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

Codex Sinaiticus Project will launch its online website July 24th, 2008. High definition photos, transliterations and translations will be avaible (see the screen dump, the original of which is here).

From the Codex Sinaiticus Project website:

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript – the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity – is of supreme importance for the history of the book.

The Codex Sinaiticus Project

The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration to reunite the entire manuscript in digital form and make it accessible to a global audience for the first time. Drawing on the expertise of leading scholars, conservators and curators, the Project gives everyone the opportunity to connect directly with this famous manuscript.

The Codex Sinaiticus Website

The first release of the Codex Sinaiticus Project website will be launched on 24 July 2008 here. The website will be substantially updated in November 2008 and in July 2009, by when the website will have been fully developed.

See more:

• Codex Sinaiticus, the world’s oldest Bible, goes online
• Verdens ældste bibel bliver online (in Danish)

Scholars interested in the textual-criticism of Revelation should take a look at this post written by Peter M. Head:

Evangelical Textual Criticism: Aune on the Text of Revelation

Aune on the Text of RevelationI have been impressed with Aune’s text-critical work in his commentary on Revelation. It contains perhaps the most thorough and independent text-critical judgement of any commentary of the last thirty years. (Discuss?)

One general point he makes puzzles me and I wonder if anyone else can shed any light on it. It relates to the important fact that …

POxy – Revelation 13:18

A 300 dpi picture is here (I hope). An image with a lower quality is here.

The pictures are provided by Papyrology at Oxford.

A Norwegian article by Kjetil Johansen can be found here.

Hernández, Juan, Jr. Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Series 2, 218. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. xv + 241 pp.

Text-critical studies are rare, especially on this scale. This volume is originally presented as a Ph.D.-thesis at Emory University in 2006.

According to the publisher, the discussion of Hernández is “Modelled on the respective studies of Ernest C. Colwell and James R. Royse”.

“Juan Hernández Jr. offers a fresh and comprehensive discussion of the Apocalypse’s singular readings in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi. Moreover, the singular readings of the Apocalypse are also assessed in light of the work’s reception history in the early church.

“The author shows that the scribes of these three manuscripts omitted more often than they added to their texts, were prone to harmonizing, and, in the case of at least one scribe, made significant theological changes to the fourth century text of the Apocalypse.

“The author also attempts to integrate the findings of the most recent text-critical research of the Apocalypse with studies of its reception history in the early church.

“His book is the first systematic study of scribal habits on the Apocalypse that takes seriously the claim that some scribes were making changes to the text of the Apocalypse for theological reasons.”

Future contributions, not least from the text-critical specialists, will help to assess the particular conclusions of this study of Hernández. See

• Paul Foster, The Expository Times 118 (2007): 463-464
• Darrell Hannah, Journal for the Study of the NT 29.5 (2007): 152-153

However, the prolegomena and the History of Search of the Greek text of the Apocalypse (chs. 1 and 2) as well as the observations made will be useful, irrespective of how one might evaluate the conclusions drawn by Hernández.

Google Books provides access to (parts) of this volume here.

More info at Amazon: US * UK * DE