“In the very sources you use, I can find comments that Hippolytus REJECTED the imminent aspect of eschatology—not the ‘content’. I can find statements that say that Hippolytus believed in a literal return of Christ to the earth to set up a kingdom (as per your quotations above), but that he did NOT believe that coming to be imminent or at-any-moment.

To wit:

“Significant second-century authors, such as Justin and Irenaeus, were millennial in outlook; others, like Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, and Hermas, were not. A key figure is Hippolytus, who accepted and helped develop the full-fledged apocalyptic scenario of the events of the end time partly under the influence of Irenaeus, but who did not share the bishop’s chiliasm and broke with tradition by explicitly rejecting an imminent parousia.” [(2009-06-01). Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity (Holy Cross Studies in Patristic Theology and History) (Kindle Locations 1224-1227). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.]

“The next two chapters [in the book] are by scholars already well known for their work on this theme, Bernard McGinn of the University of Chicago and Brian E. Daley, SJ, of the University of Notre Dame. McGinn’s chapter— actually the source of some of the remarks with which we opened this preface— is titled “Turning Points in Early Christian Apocalypse Exegesis.” He identifies the main starting point of this exegesis at around 150 CE, and the tensions produced by the crisis over the nonappearance of the parousia. At this time, and in what became the basic Christian picture of the last events, we find side by side both a chiliastic and a nonchiliastic eschatology….  But in the early third century we encounter in Hippolytus a critical turning point in the history of apocalyptic exegesis: he reads Revelation 12 in a basically ecclesiological and Christological way, that is, as referring to the present and not to some awesome future. This line of interpretation, which basically spiritualizes the millennium and makes the present life of the church the main point of reference, continues with Origen, Dionysius, and Methodius, and eventually constitutes the baseline for what one might call mainstream or “orthodox” readings of the Apocalypse.” [(2009-06-01). Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity (Holy Cross Studies in Patristic Theology and History) (Kindle Locations 139-151). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.]

“Modern premillennialists recognize many of their own views in the early church, but they also find surprises. For example, many early interpreters believed that just as God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, there will be six thousand years of human history, followed by another thousand years of “Sabbath rest” (for God, a day is like a thousand years; 2 Peter 3:8). In the first half of the second century, this view was found in the Epistle of Barnabas (15) and the works of Irenaeus (Against Heresies, V.28). In the third and fourth centuries, interpreters used it to put distance between their time and the end. Hippolytus devised a new system for dating world history, the annus mundi (HI:AM), and placed the incarnation in the year 5500. That meant that Christ should return about five hundred years later, or about three hundred years after Hippolytus’s time (Commentary on Daniel). Lactantius made a similar calculation (The Divine Institutes, 14–27).” [Walls, Jerry L. (2007-12-03). The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology (Oxford Handbooks) (pp. 347-348). “CHAPTER 20: MILLENNIALISM” by TIMOTHY P. WEBER Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.]

And, it is commonly argued that Hippolytus did this to CALM DOWN the people who were anxious about an imminent Parousia:

“HIPPOLYTUS (c. 170–c. 236). Hippolytus came to Rome from the Eastern Mediterranean, perhaps Egypt, and was the last major ecclesiastical writer in Greek at Rome. A presbyter and then counter-bishop in the church at Rome, he was exiled (c. 235) under Emperor Maximin to Sardinia, where he died. --- The facts of his life are obscure, and the authorship of some works attributed to him is disputed. His major work, Refutation of all Heresies (Philosophumena), attempts to trace the origin of Gnostic systems and other erroneous teachings to Greek philosophies. He was indebted to Irenaeus for much of his information on heresies (as he was for much of his theology), but he had access to other sources. His Commentary on Daniel is the earliest surviving orthodox commentary; it placed the return of Christ at 500 years after his birth and so sought to quiet anxiety about the end. Similar eschatological concerns are found in On Christ and antichrist. The Apostolic Tradition is important for liturgical practices and theology, especially with reference to baptism, eucharist, ordination and the love feast. [E. Ferguson, in Ferguson, S. B., & Packer, J. (2000). New dictionary of theology (electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]

