EUGENIA SCARVELIS CONSTANTINOU ANDREW OF CAESAREA AND THE APOCALYPSE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH OF THE EAST: Studies and Translation Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures de l'Université Laval dans le cadre du programme de doctorat en théologie pour l'obtention du grade de Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.) FACULTE DE THEOLOGIE ET DES SCIENCES RELIGIEUSES UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL QUÉBEC 2008 © Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, 2008. EUGENIA SCARVELIS CONSTANTINOU ANDREW OF CAESAREA AND THE APOCALYPSE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH OF THE EAST: Parti: Studies on the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures de l'Université Laval dans le cadre du programme de doctorat en théologie pour l'obtention du grade de Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.) FACULTÉ DE THÉOLOGIE ET DES SCIENCES RELIGIEUSES UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL QUÉBEC 2008 © Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, 2008 ABSTRACT i This dissertation is a study of the most important Greek patristic commentary on the Book of Révélation, composed in 611 by Andrew, "Archbishop of Caesarea, Cappadocia. The dissertation consists of two parts: Part 1, Studies on the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea, and Part 2, Translation of the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea. Part 1, Studies on the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea, consists of an analysis of the commentary and an explanation of the Book of Révélation in the history of Eastern Christianity. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the commentary and to the historical context, audience, purpose and motivation for its composition. Chapter 2 discusses the Book of Révélation in the canon of Eastern Christianity through an historical overview of the place of Révélation in the canon of the East from the second century through the présent day. The chapter considers which factors accounted for the early and immédiate appeal of Révélation, examines the attitudes toward it as revealed in primary sources, and demonstrates that the Apocalypse was consistently recognized as an apostolic document from the second century through the early fourth century. Révélation eventually came under attack due to its association with controversies such as Montanism and chiliasm. Doubts about its authorship were raised to discrédit it in order to undermine the controversial movements which relied upon it. It remained in an uncertain canonical status until relatively recently and is now presumed to be part of the New Testament by most Eastern Christians but the question of its status in the canon has never been "officially" resolved. Chapter 3 explains the importance of the commentary from a text-critical perspective and for the purpose of studying the history of the Apocalypse text itself. A large percentage of Apocalypse manuscripts contain the Andréas commentary, which has preserved a text type of its own, and the study of the Andréas text type facilitâtes the analysis and évaluation of other text types by comparison. This chapter also discusses the dual textual transmission of the Book of Révélation, unique among the books of the New Testament, since manuscripts of Révélation are found both in scriptural collections as well as bound with a variety of spiritual and profane writings. ii Chapter 4 discusses Andrew's commentary in the context of the trajectory of other ancient Apocalypse commentaries, East and West, and how the interprétative history proceeded along a dual stream of tradition. The first commentators greatly influenced those who followed them, but only those who wrote in the same language. The Latin tradition did not influence Greek interpreters, nor vice-versa, and commonalities between Greek and Latin writers can be traced back to the earliest Fathers and to the perspectives, Scriptures, exegetical techniques and traditions common to both East and West from the first centuries of Christianity. Chapter 5 commences an évaluation of the commentary itself, including Andrew's purpose, motivation and orientation, as well as a discussion of the structure, style and characteristics of the commentary. This chapter also explains Andrew's methodology, techniques and use of sources. Chapter 6 explores Andrew's theology, including his doctrine, view of prophecy, history, eschatology, angelology and salvation. Chapter 7 reviews Andrew's influence on subséquent Eastern commentators, the translation of his commentary into other ancient languages, its impact on the réception of the Book of Révélation into the Eastern canon and the commentary's lasting pré­ éminence and importance. Part 2 of the dissertation, Translation of the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea, is an English translation of the commentary with extensive explanatory footnotes. FOREWORD iii Révélation'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 Révélation. Not until the end of the sixth century did the first Greek commentary appear, authored by Oikoumenios, a Monophysite philosopher. Serious crises in the Empire contributed to a sentiment that the end of the world might be near, renewing interest in apocalyptic writings. As the only Greek commentary on Révélation, Oikoumenios' interprétation