Andreas of Caesarea Study Archive

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

611: Our Lord foretold the future events to the apostles who were asking about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and about the end of time, as much as they were able to receive. These things already happened, in the siege of Vespasian and Titus, to the Judeans who killed Christ, just as Josephus the Hebrew narrates.

Andreas of Caesarea
563 – 637

Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia |  Published Revelation Commentary


“With regard however to the inspiration of the book (i.e. the Apocalypse) we hold it superfluous to speak at length; since the blessed Gregory (I mean, the Divine) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius and Hippolytus, bear testimony to its genuineness.” (On the Apocalypse, Preface)

(On Revelation 6:12)
And I saw, when he had opened the sixth seal, and behold there was a great earthquake, and the sun became as black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood. And the stars from heaven fell upon the earth, as a fig-tree casteth its green figs when it is shaken by the wind.” [Apocalypse 6:12-13] “There are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.”

(On Revelation 6:14b-17) “Our Lord foretold the future events to the apostles who were asking about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and about the end of time, as much as they were able to receive. These things already happened, in the siege of Vespasian and Titus, to the Judeans who killed Christ, just as Josephus the Hebrew narrates.”

(On Revelation 7:1)
“These things are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the Romans upon the Jews.” (Taken from “Before Jerusalem Fell,” pp. 106)

(On Revelation 7:2)
“Although these things happened in part to Jewish Christians, who escaped the evils inflicted on Jerusalem by the Romans, yet they more probably refer to Anti-christ.” (Taken from “Before Jerusalem Fell,” pp. 107)

“Either the hour of temptation here spoken of is that which was on the very point of arriving, namely, the persecution of the Christians by those who at that time impiously held the supreme power at Rome ; from which He promises that the Church shall be rescued : — or else he means that universal assault of Antichrist upon the believers, which will take place at the end of the world : from which He promises to deliver her faithful members ; who shall be previously snatched away by death from thence, that they may not be tempted above what they are able to bear. And He well adds; Behold I come quickly: — for immediately after the tribulation of those days, as He saith, ‘ (Matth. xxiv. 29.) the Lord will come. Therefore He exhorts them to keep the treasure of faith inviolate.”

1911 Encyclopedia (1911)
“External Evidence and Canonicity, 2nd Century.—It is possible that the Apocalypse was known to Ignatius, Eph. xv. 3 (Rev. xxi. 3); Philad. vi. I (Rev. iii. 12). Some have thought also that Barnabas (vi. 13, xxi. 3) was acquainted with our text, but this is highly improbable. Andreas of Caesarea mentions’ Papias as attesting the credibility of Revelation, an.d cites two of his remarks on Rev. xii. 7.” (“Book of Revelation”, 1911 Encyclopedia)

Catholic Encyclopedia (1907)
“Bishop of that see in Cappadocia, assigned by Krumbacher to the first half of the sixth century, though he is yet variously placed by others from the fifth to the ninth century. His principal work is a commentary on the Apocalypse (P.G. CVI, 215-458, 1387-94), important as the first commentary on the book that has come down to us, also as the source from which most of its later commentators have drawn. The writer differs from most of the Byzantine commentators by reason of his extensive acquaintance with early patristic literature.” (Catholic Encyclopedia; Andreas)

