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

-18-
Secondly, few copies of Oikoumenios' commentary survive. This manuscript witness
is perhaps the most compelling évidence. The meager number of existing Oikoumenios
manuscripts is strong proof that the commentary was unacceptable. Only one complète copy
of the commentary exists along with only a few manuscripts with portions of the
commentary. 50
Andréas manuscripts, on the other hand, number eighty-three complète
copies, thirteen abbreviated versions, fifteen manuscripts with scholia and numerous other
manuscripts with notes from the commentary. In addition, Andrew's translated commentary
exists in manuscripts in Georgian, Armenian, Latin and Slavonic. Had Andrew's
commentary preceded Oikoumenios, the scant number of Oikoumenios manuscripts might
hâve been more easily explainable: one could surmise that Andrew's commentary was copied
more frequently because it was the first, and for that reason Oikoumenios was overlooked or
perceived as less necessary. But strangely, the reverse is true: although Oikoumenios'
commentary came first, it was Andrew's which quickly became prédominant.
Andrew's commentary was earnestly translated, prodigiously copied, and became the
standard and authoritative Eastern Christian commentary on Révélation. In contrast,
Oikoumenios' commentary was almost entirely lost to posterity. Why was Oikoumenios'
commentary not well received or widely accepted? This is a basic question, since it bears on
Andrew's purpose and motivation for composing a commentary, and possibly has a bearing
upon other underlying premises, presumptions, objectives of his interprétation and
conclusions in the commentary.
Andrew must hâve found the Oikoumenian commentary unacceptable overall. We
reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, when Andrew was pressed to write a
commentary on Révélation, he could simply hâve referred people to Oikoumenios'
commentary.
Second, Andrew could hâve borrowed heavily from Oikoumenios without
citing him to produce his own commentary, but he did not. 51
c'y
Oikoumenios, although this in itself is not surprising or unusual.
Third, Andrew never names
However, if Oikoumenios
De Groote discusses the Oikoumenios manuscript tradition and describes in détail the complète manuscript,
the partial manuscripts, as well as existing fragments and scholia. De Groote, 9-21.
51 Ambrose of Milan, in his composition, On the Six Days of Création, borrowed heavily from Basil the Great's
work of the same name without crediting him. This was considered acceptable by ancient standards.
52 Chrysostom, for example, never referred to other exegetes by name when citing the opinions of others.