“But in the third century the commentary, a line-by-line exposition of the text, appears as a new literary form of interpreting the text of the Scriptures. --- The earliest extant commentary of this type was written on the book of Daniel by Hippolytus of Rome (early third century). Though it is a verse-by-verse exposition of the text, it is not scholarly commentary but an occasional writing prompted by a fervent apocalyptic belief in Hippolytus’ day that the end of the world was imminent. Hippolytus uses Daniel to assure the faithful that the end will not soon come and that they must learn patience and endurance.” [THE BIBLE AND ITS INTERPRETERS: CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: THE EARLY CHRISTIAN AND PATRISTIC PERIOD (FIRST TO NINTH CENTURIES A.D., ROBERT L. WILKEN, in Harper’s Bible commentary. 1988 (J. L. Mays, Ed.) (57ff). San Francisco: Harper & Row.]

So, in what possible sense could you affirm that he was NOT watering-down the imminent hope of the apocalyptic prophet Jesus?”

One. This particular timing aspect by Hippolytus was an extreme exception. It was (as noted in the quotes above) a ‘break with tradition’ and it occurred in the context of ‘a fervent apocalyptic belief in Hippolytus’ day that the end of the world was imminent’! We can also note that there were few that followed this interpretation of Daniel:

“Throughout the patristic period, Daniel served as a source for chronological speculation rather than for imminent expectation. The great majority of the church fathers argued that the seventy weeks of years had been fulfilled in the first century C.E., either in the life and death of Christ or in the destruction of Jerusalem. Irenaeus and Hippolytus had reserved the final week for the eschatological future and the coming of the antichrist. They had few followers on this point. The most notable was Apollinarius, the fourth-century heretic.” [Collins, J. J., & Collins, A. Y. (1993). Daniel: A commentary on the book of Daniel (F. M. Cross, Ed.). Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (116–117). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.]

Two. As noted in the quote above, the timing piece was NOT a re-interpretation of Jesus’ words or NT passages at all—it was based entirely on Daniel. This would thus not provide data in favor of WD, per se.

Three. The historical context of his position reveals that his ‘counter to an imminent return’ was actually about false detailed unwarranted predictions made by contemporaries—hurting their followers—and NOT about the ‘general sense’ of at any moment.

One recounting of this emphasizes the danger he must have seen:

“Calming the enthusiasts. Justin and Irenaeus spoke of the Millennium as a far-off event they hoped for someday. Its only importance to Christian living was as a reminder of the hope that should guide a Christian’s life. But late in the 100s, some Christians began to see signs that the Millennium was imminent. The most worrisome of these were the Montanists. --- Probably in 172, Montanus began to proclaim that Jerusalem would soon descend near Phrygia (west-central Asia Minor). Montanus and his female associates, Prisca and Maximilla, claimed the Millennium had begun and God had given them authority over the Christian church. To reject their pronouncements, they said, was to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit: Luke 12’s “unforgivable sin.” Montanus was eventually condemned by the church, though not for his eschatology.

“In the early 200s, Hippolytus of Rome predicted that Christ would establish the Millennium in 496. He was one of the few early writers to predict the date of the Second Coming, but not for reasons we’d expect. Better known for his Apostolic Tradition, which contains one of the earliest surviving texts of a prayer to consecrate the bread and cup during Communion, Hippolytus worked out this date in his ground breaking study of the book of Daniel—the earliest surviving Christian commentary on a single book of the Bible.

“The question of the Second Coming was a lively one at the time. A few chapters before his date prediction, Hippolytus told of a foolish Syrian church leader who had led his people into the desert to await the Second Coming. Another leader, this time in Pontus (northern Asia Minor), had predicted that Christ would come again in a year’s time. His people trusted him as they trusted Scripture itself, and when the year ended without the Second Coming, they were devastated. Many despaired of Scripture and of their religion: “The virgins got married; the men withdrew to their farms; and those who had recklessly sold all their possessions were eventually to be found begging.”

“Millennial expectations were gaining a bad name, so Hippolytus wanted to dampen expectations. He first worked out the date of Christ’s birth: 5,500 years after the world was created. He then reckoned that the Millennium would begin 6,000 years after the creation of the world, so that the world would end after 7,000 years—a commonly-held view in those days. Clearly, then, Christ would return 500 years after his birth—and nearly three centuries after Hippolytus’s book. Placing Christ’s return so far in the future probably helped Hippolytus defuse the expectations of Christians who expected to see the Millennium soon.” [“Taking the Long View” by Dana Netherton , in Christian History Magazine-Issue 61: A History of the Second Coming. 1999. Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today.

