The Relevance of Andrew of Caesare for NT Textual Criticism

8/9/2019 The Relevance of Andrew of Caesare for NT Textual Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-relevance-of-andrew-of-caesare-for-nt-textual-criticism 1/14

e Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea

for New Testament Textual Criticism

juan hernández jr. [email protected]

Bethel University, St. Paul, MN 55112

Contemporary textual critics attend to a variety of pressing questions. Nolonger restricted to the quest for the “original” text of the NT,1 current practition-ers pursue a number of interrelated issues. Topics like scribal activity, theological

variation, the nature and scope of the NT canon, and the sociohistorical worlds of scribes and their manuscripts are now commonplace in text-critical discussions.2

This article was originally presented as a paper in the New Testament Textual CriticismSection at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston, Massachusetts,November 21, 2008.

1 Recent treatments that track these trends include Eldon Jay Epp, “Issues in New Testa-

ment Textual Criticism: Moving from the Nineteenth Century to the Twenty-First Century,” inRethinking New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. David Alan Black; Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-demic, 2002), 17–76; Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: ItsTransmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed.; New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press,2005), 280–99; and David C. Parker, “Textual Criticism and Theology,” ExpTim 118 (2007):583–89.

2 On scribal activity, the most recent book-length publications include Juan Hernández Jr.,Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus,

Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi (WUNT 2/218; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Dirk Jongkind,Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (TS 3/5; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007); James R. Royse, Scribal

Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents 36;Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008).

On theological variation, the respective studies of Eldon Jay Epp and Bart D. Ehrman,though not the first works of scholarship on this topic, have been the most influential by far. SeeEldon Jay Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTSMS 3; Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966); Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scrip-tures: The Effect of Early Christian Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993). For the application of this approach to the book of Revelation, see Hernán-dez, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences; idem, “The Apocalypse in Codex Alexandrinus:

JBL 130, no. 1 (2011): 183–196

This article was published in JBL 130/1 (2011) 183–96, copyright © 2011 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase

copies of this issue or to subscribe to JBL, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 866-727-9955 [toll-free in

North America] or 404-727-9498, by fax at 404-727-2419, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.

183



The definition of what a textual critic is (and does) has been broadened to includethe pursuit of questions once considered peripheral to the discipline.

These questions are not new. Writing at the threshold of the early Byzantineera, Andrew of Caesarea displays an awareness of competing variants,3 commentson their theological significance,4 and condemns scribes who atticize the Greek manuscripts of the Bible.5 Andrew’s Commentary on the Apocalypse appears toreflect the same integration of issues that characterizes contemporary text-criticalresearch, albeit from the perspective of the seventh century.6 Andrew’s handful of

Its Singular Readings and Scribal Habits,” in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and

Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay (ed. Patrick Gray and Gail R. O’Day; NovTSup 129; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008), 349–52; and idem, “A Scribal Solution to a Problematic Measure-ment in the Apocalypse,” NTS 56 (2010): 273–78. The Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Tex-

tual Criticism of the New Testament was also devoted to this topic: see H. A. G. Houghton andD. C. Parker, Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? (TS 3/6; Piscataway, NJ: Gor-gias, 2007).

On the nature and scope of the New Testament canon, see Eldon Jay Epp, “Issues in theInterrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon,” in Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962–2004 (NovTSup 116; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 595–639. Seealso Robert A. Kraft, “The Codex and Canon Consciousness,” in The Canon Debate (ed. LeeMartin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 229–33; and, in thesame volume, Harry Y. Gamble, “The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the StatusQuestionis,” 267–94; and Daryl D. Schmidt, “The Greek New Testament as a Codex,” 469–84.With respect to the book of Revelation and its appearance among noncanonical works, Metzgerobserved that “[o]ne of the unusual and often overlooked features of a considerable number of manuscripts of the book of Revelation is the presence of other texts of a miscellaneous character.. . . Revelation not infrequently stands in the middle of volumes that have no other biblical con-

tent. Several of the manuscripts that contain Revelation are the quires containing Revelation takenout of the middle of some general theological book.” The significance of this phenomenon remainsto be explored. See Bruce M. Metzger, “The Future of New Testament Textual Studies,” in The

Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text (ed. Scot McKendrick and Orlaith O’Sullivan;London: British Library, 2003), 205.

On the sociohistorical worlds of scribes, see Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters: Lit-

eracy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2002).

On manuscripts, see Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); and David C. Parker, An Introduction to theNew Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

3 Josef Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, vol. 1, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisarea (Münchener theologische Studien 1, HistorischeAbteilung 1; Munich: K. Zink, 1955), 38, ll . 10–17 (Rev 3:7); 161, l . 19 and 162, ll . 1–4 (Rev 15:6).

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., 262, ll . 3–10 (Rev 22:18–19).6 The titles of papers presented in the New Testament Textual Criticism Section during the

SBL meeting in Boston in 2008 clearly showcase this increased integration: http://www.sblsite.org/assets/pdfs/2008_SessionGuide_FriSat.pdf.

