at present the view prevails that...the Hippolytus corpus was written not by one man, but by two or more Hippolyti, whose identities remain unclear. Was one a ‘schismatic’ bishop, even a bishop of Rome,13 or was he an anonymous unknown?14
John F. Baldovin reflects recent scholarship by Christoph Markschies,15 Allen Brent,16 Manlio Simonetti,17 and John A. Cerrato.18 They agree that ‘there are at least two writers to whom the Hippolytan corpus can be attributed’,19 an idea earlier advanced by Pierre Nautin.20
The problem of Hippolytan authorship is further complicated by two other writings, the attribution of which to Hippolytus has been claimed and disputed: the Contra Noetum21 and the Refutatio omnium haeresium.22 While Luise Abramowski23 advanced reasons why these two works cannot be authored by a single person, Marcel Richard, a Hippolytan scholar for decades, complained that the terrible Greek style and composition of Contra Noetum shows its post-Apollinarianist dating (similarly its editor Robert Butterworth), and concluded that this opusculum could not have been written by Hippolytus.24 Richard’s opinion (supported by Photius25) has been endorsed by Josef Frickel, Caroline Bammel and Reinhard M. Hübner.26 In contrast to this position, Brent and Simonetti opted for Hippolytan authorship of Contra Noetum and attributed the Refutatio to another author, as Brent suggested, a member of the Hippolytan Roman community.27 Even the authorship of a third work, the extensive commentary In Danielem, is not undisputed.28
In his relatively recent monograph, Hippolytus between East and West, Cerrato provides us with valuable insights into the question of Hippolytus’ provenance. Cerrato places the author of the In Danielem and other biblical commentaries, including De benedictionibus Iacobi et Isaaci and the De antichristo, as well as writings of other kinds like De Pascha and the Refutatio,29 into the Asian East, and does not see these works as being derived from Rome.
... Cerrato’s main arguments for placing Hippolytus into the East [include] commentary writing during the second and third centuries is unattested for Rome, but is an activity typical of Asia. In order to make his case, Cerrato lists ‘commentators of the east’,30 before looking at those in the West31 and states: ‘Commentary activity in the west in the second century is sparse, as is the witness to its existence’; however, in his list of Eastern commentators he includes Ptolemy and Heracleon as authors of the earliest known, or preserved in fragmentary form, commentaries on books of the New Testament and, in the case of Heracleon, writings on John,32 yet he does not indicate that these two lived, taught and, therefore most likely also wrote their commentaries, at Rome.
Vinzent, Markus (2019) Writing the History of Early Christianity (pp. 165-166). Cambridge University Press.
13 See the clear outline of the various possibilities, proposed during an extensive history of scholarship in (Cerrato 2002: 4– 5).
14 Litwa, David. 2016. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated with an Introduction and Notes (SBL Press: Atlanta).
15 (Markschies 1999).
16 (Brent, Allen. 1995. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop (Brill: Leiden).
17 (Simonetti 1989, 1996, 2000: 130– 6, 2004).
18 (Cerrato 2002: 11– 12 (to some extent he follows Brent)). The most recent and most nuanced overview is given by Norelli, 2017 [see below]). See also (Zani 1984).
19 (Baldovin 2003: 524). See now also (Norelli 2017).
- Baldovin, John F. 2003. ‘Hippolytus and the Apostolic tradition: Recent research and commentary’, Theological Studies, 64: 520– 42.
- Norelli, Enrico. 2017. ‘Hippolyte et le corpus Hippolytéen’ in Bernard Pouderon (ed.), Histoire de la littérature Grecque Chrétienne des origines à 451 III. De Clément d’Alexandrie à Eusèbe de Césarée (Les Belles Lettres: Paris), 413–82.
- Nautin, Pierre. 1947. Hippolyte et Josipe, contribution à l’histoire de la littérature chrétienne du troisième siècle (les Éditions du Cerf (Limoges, impr. de Bontemps): Paris).
22 (Hippolytus and Marcovich 1986; Hippolytus and Wendland 1977).