Henry Cowles (1881)
“..the Syriac translation of the Apocalypse has this superscription: “The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the Island of Patmos to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor.” Most of the Syriac New Testament (known as the “Peshito”), i. e., all the unquestioned books, are supposed to have been translated late in the first century or very early in the second; but the Syriac version of the Apocalypse is not so old. Yet Ephraim the Syrian of Nisibis [died A. D. 378] wrote commentaries on nearly the whole Bible; often appeals to the Apocalypse; but wrote only in Syriac and probably was unacquainted with Greek and therefore must have had this book in the Syrian tongue. This superscription seems to testify, to a current tradition in Syria at least as far back as his day, assuming the date of the book to the age of Nero.—Of later witnesses, Andreas of Cappadocia [flourished about A. D. 500], in a commentary on this book, favors the Neronian date. Arethas also, his successor [about A. D. 540], yet more decisively. He assumes the book to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, for he explains chapters 6 and 7 as predictions of that event.—Plainly then the traditions of the early ages and the testimony of the fathers were not all in favor of the Domitian date.—Some incidental circumstances strongly favor the earlier date; e. g., the account given in much detail by Eusebius [Ec. His. 3: 23], who quotes Clement to the effect that John after his return from this banishment in Patmos, mounted his horse and pushed away into the fastnesses of the mountains to reach a robber chief who had apostatized from the Christian faith. But Jerome represents John in the last years of his life (i. e., at the time of Domitian’s persecution) as being so weak and infirm that he was carried by other hands with difficulty to his church-meetings to say in tremulous tones: “My little children, love one another.”—These traditions of the aged apostle, compared with each other and with the probabilities of the case, seem to forbid us to assign the date of the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian.”

Elder Paisios of Mt Athos
St. Andreas of Caesarea writes, “On the dirty name of the Antichrist. Time and experience will reveal to those who are vigilant the accuracy of the numbers and anything else written about him … but divine grace did not wish that the name of the scourge be written in the Holy Bible; a lot will be found written on the subject…” (Greek Orthodox Website)

Rich Elliot 
“In the Apocalypse, the defining work has been that of Josef Schmid.[12] Schmid partly accepted the Hortian view that only two text-types (Alexandrian and Byzantine) have been preserved for this book. However, both groups must be subdivided. What had been called the Alexandrian text in fact includes two types. The best group is represented by A/02, C/04, the vulgate, and a handful of later minuscules such as 2053; this probably ought to be labelled the “Alexandrian” text. Distinctly inferior, despite its earlier attestation, is the group which contains /01 and P47. The Byzantine text falls into the “strict” Byzantine group (what the Nestle-Aland text calls K, of which the earliest full representative is 046; this is the largest grouping, and has several subgroups) and the text found in Andreas of Caesarea’s commentary (A, representing perhaps a third of the total manuscripts, starting with P/025 and including 1r, the manuscript on which the Textus Receptus is based). ” (Text Types and Textual Kinship)

F.W. Farrar (1882)
“all the earliest Christian writers on the Apocalypse, from Irenaeus down to Victorious of Pettau and Commodian in the fourth, and Andreas in the fifth, and St. Beatus in the eighth century, connect Nero, or some Roman emperor, with the Apocalyptic Beast .” (Early Days of Christianity, p.541)

“But, apart from St. John’s own words, it cannot be conceded that the central conception of the Præterist exegesis is a mere novelty of the 17th century.  On the contrary, we can trace from very early days the application of various visions to the early emperors of Pagan Rome.  Thus Justin Martyr believed that the Antichrist would be a person who was close at hand, who would reign three and a half years. [Dial. c. Tryph. p. 250]  Irenaeus also thought that Antichrist, as foreshadowed by the Wild Beast, would be a man ; and that “the number of the Beast” represented Lateinos, “a Latin,” [Iren. Haer. v. 25]  Hippolytus compares the action of the False Prophet giving life to the Beast’s image, to Augustus inspiring fresh force into the Roman Empire. [De Antichristo, p.6]  Later on, I shall furnish abundant evidence that a tradition of the ancient Church identified Nero with the Antichrist, and expected his literal return, just as the Jews expected the literal return of the Prophet Elijah.  St. Victorinus (about A.D.303) counts the five dead emperors from Galba, and supposes that, after Nerva, the Beast (whom he identifies with Nero) will be recalled to life. [“Bestia de septem est quoniam ante ipsos reges Nero regnavit.”]  St. Augustine mentions a similar opinion. [De Civ. Dei, xx.19]  The Pseudo-Prochorus, writing on Rev. xvii. 10, says that the “one which is” is meant for Domition.  Bishop Andreas, in the fifth century, applies Rev. vi.12 to the siege of Jerusalem, and considers that Antichrist will be “as a king of the Romans.” (PRÆTERIST INTERPRETATION)

