Posted by Adamsen on October 1, 2009
Eugénia Scarvelis Constantinou (Jeannie Constantinou): Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse In the Ancient Church of the East. Part 1: Studies on the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea. Part 2: Translation of the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea. Ph.D.-dissertation, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada, 2008. 271 + 242 pp. Available as an ebook in PDF-format.
I just learned about this Ph.D.-thesis, which is a very welcome work. It is very fortunate that Constantinou has made it available online. We should all be very grateful for that.
Part 1 “consists of an analysis of the commentary and an explanation of the Book of Révélation in the history of Eastern Christianity”, while part 2 “is an English translation of the commentary with extensive explanatory footnotes” (p. i and ii).
Andrew’s commentary, which according to Constantinou, was written in 611 A.D., is preserved in eighty-three complete manuscripts and “countless abbreviated versions” (iii). Andrew preserved the “totality of ancient Greek tradition for the interpretation of the Apocalypse”, which was independent of the Latin tradition (ibid.). Thus, Andrew’s commentary is extremely important. For this reason alone, it is very welcome that Constantinou has analysed and translated it. It was also very influential as regards the very text and the canonicity of Revelation.
Constantinou shows how important it is to have a complete translation of the entire commentary. Both Averky and Weinrich attributes the interpretation of Oecumenius on Revelation 1:4 to Andrew, but erroneously so. While Oecumenius interpreted Revelation 1:4 as a statement about the Trinity, Andrew attributes this formula to the Father (pp. iv-v). Constantinou also informs us that Andrew “was attempting to quell apocalyptic fears through his commentary, not inflame them” (p. v). I look forward to study this Ph.D.-thesis!
Constantinou’s translation is based on Josef Schmid\’s work. It will be published in the series The Fathers of the Church (according to this page, accessed October 1st, 2009).
Here is Constantinou’s own abstract:
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.
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 prééminence and importance.
HT: Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on Revelation online and Tommy Wassermann @ Evangelical Textual Criticism
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on August 28, 2009
English Translation of Prigents Opus Magnum
Pierre Prigent’s French opus magnum, L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean. Rev. and exp. ed. (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, 14). Genève: Labor et Fides, 2000. 507 pp. – mentioned in the comments on this post – may be inaccessible if you do not read French.
However, I just noticed in the recent commentary by Resseguie that there is an English translation. It is still in print. Here is the details:
Prigent, Pierre: Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John. Translated from the French edition by Wendy Pradels. Study edition. Re-binding. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. XIV + 717 pages. ISBN 978-3-16-148453-7. € 69.00. A few more details.
The cover is just as scholarly as the content!
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on July 15, 2009
Resseguie's Narrative Commentary
Professor James L. Resseguie is the author of Revelation Unsealed. Last year I mentioned that a commentary was in the making (see http://www.revelation-resources.com/2008/07/10/resseguie-revelation-a-narrative-commentary/. Today Resseguie’s commentary arrived. So far I have only had time to flip the pages, but it seems very interesting. From the outset I like Resseguie’s approach, as will be clear to those who have flipped the pages of my thesis.
Due to a very welcome grant, I will finally be able to complete the final revision of my own commentary by mid-September. Professor Resseguie’s commentary will be a very welcome preparation for that.
Professor Resseguie offers a 40+ page introduction to his narrative approach. I will post more about it shortly.
By the way, Resseguie’s commentary is less than 300 pages, 288 in total. And it is available for less that $15 in the US or £10 in Great Britain. ISBN: 978-0-8010-3213-4.
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on July 28, 2008
This post continues Carl E. Olson, Will Catholics Be “Left Behind”? (1)
Part Two
I do support the Roman Catholic ecclesiology. However, Olson offers a decent presentation of the dispensational ecclesiology. Classic dispensationalism is characterised by a radical distinction between Israel and the Church and their purposes (or destinies, cf. Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists). Modified dispensationalism has abandoned this distinction and thus undermined the entire dispensational system.
Chapter 7
In Chapter 7, Olson argues that the Church is the New Israel (pp. 215-217). On the basis of an analysis of the Biblical and of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, Olson critiques the dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church in four points: It fails hermeneutically, it ignores that the New Covenant fulfils the Old Testament promises and thus establishes a New Israel, the Church. Dispensationalism subverts the Biblical ecclesiology. It also ignores that there is only one people of God throughout history (pp. 220-221).
I am not sure, however, that Olson is correct in claiming that this people is built “through a series of covenants.” The people of God is built by God’s promises that create the faith that justifies (see Romans 4). In fact, I would argue that the most important problem is that dispensationalism (as well as Roman Catholicism) decenters the doctrine of justification.
Olson correctly critiques the view of classic dispensationalism that the church is a mysterious parenthesis that does not fulfil any OT promises (pp. 221-226) and shows that the church is a continuation of the Old Testament Israel (pp. 226-232). Dispensationalism claims that Christ “does not rule as King” (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 1986, p. 259, quoted pp. 234f). Olson shows that this is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament (pp. 235ff) and to the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (pp. 238-240).
