William C. Weinrich

The ACCS edition of Revelation.

As with other volumes in the ACCS series, there is a helpful introduction and biographical sketches at the end. The book of Revelation is broken down into sections with an overview of patristic commentary on each and then selected comments for each verse.

Most of the frequently cited commentators are now available in full in the Ancient Christian Texts series: Victorinus of Petovium, Apringius of Beja, Caesarius of Arles, and Bede in one, and Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea in another. If those volumes are also consulted, the value of this work falls off a bit, but still proves useful with many comments from Primasius and Tyconius. Augustine, Origen, and Jerome are also cited consistently, as well as a few scattered quotations from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and a few other patristic authors.

The comments reflect an overwhelmingly typological perspective, thanks to the influence of Tyconius, Augustine, and Primasius; therefore, the church and her battle with heretics features prominently, and as many Christological and ecclesiastical readings are made as can be found in the text. Therefore, this volume has great benefit in terms of the history of interpretation of Revelation, but the reader will be disappointed if he or she looks to it in order to find the magical key that will unlock the real meaning of Revelation.… (altro)

The complete commentaries of Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea on Revelation.

After an extensive introduction to the authors and their time, the commentaries of each are presented. Oecumenius is dated to the sixth century and Andrew of Caesarea somewhat later (late sixth-early seventh centuries). Both men are interested in understanding Revelation in light of the Christological controversies which had recently raged, Oecumenius more than Andrew. Oecumenius has some strange/idiosyncratic understanding of many of the typological interpretations of Revelation, and Andrew is quick to correct them. In general, both follow a typological construct; Andrew's commentary is quite good, and not for nothing was the standard commentary on Revelation among the Eastern Orthodox for generations.

The paucity of exposition on Revelation in the East might seem strange until one recognizes that many in the East maintained skepticism regarding the canonicity of Revelation on account of its abuse at the hands of heretics. These two are the substantive eastern commentaries on the text in the patristic period, and whereas they are good for the understanding of the history of interpretation of Revelation and associations between Psalms and Revelation, few if any today would follow the exegetical paths of these eastern authors.

Good resources for the history of interpretation of Revelation.… (altro)