“Epiphanius says that St. John was banished in the reign of Claudius, and the earliest Apocalyptic commentators, as well as the Syriac and Theophylact, all place the writing of the Apocalypse in the reign of Nero.  To these must be added the author of the “Life of Timotheus,” of which extracts are preserved by Photius.  Clemens of Alexandria and Origen only say that “John was banished by the tyrant,” and this on Christian lips may mean Nero much more naturally than Domitian – See Epiphan.Haer. li 23 and 33 ; Andreas on Rev. vi. 12 ; Arethas on Rev. vii. 1-8 ; Syriac MS. No. 18 ; TheophylactComment. in Joann.” (Apocalypse)

A.R. Fausset (1871)
“Its canonicity and inspiration (according to a scholium of ANDREAS OF CAPPADOCIA) are attested by PAPIAS, a hearer of John, and associate of POLYCARP. PAPIAS was bishop of Hierapolis, near Laodicea, one of the seven churches. WORDSWORTH conjectures that a feeling of shame, on account of the rebukes of Laodiceain Revelation, may have operated on the Council of Laodicea, so as to omit Revelation from its list of books to be read publicly (?).”

dead bodies–SoVulgate, Syriac,and ANDREAS. But A, B, C, the oldest manuscripts, and Coptic read the singular, “dead body.” The two fallen in one cause are considered as one.
the great cityeight times in the Revelation elsewhere used of BABYLON ( Rev 14:8 16:19 17:18 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21 ). In Rev 21:10 (English Version as to the new Jerusalem), the oldest manuscripts omit “the great” before city, so that it forms no exception. It must, therefore, have an anticipatory reference to the mystical Babylon.

also our–A, B, C, ORIGEN, ANDREAS, and others read, “also their.” Where their Lord, also, as well as they, was slain. Compare Rev 18:24 , where the blood of ALLslain on earth is said to be found IN BABYLON, just as in Mat 23:35 , Jesus saith that, “upon the Jews and JERUSALEM” (Compare Mat 23:37, 38 ) shall “come ALL the righteous blood shed upon earth”; whence it follows Jerusalem shall be the last capital of the world apostasy, and so receive the last and worst visitation of all the judgments ever inflicted on the apostate world, the earnest of which was given in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. In the wider sense, in the Church-historical period, the Church being the sanctuary, all outside of it is the world, the great city, wherein all the martyrdoms of saints have taken place. Babylon marks its idolatry, Egypt its tyranny, Sodom its desperate corruption, Jerusalem its pretensions to sanctity on the ground of spiritual privileges, while all the while it is the murderer of Christ in the person of His members. All which is true of Rome. So VITRINGA. But in the more definite sense, Jerusalem is regarded, even in Hebrews ( Hbr 13:12-14 ), as the world city which believers were then to go forth from, in order to “seek one to come.”

they–rather, “(some) of the peoples.”
peopleGreek, “peoples.”
kindredsGreek, “tribes”; all save the elect (whence it is not said, The peoples . . . but [some] of the peoples . . . , or, some of the peoples . . . may refer to those of the nations . . ., who at the time shall hold possession of Palestine and Jerusalem).
shall see–So Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic. But A, B, C, and ANDREAS, the present, “see,” or rather (Greek, “blepousin“), “look upon.” The prophetic present.
dead bodies–So Vulgate, Syriac, and ANDREAS. But A, B, C, and Coptic, singular, as in Rev 11:8 , “dead body.” Three and a half days answer to the three and a half years (see on JF & B for Re 11:2, 3), the half of seven, the full and perfect number.
shall not suffer–so B, Syriac, Coptic, and ANDREAS. But A, C, and Vulgate read, “do not suffer.”
in graves–so Vulgate and PRIMASIUS. But B, C, Syriac, Coptic, and ANDREAS, singular; translate, “into a sepulchre,” literally, “a monument.” Accordingly, in righteous retribution in kind, the flesh of the Antichristian hosts is not buried, but given to all the fowls in mid-heaven to eat ( Rev 19:17, 18, 21 ).
     12. they–so A, C, and Vulgate. But B, Coptic, Syriac, and ANDREAS read, “I heard.”
17. thanks–for the answer to our prayers ( Rev 6:10, 11 ) in destroying them which destroy the earth ( Rev 11:18 ), thereby preparing the way for setting up the kingdom of Thyself and Thy saints.
and art to come–omitted in A, B, C, Vulgate, Syriac, CYPRIAN, and ANDREAS. The consummation having actually come, they do not address Him as they did when it was still future, “Thou that art to come.” Compare Rev 11:18 , “is come.” From the sounding of the seventh trumpet He is to His people JAH, the ever present Lord, WHO IS, more peculiarly than JEHOVAH “who is, was, and is to come.”  (Robert JamiesonA. R. Fausset and David Brown; Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; Revelation, Chapter 11)

