. If you have a POV on the importance, great, but we should strive be tolerant on "point-of-view" matters such as declaring "move along now, nothing of importance is dealt with here". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be great if something substantive were included about his writings. If there were actually a thorough paragraph on his views about Daniel and the antichrist, I would have no inclination to delete it whatsoever. But a sentence followed by a big quote of a primary source is not encyclopedic. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the section. I'm the third editor to think it doesn't belong. No one has explained why we these quotes in particular illuminate that topic. Leadwind (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I still do not understand what the objection to them is. The first editor two years ago, stated here that the purpose of the section is to "broadcast the author's views on the book of Daniel". Since the section consists almost entirely of direct quotes without any extraneous opinion, "the author" he referred to here must mean Hippolytus of Rome, not whoever first added the material. So he was saying the purpose of the section is to "broadcast" Hippolytus' views on Daniel. Could someone explain to me exactly why this is a problem? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no good reason for the block quotes. Is there some scholarly source that says that this information is so important to an understanding of H that we need block quotes from his text? According to the ODCC, H's views on the Logos are more important. Why not quote them? If no expert says that this stuff is key, then there's no need for it. Let's humbly stick to what the experts think is important, not what we individual amateur editors think is important. Leadwind (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hippolytus' views are indeed given a prominent role in many discussions of Daniel's historiography, we cannot presume to dismiss their importance as individual amateur editors Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Just find a reliable source. I know we've had this conversation before. Find a reliable source to back you up. Demonstrate that you respect the experts. Cite them. Leadwind (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm certain I can find any number of reliable sources that speak of the importance of Hippolytus in this regard. What I'm wondering is if any source could be found backing up your assertion that 'experts' consider his statements unimportant. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
TE, "I'm certain I can find any number of reliable sources that speak of the importance of Hippolytus in this regard." We're waiting. Leadwind (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sections deleted / removed to talkpage for discussion[edit]

Prophetic exegesis[edit]

In the fragments from his Commentary on the Prophet Daniel, and also in his monumental Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Hippolytus gives an exposition of Daniel's paralleling prophecies of chapters 2 and 7, which he, in common with other Church fathers, asserts pertain to the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[1]

"3. As these things, then, are destined to come to pass, and as the toes of the image turn out to be democracies, and the ten horns of the beast are distributed among ten kings, let us look at what is before us more carefully, and scan it, as it were, with open eye. The golden head of the image is identical with the lioness, by which the Babylonians were represented. The golden shoulders and the arms of silver are the same with the bear, by which the Persians and Medes are meant. The belly and thighs of brass are the leopard, by which the Greeks who ruled from Alexander onwards are intended. The legs of iron are the dreadful and terrible beast, by which the Romans who hold the empire now are meant. The toes of clay and iron are the ten horns which are to be. The one other little horn springing up in their midst is the antichrist. The stone that smites the image and breaks it in pieces, and that filled the whole earth, is Christ, who comes from heaven and brings judgment on the world."[2]


Hippolytus considered it important to discover who Antichrist is to be.

"5. But as time now presses for the consideration of the question immediately in hand, and as what has been already said in the introduction with regard to the glory of God, may suffice, it is proper that we take the Holy Scriptures themselves in hand, and find out from them what, and of what manner, the coming of Antichrist is; on what occasion and at what time that impious one shall be revealed; and whence and from what tribe (he shall come); and what his name is, which is indicated by the number in the Scripture; and how he shall work error among the people, gathering them from the ends of the earth; and (how) he shall stir up tribulation and persecution against the saints; and how he shall glorify himself as God; and what his end shall be; and how the sudden appearing of the Lord shall be revealed from heaven; and what the conflagration of the whole world shall be; and what the glorious and heavenly kingdom of the saints is to be, when they reign together with Christ; and what the punishment of the wicked by fire.[3]

  1. ^ Froom 1948, p. 268–279
  2. ^ Hippolytus & 170–236, p. 178–179, section 3 [1]
  3. ^ Hippolytus & 170–236b, p. 205, section 5 [2]
TE, I see that you are citing Froom, a 7th Day Adventist and historicist. If you're coming to Bible scholarship from his direction, I can see why you have no love for what the experts say. Leadwind (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
So now I "have no love for what the experts say"? Sounds like the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" fallacy... So what do the "experts say" on that point then, according to you? You haven't cited anyone yet. Neither have I, actually... I simply pasted the text deleted from the article here, to request more attention to it. I didn't write it, and I'm not too familiar with Froom. But I will return with some better sources on Hippolytus' views, that may allow us to enrich the article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow that takes me back. TE, have you and I had conflicts in the past about the use of Froom as a RS on maybe Augustine of Hippo? I know I've discussed him at length before with someone. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No, that wasn't me... I don't believe I've ever used Froom. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

2nd eucharistic prayer?[edit]

If this is the same Hippolytus to whom is credited the 2nd eucharistic prayer of the Roman church (or at least a significant part), which was put together in the 1960s, it would be worth mentioning and even writing a bit about.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)