Chapter 8
In Chapter 8, Olson scrutinises the dispensational hermeneutics, which he rightly criticises. However, a large part of this chapter is, in reality, a defense of Roman Catholicism. Olson rejects Sola Scriptura as a non-Biblical and protestant belief and claims that the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church “has the final say in interpreting Scripture … because of the authority and guidance given by Jesus Christ” (p. 276).
Olson discusses the dispensational “literalness” in the view of the Four senses of medieval exegesis (pp. 276-282) and explains – with a concept from the Roman Catholic Dei Verbum – the character of the Old Testament prophecies as “pedagogy” (pp. 282-285).
Chapter 9
Chapter 9 is devoted to the notion of rapture. Dispensationalists such as Walvoord and Ryrie admit that the idea of the rapture is derived from the radical distinction between Israel and the Church (p. 293). Olson asserts – in my view correctly – that “there is a striking absence of proof for the pretribulational Raputre” (296) i.e. the dispensational idea that the Church will be removed from earth before the Tribulation. Finally, Olson argues that the Second coming is not “imminent,” but will take place at an unknown time (pp. 297-302).
Olson emphasises how the notion of the Day of the Lord is a challenge for dispensationalism.
One serious problem for the dispensationalists is the reference to 1 Thessalonians 5 “the day of the Lord”. This term, also rendered as “the day of judgment”, is used in the New Testament to refer to the Second Coming and the end of time. (p. 297f)
Indeed. In fact, I think it is an obstacle to all sorts of premillennalism.
Olson argues against the idea that the church will escape the Tribulation (pp. 302-315) and discusses whether 2 Thessalonians 2 supports the idea of the pretribulational rapture (pp. 315ff). Here Olson quote a quite remarkable claim by Walvoord: “That the Spirit indwells all believers in the Tribulation is nowhere taught” (p. 316).
Olson sketches the two approaches that dispensationalists take to the historical fact that a pretribulational rapture is not taught before around 1800: denial of the importance of history or denial of the historical fact itself (pp. 325-330). He also discusses LaHaye’s fourteen arguments for the pretribulational rapture (pp. 331-335). Finally, Olson discusses the appeal that dispensationalism has (pp. 335-340).
Chapter 10 and the back matters
The concluding Chapter 10 is about “the Catholic vision.” The bibliography is categorised, which helps to overview the literature, but otherwise it is not as userfriendly as one might wish. The index is quite detailed. The short List of key persons consists mainly of dispensationalists.
Concluding remarks
Olson’s Will the Catholics Be “Left Behind” is a broad presentation of dispensationalism. Although I do not agree with the distinctive Roman Catholic arguments of the author, I think that he has shown that dispensationalism is not a sound theology. This is a sad conclusion in view of the fact that dispensationalism is as popular as it is.
The many overviews, quotes and notes makes this volume a helpful introduction, even for those who are not Roman Catholics.
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on July 27, 2008
Olson, Carl E. Will Catholics Be “Left Behind”? A Catholic Critique of the Rapture and Today’s Prophecy Preachers. Modern Apologetics Library. San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 2003. 424 pp.
Table of Contents
Will Catholics Be “Left Behind”? An Introduction (p. 11-22)
Part One – The Story of the Rapture … and So Much More
1 The Parousia, the Rapture, and the End Times (pp. 25-49)
2 Catholics and the Left Behind Phenomenon (pp. 50-68)
3 A Book of Confusion or Revelation (pp. 69-112)
4 The Millennium: How Long Is a Thousand Years (pp. 113-140)
5 Millenarianism: Early Church to John Nelson Darby (pp. 141-165)
6 Dispensationalism and the Rapture in America (pp. 166-203)
Part Two – A Catholic Critique of Dispensationalism
7 The Kingdom, the Church, and Israel (pp. 207-240)
8 “Bible Prophecy” and Interpreting Scripture (pp. 241-285)
9 Unwrapping the Rapture (pp. 286-340)
10 Conclusion: The Catholic Vision (pp. 341-357)
Glossary of Key Terms (pp. 359-366)
List of Key Persons (pp. 367-371)
Selected Bibliography (pp. 373-390)
Abbreviations (pp. 391-392)
Acknowledgement of Sources Cited (pp. 393-395)
Index (pp. 397-424)
Introductory remarks
I have decided to include Carl E. Olson’s Will Catholics Be “Left Behind,” even though I do not agree with those hermeneutical and doctrinal arguments that are distinctively Roman Catholic. As a Roman Catholic, Olson makes frequent use of Roman-Catholic teaching, especially on hermeneutics and eschatology.
Carl E. Olson, a Master in Theological Studies (2000), was raised as a Fundamentalist and dispensationalist, but converted to the Roman Catholic Church in 1997 (see more here).
Olson writes in a clear, journalistic and – sometimes quite broad – style (for a succinct analysis and challenge of the dispensational hermeneutics, see Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists).
In Part One Olson gives an account of the historical and theological context of the dispensational phenomenon of our time. In Part Two we find a (more) systematic assessment (although Olson does offer some evaluations in Part One). In this post I concentrate on Part One (see here on Part Two).