Edward F. Hills
“The Human Aspect of the Textus Receptus 
God works providentially through sinful and fallible human beings, and therefore His providential guidance has its human as well as its divine side. And these human elements were evident in the first edition (1516) of the Textus Receptus. For one thing, the work was performed so hastily that the text was disfigured with a great number of typographical errors. These misprints, however, were soon eliminated by Erasmus himself in his later editions and by other early editors and hence are not a factor which need to be taken into account in any estimate of the abiding value of the Textus Receptus.

“The few typographical errors which still remain in the Textus Receptus of Revelation do not involve important readings. This fact, clearly attributable to God’s special providence, can be demonstrated by a study of H. C. Hoskier’s monumental commentary on Revelation (1929), (19) which takes the Textus Receptus as its base. Here we see that the only typographical error worth noting occurs in Rev.17:8, the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Codex 1r the manuscript which Erasmus used in Revelation.

The last six verses of Codex 1r (Rev. 22:16-21) were lacking, and its text in other places was sometimes hard to distinguish from the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in which it was embedded. According to almost all scholars, Erasmus endeavored to supply these deficiencies in his manuscript by retranslating the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Hoskier however, was inclined to dispute this on the evidence of manuscript 141. (19) In his 4th edition of his Greek New Testament (1527) Erasmus corrected much of this translation Greek (if it was indeed such) on the basis of a comparison with the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (which had been printed at Acala in Spain under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes and published in 1522), but he overlooked some of it, and this still remains in the Textus Receptus. These readings, however, do not materially affect the sense of the passages in which they occur. They are only minor blemishes which can easily be removed or corrected in marginal notes. The only exception is book for tree in Rev. 22:19, a variant which Erasmus could not have failed to notice but must have retained purposely. Critics blame him for this but here he may have been guided providentially by the common faith to follow the Latin Vulgate.” (Textus Receptus, Chapter 8)
“Andreas, who was Bishop of Caesarea, states definitely that the Apocalypse was a prophecy of the things to happen from Christ’s first coming to the consummation. He interprets the “hundred and forty-four thousand” as meaning true Christians, and antichrist to be a Roman king and “pseudo- Christ,” or false Christ.  Arethras, who wrote in the ninth century, mainly follows Andreas.” (Interpretation and Use of Prophecy)

Edward Hobbs (1999)
“Jonahan asks: ‘For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. Has that manuscript been identified? I would love to know which MS it is.’

It is cursive 1 (of Revelation, not Gospels, Acts, and Paul), which is now renumbered as 2814.  It is the text of Revelation with a  commentary on it by Andreas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia.  (The commentary text somtimes mucks up the text of the Apocalypse, forcing Erasmus to back-translate words here and there, in addition to 22:16-21 which were missing (being the last leaf, frequently falling off books even in these modern times). My memory tells me Tregelles collated it soon after it was located by  Delitzsch–must have been in the 1870’s.” (Here)

William Hurte (1884)
“That John saw these visions in the reign of Nero, and that they were written by him during his banishment by that emperor, is confirmed by TheophylactAndreasArethas, and others.  We judge, therefore, that this book was written about A.D. 68, and this agrees with other facts of history.. There are also several statements in this book which can only be understood on the ground that the judgment upon Jerusalem was then future.” (Catechetical Commentary: Edinburgh, Scotland, 1884)

Robert Jamieson (1871)
(On Revelation 11:8) “the great cityeight times in the Revelation elsewhere used of BABYLON (Re 14:8 16:19 17:18 18:10,16,18,19,21). In Re 21:10 (English Version as to the new Jerusalem), the oldest manuscripts omit “the great” before city, so that it forms no exception. It must, therefore, have an anticipatory reference to the mystical Babylon. “

“Sodom–The very term applied by Isa 1:10 to apostate Jerusalem (compare Eze 16:48).”

