Guiding to a Blessed End: Andrew of Caesarea and His Apocalypse Commentary in the Ancient Church

6. Why the Oikoumenios Commentary Failed

 why The oikoumenios commenTary faileD Andrew of Caesarea’s Assessment If Oikoumenios’s commentary was available to Andrew for his use, it follows that it was available to others as well. Since it has been established that Oikoumenios’s commentary is the first complete Greek commentary on the Book of Revelation, it is a curious phenomenon that this commentary has been scarcely utilized by the Christian East. After five hundred years without a Greek Apocalypse commentary, one would expect Oikoumenios’s work to be eagerly embraced and enthusiastically employed by Greek-speaking Christians in the centuries that followed. But it was not. It can fairly be said that the Oikoumenios commentary failed since it had virtually no impact on the interpretation of the Apocalypse in the Christian East. In fact, Andrew’s commentary, although subsequent in time to that of Oikoumenios, was so well received that it eclipsed the prior commentary to the extent that Oikoumenios’s work was almost entirely lost to history. Ignored and apparently rejected by the Church at large, the Oikoumenian commentary must have been viewed as unacceptable or unsuitable. Does any objective evidence exist that the Oikoumenios commentary was considered unacceptable or unsatisfactory? Yes, on several  w The Oikoumenios Commentary  counts. First, had Oikoumenios’s commentary been acceptable according to the prevailing ecclesiastical standards of the time, it hardly seems likely that Andrew would have felt compelled to undertake such a difficult task as to explain the Apocalypse, by far the most difficult book of the Bible to interpret. Indeed, as we have seen, Andrew openly expresses his reluctance to attempt this difficult task which “Makarios ” assigned to him. If Oikoumenios’s commentary had been satisfactory , Andrew could have referred people to it and would have used it himself. Secondly, few copies of the Oikoumenios commentary survive. The manuscript witness is perhaps the most compelling evidence that the commentary did not receive widespread endorsement over the centuries following. The meager number of existing Oikoumenios manuscripts is strong proof that the commentary was unacceptable. Only one complete copy of the commentary exists along with only a few partial manuscripts.1 Andreas manuscripts, on the other hand, number eighty-three complete copies, thirteen abbreviated versions, fifteen manuscripts with scholia and numerous other manuscripts with notes from the commentary. In addition, Andrew’s translated commentary exists in numerous additional manuscripts in the Georgian, Armenian, Latin, and Slavonic languages. Had Andrew’s commentary preceded Oikoumenios, the scant number of Oikoumenios manuscripts might have been more easily explainable: one could surmise that Andrew ’s commentary was copied more frequently because it was the first, and for that reason Oikoumenios was overlooked or perceived as less necessary. But strangely, the reverse is true: although the Oikoumenios commentary came first, it was Andrew’s which quickly became predominant. Andrew’s commentary was earnestly translated, prodigiously cop1 . Marc De Groote discusses the status of Oikoumenios manuscripts and describes in detail the complete manuscript, the partial manuscripts, as well as existing fragments and scholia. Oecumenii Commentarius in Apocalypsin, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 8 (Louvain: Peeters, 1999), 9–21.  The Oikoumenios Commentary ied, and became the standard and authoritative Eastern Christian commentary on Revelation. In contrast, Oikoumenios’s commentary was almost entirely lost to posterity. But why was the Oikoumenios exposition not well received or widely accepted? This question is fundamental since it bears on Andrew’s purpose and motivation for composing his own commentary, and possibly has a bearing upon other underlying premises, presumptions, objectives of his interpretation and conclusions in the commentary. Andrew himself personally must have found the Oikoumenian commentary unacceptable overall. We reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, when Andrew was pressed to write a commentary on Revelation, he could simply have referred people to Oikoumenios’s commentary, which he did not. Second, Andrew could have borrowed heavily from Oikoumenios without citing him to produce his own commentary, but he did not.2 Third, Andrew never names Oikoumenios , although this in itself is not surprising or unusual.3 However, if Oikoumenios were a respected ecclesiastical figure and commentator, Andrew might have referred to him, not as a patristic authority, but in some favorable fashion as a contemporary expert, authority, teacher or source.4 Instead, Andrew usually mentions Oikoumenios’s views to refute him, disagree with him, to distinguish himself from Oikoumenios , or to supplement Oikoumenios’s opinions. We cannot presume that Oikoumenios’s commentary was unac2 . Ambrose of Milan...