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

-24-
poignantly describes how people reacted during the first two décades of the seventh century.
"Panic and désolation struck every province of the empire, and those who feared the end of
the world were in a sensé justified, for the society which they and thirty générations oftheir
ancestors had known was never to be restored." 77
The considérable vicissitudes of plague, famine, civil war, incursions by barbarian
invaders, and the gênerai weakening of the empire, led to a renewed interest in apocalyptic
writings, and prompted requests for a commentary on Révélation.
1.4.2 An Orthodox Response to Oikoumenios
Was it only dissatisfaction with Oikoumenios' work that may hâve motivated Andrew
and Makarios? Might there be another possibility? Perhaps the Oikoumenian commentary
was gaining influence and readership, if for no other reason than simply the lack of an
alternative Greek commentary. This, just as easily, could hâve provided at least some
motivation for Makarios to pressure Andrew to write his commentary.
Writing so soon after Oikoumenios had composed his commentary, and considering
the content and tone of Andrew's commentary, it is évident that Andrew wrote for the
purpose of providing an acceptable, sanctioned, orthodox guide to Apocalypse, so that
Greek-speaking Christians would not be forced to resort to Oikoumenios' commentary, and
so that Andrew might réfute points made in the Oikoumenian commentary itself.
Andrew wrote his commentary at least in part as an alternative to Oikoumenios and to
usurp any growing influence it might hâve gained. He and Makarios simply could not allow
Oikoumenios' interprétation to stand without a response from an intelligent and educated
ecclesiastical représentative of Chalcedonian Christianity.
77 Foss, 746. For more détails on the apocalyptic mood in the empire during the late sixth and early seventh
centuries, see Paul Magdalino's article, "The History of the Future and its Uses: Prophecy, Policy and
Propaganda" in The Making of Byzantine History, eds. Roderick Beaton and Charlotte Roueché (London:
Variorum, 1993), 3-34. Magdalino mistakenly believes, however, that Andrew of Caesarea was also swept up
into this apocalyptic fervor and that in his interprétation of Révélation Andrew "tries systematically to relate its
prophecies to the Roman Empire." Making of Byzantine History, 11. Magdalino badly misreads Andrew. If
Andrew wished to relate the events of the Apocalypse to current events he easily could hâve done so, but he
does not. Rather, he makes very clear his belief that the final times hâve not arrived. He does believe that the
Antichrist might come in the future as King of the Romans, because of the traditional patristic interprétation of
the succession of kingdoms. This is primarily because he cannot imagine a kingdom after the Roman Empire,
(which the Fathers characteristically believed was the final kingdom in the séquence), but he does not believe
that the end times hâve arrived. For Andrew's view of history and eschatology see chapter 6.4.1.