” also our–A, B, C, ORIGEN, ANDREAS, and others read, “also their.” Where their Lord, also, as well as they, was slain. Compare Re 18:24, where the blood of ALL slain on earth is said to be found IN BABYLON, just as in Mt 23:35, Jesus saith that, “upon the Jews and JERUSALEM” (Compare Mt 23:37,38)” (Robert JamiesonA. R. Faussetand David Brown; Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Biblein loc.)

Tim LaHaye
“As you can see, one must be absolutely correct in all three of these introductory decisions or the final identification becomes suspect. Moreover, each of these decisions is purely arbitrary.” As Robert Mounce concludes, “However one tries to calculate the seven kings as Roman emperors, he encounters difficulties which cast considerable doubt on the entire approach.”

To avoid this problem and make the interpretation more reliable, the preferred view is to see the seven heads as seven successive empires represented by seven kings. This view goes all the way back to Andreas of Caesarea. He saw the seven kings as representing seven successive kingdoms, each of which was associated with a specific king: 1) Assyria (Ninus), 2) Media (Arbakus), 3) Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar), 4) Persia (Cyrus), 5) Macedonia (Alexander), 6) the old Roman Empire (Romulus), and 7) the new Roman Empire (Constantine), followed by 8) the kingdom of Antichrist. There are minor variations of this scheme, but all include Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, historical Rome, and Rome II or the reunited Roman Empire under Antichrist.” (End Times Controvesy, p. 144)

Dr. William Smith (1901)
The division of the Gospels into “chapters” must have come into general use some time before the fifth century. The division of the Acts and Epistles into chapters came into use at a later time. It is commonly referred to Euthalius, who, however, says that he borrowed the divisions of the Pauline Epistles from an earlier father and there is reason to believe that the division of the Acts and Catholic Epistles which he published was originally the work of Pamphilus the martyr. The Apocalypse was divided into sections by Andreas of Caesarea about A.D. 500. The titles of the sacred books are from their nature additions to the original text. The distinct names of the Gospels imply a collection, and the titles of the Epistles are notes by the possessors, and not addresses by the writers.” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, “New Testament“)

Greg Stafford (1998)
Jonathan says: “I think it is safe to take EK as creating some sort of separation from the group (the “dead”) from which Christ came, to which he once belonged. EK is not used in Col. 1:15 for there is no separation from the group to which belongs; he did not come “from” the KTISIS; he is still a part of it, though the “firstborn.”

Compare Col 1:18 to Rev 1:


If the distinction is really as you say, then the writer of the Revelation
believes Jesus to still belong to the group of dead people, whereas the
writer of Colossians believes he is no longer dead. I think that both
writers believe Jesus to be risen from the dead. Jonathan

Not at all. Though the tradition of mss. which follow the text of Andreas of
Caesarea do use EK, John can use the genitive of origin without the prepositions EK or APO.  The fact that the preposition is used in Col. 1:18 simply makes the interpretation more evident, though both are rather obvious in view of what is said.” (Here)

Stephen Whitten
“Another witness from about the “apostolic age” is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, (geographically not far from Ephesus).  There is evidence that he was personally familiar with (St.) John, the Apostle. (Indications are that this was a first hand experience.  However, if not on a direct basis, he certainly was personally acquainted with several of his disciples.)  Though his evidence is indirect in nature, Andreas (Bishop of Caesarea) in the prologue to his commentary on the Apocalypse, informs us that Papias testified to its Divinely inspired character.  It is widely believed that Papias derived his ideas of the millennium from the Apocalypse.  Though compelling, the evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Revelation remains nonetheless circumstantial as the apostolic writings that are in existence furnish no solid verification other than that which has been inferred over the centuries.  It is therefore critical that Christians rely upon the tutorial nature of the Holy Spirit to guide them in their evaluation of this work.” (Lutheran: Book of Revelation)

