What do you think?
Rate this book
Ancient Christian Texts
Greek Commentaries on Revelation
The Eastern church gives little evidence of particular interest in the book of Revelation. Oecumenius of Isauria's commentary on the book is the earliest full treatment in Greek and dates only from the early sixth century. Along with Oecumenius's commentary, only that of Andrew of Caesarea (dating from the same era and often summarizing Oecumenius before offering a contrary opinion) and that of Arethas of Caesarea four centuries later provide any significant commentary from within the Greek tradition. William Weinrich renders a particular service to readers interested in ancient commentary on the Apocalypse by translating in one volume the two early sixth-century commentaries. Because of the two interpreters' often differing understandings, readers are exposed not only to early dialogue on the meaning and significance of the book for the faith and life of the church, but also to breadth of interpretation within the unity of the faith the two shared. Ancient Christian Texts are new English translations of full-length commentaries or sermon series from ancient Christian authors that allow you to study key writings of the early church fathers in a fresh way.
- GenresReferenceNew Testament
212 pages, Hardcover
First published February 9, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 3, 2015
St Andrew of Caesarea’s commentary on the Apocalypse is the first substantial Eastern reflection on the Apocalypse as a whole. Earlier saints like Methodios and Cyril of Jerusalem gave pointed exhortations, and Andrew is in line with their conclusions. What makes Andrew’s work important in the history of Christian thought is a) he is working independently of Augustine’s City of God and b) he is the first to offer a non-premillennial stance on Revelation 20. True, earlier writers had rejected premillennialism, but few gave a systematic analysis of Revelation 20.
Andrew probably wrote around 610, just before the Islamic invasions. He could not have written before 564, since the lists of bishops of Caesarea is complete (until then) and he isn’t mentioned. Interpretation
The Spirit inspired the text in a “tripartite manner according to the tripartite structure of man” (Introduction, xxvi, 116).
The body of scripture/story is the literal meaning, sense-referent.
the tropological meaning = the soul
spirit = anagogical meaning of “higher things to come,” the kingdom of God.
Andrew further divides Revelation into “24” books corresponding to the 24 elders.
Andrew's reading of the 5 (+2) kings in Rev. 17 was particularly helpful. Concerning 20:1-3. The destruction of Satan occurred at Christ’s Passion. Andrew rejects a literal 1,000 years (189). He says it is the time of the Incarnation until the “arrival” of Antichrist. Interestingly, this is not a pure amillennialism, for Andrew does not see it as synonymous with the whole church age. Weinrich in a footnote (189 n22) links this position with Augustine and the West, but this is not entirely the case.
He has a fine reading of 20:4. The teaching thrones were given to the holy apostles who enlightened the nations. He connects these enlighteners with martyrs primarily, but also including pious kings (190). Indeed, the kings demonstrate their power against demonic activity. This is indeed born out in history, as we see with the Tsar-martyr Nicholas II.
As to Oecumenius, his commentary is markedly inferior to Andrew's, although he did provide the foundation for Andrew. He has a few interesting insights, though much of his commentary is hampered by his Miaphysite need to prove that miaphysites aren't Christological heretics. Oecumenius divides his work into 12 sections, not 24.
Andrew probably wrote around 610, just before the Islamic invasions. He could not have written before 564, since the lists of bishops of Caesarea is complete (until then) and he isn’t mentioned. Interpretation
The Spirit inspired the text in a “tripartite manner according to the tripartite structure of man” (Introduction, xxvi, 116).
The body of scripture/story is the literal meaning, sense-referent.
the tropological meaning = the soul
spirit = anagogical meaning of “higher things to come,” the kingdom of God.
Andrew further divides Revelation into “24” books corresponding to the 24 elders.
Andrew's reading of the 5 (+2) kings in Rev. 17 was particularly helpful. Concerning 20:1-3. The destruction of Satan occurred at Christ’s Passion. Andrew rejects a literal 1,000 years (189). He says it is the time of the Incarnation until the “arrival” of Antichrist. Interestingly, this is not a pure amillennialism, for Andrew does not see it as synonymous with the whole church age. Weinrich in a footnote (189 n22) links this position with Augustine and the West, but this is not entirely the case.
He has a fine reading of 20:4. The teaching thrones were given to the holy apostles who enlightened the nations. He connects these enlighteners with martyrs primarily, but also including pious kings (190). Indeed, the kings demonstrate their power against demonic activity. This is indeed born out in history, as we see with the Tsar-martyr Nicholas II.
As to Oecumenius, his commentary is markedly inferior to Andrew's, although he did provide the foundation for Andrew. He has a few interesting insights, though much of his commentary is hampered by his Miaphysite need to prove that miaphysites aren't Christological heretics. Oecumenius divides his work into 12 sections, not 24.
