He is the only early church father who is memorialized by a statue which stands today at the entrance of the Vatican Library. He is the early church father whose writings were cited often during the first five centuries of the history of the church and whose liturgical document, The Apostolic Tradition, has greatly influenced the shape of the Eucharistic practice and services of ordination of the Catholic Church and many Protestant churches today.
This same father soon became an enigma in the ancient church even though his writings continued to be studied. Eusebius of Caesarea, writing around the time of the first decade of the fourth century, lists a number of his works, but he admits, “his [episcopal] see remains unknown.” In his book of biographical sketches of “illustrious men,” written in the early fifth century, Jerome also lists many of his writings and says that Origen once heard him speak and was urged to write in emulation of him, but Jerome remarks that he was “bishop of some church (the name of the city I have not been able to learn).” Today there is still a vigorous scholarly debate about his biography.
This church father is the one known in Catholic tradition as Hippolytus of Rome.
Why Hippolytus may have become an enigma
If Hippolytus was a prominent Christian leader in Rome, it is surprising that the knowledgeable ancient scholars Eusebius and Jerome did not know for sure where he had lived, especially since Jerome lived in Rome for almost twenty-five years and was well-informed about its traditions. Some historians contend that Hippolytus lived somewhere else than Rome, perhaps in Alexandria, Egypt or in Syria.
One reason why there is doubt about whether or not Hippolytus was a teacher in Rome is because there were other Christian writers with the same name who lived elsewhere. His name is derived from a compound of Greek words for “horse” and “setting free”–the name of a minor character in Greek mythology who was killed as he was riding his chariot along the seashore when his horses became frightened by a sea monster and trampled him to death. Because a scholar like Jerome knew about other writers named Hippolytus who resided in the East, he would have hesitated to confirm that he was a resident of Rome. Another reason for doubt about Hippolytus being from Rome is that he wrote in classical Greek, but Latin replaced Greek as the common language in Rome within about a generation after Hippolytus’ death. Hence the writings of Hippolytus became inaccessible in Italy, but they were cherished in the Greek-speaking East. Jerome’s awareness of the popularity of Hippolytus’ writings in the eastern part of the Roman Empire would have made him think that he might have been one of the writers in the East named Hippolytus. Many scholars today suppose that, like Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus had been born and reared in the East but settled in the West.
The Catholic tradition concerning Hippolytus probably represents the most likely account of his life. He is remembered as a presbyter and also a bishop who lived around 170 to 235 C.E. He was martyred alongside a bishop of Rome, Pontianus, both of whom perished as prisoners forced to work in the mines of Sardinia and subjected to barbaric treatment. Their bodies were brought back to Rome on the same day and buried with honor in two different places in the city.
Hippolytus’ criticism of the bishop of Rome in light of our uncertainty about episcopacy in Rome
The tradition that he was a bishop is complicated by scholarly controversy about the institutional structure of the Christian church in Rome in the first two centuries. Much modern scholarship relies on sociological analysis of empirical evidence about social groups in Rome in the early centuries of Christianity. Having a population of a million or more, the city of Rome was the largest city in the empire. Moreover, its population consisted of many different ethnic groups who migrated to Rome from other regions of the empire. It is certain that the Christian population in this huge, pluralistic city was too large to allow all the Christians to worship together in one house, and therefore there must have been many house churches in the city, most of them probably composed of persons who came from the same region of the empire and who spoke a common language. A leader of a house church might have been called both a presbyter (elder) and a bishop as were leaders in the European churches founded by the apostle Paul. Based on these sociological factors, modern scholars propose the thesis that there was not one so-called “monarchical bishop” of Rome until at least the end of the second century or as late as the third decade of the third century.