W.A. Young (1911)
“One of the best known preterists is Eusebius (A.D. 260-340), the “father of church history.” He details in his classic work Ecclesiastical History, the woes that waits Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The focal point of Revelation he says is the destruction of Jerusalem. Others who hold to this view are: Josephus, clement of Alexandria, Andreas of Cappadocia, and John Lightfoot (1601-1675). In more modern times we consider the writings of Milton Terry (1840-1914) as well. Philip Schaff’s (1819-1893) has taken a strong preterist view in his classic work History of the Christian Church. The first five chapters of Revelation is a remainder of the impending judgment. The bulk of the prophecy (chapters 6-19) is a revelation of the judgment that is about to befall Israel, including symbolic descriptions of the Beast (Nero), the great harlot (Israel), and Babylon the Great (Jerusalem). In chapter 19, we see the victorious Christ going to war against His enemies (Ps. 110). In chapter 20, John describes the millennial reign of Christ, which began in the first century and will end with the final judgment. Chapters 21 and 22 describe visions of the new heaven and earth and the New Jerusalem, realities that have already been inaugurated but not yet fully consummated.”


Revealed in The Book of the Dead is a passage that records how the Ancient Egyptians received the gift of emerald from the great god Thoth. Its color was a reminder of spring, and so the stone was dedicated to eternal youth. For this reason, The Book of the Dead instructed body embalmers to place emeralds at the throat of every mummy. This ensured that the limbs of the soul maintained a youthful strength during its long journey through the underworld, and was protected from harm.

The gem was also important to the history of various religions, including Christianity, and acquired a mental of mystic religious significance. For example, like other gems, emeralds were carried or set into amulets and worn in order to keep the wearer focused on spiritual matters. The Christian bishop of Caesarea, Andreas, dedicated the emerald of Saint John the Apostle, and his ability to soothe the souls of sinners.

It is said that 12 different gemstones were set into the breastplate of the great Hebrew High Priest, each engraved with the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel. One of the gems was an emerald, bearing the name of God. Similarly, the New Jerusalem was reputedly built on 12 foundations “garnished with all manner of precious stones” – emerald being the fourth foundation.

As a focus for religious thought, Muslims also use jewel, and emeralds represent their first heaven; in India, presenting an emerald to a god brought with it knowledge of the soul and of eternal life. (Emerald Ring)


MS in Russian Church Slavonic on paper, Russia, ca. 1550, 283 ff. (complete), 19×13 cm, single column, (14×8 cm), 20 lines in Cyrillic half-uncial, 6-line initial in coloured wash, 4 illuminated ornamental headpieces, 3 drawings in coloured washes of a two-headed dragon breathing fire, a four-headed hydra, and a saint holding the sun balancing on 2 wheels being pulled in opposite directions by horses, a full-page illuminated miniature of the Last Judgment in full color wash.

Binding: Russia, 17th c., blindstamped calf gilt, sewn on 4 double cords.

Provenance: 1. Owner in Zermoika (1837); 2. Fedor Semenov, Sosnovsk (from 1837); 3. The Paul M. Fekula Collection, New York, MS 743 and F-XV (until 1990); 4. Sotheby’s 29.11.1990:68.



MS in Russian Church Slavonic on paper, Russia, 1812, 242 ff., 43×26 cm, single column, (30×15 cm), 24 lines in Cyrillic uncial, headings and passages in red, 4 tendril-work headpieces in red and blue, 3 7-line (6 cm) opening red penwork initials, 74 full-page miniatures in full colours influenced by the Luther Bible of 1522 and the Byzantine-Slavonic tradition.

Binding: Russia, 1812, blindtooled calf leather over bevelled wooden board, sewn on 6 cords.