184 Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011)






text-critical exempla speaks directly to a discipline that probes the relevance of scribal activity and challenges contemporary assumptions about its significance.In particular, Andrew’s assessment of textual variation confounds modern sensi-bilities. Andrew embraces textual variants that produce a semantic difference inthe reading of the Apocalypse and excoriates scribes who make stylistic changes.Andrew’s Commentary on the Apocalypse offers a distinctively Byzantine appraisalof variants that enriches our understanding of textual variation and contributes tocurrent discussions about its significance for textual criticism.

I. History of Research

Little is known about Andrew of Caesarea or his commentary today. Despite

the availability of Josef Schmid’s critical edition of Andrew’s Greek text,7

scholar-ship in this area has stalled for six decades. The challenge of dealing with an un-translated, early Byzantine text is a major factor. Many works of late antiquity andthe early Byzantine period share this fate. This état des choses, coupled withSchmid’s daunting text-critical apparatus for Andrew’s commentary, can discour-age even the most daring scholars. No modern translation of Andrew’s commen-tary exists in any language today.8 Portions of the work are available in English, buta full rendering of the nearly three-hundred-page commentary has yet to be pub-lished—a critical first step for understanding any ancient work.9

The lack of a full translation is only one problem. Most of the availableresearch remains inaccessible to the broader community of scholars, appearingmostly in dated studies. With the exception of Schmid’s monograph, treatments of the archbishop’s work are also brief and offer only a sampling of what can be learned

from the commentary.10 The Apocalypse’s putative status as an eschatological work

7 See n. 3 above.8 This lacuna is soon to be filled by Eugenia Constantinou’s forthcoming translation of

Andrew of Caesarea’s commentary for The Fathers of the Church Series (Washington, DC:Catholic University of America Press).

9 Substantial translated portions of Andrew’s commentary are found in William C.Weinrich, Revelation (ACCS 12; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005). However, most of Andrew’s commentary still remains without translation, as Weinrich’s volume also covers a litany of additional commentaries on Revelation and has had to limit what can be included. Anotherwork that offers a number of quotations of Andrew of Caesarea is Averky Taushev, The Apocalypsein the Teachings of Ancient Christianity (trans. Father Seraphim Rose; Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995).

10 These include Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, vol. 5, Die letzte

Period der altkirchlichen Literatur mit Einschluss des ältesten armenischen Schrifttums (Freiburg:Herder, 1932), 102–5; Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und Theologische Literatur im ByzantinischenReich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12; Munich: Beck, 1959), 418–19; Gerhard Podskalsky,Byzantinische Reichseschatologie: Die Periodisierung der Weltgeschichte in den vier Grossreichen

Hernández: e Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea 185






presents another challenge. Andrew’s commentary is often mined for informationabout “the world to come.” Such a narrow focus, however, fails to do justice to thecommentary’s standing as an exemplar of early Byzantine practices.11 Other aspectsof the work require attention, and Andrew’s assessment of textual variation in lightof his broader hermeneutical approach to Scripture will occupy the discussion here.

II. Form, Structure, and Hermeneutic of the Commentary

We know very little about Andrew. We know that he was the archbishop of Caesarea Cappadocia (Kayseri in modern-day Turkey) and that his administration,spanning the years 563–614, began as the age of Justinian (d. 565) drew to a close.At the time he lived, the effects of the previous era’s christological debates—epito-

mized in the Council of Chalcedon—were still being felt and made their way intothe commentary.12 Andrew’s occasional remarks on the text appear to reveal moreabout early Byzantine attitudes toward the Bible than about his actual text-criticalpractices.13

Andrew divides his commentary into twenty-four “discourses” (λόγοι), whichare then subdivided into three “heads” (κεφάλαια), resulting in seventy-two sec-

(Daniel 2 und 7) und dem tausendjährigen Friedensreiche (Apok. 20). Eine motivgeschichtlicheUntersuchung (Münchener Universitäts-Schriften, Reihe der Philosophischen Fakultät 9; Munich:W. Fink, 1972), 86–88; Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of PatristicEschatology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 198–200; and Claudio Moreschini and EnricoNorelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, vol. 2, From the Council of

Nicea to the Beginnings of the Medieval Period (trans. Matthew J. O’Connell; Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 2005), 198–200.11 In fact, taken at face value, the opening prologue indicates that the commentary was writ-

ten in response to questions generated by the seventh-century context of the readers.12 Among these were concerns over monophysitism and Origenism. For a full discussion of

Chalcedon and its aftereffects, see Patrick T. R. Gray, “The Legacy of Chalcedon: ChristologicalProblems and Their Significance,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (ed.Michael Maas; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 215–38.

