Preface
P R E FA C E Revelation’s shaky canonical status and association with heresy caused the East to lag behind the West by three hundred years before producing a commentary on Revelation. Not until the end of the sixth century did the first Greek commentary appear, authored by Oikoumenios , a Miaphysite philosopher. Serious crises in the empire contributed to popular sentiment that the end of the world might be near, renewing interest in apocalyptic writings. As the only Greek commentary on Revelation, Oikoumenios’s interpretation would have found a ready readership. But due to his philosophical background and obvious lack of exegetical training, Oikoumenios’s quirky commentary expressed theological, eschatological, and exegetical conclusions that were unacceptable in mainstream ecclesiastical circles. Not long afterward, a second Greek commentary appeared to respond to Oikoumenios. This second commentary was composed by Andrew, Archbishop of Caesarea, Cappadocia, a well-known and respected exegete during his time. Andrew’s superior skill and exegetical training produced a commentary that quickly eclipsed the work of Oikoumenios to become predominant and the standard patristic commentary for the East, including the Greek, Slavic, Armenian, and Georgian Churches. Andrew demonstrated that he stood in the stream of patristic tradition , even if it amounted to no more than a trickle. Although composed in 611 (a specific date proposed here for the first time), Andrew refers to many interpretations of Revelation found in passages by earlier Fathers as well as citing the opinions of anonymous teachers, Preface pointing to a heretofore unexplored rich oral tradition of interpretation of the Apocalypse in the Greek East reaching back into the centuries preceding Andrew’s time. The English translation completed by the present author has been published as volume 123 in the Fathers of the Church series, published by the Catholic University of America Press (2011). Prior to my English translation and study of the commentary as part of my doctoral dissertation at Université Laval, Québec City (2008), no translation of Andrew ’s commentary had been produced in any modern language and no significant amount of scholarship had been devoted to this commentary . The Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea is undoubtedly the most important ancient Greek patristic commentary on Revelation . The totality of the ancient Greek tradition for the interpretation of the Apocalypse was preserved in the commentary of Andrew of Caesarea, who succeeded in drawing together the various strands of ancient tradition. His thoughtful, balanced, and well-written commentary was quickly embraced and became extremely important. His accomplishment was widely recognized and is evidenced by the existence of eighty-three complete manuscripts of Andrew’s commentary, along with countless abbreviated versions. Andrew’s commentary also influenced the textual transmission of the Apocalypse and created a unique text type. Moreover, the commentary is responsible for the eventual acceptance of Revelation into the canon of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches as well as influencing Eastern Christian eschatology. Translations of the commentary in a modified or condensed form were produced in the eleventh , twelfth, and thirteenth centuries in the Georgian, Armenian, and Old Slavonic languages respectively, where the commentary contributed toward the acceptance of Revelation into the New Testament canon in those churches. ...
OR