Provenance: 1. Sam Fogg, London.

Commentary: The MS was made the year of Napoleon’s defeat at Moscow, possibly as a replacement for libraries damaged in the war. It is remarkable for its great size and the quality of the paintings, made at a time when MSS had to compete aesthetically with printed books in terms of appearance.

Exhibited: The Apocalypse and the Shape of Things to Come, British Museum, room 90 (Prints and Drawings Gallery), 17 December 1999 – 24 April 2000, cat. pp. 206-207.

Thomas Oller, an instructor at Harvard Extension School, will be at the Center the entire academic year. His project investigates relations between Buddhists and shamanists in modern-day Mongolia, including spiritual, ritual, and cultural ties, mutual influences, and mutual recognition. Dr. Oller conducted fieldwork on shamanism in the Mongolian countryside in 1993-1994 and 1998-1999, interviewing shamans and observing rituals in northern, far eastern, and far western Mongolia. In 1996-1997, he was a fellow at Harvard’s Davis Center for Russian Studies, carrying out further work on his topic. His previous research, for a Ph.D. in Slavic languages at Brown University, focused on medieval Slavic manuscripts containing the biblical Apocalypse with commentary by Archbishop Andreas of Caesarea. In addition to completing a textual study of the codices and discussing the origin of the translation of the Apocalypse into Slavic, the dissertation examined the question of canonicity in the early churches.”

“Oller, Thomas. The Nikol’skij Apocalypse codex and its place in the textual history of medieval Slavic apocalypse manuscripts. Brown University, 1993, 750 pp.  The subject of this dissertation is the Nikol’skij Apocalypse Codex, a 13th-century Russian Church Slavonic manuscript (MS 1 of the Nikol’skij Collection, Fond 32 in the Library of the Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia). This codex is the oldest extant Slavic manuscript containing the text of the Apocalypse. Each Biblical verse is followed by explanatory commentary. The commentary translates that of Andreas, a 6th-century Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia.

Chapter I describes in detail the physical, linguistic, and paleographical characteristics of the Nikol’skij codex. It also confirms that six other extant Slavic manuscripts were copied by the same scribe, who can be identified as Timofej Ponomar’, a sexton at St. James’ Church in Novgorod in the mid-13th century. Chapter II contains a complete edition of the text of the manuscript (which has never before been published) in Cyrillic Church Slavonic script. Chapter III: Translation of the Text. Chapter IV: Notes on the Manuscript Text. Chapter V examines historical data concerning the place and date of the translation of the Apocalypse into Slavic, including the question of whether Methodius translated the Apocalypse. It discusses the Slavic churches’ use of the Apocalypse and Slavic opinions as to its canonicity. The chapter then lists citations from the Apocalypse found in Old Church Slavonic texts and presents a descriptive catalogue of important medieval Slavic Apocalypse manuscripts. Chapter VI discusses linguistic data concerning when and where the Apocalypse was translated into Slavic, as well as the relationship of Nikol’skij to the original translation and to other early Apocalypse MSS. The Appendix discusses the origin and authorship of the Biblical Apocalypse, its canonicity, and its use by various churches. The Greek and Latin Churches receive most attention, with mention being made of the Syrian, Georgian, and other versions. “

Andreas of Cæsarea. VI. Greek. Nestle: (A). Merk: (An)
Archbishop of Cappadocian Cæsarea. Dated anywhere between c. 520 and c. 600. Most noteworthy work is a commentary on the Apocalypse (the earliest known to survive) that became so popular that copies of it form a major fraction of the surving tradition, being almost as common as the “strictly Byzantine” manuscripts. 1r, from which Erasmus prepared the Textus Receptus, is an Andreas manuscript, and certain of the marginal readings of the commentary wound up in the text. Andreas’s commentary is also responsible for the 72 divisions into which the Apocalypse is divided. [AA, FHAS]