While this thesis is based on sociological analysis of historical evidence relevant to Christianity in Rome, there is noliterary documentation supporting it. The literature from the middle to late second century, such as Irenaeus’ list of the bishops of Rome in Against Heresies, III.3, support the concept that, despite the sociological complexity of the early Christian communities, there was some degree of ecclesiastical unity that was achieved and symbolized by designating one of the leaders of a Christian community as “the bishop of Rome.” Some modern scholars contend that such a list of bishops represents only traditions of leadership in one prominent house church which writers like Irenaeus portrayed as the succession of persons in a single episcopal office for the entire Christian community beginning with appointments of bishops by the apostles Peter and Paul in order to reinforce the idea of the continuity of the authoritative apostolic tradition. Because of the existence of lists of bishops in the early church, there persists a question whether these lists comprise important documentary evidence of more unity and ecclesiastical structure than some modern scholars propose. This evidence of early lists of bishops of Rome would represent the pressure of the theological conviction that there is “one body and one Spirit” (Ephesians 4:4) which might well have been applied against all the sociological forces which would separate the house churches from one another. Moreover, modern scholars sometimes manifest a tendentious preference for narratives that privilege “diversity” over unity because intellectuals in universities during the late modern era rate social pluralism higher than social cohesion.
There is much we do not know about Christianity in the first half of the second century, especially regarding ecclesiastical structures, and whatever scholarly consensus emerges in one generation might change in another generation. As a moderate working hypothesis about the era of Hippolytus at the turn of the third century, it is plausible to envisage many house churches in Rome led by presbyters who, along with the people, chose one presbyter to be their “bishop” and representative to the other house churches. Consequently, there would have been many bishops in Rome who were also presbyters. As the leader of a house church in Rome, Hippolytus could be remembered both as a presbyter and as a bishop. It is likely that around 200 C.E. there was also someone who was considered to be “the bishop of Rome,” presumably the leader of a house church who was chosen by the other presbyter-bishops to be the titular head of the whole Christian community in Rome. This bishop would have enjoyed high esteem in the whole Christian community in Rome and would have had influence because of his authority to represent the entire church, but he would not have had juridical authority to rule as an ecclesiastical monarch over the entire community. The status of the bishop of Rome would have been that of a first among equals among all the other presbyter-bishops of the many house churches. Victor, who was bishop of Rome around 189-199 C.E., probably functioned in this manner in light of the information contained in Irenaeus’ letter to him about a controversy over the date of Pascha or Easter (Eusebius, The History of the Church, 5. 24). If we give credit to the testimony about lists of bishops of Rome by late second century writers like Irenaeus, then we may also consider the possibility that a similar arrangement for selecting a leader of a house church to be the bishop of the whole church in Rome had begun much earlier than some modern scholars propose, perhaps beginning with Sixtus I who served around 120 C.E.
The issue of the ecclesiastical organization in Rome is relevant to the biography of Hippolytus because he is alleged to be the first “antipope,” someone who rejected the leadership of the bishop of Rome and set himself up as the alternative bishop of Rome. The terminology of “antipope” is anachronistic since there was no bishop anywhere at the turn of the third century with the juridical authority of later popes. Nonetheless, even some modern scholars think it is likely that by 200 C.E. one person was recognized as “the bishop of Rome,” and Hippolytus was very critical of several bishops of Rome, especially Callistus. While Hippolutus’ open and harsh criticism of the bishop of Rome was probably unusual even in his own time, it took place during a period when the ecclesiastical structure in Rome was probably still more of a vital communion of house churches than an uniform hierarchical system. If Callistus did in fact possess the status of being the bishop of Rome, Hippolytus, one of the presbyters who were also bishops of their own house churches, would have considered himself to be Callistus’ equal regarding the teaching of the Christian faith with the right to criticize him if he thought Callistus had veered from the truth.
The ancient statue of Hippolytus at the Vatican Library
The statue of Hippolytus which now stands at the entrance of Vatican Library is the only statue we possess of a Christian leader in the second century. Or, is it? This statue was found during excavations in 1551. It portrays a figure sitting on a throne, and on the throne is a list of many of the writings known to be from Hippolytus. Because one of the writings is a paschal calendar containing calculations of the date of Pascha (Easter) each year between 222 and 333 C.E., this statue would have been erected around 222. Yet the head and the upper torso of the statue were missing when it was found, but they were sculpted later. Today historians are certain that the lower torso of the statue is that of a woman. It is very plausible that originally this statue was made in honor of Hippolytus, but it is not a statue of Hippolytus himself but of Lady Wisdom who represents the teaching of Hippolytus. It was not a practice of early Christians to make statues of their leaders, but if Hippolytus’ disciples commissioned a statue of Lady Wisdom in honor of his teaching even this would have been very unusual at the time. The existence of this statue, along with the list of his writings, indicates that his house church was probably constituted as a school of philosophy which included students who came together to study with Hippolytus. If so, then the writings of Hippolytus would be the product of his teaching and dialogue with his students or, in some cases, maybe even the work of his students–a body of corporate thought under the leadership of an exceptional teacher.
