Hippolytus Between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Hippolytus Between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus W. Brian Shelton J. A. Cerrato Hippolytus Between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus Oxford Theological Monographs New York: Oxford University Press, 2002 Pp. x + 291. $74. Antiquity boasted that all roads led to Rome, but scholars are questioning whether Hippolytus ever traveled them. Traditionally viewed as a Roman presbyter in the early third century, he had a prolific writing career which produced commentaries, liturgical works, anti-heretical works, chronologies, and dogmatic treatises. However, his Eastern theological tendencies have led to several diverse theories about an Eastern or Western provenance including the possibility that he was a Roman presbyter, an Eastern presbyter, a migrant from the East to Rome, an itinerant author, or two Hippolyti (one Eastern, one Western). In this revision of a 1996 Oxford doctoral dissertation, J. A. Cerrato supports the view that Hippolytus was a "scion of the East." The author examines the traditional Hippolytan commentaries in an effort to determine their provenance, comparing them to similar works and trends in various geographical regions. Through source criticism he hopes to uncover the author's "inherited distinctive ideal from the community" and in this way to isolate his geographical location (7). The first half of the work reviews the external historical evidence regarding the identity and locality of the author of Hippolytus' commentaries. Hippolytus was a widespread name, and from early on there was much speculation about his see; even Eusebius and Jerome are uncertain of his location. In the fifth century Gelasius of Rome alludes to the controversial Contra Noetum, calling the author "bishop and martyr of a/the capital city of the Arabians," and Medieval Armenian manuscripts suppose that the author is from Bostra in Arabia. Such references give legitimacy and longevity to the Eastern theory even today. On the other hand, Apollinaris of Laodicea draws from the Commentary on Daniel and refers to its author as "Hippolytus, the most holy bishop of Rome." Cerrato dismisses this reference as a later monophysite revision (85). Numerous other sources favor a Western provenance for many of the commentaries. Medieval theologians, scribes, and historians use Hippolytus and believe him to be Roman, but since the early historical references apply to [End Page 361] specific texts rather than to the entire corpus, it is difficult to make a judgment. The Ligorio statue, which is an ancient piece found outside Rome containing a list of Hippolytus' works and an early paschal calendar and calculation that correspond to Eusebius' remarks about Hippolytus, seems convincing but is still open to scrutiny. Cerrato rightly criticizes aspects of the initial discovery of the monument but can only conclude that links connecting the statue, a Roman Hippolytus, and the extant corpus are "not beyond question" (107). The second half of the work considers the internal textual evidence in the commentaries themselves. Cerrato presents the core documents and then focuses on two works as test cases for his source criticism, i.e., the Treatise on the Antichrist and the Commentary on Daniel. He investigates the nature of second century apocalyptic teachings and the legends of the apostles to determine the relationships between the Hippolytan commentaries and other doctrinal treatises. He considers the regions in which the commentaries were circulated at an early date and cautiously concludes that the source was Laodicea or Ephesus. The greatest feature of this study is the detailed treatment of issues surrounding Hippolytan studies. Cerrato's research is impressive as he analyzes the history of the Hippolytus question and deals with a variety of second and third century theological literature. Though he favors an Eastern provenance, his presentation of the evidence is clear, well organized, and generally fair. Nonetheless, he sometimes shows his preference by making his point on the basis of ideosyncratic and hasty conclusions. For example, since the Daniel commentary speaks against Rome, the author contends that this fact "militates against publication in the city of Rome and its environs" (251). Again, although the commentary on the Song of Songs recognizes female participation in the life of the church, Cerrato assumes that Hippolytus is automatically "sympathizing with the aspects of the...