“The number of the Beast is 666 or 616; the mark of the monster is his  name.  It may simply mean a number that people can understand as  opposed to that which requires supernatural wisdom to comprehend.   Andreas of Caesarea gives seven names:  Lampetis, daughter of the Sun  God; Teitan, Titan, a pagan god of vengeance; Palaibaskanos, an  ancient sorcerer; Benediktos, Blue Bastard; Kakos Odegos, Wicked  Guide; Alethes Blaberos, Really Harmful; and Amnos Adikos, Unjust  Lamb.  Victorinus gives Titan, Diclux (double-dealer), Antenos,  Opponent; and Genserikos, who is Gothic, the vandal king who conquered  Rome in 455.  Bede the Venerable gives three names; Beatus, a Spanish  monk, gives eight names among which are Damnatus (Damned),  Antichristus (Antichrist), and Acxyme (for aichime or achine, 666).

Having ascertained a terminus post quem, it is possible by means of evidence taken from Dionysius himself to fix a terminus ante quem, thus narrowing to about thirty years the period within which these writings must have originated. The earliest reliable citations of the writings of Dionysius are from the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century. The first is by Severus, the head of a party of moderate Monophysites named after him, and Patriarch of Antioch (512-518). In a letter addressed to a certain abbot, John (Mai, Script. vett. nov. coll., VII, i, 71), he quotes in proof of his doctrine of the mia synthetos physis in Christ the Dionysian Ep. iv (P.G., III, 1072 C), where a kaine theandrike energeia is mentioned. Again, in the treatise “Adversus anathem. Juliani Halicarn” (Cod. Syr. Vat. 140, fol. 100 b), Severus cites a passage from D.D.N., ii, 9, P.G., III, 648A (abba kai to pases — thesmo dieplatteto), and returns once more to Ep. iv. In the Syrian “History of the Church” of Zacharias (e. Ahrens-Kruger, 134-5) it is related that Severus, a man well-versed in the writings of Dionysius (Areop.), was present at the Synod in Tyre (513). Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia, wrote (about 520) a commentary on the Apocalypse wherein he quotes the Areopagite four times and makes use of at least three of his works (Migne, P.G., CVI, 257, 305, 356, 780; cf. Diekamp in “Hist. Jahrb”, XVIII, 1897, pp. 1-36). Like Severus, Zacharias Rhetor and, in all probability, also Andreas of Cappodocia,. inclined to Monophysitism (Diekamp, a “Book of Hierotheus”—Hierotheus had come to be regarded as the teacher of Dionysius—existed in the Syrian literature of that time and exerted considerable influence in the spread of Dionysian doctrines. Frothingham (Stephen Bar Sudaili, p. 63 sq.) considers the pantheist Stephen Bar Sudaili as its author. Jobius Monachus, a contemporary of the writers just mentioned, published against Severus a polemical treatise which has since been lost, but claims the Areopagite as authority for the orthodox teaching (P.G., CIII, 765). So also Ephraem, Archbishop of Antioch (527-545), interprets in a right sense the well-known passage from D.D.N., i, 4, P.G., III, , 529 A: ho haplous Iesous synetethe, by distinguishing between synthetos hypostasis and synthetos ousia. Between the years 532-548, if not earlier, John of Scythopolis in Palestine wrote an interpretation of Dionysius (Pitra, “Analect. sacr.”, IV, Proleg., p. xxiii; cf. Loof’s, “Leontius of Byzantium” (p. 270 sq.) from an anti-Severan standpoint. In Leontius of Byzantium (485-543) we have another important witness. This eminent champion of Catholic doctrine in at least four passages of his works builds on the megas Dionysios (P.G., LXXXVI, 1213 A; 1288 C; 1304 D; Canisius-Basnage, “Thesaur. monum. eccles.”, Antwerp, 1725, I, 571). Sergius of Resaina in Mesopotamia, archiater and presbyter (d. 536), at an early date translated the works of Dionysius into Syriac. He admitted their genuineness, and for their defence also translated into Syriac the already current “Apologies” (Brit. Mus. cod. add. 1251 and 22370; cf. Zacharias Rhetor in Ahrens-Kruger, p. 208). He himself was a Monophysite. (Catholic Encyclopedia; “Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite“)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.