Hippolytus’ writings
The influence of Hippolytus in the early and ancient church was due to the wide range of his teaching and the scope of his writings. The titles of his books on the statue are mutilated, and the exact number is not clear because some of the titles may occupy two lines on the statue. In this list of more than a dozen books, there are scriptural commentaries, theological treatises, apologetic works, hymns, chronological studies including a table of dates to celebrate Pascha, and the liturgical document that has so influenced churches today, [The] Apostolic Tradition. In The History of the Church, 6. 22, Eusebius lists other titles, and in Lives of Illustrious Men, 61, Jerome adds even more titles.
One of the strong interests of Hippolytus was eschatology. He produced commentaries on both the book of Daniel and the Revelation to John and a theological treatise On Christ and the Antichrist. Based on a chronological interpretation of the apocalyptic visions in Daniel, Hippolytus calculated that the future coming of Christ would not occur for about five hundred years following his first coming, a teaching which encouraged the church to settle down in history to fulfill its mission.
Perhaps his most important work during his lifetime was The Refutation of all Heresies. This long volume consisting of ten books or chapters primarily consists of theological analyses of heresies that had arisen in Christianity during the second century, especially the Gnostic heresies. This work is similar to Irenaeus’ work which Irenaeus titled A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge Falsely So-Called and which is known today by the title of its Latin translation, Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses). Hippolytus’ references to Irenaeus’ work indicate that his own analyses were guided by Irenaeus, but Hippolytus also provides valuable historical information about the beliefs of some sects which are not discussed in detail by Irenaeus or other writers, such as the Naassenes and the Perates. Hippolytus does not emphasize Irenaeus’ argument that heresies are a falsification of the apostolic tradition, but he attempts to prove that all heresies are based upon the theological errors of pre-Christian philosophers, mathematicians, astrologers, or magicians.
The second and third books or chapters of Hippolytus’ The Refutation of all Heresies are presumed missing although, to a modern reader, there does not seem to be any lacuna in his argument between the existing first and fourth books. The ninth book or chapter is of special interest because it is focused on two bishops of Rome, Zephyrinus and especially his protege, Callistus, whom Hippolytus attacks for his errors in doctrine and discipline. The tenth book or chapter contains a presentation of the truth of Christianity as understood by Hippolytus.
Every second century discussion about Christian heresies in the second century is extremely tedious for modern readers because the teachings of the Gnostics are so bizarre and long forgotten that the reader easily loses interest. Since most Christians today are not going to study Hippolytus’ The Refutation of all Heresies, it may be helpful to make some brief observations about what we might learn from the attitudes and ideas of this important second century Christian teacher.
The truth matters
One could enumerate several reasons why the primitive Christian church during the first three centuries of church history was so tough and able to handle all the pressures against it, but clearly one reason is that the primitive church was convinced of the truth of the gospel in accordance with the scriptures. The demonstration of the truth is the driving force in Hippolytus’ The Refutation of all Heresies. As he begins to bring his whole argument to a close in Book X. 27, he invites all humankind “to learn from us, who are the friends of God, what the nature of God is, and His well-arranged creation. And we have cultivated this system, not expressing ourselves in mere pompous language, but executing our treatises in terms that prove our knowledge of truth and our practice of good sense, our object being the demonstration of His Truth” (translation in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V).