September 16, 2015
Greek Commentaries on Revelation is a 250 page hardcover, which contains the commentaries of Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea. There is not a consensus on who exactly Oecumenius was, but there is a general consensus that his commentary was written in the early 7th century. His interpretation of Revelation focused more on the spiritual meaning than literal meaning, much like Origen. He also focuses on the three ages (past, present, and future) within Revelation. Lastly, he places great emphasis on both the Incarnation of Jesus and the seven seals in Revelation and how they related to Jesus.
Andrew of Caesarea's commentary occurs shortly after Oecumenius's commentary, as he uses it as a reference for his own. In fact, very little of Andrew of Caesarea's commentary could be called original. A lot of people might see this as a bad thing, but it is quite the opposite, as novelty and heresy usually go hand in hand. His commentary became the one that was most widely accepted in the Byzantine tradition, and his is also my favorite commentary on Revelation. He has an interesting way of dividing the book. He divides Revelation into 24 books (for the 24 elders mentioned in Revelation). He the divides each of those books into three chapters, which corresponds to the body, soul, and spirit of man. This creates 72 chapters and very brief commentary on each of his chapters with the occasional depth where he deems necessary.
Reading the two commentaries, it is clear that they do not agree on many points, even though they were written so closely together. In fact, Andrew uses Oecumenius' commentary in his merely to show where he offers a differing viewpoint. In addition to these great translations, there are also brilliant introductions which give us insight on the two commentators and valuable insight into their methods regarding their commentaries. This book is a wonderful resource to those interested in how the early Church viewed the Book of Revelation and a must have for the serious student of Scripture. I would highly recommend this volume and then if you are still thirsty for more knowledge, get Latin Commentaries on Revelation.
Andrew of Caesarea's commentary occurs shortly after Oecumenius's commentary, as he uses it as a reference for his own. In fact, very little of Andrew of Caesarea's commentary could be called original. A lot of people might see this as a bad thing, but it is quite the opposite, as novelty and heresy usually go hand in hand. His commentary became the one that was most widely accepted in the Byzantine tradition, and his is also my favorite commentary on Revelation. He has an interesting way of dividing the book. He divides Revelation into 24 books (for the 24 elders mentioned in Revelation). He the divides each of those books into three chapters, which corresponds to the body, soul, and spirit of man. This creates 72 chapters and very brief commentary on each of his chapters with the occasional depth where he deems necessary.
Reading the two commentaries, it is clear that they do not agree on many points, even though they were written so closely together. In fact, Andrew uses Oecumenius' commentary in his merely to show where he offers a differing viewpoint. In addition to these great translations, there are also brilliant introductions which give us insight on the two commentators and valuable insight into their methods regarding their commentaries. This book is a wonderful resource to those interested in how the early Church viewed the Book of Revelation and a must have for the serious student of Scripture. I would highly recommend this volume and then if you are still thirsty for more knowledge, get Latin Commentaries on Revelation.
October 19, 2013
The complete commentaries of Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea on Revelation.
After an extensive introduction to the authors and their time, the commentaries of each are presented. Oecumenius is dated to the sixth century and Andrew of Caesarea somewhat later (late sixth-early seventh centuries). Both men are interested in understanding Revelation in light of the Christological controversies which had recently raged, Oecumenius more than Andrew. Oecumenius has some strange/idiosyncratic understanding of many of the typological interpretations of Revelation, and Andrew is quick to correct them. In general, both follow a typological construct; Andrew's commentary is quite good, and not for nothing was the standard commentary on Revelation among the Eastern Orthodox for generations.
The paucity of exposition on Revelation in the East might seem strange until one recognizes that many in the East maintained skepticism regarding the canonicity of Revelation on account of its abuse at the hands of heretics. These two are the substantive eastern commentaries on the text in the patristic period, and whereas they are good for the understanding of the history of interpretation of Revelation and associations between Psalms and Revelation, few if any today would follow the exegetical paths of these eastern authors.
Good resources for the history of interpretation of Revelation.
After an extensive introduction to the authors and their time, the commentaries of each are presented. Oecumenius is dated to the sixth century and Andrew of Caesarea somewhat later (late sixth-early seventh centuries). Both men are interested in understanding Revelation in light of the Christological controversies which had recently raged, Oecumenius more than Andrew. Oecumenius has some strange/idiosyncratic understanding of many of the typological interpretations of Revelation, and Andrew is quick to correct them. In general, both follow a typological construct; Andrew's commentary is quite good, and not for nothing was the standard commentary on Revelation among the Eastern Orthodox for generations.
The paucity of exposition on Revelation in the East might seem strange until one recognizes that many in the East maintained skepticism regarding the canonicity of Revelation on account of its abuse at the hands of heretics. These two are the substantive eastern commentaries on the text in the patristic period, and whereas they are good for the understanding of the history of interpretation of Revelation and associations between Psalms and Revelation, few if any today would follow the exegetical paths of these eastern authors.
Good resources for the history of interpretation of Revelation.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews