When was Jesus's Not One Stone Prophecy fully fulfilled?

You might think the answer to that is obvious and well known, but you'd be surprised.  First I'm going to quote the account of the Prophecy from Mark 13:1-2 since I think it's the most complete account of exactly what Jesus in this case.

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" And Jesus answering said unto him, "Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down".

Notice that it isn't JUST about The Temple, it's about all the buildings, plural.  

While Matthew and Luke's account of this in their main Olivet Discourse chapters downplay the inclusion of other buildings, Luke 19:44 also refers to not one stone being left, with The Temple not even being the focus, that Prophecy is about the entirety of Jerusalem.

The 9th of Av in AD 70 (presumed to be August 4th on the Roman Calendar) as recorded in Josephus Wars of The Jews Book VI Chapters 4-5 is the day The Temple was destroyed in the sense of not being able to be used as a Temple anymore.  Remember what happened to the Notre Dame Cathedral a few years ago?  The worst case scenario people were fearing that day is basically what happened to The Temple on the 9th of Av.  The next day however as recorded by Josephus in Wars Book VI Chapter 6 there are clearly still standing ruins.  

The beginning of Book VII is when Titus demolishes even those ruins and thus this is where most Christians talking about AD 70 via Josephus (both Preterists and Futurists) say the Not One Stone Prophecy was fulfilled.  Except Josephus tells us there were three towers that Titus left standing, in my view as long as those three towers were still standing this Prophecy of Jesus was incomplete.

In AD 131 Emperor Hadrian while visiting Jerusalem after ending his extended stay in Egypt announced his plans to rebuild Jerusalem as a Greco-Roman City with a Temple to Zeus being built over the former site of The Temple.  I think the early stages of that project is when even those three remaining towers were torn down.  

Then after Hadrian left the Near East for Asia Minor in 132 the Bar Kokchba Revolt broke out.  That probably stalled the reconstruction project even though the Rebels never held Jerusalem during that war.  Then after the revolt was put down in 135 the project restarted.

Thousand Years as a Day

The hyper literal face value understanding of the "surely I come quickly" verses that Full Preterism is built on is naturally incompatible with taking the Thousand Years of Revelation 20 at equally face value.  If EVEYTHING in the book must surely happen quickly, then clearly two of those events can't be separated by a full Millennium.

I specify Full Preterist here because Partial Preterist and Amillenialists/Postmillenialists tend to make the Thousand years longer not shorter.  I have become a believer in those as a opposed to the Futurist Pre-Millennial I was when I wrote the first version of this on a different Blog..

The problem with the Full Preterist understanding of the Millennium is that even a not exactly literal use of "Thousand years" is still clearly meant to imply a long time, it's meant to imply we shouldn't expect it to end within a mortal lifetime.  

So Full Preterists cling to the "Thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years" verses.  When you engage in very unscholarly proof texting yeah those seem like they give you the excuse they need to make a Thousand utterly meaningless.  

But when you read them in context, when you read the entirety of Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3, the point being made, the Impression being given, is clearly all about how what can seem like endless ages to humans is nothing to God.  They are clearly conveying the opposite of what Full Preterists want, they give us every reason not to take "surely I come quickly" at face value and no reason to think a promised Earthly Millennium will end in a day.

2 Peter 3 is especially clear on this, because earlier that chapter is foretelling how people in the future will lose faith in the promised Coming because the "fathers fell asleep" and nothing has changed.  The whole point of the passage is specifically that Jesus did not "surely come quickly" by a mortal understanding of time, but we should none the less have faith that God is not slacking off but delaying only to give the heathens more time to repent.

1 Peter may have been written before 70 AD, but 2 Peter certainly came after, Peter never went to Rome and the Neronian persecution didn't happen.

Even without this understanding of the "Thousand Years as a Day" verses, Greek scholars understand that this kind of language used in Revelation 22 was often used euphemistically to mean "certainly will come to pass" and are not inherently meant to be literally taken as timing statements.  Hebrews 10:36-37 is similar, on the one hand it seems to say "soon" but also says "awhile" and tells us to be patient.