would hâve found a ready readership. But due to his philosophical background and obvious lack of exegetical training, Oikoumenios' quirky commentary expressed theological, eschatological and exegetical conclusions which 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 prédominant 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 spécifie date proposed hère for the first time), Andrew refers to many interprétations of Révélation found in passages by earlier Fathers as well as citing the opinions of anonymous teachers, pointing to a heretofore unexplored rich oral tradition of interprétation of the Apocalypse in the Greek East reaching back into the centuries preceding Andrew's time. The totality of the ancient Greek tradition for the interprétation 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 complète 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, Andrew's commentary is responsible for the iv eventual acceptance of Révélation into the canon of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches as well as influencing Eastern Christian eschatology. The commentary was published in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, vol. 106 (Paris 1863) 215-458, and also exists in Latin, Georgian, Armenian and Old Slavonic translations. Until now, no complète translation of Andrew's commentary has appeared in any modem language and no significant amount of scholarship has been devoted to his commentary, undoubtedly the most important ancient Greek Patristic commentary on Révélation. Many of Andrew's opinions are reported by George Mavromatis in his book, 'H 'AnoKâXv\(fiç rov Icoâvvovjus IJaxepiKrj 'AvâAvmj, (Athens: Apostolike Diakonia, 1994). Some excerpts of the commentary already existed in English translation. An exposition on the Book of Révélation composed in Russian by Archbishop Averky Taushev quoted portions of the Old Slavonic text which he had translated into Russian. This work was thereafter translated into English by Seraphim Rose and published under Archbishop Averky's name as Apocalypse (Platina, CA: Valaam Society of America, 1985). Additional excerpts from Andrew's commentary were very recently published as volume XII, "Révélation," (éd. and trans. William Weinrich), as part of the Ancient Christian Commentary séries, éd. Thomas C. Oden, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005) along with other comments from various ancient authors. This volume was published after the présent translation had been completed and therefore did not factor into the présent translation. A thorough analysis of Weinrich's rendition of Andrew's comments is not included in the scope of this dissertation, however a cautionary note is appropriate. Weinrich states that his translations are based on Schmid's critical text, however, they are lifted out of the context of the commentary and at times can mislead the reader with respect to Andrew's true opinion, the discemment of which requires a careful reading of the entire relevant portion of the commentary. Weinrich's compilation highlights the significant problem created by the fact that a complète translation of Andrew's commentary has not heretofore existed in which one can read the work in its entirety and truly understand Andrew's thoughts, analysis and style. This problem has arisen repeatedly among authors who discuss Andrew's work and V is demonstrated on the very first occasion in which Weinrich includes an excerpt from Andrew's commentary. Weinrich présents Oikoumenios' opinion as that of Andrew on Rev. 1:4: "Grâce to you and peace from the One who is, and who was, and who is to corne, and from the seven spirits which are before his throne." (Weinrich, 3) Andrew believes that specifically in Rev. 1:4 this statement refers to the Father, not to the Trinity, and he goes to great lengths to explain why Oikoumenios is incorrect exegetically even if he is correct theologically. Averky makes exactly the same mistake as Weinrich (Averky, 44). Without the complète commentary as a guide, isolated passages from Andrew's commentary are translated and carelessly presented as Andrew's own opinion because Andrew often reported the opinions of others as alternative interprétations. The piecemeal approach to Andrew's commentary, translating bits hère and there while making no effort to understand the flow and content of the commentary as a whole, not to mention its historical context, has even affected disciplines outside the history of biblical interprétation. Misunderstandings and erroneous conclusions hâve been drawn by Byzantine historians, no doubt based on the assessment of Andrew by scholars in the history of interprétation field. For example Paul Magdalino, probably relying on earlier mistaken assessments, states in his article "The History of the Future and its Uses: Prophecy, Policy and Propaganda," {The Making of Byzantine History, Roderick Beaton and Charlotte Roueché, eds. [London: Variorum, 1993], 3-34), that Andrew was under the sway of apocalyptic fervor and even that Andrew systematically tried to relate Révélation to the Roman Empire. {Making of Byzantine History, 11) The truth is actually the opposite: If anything, Andrew was attempting to quell apocalyptic fears through his commentary, not inflame them. The following dissertation consists of two parts: Part 1, "Studies on the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea," an