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

-20-
First, it is likely that Oikoumenios was not Chalcedonian, but probably was a
Monophysite and perhaps an Origenist. Modem readers may be in the dark about
Oikoumenios' identity and theological affiliation, but thèse détails would hâve been well
known to Andrew and other contemporary church leaders. Secondly, perhaps Oikoumenios
himself was not objectionable, but his commentary was simply perceived as too influenced
by Origenism, or possibly too Hellenistic, too philosophical, or too Monophysite in tone.
Third, Oikoumenios' commentary may not hâve been sufficiently orthodox in style and
methodology. Long on imagination and short on traditional explanations, Oikoumenios often
surprises the reader with extremely unusual interprétations which might easily hâve led one
to question the validity or soundness of his other opinions. 55 Modem commentators and
writers on the history of exegesis often prefer Oikoumenios to Andrew. They treat Andrew as
a lackluster compiler of chains and praise Oikoumenios for his innovation and originality. 56
However, thèse would not hâve been considered admirable traits in ecclesiastical circles in
Andrew's time, or even now in the Orthodox world.
Another possibility is that Oikoumenios was not a clergyman, or perhaps he simply
was not a bishop. Nearly ail of the notable interpreters of the Bible in the early centuries of
the Church were bishops, or at least presbyters. A final reason for Oikoumenios' lesser
popularity might hâve been his style: the commentary is neither easy to read nor easy to use.
Oikoumenios does not quote the text of Révélation and then comment upon it in an orderly
fashion, as do most commentators. Rather, the text of Révélation, other biblical quotations,
and his comments flow into and out of each other in a continuous stream. It is often difficult
to distinguish the text of Révélation from biblical allusions and citations, as well as from the
One example of Oikoumenios' imaginary propensity is his interprétation of the twenty four elders (Rev. 4:4),
whom interpreters almost universally consider to be représentatives of Old and New Israël. But Oikoumenios
believes thèse to be spécifie persons whom John saw in heaven, twenty one personalities from the Old
Testament and three from the New. Oikoumenios even names them. Another example is his interprétation of the
four animais by the throne (Rev. 4:6), widely interpreted in the patristic tradition as representing the four
evangelists. Oikoumenios believes they represent the four basic éléments: earth, fire, water and air.
56 Among them, Adèle Monaci Castagno, "I Commenti de Ecumenio e di Andréa di Cesarea: Due letture
divergenti dell'Apocalisse." Memorie délia Accadmeia délie scienze di Torino II, Classe di scienze morali,
storiche e filologiche V, Fascicolo IV, (1981) 303-424, 423. Castagno concludes that Oikoumenios is more
original and more educated than Andrew. Ibid, 426. She finds Andrew's commentary rather disappointing and
believes it is akin to a catena (Ibid, 423), but later she expresses some appréciation for Andrew's préservation of
the Greek tradition of Apocalypse interprétation. Ibid, 426.