Honestly part of the problem with preterist interpretations of passages like Hebrew 10:36-37 is modern individualism which runs contrary the the more collectivist thinking of all first century people Pagan, Jewish and Christian.  They are speaking as if the audience reading this will be there when it happens because they are speaking to the Church and/or Israel (depending on how you prefer to look at it) as a collective not the specific individuals who were the very first to ever read it.

The "this Generation" statement of Matthew 24 exists in the context of what Jesus said before, "this" is grammatically applied to the generation that sees the signs.  Now understand that I am not a conventional Futurist, I have my doubts "this Generation" began when most Dispensationalists currently think it did.  

And it doesn't matter how many other times "this generation" means the people listening to Jesus right now, "this generation" is a phrase that doesn't automatically always mean the same generation every time it appears, the context of where it's said determines it.

And the "there be some standing here" verses always directly proceeds the Transfiguration for a reason.  The "Son of man coming in his kingdom" wording of Mathew 16:28 is in fact peculiar and in my opinion should not be interpreted as specifically about the Parousia, not even just because that word itself isn't used in the Greek, it's about Him glorified having the qualities of the Kingdom.  But if you aren't satisfied by it being fulfilled just by the Transfiguration then it could also apply to just seeing the risen Jesus which all but one of the 12 got to.

Also "some" is a misleading translation, the YLT says "certain" instead and other versions don't feature an equivalent word there at all which actually does better match the Greek.  So no the text of this verse does not imply inherently a minority of the audience being referred to.

Mark Antony and Daniel 11:36-45

But first some context from the prior verses.

I've discussed before how Daniel 11:33 summarizes the Hasmonean Kingdom's fall to Rome starting with Pompey, but I want to stress here that the use of the word "Spoil" or "Plunder" is principally fulfilled by what Crassus did in 53 BC as recorded in Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapter 7.

The word for Help in the KJV of verse 34 is the same word as "Help meet" or "Helper" in Genesis 2 that some argue should be translated "Rescuer".  This was possibly Julius Caesar in Josephus Antiquities Book 14 Chapter 8.  The later part of the verse may have in mind the affairs of Sextus Caesar, Bassus and Gaius Cassius Longinus in the following chapters of Antiquities. William Shakespeare's Play Julius Caesar makes a huge time jump from Acts 3 to Act 4, if you want to know what Cassius was doing during that time read Josephus Antiquities Book 14 Chapter 11 and the start of Chapter 12 where Judea and Syria come under Mark Antony's control.

Verse 35 is about people I doubt we'll find in Josephus, it could have in mind Hillel The Elder, as well as Simeon and Anna The Prophetess of Luke 2.

Daniel 11:36-39 as about Mark Antony kind of perfectly lines up with Octavian’s propaganda against Antony.  Describing him as acting like a King and discarding the gods of his fathers and his good Roman wife to worship strange foreign gods and even seemingly deifying himself.  But The Bible’s worldview is even more strict than Rome’s about what kind of behavior only God should engage in, as well as the wrongness of divorcing one woman simply because you like your new "exotic" girlfriend more.

Also when you understand how the Hebrew word for “divide” used in verse 39 does not always refer to splitting one thing into smaller things but can rather refer to a reforming or reshaping, it fits as describing Antony’s reorganization of The Roman East pretty well.

Remembering the context that this section follows verses 32-35’s account of the rise and fall of the Hasmoneans, verses 40-41 being about the finishing off of Hasmonean independence in 37 BC seems logical.  The King of the Negev (South) is Mattathais Antigonus and the King of the North is Antiochus I Theos of Commagene.

Verses 42-43 however is where this seems like the opposite of how people usually see Mark Antony’s relationship with Egypt.  