In general, Olson gives a decent introduction to the history of dispensationalism, to the more important dispensational authors, and to their religious thinking. He also introduces many pieces of secondary literature, which is very helpful for those who will go more deeply into the whole subject. Olson quotes extensively, except from LaHaye and Jenkins’s Tribulation Force, which subtly attacks Roman Catholicism; Olson did not get permission to quote; p. 57 n. 12). Olson’s book is heavily annotated.
Part One
Chapter 3
In my view, Chapter 3, which attempts to outline an interpretation acceptable to Roman Catholics, would benefit from a rewrite. Too much material seems irrelevant to the main argument of Olson’s book. To me it seems more like Olson’s essay on a Catholic interpretation of Revelation.
Even in this chapter, Olson launches severe criticism of the world view of the dispensationalism, comparing it to what David Chilton sees as pessimism. In fact, Olson cites David Chilton many times, which surprised me because Chilton is a postmillennialist, not an amillennialist, nor a Roman Catholic. Many non-dispensationalists disagree with Chilton’s “optimistic” postmillennialism as well as his theonomic ethics. It may very well be that (some popular) dispensationalists tend “toward a kind of gnosticism in its communication of truth,” as Mark Noll asserts in a passage that Olson quotes (p. 95 n. 56). Whether or not the world view of the ancient Jewish apocalyptists is really similar is another matter. To me, however, it seems fair to describe the dispensational perspective as follows:
These [apocalyptic] elements bear a remarkable similarity to the popular dispensationalist perspective, which asserts that only dispensationalists can understand the book of Revelation, that life on earth is mostly pessimistic, and that there is little reason for working within history to better the earth and the state of humanity. (p. 95).
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 surveys the three main millennial views, but I would suggest other introductions (e.g., Bock [ed.], Three Views on the Millennium). I do not not agree that “ecclesiology is the cornerstone for eschatology” (p. 140). More important is Christology and soteriology.
Chapter 5 and 6
Chapters 5 and 6 are very informative. The phenomenon of dispensationalism is quite strange. Fear and money are two aspects that play a significant role. Fear plays an enormous role in the dispensational communication. And the many books and films etc. is big business.
Olson’s summary of Part One
Concluding Chapter 6, Olson summarises the core features and tendencies of dispensationalism as follows: Dispensationalism is “a reactionary and defensive movement,” motivated by “fear of apostasy, dislike of liberal methods of biblical interpretation, and conviction of impending doom.” Olson and others argue that the dispensationalists also desire “to escape the world and its troubles”. Nevertheless, people are convinced that the dispensational teaching is biblically correct: “a pretribulational Rapture, a seven-year Tribulation, and a thousand-year millennial Kingdom on earth.” Most dispensationalists are resistant to “reasonable dialogue,” according to Olson. Seemingly, dispensationlism makes sense of what is happening in the world, confirms the prophecies of the Bible, and it introduces a certain indifference to culture and politics (pp. 201-203).
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on July 26, 2008
Paul, Ian. “Ebbing and Flowing: Scholarly Developments in Study of the Book of Revelation.” Expository Times 119 (2008): 523-31.
From SAGE Publications:
Revelation has always presented major challenges for study, interpretation and application. Over the last twenty years there have been some significant developments in a number of areas, including greater understanding of Revelation’s first-century setting, some settling of debate about the nature of its language, engagement with questions of the complexity of its structure, and a growing awareness of the impact of its rhetoric, both in its original contexts and in the history of interpretation. Yet there still remains a substantial gap between much scholarly insight and its appropriation at a more popular level.
Key Words: Apocalypse • Revelation • interpretation • social setting • rhetorical criticism • language • Old Testament in the New
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on
Logos is about to publish Lenski’s Commentary on the New Testament electronically. The commentary is on the way to replication.
If you want this very helpful exegetical commentary, you may order it for $199.95, but you have to do it immediately. Shortly, the price will change to $299.95.
Thorough as a student of Greek, R. C. H. Lenski interprets the books of the New Testament with meticulous exegetical research while providing an original, literal translation of the text. With his conservative Lutheran perspective, he is unwavering in his high view of Scriptural authority, probing deeply and passionately—arguing his conclusions masterfully.
Beyond exegesis, he provides linguistic and textual analysis, historical background such as information on the author, date, time of writings, authorial intent, chief themes, and much more. Often addressing difficult text, evading nothing, Lenski evaluates multiple interpretations before choosing one in particular. The Lenski Commentary, therefore, will introduce you to a range of interpretations and viewpoints, allowing you to see how other interpretations relate to one another, and will provide the context as to why he has settled on a particular viewpoint.
Richard Charles Henry Lenski, a distinguished Lutheran scholar and commentator, studied for the ministry at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Columbus, Ohio. Upon earning his Doctor of Divinity, he became Dean of the seminary. He was a former professor at Capital Seminary (now Trinity Lutheran Seminary) in Columbus, Ohio, where he taught in the fields of exegesis, dogmatics, and homiletics. His numerous books and commentaries are written from a conservative perspective.
Here is more information: Lenski’s Commentary on the New Testament (12 Vols.)