This attitude of being committed to the truth revealed by the living God through Jesus Christ by the illumination of the Holy Spirit is a habit that North American Christians will need to adopt if the church is going to be able to meet the challenges of our era. When Dietrich Bonhoeffer came to America in the 1930s to teach at Union Theological Seminary in New York, he made astute observations about American Christianity in his essay, “Protestantism Without Reformation.” In one of his observations, he writes that “for American Christianity the concept of tolerance becomes the basic principle of everything Christian.” In a report to his church authorities on what he had learned about theological students in America, Bonhoeffer observed that “in the conflict between determination for truth with all its consequences and the will for community, the latter prevails.” The author of Life Together, Bonhoeffer had a strong commitment to Christian community, but his concern about American Christians was that they thought that community is “founded less on truth than on the spirit of ‘fairness’,” and he bemoaned how they did not “see the radical claim of truth on the shaping of their lives.” Almost a hundred years later, Bonhoeffer’s criticism is even more pertinent today than when he gave it. One of the lessons learned from studying the fathers of the primitive church is how the identity and mission of the church depends upon acknowledging the church’s foundation upon the truth from God.
No piggyback Christianity
At the beginning of Book I Hippolytus says the thesis of The Refutation of all Heresies is that the heretics’ teachings “have derived their origin from the wisdom of the Greeks, from the conclusions of those who have formed systems of philosophy, and from would be mysteries, and the vagaries of astrologers….” In other words, Hippolytus contends that the errors of all the heretics come from their reliance upon pre-Christian concepts taught by the earliest Greek philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and others or upon Egyptian myths, Babylonian astrology, and even magic. For instance, in VI. 24, Hippolytus contends that Valentinus, one of the most influential Gnostic Christian teachers, did not derive his system “from the Gospels,” but from Pythagoras and Plato, and he “may (therefore) justly be reckoned a Pythagorean and Platonist, not a Christian.”
There is a general consensus today that Hippolytus’ thesis is too broad to provide an adequate intellectual assessment of the many heresies he discusses. Just because a heretic like Valentinus attempted to depict the universe as consisting of an emanation of numbers of aeons, such an Hebdomad (seven aeons or angels) and an Ogdoad (eight aeon), does not necessarily mean that his system was based upon Pythagoras’ teaching that numbers are the essence of reality.
If Hippolytus’ thesis fails as an intellectual argument, it succeeds as a psychological explanation why some believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ joined proto-Gnostic and Gnostic Christian sects. Most Christians in the second and third centuries must have been astounded by how easily some people who were attracted to the gospel could attach themselves to the bizarre teachings of the Gnostics about how, from an unknown High God, many aeons emanated or were begotten, including the demiurge of the universe, the dumb and ignorant low-level divinity who created the world as an unclean and sorry place. Hippolytus’ argument that the origin of the heretics’ teachings is to be found in pre-Christian philosophies, astrology, or magic exposes the psychological appeal the heresies had for some Gentiles: being accustomed by Hellenistic education and the cultural air of Greco-Roman society to the myths of pagan polytheism and philosophical speculations about the origin of the universe from certain elementary principles, Gnostic Christian teaching felt like a worldview that they had always known, except that a comforting message about Jesus or Christ as a Savior was simply added to it. The heretics had obscured the truth of Christianity as an alternative to the worldviews in Greco-Roman society and turned it into a kind of piggyback Christianity that was added to, or put on the back of, already existing understandings of reality.
Hippolytus adhered to the apostolic tradition that the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ was “in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4 NRSV; Nicene Creed). In other words, the truth of Christianity is based upon both the Old and New Testaments. Hence the particular message that Jesus Christ is our Savior in the New Testament fits into the older and larger narrative in the Old Testament about the one God who is Creator and Lord of the world, who elected a particular people to know and obey him, inspired prophets, and promised the coming of a Savior in a new age. The scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are sufficient to provide the knowledge of the truth that is necessary for salvation.
We modern Christians can learn at least this one thing from Hippolytus’ argument in The Refutation of all Heresies, namely that it is a profound error to accept a piggyback Christianity. To try to add the good news concerning Jesus Christ to some already existing system of belief, whether it is a religious system, a philosophy, or an ideology such as contemporary Western progressivism or nationalism, is unacceptable. Indeed, it is impossible. The gospel, understood “in accordance with the scriptures,” stands on its own in the midst of every society and civilization and presents a challenge to all other worldviews. As Origen says in Against Celsus, I. 2, “the Gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine than any established by Grecian dialectics.” Christianity plus something else is always a heresy, a distortion of the true faith.
In Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture, the great missiologist Lesslie Newbigin addresses how the gospel relates to what some social scientists call the “plausibility structure” of a society–the worldview of most people in a society about “how things are.” While he advocates for a dialogue between Christians and those who adhere to the plausibility structure of Western culture, he observes how “the missionary encounter of the gospel with the modern world will, like every true missionary encounter, call for radical conversion. This will be not only a conversion of the will and of the feelings but a conversion of the mind–a ‘paradigm shift’ that leads to a new vision of how things are, not at once but gradually, to the development of a new plausibility structure in which the most real of all realities is the living God whose character is ‘rendered’ for us in the pages of Scripture.” In rejecting the piggyback Christianity of Christian Gnosticism, Hippolytus’ aim was to free the gospel from being tacked on to an alien plausibility structure of his own time and place, a task that always belongs to Christians everywhere.
Anticipating the Creed of Nicaea
At the end of Book X, Hippolytus offers a brief overview of the truth of Christianity. In this overview, he points toward the doctrine of the Trinity (Triados) as it would become formalized at the Council of Nicaea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381), although, along with other primitive Christians like Tertullian and Origen, some of his ideas would be later corrected by the ecumenical councils.
In X. 28 Hippolytus teaches, “The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself, not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them.” Thus, the true origin of all things is to be found in the will of one God, and the principles and elements which constitute the universe are themselves the creation of the one God. With this teaching, Hippolytus shows how the first philosophers failed to find the real origin of the universe in the will of God the Creator even though, according to their abilities to observe and reason, they did perceive certain principles or elements by which God fashioned God’s creation. By teaching that everything has been made by the one God, Hippolytus casts aside the bizarre notions of Gnostic Christians about how the world was made and ruled by the operations of a pluralistic, hierarchical system of aeons.
The world, says Hippolytus in X. 29, was created by God through God’s Word (Logos). The Logos is the means by which God creates and orders all things because the Logos resides “in the divine mind” analogous to the way our thoughts and words reside in our minds. He adds, “The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.” This Logos also inspired and illuminated the minds of the prophets who spoke oracles that reveal God’s will for humankind. Then, he says, this Logos became “corporally present amongst us” as Jesus Christ, having “received a body from a virgin” and “passed through every period in this life” in order to remodel “the old man by a new creation.”
In this explication of the relation between God and God’s Logos, Hippolytus thinks of the Word or Logos as having been begotten or sent forth in the beginning when God created heaven and earth. The Word was always in God, but the Word came forth only in the creation of the world. This view of the Word as being begotten in the creation of the world or in the beginning of time was based upon an interpretation of Proverbs 8:22, and it was not unusual at the turn of the third century. Tertullian also presented the same idea in Against Praxeas, 5. Hippolytus also reserved the title of Son for the incarnate Word who is now exalted to the right hand of God the Father. In the fourth century the great Nicene biblical theologian Athanasius interpreted Proverbs 8:22 in the context of the entire canon of the scriptures in order to show that the begetting of the Word who is the Son was eternally from the person of God the Father rather than in time by the Father’s creation of the world, e.g. Against the Arians, II. 21. In a later writing, Against Noetus, 10 and 14, Hippolytus makes a correction, saying that God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: “He, while existing alone, existed in plurality,” the plurality being “the Father who is above all, the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all.” If Against Noetus was not composed by members of his school after Hippolytus left the scene, this correction of his thought may have occurred as a result of his later, more mature reflection after Noetus began to make his views known. Noetus taught the heresy that says, in effect, there are not three persons in one God, but there is only one God or one divine Person who manifests himself in three different modes of being–the heresy usually known as Sabellianism. While Hippolytus’ teaching lacked the clarity of later Christian doctrine, he did anticipate the Nicene-Constantinopolitan theology of one God in three persons. Moreover, Hippolytus also introduced terms very similar to those which were later incorporated into the Creed of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed adopted by the Council by Constantinople, namely that the Word or Son was “Light of Light” and “God of God.”