Here’s a reality that the common romantic fictionalizations of this time period waters down, no matter how you view the personal relationship between Antony and Cleopatra, Egypt was a subject state to Rome already before she was born or her father took the throne. In reality she is a client monarch of Rome taking a side in a Roman Civil War just as much as Herod was.  Acknowledging this need not affect one way or the other whatever opinion you have of Cleopatra as a person or her competence as a leader.  Yet I still wish those who want to romanticize an African Queen resisting Rome would pay more attention to the Kandake of Kush who reigned during the following decades just a little farther south.

Libyans and Ethiopians being just outside his steps refers to them being outside what Anthony controls, Rome wouldn't even try to conquer Kush till later, and the partition of the Second Triumvirate gave North Africa to Lepidus.

Verse 44 would be about Antony’s attempt to conquer Parthia in 36 BC.

“And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas in the glorious Holy Mountain” in verse 45 is kind of the lynchpin of this whole theory.

I have a long history of feeling this is about the Antonia Fortress, even way back when I had a standard Futurist/Antichrist view of this passage I felt the Antonia Fortress was relevant to this typologically as the symbol of Roman oppression within Jerusalem.  And then I argued this referred to the Antonia Fortress when building my old argument for this being about Augustus even though it made no sense for Augustus to name a fortress after Antony.

When exactly the Antonia was built is a bit unclear, none of Josephus’s references to it are to when it was first built.  There is an assumption it was built with Herod’s renovations of the Temple because of it being defined as something built to protect The Temple.  But that started years after the death of Mark Antony, Herod wouldn’t be naming something after Antony during that time.

The Antonia fortress was definitely named after Mark Antony.  So it being built by or for Mark Antony in like 36 or 35 BC is the most logical explanation for its origin.

The last thing said in this section is “yet he shall come to his end and none shall help him”.  Once again I admit this can be made to fit a lot of people, but with Antony it sure does seem like the entire drama of his final days is about all his allies abandoning him, maybe even Cleopatra depending on how you interpret her actions.

And after Antony’s death the Biblical World is ruled by the man who is identified as ruling it when Jesus was born in Luke chapter 2 verse 1, with Herod's Kingship also reaffirmed for Luke 1:5 and Matthew 2.  Meaning we are in The New Testament era for Daniel 12.

Rome was an Empire long before it stopped being a Republic

The Political upheavals of the “Late Roman Republic” that eventually lead to the Principate are at the absolute earliest usually said to begin with the Tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC.  Any full study of his political program and the issues/circumstances that made it necessary fully demonstrate how Rome was already an Empire.

The word Empire does not refer to a form of Government but to one Nation or State wielding power over other nations or states, most stereotypically via military force but there are other ways.  Only when talking about Rome and people named Napoleon is that fact forgotten and the word Empire gets mistaken as meaning “ruled by an Emperor''.

Polybius was a Greek Historian who died before Caesar was born or Marius was ever Consul.  He wrote a book called The Histories that is sometimes renamed for modern editions something like “History of the Rise of the Roman Empire”.  It covers 264-146 BC, but the bulk of the focus is on 220-167 BC and Polybius’s argument that in only 53 years Rome went from just being Italy to a Superpower.

The Wikipedia page for 220 BC has a map of the Mediterranean world in that year and Rome is basically modern Italy minus Piedmont and Syracuse but plus Corsica.  However the next year the Second Punic War would start, then would come their first war with Macedon.  

167 BC is the year their last war with Macedon ended thus ending Macedon’s independence, and then Lucius Amelius Paulus went and conquered Epirus just casually on the way back home.  

146 BC is itself a notable year because that’s when Rome finally finished off both Carthage and the Achaean League.  Rome became complete master of both the Western Mediterranean and Greece. It was that year Lucius Mummius destroyed Corinth leaving the city only minimally inhabited for over a Century till Julius Caesar re-founded it shortly before his Assassination in 44 BC.

