andrew of caesarea and the apocalypse in the ancient church of the ...

-16-
"But what does he mean by adding what must soon take place since those things
which were going to happen hâve not yet been fulfilled, although a very long time,
more than five hundred years, has elapsed since this was said?" 4
Numerous efforts hâve been made to circumvent the problem of Oikoumenios'
identity by challenging the date which clearly places the Oikoumenian commentary at the
end of the sixth century. Scholars such as Schmid 47 and more recently (and quite strenuously)
John Lamoreaux argued that the author of the Oikoumenian commentary is the same
Oikoumenios who was a Monophysite correspondent of Severus of Antioch in the earlier part
of the same century. 49 An earlier dating of Oikoumenios would neatly provide us with an
important bishop named Makarios as a potential récipient of Andrew's commentary.
However, after objectively analyzing the évidence, the opinion that the earlier Oikoumenios,
Monophysite rhetor and friend of Severus, wrote the commentary must be rejected. A désire
to neatly wrap up Oikoumenios' identity by brushing off Oikoumenios' own référence to the
date as a mistake, as Schmid does, or straining to interpret the five hundred years as a
référence to Christ's incarnation, as Lamoreaux does, is unsupportable and lacks credibility.
Lamoreaux's logic is weak, somewhat circuitous, and his reasoning is not persuasive.
The greatest weight must be given to Oikoumenios' clear statement that he is writing
more than five hundred years after the Révélation was received by John, ("since this was
said''), not since the Incarnation. Any scholar would hâve to counter the author's own
46 Oik. 1.3.6, De Groote 68, Suggit 22.
47 Josef Schmid, "Die griechischen Apokalypse-Kommentare," Biblische Zeitschrift 19 (1931): 228-54.
48 John Lamoreaux, "The Provenance of Ecumenios' Commentary on the Apocalypse," Vigiliae Christianae
52, no. 1 (1998): 88-108. One of Lamoreaux's primary arguments is that it is highly unlikely that two highly
educated men with the unusual name of Oikoumenios could hâve lived in the same century. This is an
extremely weak argument, given the fact that local préférences exist for certain names, and furthermore
Lamoreaux does not seem to consider even the simple possibility that the commentary could hâve been falsely
attributed to the well-known earlier figure of Oikoumenios. The earliest manuscript of Oikoumenios does not
bear his name. See Adèle Monaci Castagno, "Il Problema délia datazione dei commenti al' Apocalisse di
Ecumenio e di Andréa di Cesarea." Atti délia Accademia délie scienze di Torino II, Classe de scienze morali,
storiche efilologiche 114 [1980]: 224-246, 227. Castagno and Marc De Groote place Oikoumenios at the end of
the sixth century. However John Suggit seems to be persuaded by Lamoreaux's arguments and dates
Oikoumenios to the first half of the sixth century, despite Oikoumenios' own statement, because of
Oikoumenios' many peculiar inconsistencies and because Oikoumenios cites Evagrius, whom Suggit and
Lamoreaux believe Oikoumenios would not hâve cited after 553 (Suggit 4-6). See also footnotes 626 and 820.
49 Oikoumenios states more than once that John wrote in the time of Domitian, so no one can argue for an
earlier date based on the idea that Oikoumenios might hâve believed that the Apocalypse was written during the
reign of Nero. (See fh 41.)