Notice that these deluded followers had done just the opposite of what Jesus had told his disciples—they had withdrawn from the world, instead of ‘going into all the world’. These are more like failed messianic pretenders, than of those who held to the (imprecise) imminent expectation of the Parousia. Hence, Hippolytus’ concern to establish some ‘alternative precision’ was a legitimate pastoral concern, even though it was generally rejected.

Four. But the main reason we can still hold to the position that H held to ‘synoptic apocalypticism’ is from the wording in the Commentary on Daniel that furnishes us with his dating. [I am using the  translation of TC Schmidt here. From Hippolytus of Rome: Commentary on Daniel and 'chronicon', GorgiasPress/2017 ].

H specifically denies that Jesus revealed the timing of the Return, and instead ‘enjoined them’ to watchfulness, ‘expecting EACH DAY’ His return:

Book 4, 16.1. But one will say, “And when will these things be? In what season or time is the deceiver about to be revealed? And what shall be the day of the appearing of the Lord?”

16.2. The disciples also similarly sought to learn these things from the Lord, but he concealed the day from them, so that he may render them all as watchful for what is to come, always meditating and expecting each day the heavenly cloud, lest men, ever on account of the long time, neglecting what was prescribed by him, and growing sluggish while he tarries, fall from the life of heaven.

16.3. For he says, “Be watchful for you do not know what day or what hour your Lord comes, either evening, or midnight, or morning.”

16.4. On account of this he says, “Blessed is that slave, whom when his Lord comes, he finds him awake. Truly I say to you that he will appoint him over all his possessions. But if the wicked slave says in his heart, ‘My Lord tarries to come,’ and he begins to beat his serving boys and serving girls, and to eat and to drink with drunkards, his Lord will come in a day which he does not expect and in an hour which he does not know and cut him in two and set his portion with the unbelievers. For there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” “On account of this I say to you: be watchful.”

16.5. And so our Lord himself in the Gospel, teaching these things, displays them to the disciples.

He points to the literal fulfillment of Jesus’ words of the Synoptic Apocalypse(!), and gives what was the standard ‘party line’ about the imprecision-but-accuracy of Jesus’ words:

17.1. And so since he hid the day from them, but through the signs which have happened, through which a man will easily discover the time of the end, he declares that we ought to know the events according to their time, and when we see them, to be silent.

17.2. But it is necessary for these things to be even if we do not want them to happen. For the truth never lies.

17.3. For just as he said concerning the city of Jerusalem, “When you see Jerusalem encircled by armies, then you know that her desolation draws near,” and what was spoken about her has come, in this way it is needful to also now expect the rest to follow.

17.4. He says, “For whenever you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, let the reader understand, then let those in Judea flee to the mountains, and he who is on the rooftop not descend to take anything from his house, and he who is in the field not return back to take his clothes. Woe to those who are pregnant and nursing in those days. For then there will be a great tribulation such which has not been from the beginning of the world nor shall ever be. And unless those days were shortened not any flesh would be saved.”

17.5. And so in this he made it clear to us, so that we may never doubt anything.

17.6. And again he says, “Whenever you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place,” and, “whenever you see a fig sprouting its leaves know that the harvest is near. In this way also whenever you see all these things happen, know that it is near the doors.”

17.7. And so while the abomination has not yet appeared, but while only the fourth beast still reigns, how is the manifestation of the Lord able to be?

17.8. But one will say, “It is written, ‘Whenever you see wars and anarchy, then you will know that it is near.’” Yes it is written, he says, “Nation will be roused against nation and kingdom against kingdom and there will be earthquakes and hunger and plague in many places,” which already has happened and will happen.

17.9. “But all these things are the beginning of birth pangs,”  he says, “But the end is not yet in in them,” for first it is necessary for the Gospel of the Lord to be preached in the whole world for a witness to all nations and in this way the end shall come, when all at once the time is fulfilled.

Up to this point, the eschatology is fairly unremarkable—and fits in with similar statements from his predecessors and peers.