Rome was also already interfering in the affairs of those they didn’t directly control and spreading their influence.  The Roma Cult in Smyrna was founded in 195 BC long before Rome annexed any of Asia.  The Cleopatras BBC miniseries from the 80s starts it's narrative in 145 BC and from it's start one background plotline is the growing interference of Rome.

And in 133 BC the King of Pergamon died leaving his kingdom to Rome in his will, that is what gave Tiberius Gracchus his opportunity and it’s how the cities housing the Seven Churches of Revelation became part of the Roman Empire.

I’m not posting this on my usual blog for politics because no Breadtuber is going to disagree with me that Rome was already doing Imperialism, the YouTube Channel Tribunate has videos getting into the Materialist Analysis of how the Republic's Imperialism helped lead to the Civil Wars and the Principate.

Its relevance to Bible Prophecy is my annoyance at those who seek to remove Rome from the Prophecies of Daniel.  I am a believer so I don’t view The Book of Daniel as Prophecy written after the fact and I’ve already argued Daniel 7’s climax happens in the 6th Century AD.  But even if I were an Atheist who wanted to believe in an early Hasmonean era context for all of the book of Daniel, Rome as the next Empire was already apparent.  Even in the part of Daniel 11 few disagree on, verses 1-31, the emergence of Rome is felt.  Verse 19 is usually seen as alluding to the Roman-Seleucid War of 192-188 BC.  Verse 30 is about when Gaius Popillius Laenas on Cyprus stopped Antiochus Epiphanes from conquering Egypt in 168 BC.  And then verses 32 is about the rise and fall of the Hasmoneans while verse 33 is about the their fall to Rome beginning with Pompey.

Antiochus Epiphanes himself had been a hostage in Rome before he was King, in fact early on he was viewed as very Romanized.  In 173 BC he sent money to Rome to secure their support and affirm the treaty of Apamea, helped by him having the support of Rome’s ally Eumenes II. Rome was also holding as hostage Demetrius the firstborn son of Antiochus’s older brother.  So there are many reasons Antiochus couldn't defy Laenas in 168 BC.

I firmly believe Daniel 11:36-45 is about a Roman, but my mind vibrates back and forth between a few different theories.  My oldest Roman theory is Augustus which I originally wrote for a different blog but reposted here.  I very recently posted a Pompey theory but with acknowledgment of some of its weaknesses.  And now I’m even considering Mark Antony which I will make a separate post about if I’m able to perfect that hypothesis.

While I ultimately believe the Ten Horns of Daniel 7 represent the Barbarian Kingdoms that emerged while the Western Empire declined in the 5th Century. A nearer application could be tied to one of the Decemvirates of The Republican Era.

Pompey The Great and Daniel 11:36-45

Previously I have argued for this part of Daniel being about Augustus, and I’m not abandoning that theory, but as I've been learning more about Pompey’s history I’m starting to find an argument for him being the focus of this passage compelling.  I currently have no idea if anyone before me has ever attempted to argue this.

First I should address the fact that many do not believe Pompey to have been a King.  It’s pretty uncontroversial to acknowledge that the rulers of the later Roman Principate were considered Kings by people in the East regardless of their official denial of that status.  Well I’d argue that to the people in The East conquered by Pompey denying he was a King was just as absurd.  The Roman Triumph very much revolved around treating the Triumphator as ceremonially King for the Day.  Pompey had already had two Triumphs before his career brought him to Judea.  

Similar to that is the matter of how Pompey is not considered to be someone who deified himself.  But again from The Hebrew Bible POV I’d argue everything about the Triumph was a self deification, calling yourself “The Great” was a deification, and making Statues of a person is a deification. 

Speaking of which, Pompey began being called Magnus/The Great by his soldiers as early as 80 BC.  And they did so specifically to compare him to Alexander The Great, which is interesting because when Daniel 11:36 says “do according to his will” it is repeating the language of verse:3 a passage all scholars agree is about Alexander The Great.  And then verse 36 goes on to say in the same sentence “and he shall exalt himself, and magnify”, the English Word “magnify” coming from the same linguistic root as Magnus.