23 (Abramowski, Luise. 1981. Drei chistologische Unterrsuchungen (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin; New York); pp 23– 4).
24 (Hippolytus and Butterworth 1977: 34; Richard 1969: 533).
25 Bibliotheca, cod. 121 (II 95– 96 Henry).
26 (Bammel 1990: 198; Frickel 1993: 101– 19; Hübner 1999: 3).
27 (Brent 1995). 28 (Baldovin 2003: 524; Cerrato 2002). See the response to Baldovin and Cerrato by (Brent 2004). Brent sees as problematic that Cerrato equates cultural with geographical distance. Communities, according to Brent, can live spatially next door to one another and yet be at variance in their perspectives, as the case of the Quartodecimans at Rome, excommunicated there by Victor in the second century shows. Victor was no fourth-century pope, he was unable to excommunicate distant dioceses, let alone impose a monepiscopacy on Roman Christians.
29 He seems to exclude him from having authored the so-called Traditio Apostolica.
30 (Cerrato 2002: 16– 23).
31 (Ibid.: 23– 4).
32 Ptolemy wrote only a commentary on John’s Prologue, while Heracleon, a little later, wrote on the entire Gospel; see (Vinzent 2011: 102– 3).
----------------
Abramowski, Luise. 1981. Drei chistologische Unterrsuchungen (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin; New York).
Baldovin, John F. 2003. ‘Hippolytus and the Apostolic tradition: Recent research and commentary’, Theological Studies, 64: 520– 42.
Bammel, Caroline P. 1990. ‘The state of play with regard to Hippolytus and the Contra Noetum’, Heythrop Journal, 31: 195– 8.
Brent, Allen. 1995. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop (E.J.Brill: Leiden).
Brent, Allen. 2004. ‘St Hippolytus, biblical exegete, Roman bishop, and martyr’, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 48: 207– 31.
Cerrato, J.A. 2002. Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus (Oxford University Press: Oxford).
Frickel, Josef. 1988. Das Dunkel um Hippolyt von Rom: ein Lösungsversuch: die Schriften Elenchos und contra Noetum, (Universität Graz: Graz).
Frickel, Josef. 1993. ‘Hippolyts Schrift Contra Noetum: Ein Pseudo-Hippolyt’ in Hanns Christoph Brennecke (ed.), Logos. Festschrift für Luise Abramowski (De Gruyter: Berlin), 87– 123.
Hübner, Reinhard M. 1999. ‘Melito von Sardes und Noet von Smyrna’, in Reinhard M. Hübner and Markus Vinzent (eds.), Der paradox Eine. Antignostischer Monarchianismus im zweiten Jahrhundert (Brill: Leiden), 1– 32.
Litwa, David. 2016. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated with an Introduction and Notes (SBL Press: Atlanta).
Nautin, Pierre. 1947. Hippolyte et Josipe, contribution à l’histoire de la littérature chrétienne du troisième siècle (les Éditions du Cerf (Limoges, impr. de Bontemps): Paris).
Norelli, Enrico. 2017. ‘Hippolyte et le corpus Hippolytéen’ in Bernard Pouderon (ed.), Histoire de la littérature Grecque Chrétienne des origines à 451 III. De Clément d’Alexandrie à Eusèbe de Césarée (Les Belles Lettres: Paris), 413–82.
Simonetti, Manlio. 1989. ‘Aggiornamento su Ippolito’, in Ricerche su Ippolito (Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum: Roma).
Simonetti, Manlio. 1995. ‘Tra Noeto, Ippolito e Melitone’, RSLR, 31: 393– 414.
Simonetti, Manlio. 1996. ‘Una nuova proposta su Ippolito’, Augustinianum, 36: 13– 45.
Simonetti, Manlio. 2000. Ippolito. Contra Noeto (Dehoniana: Bologna).
Simonetti, Manlio. 2004. ‘Margherita Guarducci tra san Pietro e sant’Ippolito’, Vetera Christianorum, 41: 191– 206.
.