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

16. Andrew's Posterity and Contributions

 anDrew’s posTeriTy anD conTribuTions Subsequent Commentaries In the late ninth or early tenth centuries, Arethas, an episcopal successor of Andrew at the very same see of Caesarea, Cappadocia, wrote a commentary on Revelation.1 Arethas drew heavily from Andrew’s commentary , often quoting him word for word, and in other sections paraphrasing him rather than literally reproducing the passage.2 Where Arethas copied Andrew word for word, Schmid observes that one can easily recognize the text-type of the Andreas manuscripts which Arethas used.3 Today, the commentary of Arethas is the second most significant commentary on the Apocalypse in the Greek tradition after that of Andrew. Asdiscussedinchapter3,MaximosKalliopolitescreatedGreektranslations of various writings for use by the average laymen and priests in the ἁπλη  γλῶσα (plain language), or vernacular Greek in the early sev-  w 1. Συλλογὴ ἐξ ᾿ηγήσεως ἐκ διαφόρων ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν, or according to another manuscript, Ἐκ τῶν Ἀνδρέα ... πεπονημένων σύνοψις σχολική, παρατεθεῖσα ὑπὸ Ἀρέθα. Henry Barclay Swete, Apocalypse of John cxci. Arethas is printed in J.-P. Migne, PG 106:487–806. See also Josef Schmid, UntersuchungenzurGeschichtedesgriechischenApokalypsetextes1 . Der Apokalypse-text desArethas vonKaisareia undeinigerandererjüngerer Gruppen.Texte und Forschungen zur byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie. Num. 27 (Athens: Verlag der Byzantinisch-neugriechischen Jahrbücher, 1936). 2. Josef Schmid, Einleitung, 97. 3. Josef Schmid, Einleitung, 97. Andrew’s Posterity and Contributions  enteenth century.4 The educated classes did not need translations of the ancient authorities, but most spiritual writings were inaccessible to the ordinary person. It is possible that along with his translation of the Apocalypse, Maximos created an accompanying commentary.5 The identity of the Maximos responsible for the seventeenth-century Apocalypse commentary is disputed. Ernest Colwell believes that the Maximos , author of the seventeenth century commentary, is Maximos “the Peloponnesian” and that he is one and the same individual as Maximos Kalliopolites the translator.6 Others disagree.7 Regardless of his identity, Maximos began the commentary as a combination of the best of Andrew and Arethas, but by the time he reached the middle of his exposition he primarily relied on Andrew and only occasionally included additional points taken from Arethas.8 Anthimos of Jerusalem, who served as Patriarch of Jerusalem from 1788 to 1808, also wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse, the inscription of which indicates its dependence on Andrew and Arethas: Ἑρμηνεία ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἱεροσολύμων Ἀνθίμου συλλεγεῖσα παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων Ἀρέθα καὶ Ἀνδρέου εἰς τὴν ἱερὰν Ἀποκάλυψιν τοῦ ἁγίου, ἐνδόξου καὶ πανευφήμου ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ Ἰωάννου.9 4. There are numerous variations on the spelling, including “Kallipoli,” or even “Galliopolite .” 5. See Ernest Cadman Colwell and H.R.Willoughby, The Elizabeth Day McCormick Apocalypse , 2:4. The Elizabeth Day McCormick Apocalypse is one of only four manuscripts which preserve Maximos’s Apocalypse commentary. 6. Ernest Cadman Colwell and H.R.Willoughby, The Elizabeth Day McCormick Apocalypse , 2:4. 7. Emmanuel Konstantinides states categorically that they are not the same individual. “ Μάξιμος Καλλίπολι,” Θρησκευτικὴ καὶ Ἠθικὴ Ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία, ed. A. Martinos, 12 vols. (Athens , 1962–68). Both Maximoses knew Cyril Loukaris, both studied in Europe and both lived during the same historical period. At this point with the information we presently have, it is not possible to determine which Maximos is responsible for the commentary on Revelation. 8. Ernest Cadman Colwell and H.R.Willoughby, Elizabeth Day McCormick Apocalypse, 2:120: “Maximos began his work with the intention of blending the best of Andreas and Arethas and increasing the scriptural element; that blending decreased as the work progressed , with the result that the dominant source for most of the commentary is that of Andreas.” McCormick Apocalypse, 2:42. The same observations are made by Josef Schmid who discusses the content and manuscripts of Maximos in Einleitung, 97–98. 9. Josef Schmid, Einleitung, 99.  Andrew’s Posterity and Contributions Translations of the Commentary Andrew’s commentary was translated into four ancient languages: Latin, Armenian, Old Slavonic, and Georgian. These early translations substantially contributed to the acceptance of Revelation into the biblical canon of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches. The commentary may have been translated into Latin before the twelfth century, as the description below of a discovery of the commentary in a Latin monastery by an Armenian archbishop seems to suggest . Schmid recounts how the Andreas commentary was translated into Armenian at the instigation of a famous figure in Armenian church history, Nerses of Lampron, Archbishop of Tarsus (d. 1198). Andrew’s commentary impacted the New Testament canon for the Armenians by facilitating the acceptance of Revelation.10 Although Armenian translations of the Apocalypse existed prior to the time of Nerses, Revelation was not widely accepted as Scripture. An epilogue written by Nerses explains the circumstances of his discovery of Andrew’s commentary. I, Nerses, poor...