Verses 37-39 are the most difficult to justify applying to either Pompey or Augustus, there are ways to interpret these passages that aren’t a very face value reading.

The rest could be all about Pompey’s actions in the Near East during the later phase of the Third Mithridatic War leading up to his famous capturing of Jerusalem except the very last statement jumping forward to his end.  The only issue is the exact chronology.

The “Tents” detail fits very vividly with how Josephus describes the Roman Military Encampment setting itself up on The Temple Mount.  Pompey never military invades Egypt but they were involved in all this and we want to basically extort all most of Egypt’s Wealth from Ptolemy XII.   And he did redraw the borders of the region” dividing the land for gain”.

“He shall meet his end and none shall help him” is an admittedly vague description that could be made to fit a lot of things.  But the Vibe I feel fits Pompey’s final fate being killed by people he thought were allies in Egypt more than it does Antiochus Epiphanes or any Julio-Claudian Emperor.

Sulla and 666

My last post on the 666 issue should be read before this one, the main point of that, the argument against it referring to Nero stands, and my final theory about Iapetos is still my main theory, but I felt the need to share this observation.

Ancient Pagan Rome had primarily two ways of identifying a year, identifying it by the names of the Consuls of that year was the more standard method, so it seems like the Ab urbe condida (In the year since the city’s founding) date was mainly used to answer the question of when someone was Consul.  In other words it’s a non Gematria/Isopsephy way of associating names with numbers.

The year 666 Ab urbe condita was The Year of the Consulship of Sulla and Rufus and is the year known on our calendar as 88 BC.  Sulla is listed first for formal reasons independent of his being the more well known of these two persons to us Roman history buffs centuries later.  And yet a big part of why Sulla is one of the most infamous Romans is because of something he did during this year, he was the first Roman General to march his armies into the city, 39 years before Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.  

This was also the first Consulship not only of this Sulla but of anyone with that name. That point is key, this is obviously not an argument for The Beast being this person who died still in the BC era, but for associating it with his name.  Or perhaps more politically with his actions???  

Sulla was a reactionary not just in the context of his time but by any time, he marched on Rome interfering in the Social War taking a fundamentally xenophobic stance against the expansion of Roman citizenship.  Expansion of Citizenship to those not by blood descendants of a nations’ founding tribe is a key theme of The New Testament, principally about Citizenship in The Kingdom of Israel being expanded to include Gentiles, however the comparison to this ongoing Roman issue is arguably there in the subtext, Paul evokes his Roman Citizenship, The Philippians had Lus Italicum. None of that could have happened if Sulla got his way in the long term.  In fact Pontius Pilate himself may very well descend from a Samnite tribal leader of The Social War named Pontius Telesinus.

Many of the Italian Tribes seeking enfranchisement during the Social War were based in Southern Italy, somehow them being looked down on by northerners is a problem still to this day after getting tied into Scientific Racism in the 19th Century.  [Sicily it should be noted wasn't even part of the Social War, the Sicilians gained Roman Citizenship with the help of Fulvia decades later.]

Something else Sulla sought to gain from these actions was an appointment as a leading General in the First Mithridatic War.  From which position he burned Athens to the ground in 86 BC.  This is one of many reasons why what New Atheists blame on Rome's Fall should really be blamed on Rome's Rise.  I'm skeptical of the common origin story you hear for the Altar of the Unknown God in Acts 17, maybe it's really there because the Athenians felt there were ancient gods who they may have been forgotten after Sulla's massacre and destruction?

Romans with the same name are documented to have still existed into the early 3rd Century.  Sulla had a son named Faustus Cornelius Sulla who served under Pompey who was the first over the wall of Jerusalem in 63 BC and married Pompey’s daughter Pompeia Magna.  His last confirmed direct descendent was a Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix who spent his later life in exile in Southern France, he was also a descendent of Antonia Major.

