The DOI matches its Crossref record.
V. Hippolytus And The 6000-Year Chronology
Abstract
Hippolytus appears to be especially concerned with the relationship between the figure of the antichrist and the events that would lead to the end of time. The Commentary on Daniel , written c.204 A.D., is probably one of the most ancient, if not the oldest, surviving Christian commentaries of a biblical book. Hippolytus seems to follow Revelation s scheme regarding the process of the end of the world. Hippolytus interpretation of the book of Daniel concerning the four empires and the four animals is very similar, if not identical, to the one introduced by Josephus and later followed by the Church Fathers, since he also supported the role of Rome as the last empire. Hippolytus interpretation of Daniel regarding the events of the end allows his readers to think that somehow the Christian expectations regarding the date of the end were changing.Keywords: Christian commentaries; Daniel; Hippolytus; Rome
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Valdez, M. A. T.
- Corresponding author
- Valdez, M. A. T.
- ORCID
- Valdez, M. A. T.
- Venue
- Historical Interpretations of the “Fifth Empire”
- Publisher
- BRILL
- Published
- 2011-01-01
- Pages
- 143-155
- OpenAlex
- W878988596
- Semantic Scholar
- 3c11cb453f3caf5d1e44178a32163df18b75610e
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BRILL eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Classics › Byzantine Studies and History
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Classics › Classical Antiquity Studies
- Keywords
- Hippolytus, Antichrist, end of the world, eschatology, Book of Revelation, Book of Daniel, Josephus, Roman Empire, Church Fathers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