The power of No
Hippolytus’ reputation as the first “antipope” is based on Book IX of The Refutation of all Heresies in which he makes his sharp criticisms of bishops of Rome. He alleges that Zephyrinus, whom he describes as the one who “imagines that he administers the affairs of the Church,” as an advocate of the heresy of Noetus, and he makes the same allegation against Callistus, whom he describes as Zephyrinus’ “advisor.” It is likely that Zephyrinus was a kindly pastor who lacked the intellectual sophistication to discern theological errors during this period of time before Christian doctrine was clearly defined by the ecumenical councils. Hippolytus calls Zephyrinus an “ignorant and illiterate individual.” But Hippolytus’ strongest criticism was directed against Callistus who succeeded Zephyrinus as bishop. When Callistus became bishop he excommunicated Sabellius, the true author of the heresy adopted by Noetus, but Hippolytus claimed that this excommunication was simply a ploy by Callistus to deflect Hippolytus’ criticism of his theological teaching and to make a show of his orthodoxy.
While Hippolytus alleged, fairly or unfairly, that Callistus promoted the heresy of Sabellius and Noetus, his real complaints were about Callistus’ character and his laxity in administering discipline in the church. He tells a colorful narrative about Callistus’ life, portraying him as an “imposter and knave” who once had stolen money entrusted to him as a servant of a man named Carpophorus who had commissioned him to safeguard and invest the money of widows and fellow Christians. Hippolytus even claims that Callistus’ term as a Christian exile to the mines in Sardinia was a plot arranged by Callistus to escape his legal troubles when Carpophorus appealed to the prefect of Rome to hold Callistus accountable for the money he had stolen.
According to Hippolytus, when Callistus eventually became a bishop he attracted members to his house church from other house churches by offering generous absolution to sinners contrary to the discipline of the Catholic Church, even receiving as members persons who had been excommunicated from other house churches. Hippolytus alleged that Callistus permitted bishops who had committed some grave sin to continue in their office, and that he allowed deacons, presbyters, and bishops to retain their office if they were married twice or even three times. Callistus justified his decisions on the basis of Jesus’ teaching that we should not judge one another and his parable of the kingdom of God in which the tares were allowed to grow alongside the wheat. Hippolytus also charged that Callistus allowed women to live with a male companion without obtaining a legal marriage. Because some of the wealthy women did not want children with a man who was of a lower social status or a slave, they resorted to taking drugs that either made them sterile or caused abortions of their unborn children. Hippolytus declared that Callistus had brought shame on the church and that his community had no right to be called a Catholic Church.
It is sometimes said that Hippolytus was a rigorist who was opposed to Callistus because Callistus practiced a discipline in accordance with the gospel of justification of sinners by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Even if Hippolytus were a rigorist, his criticisms of Callistus were based upon the established discipline of the ancient Catholic Church. Perhaps his judgment of Callistus’ character lacked generosity, but his challenge to Callistus’ disciplinary practices was necessary to guard the integrity of the church as a community of souls seeking to live according to Jesus’ teaching that his disciples should enter through “the narrow gate” and walk the “hard road” that leads to life (Matthew 7:13-14).
Hippolytus has something to teach Christians today who are conditioned by living in a therapeutic society that resists discipline for the sake of moral formation and spiritual growth. Hippolytus understood the power of No. He was advocating for the preservation of the discipline of the church which all baptized members affirmed and to which they expected to be held accountable for the sake of their own salvation as disciples of Jesus Christ. He was not promoting authoritarian leadership nor legalism, but only the maintenance of standards consistent with the gospel and the teaching of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul proclaimed that Jesus Christ is God’s Yes to us (2 Corinthians 1:19), but enclosed within this Yes is the necessary No of self-denial and obedience to Jesus Christ our Lord.
Timothy W. Whitaker is a Retired United Methodist Church bishop who served the Florida Area.
The post Hippolytus of Rome appeared first on Juicy Ecumenism.