Ephesus and the Novatians

In Revelation 2-3 there are two Churches with nothing bad said about them and two with nothing good said about them.  Of the three that have mixed reviews a casual assumption is often that Pergamon and Thyatira are little better then the two with nothing good said while Ephesus leans towards being a more positive review.

I feel that’s an oversimplification, I don’t necessary want to argue for looking at it the exact opposite, but what I find notable is that with Pergamon and Thyatira it’s really only some of them who have the problem, the Church as a whole is judged a bit for not dealing with them but it’s mainly just these sub groups who have the bad doctrine and so the prophecy of judgment is also on just them.  With Ephesus however it is the community as a whole who has “left thy first love” and thus the community as a whole who will have their Candlestick removed if they don’t repent.

What is the sin of Ephesus then? The clues the immediate context itself gives us are unclear, “left thy first love” and not doing what they did in the beginning can be interpreted as referring to a lot of things.

The only other verse of the KJV that uses the words “first love” in sequence like that is 1 John 14:19 which uses them grammatically differently and so I don’t think can solidly be assumed to be talking about the same thing.  

The virtue of Ephesus is that they care about being doctrinally sound, they may not actually be more doctrinally sound then anyone else, but they strive to be.  That’s why they rejected the Nicolaitans and False Apostles.  Maybe their vice is something that often has a risk of going with their virtue.  Maybe in their zeal to reject those heretics they’ve accidentally rejected some they were meant to welcome?

In the message to Pergamon there apparently is good reason in the Greek for interpreting the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans and the Doctrine of Baalam as different names for the same doctrine.  So that would mean Ephesus is in part being praised for their not engaging in Idolatry or even compromising on the subject.

Of the things the Early Church was doing in the beginning, the two that were most explicitly their mission statement were spreading The Gospel and whatever Matthew 16:19 is about.  But I don't think “spreading The Gospel” means what most Evangelicals think it means, we were told to Be a Witness.  

In Matthew 16:19 Jesus quotes Isaiah 22:22, the Key that He gives Peter here is the Key of David.  To Catholics this is the source of Papal Authority, to the Orthodox and High Church Protestants this goes to all of the Clergy, not just one leader at the top.  But to those of us who take seriously the Priesthood of All Believers this is an authority inherited by All Believers, by all who confess what Peter confessed in verse 16.

I am a Continuationist on the issue of the Spiritual Gifts, but I do feel many Pentecostals and Charismatics are making a mistake in seeing the Binding and Loosing that this verse talked about as being mainly about Spiritual Warfare, binding or losing Demons.  There is something else Jesus says in The Gospels that echos Matthew 16:19 in a way that I feel clarifies it, and that’s John 20:23 “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”  It’s about our authority to forgive Sins.

In the mid Third Century after the Decian Persecution had subsided there was a controversy in the Church, principally in Italy and North Africa about the issue of readmitting those who had lapsed during the persecution.  The mainstream Church sided with allowing readmittance after a penance had been done while the Novatians refused to allow any to be readmitted.  Later in the Fourth Century after the Diocletian Persecution and Edict of Milan this issue emerged again but the Donatists were not as extreme as the Novatians for them the focus was simply on allowing a formally Lapsed Christian to be part of the Clergy. 

It amazes me that anyone who read The New Testament considered this issue open for debate.  Peter himself lapsed, three times, and was under less immediate risk of losing his life then anyone who lapsed during the Decian or Diocletian Persecutions. His penance for these denials is recorded in John 21:15-19, Peter is forgiven and his position of leadership is reaffirmed.

Those who today sympathize with the Novatian position will cite passages from Hebrews 6 or others that are the same ones used by those who say Salvation can be lost, but Hebrews 6 is the core passage.  The context of Hebrews 6 is about explaining why some Apostates don’t repent, using it to prove a claimed repentance is insincere misses the point.  There are some people The Holy Spirit will for the time being leave where they are (I don’t believe The Spirit gives up on anyone permanently). 