But then he gets to the ‘abuse’ sections (18,19) , in which he describes the ‘failed predictions’ of two religious leaders. He ascribes their failure to lack of paying attention the scriptures.

18.1. For I will describe also what happened not a long time ago in Syria.

18.2. For there was one who governed the church there and he, having not laboriously read the godly Scriptures, nor having followed the voice of the Lord, was deceived and he himself also deceived others.

18.3. For while the Lord said, “There shall arise many false Christs and false prophets and they shall give signs and wonders in order to deceive if possible even the elect. Then if someone says to you, ‘Behold Christ is here or there.’ Do not believe. ‘Behold, he is in the desert,’ do not go out, ‘Behold, he is in the storehouses,’ do not go in.” That man having not considered these things persuaded many of the brothers, with their wives and children, to go out into the desert in order to meet with Christ, and who were even led astray in the mountains and onto roads, wandering aimlessly. So that after a little while it was necessary for them that they all be apprehended as robbers by the commander in order to be killed, except that his wife happened to be a believer, and he was appealed to by her and put in order that matter so that a persecution did not come upon all Christians through them.

18.4. How great their foolishness and stupidity, so that they entered into the desert and sought Christ, in which manner also in the times of Elisha the prophet the sons of the prophets sought Elijah for three days in the mountains, though he was assumed into heaven.

18.5. And so while the Lord says, “Just as lightning comes out from the east and flashes unto the west, in this way will be the advent of the Son of Man,” plainly and clearly signaling in this that he himself is destined to arrive with the power and glory of his Father from heaven, but they sought him in the mountains and in the desert.

18.6. For in this way his second advent will not be like his first. Before, as a simple man only he appeared, but now as a judge of all the world he arrives. And then, he arrived to save man, but now he arrives to punish all who trespass and who commit sacrilege against him.

18.7. But we say these things to support the faithful brothers, so that they may not have a misconception of the plan of God, knowing that for each one, on whichever day he departs from this world, he has been already judged. For the consummation has come upon him.

19.1. But a certain other man was similarly in Pontus, and he himself governed the church, being a reverent and humble man, though not applying himself unfailingly to the Scriptures but rather believing dreams which he saw.

19.2. For when a first and second and a third dream happened to him, he began to foretell the future to the brothers as a prophet, “This I saw and this is about to be.”

19.3. And once, having been led astray he said, “Brothers, know that after one year the judgment is about to be.”

19.4. They who heard him who predicted, “The day of the Lord is imminent,” with weeping and lamenting they begged the Lord night and day holding before their eyes the approaching day of judgment

19.5. And he led the brothers to such fear and terror so to allow their lands and fields to be desolate, and the wealthy to destroy their possessions.

19.6. But he said to them, “If it does not happen just as I said, do not believe the Scriptures anymore but do whatever each of you wishes.”

19.7. But they waited for the result and after a year nothing was fulfilled of what that man said happened, and he himself was shamed as a deceiver, but the Scriptures were shown as true, but the brothers were found scandalized so that henceforth their virgins were married and their men dwelt in fields. They, who sold their possessions without plan, were found later begging.”

After giving these examples of folly, Hippolytus then reminds his readers of ‘the other half’ of the message of the imminent return—the ‘you do not know the day nor hour’ part. In this section, he simply points out that Scripture is ‘clear’ that the timing is ‘unclear’—that there are some antecedent events/situations which have to occur/obtain before the End comes:

20.1. These things happen to ignorant and simple men, as many as do not attend precisely to the Scriptures, but more pleasurably obey human traditions and their illusions and their dreams and mythologies and gnawing words.

20.2. For also the same happened to the sons of Israel, who setting at naught, they added to the law of God, and being well pleased they were obedient to the traditions of the elders.

20.3. And now some undertake the same things, clinging to vain visions and to the teachings of demons and often determining a fast both on the Sabbath and the Lord's day, which Christ did not determine, so that they dishonor the Gospel of Christ.

21.1. And so since the words of the Lord are true, but every man is a liar, just as it is written, let us see if the apostle Paul also is in agreement with the words of the Lord.