analysis of the commentary, and Part 2, "Translation of the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea." The translation is based on the critical text of the commentary produced by Josef Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andréas von Kaisareia, vol. 1 of Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, 3 parts (Miinchen: Karl Zink Verlag, 1955-56). vi Schmid employed brackets [ ] in the publication of his critical text to indicate doubtful words or passages, and I hâve retained thèse brackets. Therefore, instead of brackets, which would normally be used to insert words into the translation for clarity of référence, parenthèses ( ) were employed to indicate words which I supplied to make the translation more accurate, more understandable or more readable in English. Références to the critical text will begin with Andrew's own chapter numbering, indicated as Chp., followed by the page number in Schmid's critical text, given as Text, and finally the page number as found in the présent translation of the commentary, cited as Comm. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii This dissertation has been a long and difficult task, often extremely tedious, but also fascinating and rewarding. I came to this dissertation topic after it was suggested to me by Fr. Ted Stylianopoulos of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts. I would like to thank him for the suggestion of this interesting and worthwhile subject. I had never heard of Andrew of Caesarea but I was very aware that little attention has been given to the Book of Révélation in the Eastern tradition. When I first met Professors Poirier and Roberge at Université Laval as a new doctoral student, I was both impressed with and pleased by their enthusiastic response to the subject. They encouraged me and confirmed my hopes for the potential contribution to scholarship through this topic. I would like to thank Université Laval, especially my director, Prof. Paul-Hubert Poirier, for his advice, expertise, encouragement, and patience during this long process, and Prof. Thomas Schmidt for his Greek expertise and assistance with the translation. I also wish to sincerely thank ail of my professors over the years at the University of San Diego, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology and Harvard Divinity School for their instruction, advice, encouragement, and their contributions to my intellectual growth in a great many ways. Many thanks also to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Archbishops Demetrios and Spyridon, and Bishop Savas for the Taylor Scholarship. My colleagues in the Theology and Religious Studies Department at the University of San Diego hâve boosted my spirits many times during the past five years with their kindness, advice and encouragement, and I sincerely thank them. Countless thanks also to my friends and family for their support and understanding, (including those who - rumor has it - doubted that I would ever finish), especially since they never exactly understood what I was doing or why. My deepest thanks and appréciation especially go to my husband, Rev. Dr. Costas Constantinou, for his proofreading of the Greek, his knowledge of the patristic tradition and his sensitivity to the nuances in the Greek language, which made his help invaluable, and mostly for his love, support, encouragement, patience and his faith in me. And finally many thanks to our beloved son, Christopher, for his love and understanding. I take full responsibility for any mistakes in this dissertation, ail of which are entirely my own. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou December 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS viii Page ABSTRACT i FOREWORD iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii TABLE OF CONTENTS viii ABBREVIATIONS x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea 1 1.2 The Life and Workof Andrew of Caesarea 2 1.2.1 Dating Andrew's Episcopal Reign 3 1.2.2 Dating Andrew's Commentary on the Apocalypse 4 1.3 The Audience and Purpose of the Commentary 10 1.3.1 Request from "Makarios" 10 1.3.2 Response to Oikoumenios 13 1.3.2.1 Who was Oikoumenios? 14 1.3.2.2 Oikoumenios' Commentary was Unacceptable 17 1.4 Motivation for Andrew's Commentary 21 1.4.1 The Historical Milieu 21 1.4.2 An Orthodox Response to Oikoumenios 24 1.4.3 The Chalcedonian Alternative 25 1.4.4 Hope and Vigilance 28 CHAPTER 2: AN OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION IN THE CANON OF THE EASTERN CHURCH 31 2.1 Creating a Christian Canon 2.1.1 The Need for a Canon 31 2.1.2 Factors Influencing the Formation ofthe Canon 36 2.2 The Book of Révélation in the New Testament Canon 39 2.3 TheEarly Appeal of Révélation 41 2.3.1 The Prophétie Characterof Révélation 42 2.3.2 The Appeal of Révélation in Times of Persécution 46 2.3.3 The Words ofthe Lord in the Book of Révélation 48 2.3.4 The Epistolary Genre in Révélation 48 2.3.5 The Apostolicity of Révélation 49 2.4 The Second Century: Widespread Acceptance of Révélation 51 2.4.1 Ignatius of Antioch 51 2.4.2 Polycarp of Smyrna 51 2.4.3 Papias of Hierapolis 52 2.4.4 Other Apostolic Fathers 55 2.4.5 Justin Martyr 55 2.4.6 The Martyrs of Vienne and Lyon 57 2.4.7 Irenaeus 57 2.4.7.1 Irenaeus' Sources 58 2.4.7.2 Irenaeus' Use of Révélation 60 2.4.8 Theophilosof Antioch 61 2.4.9 The Muratorian Canon 62 2.4.10 Other Second Century Witnesses 63