[Update May 22nd: Also check out this YT video on Hebrews 6.]

1 Corinthians 12:3 proclaims that no one can confess Jesus is Lord except it be by The Holy Spirit.  1 John 14:15 says anyone who confesses that Jesus is The Son of God, God dwells in Him. Later 1st John 5:4-5 says that anyone who believes Jesus is The Son of God overcomes The World because they are Born of God.

Fake Christians can theoretically exist in the most literal sense, someone can simply lie about what they believe, but the concern so many Conservative Christians have about the existence of people who think they are Christians but are not is invalid, The New Testament assures us such people can’t exist.

Revelation's criticism of certain people in Pergamon and Thyatira are of engaging in idolatry not refusing to forgive those did so.  Pergamon is urged to Repent while Jezebel had refused to Repent, both cases affirm that Repentance of this Sin is possible.

So the Novatians were wrong, and even the milder position of the Donatists was wrong.  And I think wrong in a way that is at least similar in spirit to how the Church of Ephesus in Revelation was wrong.  

Since I’ve connected them spiritually can I also connect them historically?

The Catholic Encyclopedia says John Chrysostom shut down some Novatian Churches active in Ephesus in his time.  Could it be that it was those Churches who more directly descended from the Christian Community of Ephesus the book of Revelation was addressing?

The Carthaginian origin of the Donatists (as well as there being Novatian sympathizers there and them being influenced by Tertullian) makes it interesting that one proposed founder for the Carthaginian Church is Epentus who became a Christian in Ephesus.

Hippolytus of Rome was not a student of Irenaeus, that claim first pops up with Photios of Constantinople in the 9th Century.  Hippolytus taught some similar ideas to Irenaeus especially on Eschatology, but he could have come to them independently or just read Irenaeus. 

Hippolytus was probably not born into a Christian family since his name isn't Biblical but comes from a character in Pagan Greek Mythology.  The Pagan Hippolytus being associated with Artemis I'm willing to consider circumstantial evidence that Hippolytus of Rome may have had family ties to Ephesus, the ancient center of Artemis worship.

I bring this up because Hippolytus alongside Tertullian are considered the Proto-Novatians.  How to deal with the Lapsi isn't something they directly address, but they held similar Rigorist views often associated with Novatian and Donatist tendencies as well as by the modern Landmarkists who identify with them.  If Novatian was born in 200 as traditionally assumed he could have been a student of Hippolytus in his youth.

The main group of Christians active today who desire to claim the Novatians and Donatists were right are the Landmark Baptists.  I do not believe in any actual historical continuity between Ancient Novatians or Donatists and contemporary Baptists of any kind, but that the Landmarkists desire to identify with them on this issue means they share their Ephesian vice.  So I shall devote the rest of this post to dealing with historical misconceptions about these groups that the Landmarkists perpetuate.

First I should cite someone before me who did similar work.  Tyler Robbins on the Wordpress Blog The Eccentric Fundamentalist.  But I don’t actually agree with him on everything.

https://eccentricfundamentalist.com/2018/03/04/were-the-novatians-early-baptists/

The main thing I disagree with is that I do believe the Novatians were Credo-Baptists.  Socrates records that they did not observe the Sacrament of Confirmation which only makes sense if they were Credo-Baptists. It’s well known that Novatian was heavily influenced by Tertullian who argued against Infant Baptism but for the wrong reasons as it is tied to his own belief in a type of Baptismal Regeneration, the idea that Sins committed after Baptism are what can’t be forgiven.

The Church in Rome may have been practicing Infant Baptism already, but it wasn’t yet the rigid Dogma it would become, it wasn’t till the late 4th Century that a belief in Unbaptized Babies being damned to endless punishment in hell began to be popularized by Catholics like Augustine and Pelegius and Cyril of Alexandria. So Novatian could have disagreed with the practice without really seeing it as something that worth arguing about.

Robbins himself quoted something that contradicts his assertion of Infant Baptism being already Universal, if Novatian himself wasn’t Baptized till a time he thought he was about to die then he wasn’t Baptized as an infant.  And if he was a convert he wasn’t Baptized as soon as he converted either.  It sounds very in agreement with Tertullian's position.

The Apostolic Traditions are not the solid evidence he thinks it is either, there is increased scholarly skepticism it was even used in Rome and certainly that it was the standard universal form.  The earliest references to Infant Baptism existing are Origen and Tertullian, Origen defends it and Tertullian is against it but both speak of it in a way that only makes sense if it’s a new custom.

The error of Baptismal Regeneration came first and then Infant Baptism came from that, not the other way around.  

But Robbins is very correct in pointing out the ways in which Novatian was certainly not a Congregationalist.  Novatian was quite Authoritarian and Undemocratic.  Of course I often criticize contemporary Baptists for being pretty Episcopal in their own way, but that doesn't seem to be quite the same as Novatian's issue.

However while I oppose Novatianism I’m not as entirely in agreement with Cyprian as Robbins seems to be.  You see Cyprian was actually the centrist in this dispute, while Novatian disagreed with him from the right, others like the confusingly similarly named Novatus disagreed with Cyprian from the left. Based on my understanding of John 20 every Believer has the authority to forgive sins not merely the clergy, and based on John 21 the penance for lapsing is pretty simple actually.  Cyprian believed people insincere in their repentance were obvious and easy to spot, I fear even Cyprian would have rejected people he shouldn’t have.

The Landmarkists love to treat Novatians and Donatists as if they were simply different names for the same group, and the fact that many in the Mainstream Roman Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries who viewed both as heretics lumped them together in their attacks helps them do that.  But the Donatists were huge fans of Cyprian, they saw themselves as the more faithful followers of Cyprian then the mainstream Church.  Augustine of Hippo when criticizing the Donatists confirms they held to the same Church Polity as the mainstream Church, and John Calvin claimed he got his ideas on Church Polity mainly form Cyprian. 

The Donatists were condemned for doing Rebaptisms, and that’s another source of confusion.  Because the 16th Century Protestant Anabaptists were doing all their Rebaptisms mainly because of their belief that Infant Baptisms were invalid, these Landmarkist pseudo-historians assume that must always be the reason for Rebaptism.  

Cyprian however was a supporter of Infant Baptism but who did call for Rebaptizing those who had been Baptized by people he considered heretics, like the Novatians, I'm sure the Donatists expanded this to include anyone Baptized by the Mainstream Church.  Augustine of Hippo when arguing with Donatists said Cyprian was wrong on that issue, and the then contemporary Bishop of Rome Stephen the First also disagreed with Cyprian on this issue.

Since who you place your Faith in at Baptism is Jesus not an organization I'm also inclined to agree that Cyprian was wrong on this reason for Rebaptism.  Adult Baptisms of people Baptized as Infants is the only Rebaptism I consider necessary.  But since Water Baptism is only symbolic doing a new one I'm not gonna call some horrible sacrilege either.

The problem with claiming any groups to later pop up in Europe descend from the Donatists is that they never left North Africa.

The Montanists are also sometimes viewed as Proto-Novatians and thus also part of the Landmarkist theorizing.  However on their Wikipedia page the source for them opposing forgiving the Lapsi isn't a primary source, and other traits mentioned are the opposite.  Expanding the authority to forgive sins beyond just the Clergy is a trait of those who were to the Left of Cyprian and Rome not Novatians.

A lot of confusion about the Montanists comes from Tertullian's association with them.  Not everything Tertullian taught he got from the Montanists and some of it seems in conflict with what other sources imply about the Montanists.  He was clearly influenced by the Montanists but was awkwardly mixing some of their ideas with others he got from other sources.