21.2. For writing to the Thessalonians and advising them to always watch and to persist in prayers, but not yet to expect the day of judgment, because the time is not yet fulfilled, he spoke in this way to them, “We ask you brothers, concerning the advent of the Lord, that you not be afraid through a word or through a letter as from us, as that the day of the Lord has come, let no one deceive you in any way, because it will not come unless first the apostasy comes and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted over everything which is called godly or pious, so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember, when I was still with you I taught you these things? And now know what restrains him so that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness already is at work, only he who restrains until now is taken from the midst. And then the lawless one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the spirit of his mouth and will abolish him with the manifestation of his advent, whose advent is according to the work of Satan.”

21.3. And so who is “He who restrains until now,” except the fourth beast, which, when it is set aside and is taken from the midst, the deceiver shall come?

21.4. But always you seek the troublesome, which is how many years remain for the beast, so that he may depart, not understanding that seeking these things, you seek danger for yourself and you desire to see a hastier judgment.

21.5. For Scripture says, “Woe to those who desire the day of the Lord! This is darkness and not light. In which manner one flees from the face of a lion but he encounters a bear, and he who bursts into his house and he leans his hand upon the wall and a snake bites him. Will not this day of the Lord be darkness and not light? Even gloom which has no daylight.”

22.1. But why do you waste labor over times and seek the day of the Lord, when the Savior concealed it from us?

Hippolytus thus still affirms ‘imminence’ but not ‘it is already here’ versions of it.

If the blogger’s position were correct, we would more likely expect to find Hippolytus using the Lord’s words in the alleged timing passages but reinterpreting them (eg. Making ‘generation’ to mean something symbolically longer—like he does when he gets around to calculating a date for the Return).

For example, here is how he arrives at his date for the Parousia

24.1 But one will always say, “How will you demonstrate to me whether the Savior was born in the five thousandth and five hundredth year?

24.2. Be easily instructed, O man. For in the desert long ago under Moses there were models and images of spiritual mysteries which concerned the tabernacle and they fulfilled this number, so that having come to the utmost of truth in Christ you are able to apprehend these things which are fulfilled.

24.3. For he says to him, “And you shall make an ark of incorruptible wood and you will gild it with pure gold inside and outside and you shall make its height two cubits and a half and its breadth a cubit and a half and its height a cubit and a half.” The measure of which added together makes five and a half cubits, so that the five thousand five hundred years may be demonstrated, in which time the Savior comes from the Virgin, and then he offered the Ark, his own body, into the world, gilded in pure gold, inside with the Word, outside with the Holy Spirit, so that the truth may be shown and the Ark may be manifested.

24.4. And so from the generation of Christ it is necessary to count the remaining five hundred years to the consummation of the six thousand years, and in this way the end will be.

24.5. But because in the fifth and a half time the Savior arrived in the world bearing the incorruptible ark, that is his own body, John says, “and it was the sixth hour,” so that half of the day may be demonstrated, a day of the Lord is like thousand years. And so the half of these is five hundred years.

24.6. For he does not admit him to be soon at hand. For the law was still burdensome, nor again had the sixth day been fulfilled. For he celebrated the washing, in the fifth and- a-half day, so in that remaining half time the Gospel may be preached to all the world and when the sixth day is fulfilled, the present life may cease.

It would have been just as easy for Hippolytus to ‘spiritualize’ the words of Jesus in this way, but he did not. He left the synoptic passages and NT passages as he found them—and as they had been interpreted up to his day (generally).

But he uses only Daniel –to fix a date—instead of the timing passages of the gospels. The NT documents he uses to argue AGAINST fixing a date (at least in his own lifetime), appropriately using them to show the need for watchfulness and the ‘any day’ possibility (as we saw above).

So, the fact that Hippolytus:

(1) was virtually alone in this not-happening-yet positions (“few followed”)

(2) was not indicative of the beliefs of the past nor of his own age (“broke with tradition” and “a fervent apocalyptic belief in Hippolytus’ day that the end of the world was imminent”)

(3) maintained the ‘party line’ on the inscrutability of the timing of the return (from the NT)

(4) explicitly commended those who were “always meditating and expecting each day the heavenly cloud”

(5) and evidences a mixed framework eschatology (as noted by Daley)

I simply cannot agree with the position that he was a ‘turning point’, nor that his writings were in anyway an ‘embarrassment’ of allegedly failed predictions of Jesus…

.....................................................................................