13 As will be evident below, Andrew prefers to explore the interpretive possibilities of mul-tiple textual data rather than restore the original wording of the text. The practice appears to stemfrom a commitment to the various senses of Scripture characteristic of Byzantine-era writers.Andrew’s espousal of multiple meanings is evident also in his use of Oecumenius’s commentary.Andrew will often reject a particular interpretation proffered by Oecumenius on the grounds thatit violates the “literal” sense of Scripture, but then accept it (or part of it) under another level of meaning (Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar , 91, ll . 13–14; cf. Marc de Groote, ed., Oecumenii

commentarius in Apocalypsin [Traditio exegetica Graeca 8; Leuven: Peeters, 1999], 143, ll . 196–99).The dictates of Chalcedon provide the parameters for the various senses of Scripture. See furtherHernández, “Andrew of Caesarea and His Reading of Revelation: Catechesis and Paraenesis,” inDie Johannesapokalypse: Kontexte – Konzepte – Rezeption (ed. Jörg Frey, James A. Kelhoffer, andFranz Tóth; WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011).







tions in the work.14 Each of the λόγοι concludes with a doxology. Andrew derivesthe number twenty-four from the number of elders before God’s throne.15 Origen’santhropological model for interpreting Scripture appears to be the inspiration forAndrew’s tripartite segmentation:

[J]ust as there are three parts to man, [so] every God-breathed Scripture has beengiven three parts by Divine Grace. The literal and historical senses are a kind of body. The figurative sense, which guides the reader to what the mind can per-ceive, is akin to a soul. The anagogical and contemplative senses, which are aboutthe most venerable things to come, appear as the spirit.16

Andrew’s stated hermeneutical ideal is not applied with rigor or consistency in the work. What can be characterized as “clockwork” is Andrew’s arbitrary appealto various modes of reading as necessary.17 Andrew’s partitioning of Revelationinto seventy-two sections is also problematic; it obfuscates (if not violates) the nat-

ural divisions of the work.18 The form and structure of Andrew’s commentary appear to have been constructed in spite of the Apocalypse. Nonetheless, Andrew’sstatement about the nature of Scripture and a quasi-Origenic mode of exegesis canshed light on his handling of textual variants.

Andrew’s use of sources also merits attention. Andrew’s commentary alludesto a variety of works, canonical and noncanonical.19 Predictably, important patris-tic figures also appear. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome, Epiphanius,Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Alexandria are prominent.20 Some of theirremarks have survived only in Andrew’s commentary.21 Andrew prefixes the labels

14 Ibid., 10, ll . 4–7.15 Ibid.16 Ibid., 8, ll . 17–22 (my translation). Cf. Origen, Princ. 4.2.4–9.17 This much is clear from the sporadic application of the various modes of reading from

section to section in the commentary.18 Perhaps the most obvious example of this is where the seven letters to the churches of

Asia Minor fall within the commentary’s larger literary structure. Rather than grouped together,they are unevenly spread out over three λόγοι in an attempt to accommodate their content to thecommentary’s repetitive tripartite structure (Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar , 11–46). Thesame occurs with the sequence of seals, trumpets, and bowls—to name only a few more itemsforced into Andrew’s Procrustean bed.

19 Schmid offers a helpful appendix identifying the “nichtbiblischen Autoren und Paralle-len” in Andrew’s commentary (Der Apokalypse-Kommentar , 275). Each reference, however, needsto be checked against available sources. I have spotted an occasional error. For example, Andrew alludes to a story about Simon Magus and Peter in his comments on Rev 13:17. Schmid wrongly identifies the source as the Acts of Pilate. The correct source is the Acts of Peter 28. See the appa-ratus in Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar , 144.

20

These are identified at the beginning of the work and show up throughout the commen-tary. See Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar , 10, ll . 9–12.21 Schmid identifies these throughout the apparatus of the commentary, such as Andrew’s

quotation of a lost writing by Epiphanius. See Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar , 15, l . 16 and16, ll . 1–3.







ὁ µέγας, ὁ µακάριος, or ὁ θεῖος to the names of the fathers, showing his high regardfor them and reflecting an early Byzantine protocol.22 Ironically (perhaps even cyn-ically), Andrew makes no mention of Oecumenius’s commentary on the Apoca-lypse—a major sixth-century work that exerted an important and demonstrableinfluence on Andrew.23 Andrew draws obsessively from Oecumenius, often with-out veering from his exemplar in style or content, except in theologically strategiclocations.24

III. Scribal Activity according to Andrew of Caesarea:

Claims of Atticizing

Andrew’s words provide the point of departure for his views on textual vari-

ation. The clearest statement about scribal activity appears at the end of the com-mentary. Commenting on the anathema uttered against those who would tamperwith the text of the Apocalypse, Andrew writes:

Dreadful is the curse upon those who counterfeit the divine words, capable of depriving the arrogant of the blessings of the coming age, for their recklessnessis bold indeed. Therefore, to keep us from suffering, [John] warns us who hear,lest we add or subtract anything. Instead, we should regard the characteristics of Scripture as more trustworthy and venerable than Attic compositions and dialec-tical arguments. For even among these, should anyone find anything that is con-trary to the rules (µὴ κανονιζόµενα), he is referred to the trustworthiness of theirpoets and authors.25

22 Ibid., 10, ll . 9–12.23 Andrew’s commentary mirrors Oecumenius’s commentary in at least 235 sections where

the diction, syntax, and subject matter of the former give strong evidence of borrowing from thelatter. For a full listing of these parallels see de Groote, Oecumenii commentarius, 337–42.

24 Although the practice of “taking over” the language of well-known, important literary sources would have been quite common in both ancient and early Byzantine literary contexts, thefull significance of Andrew’s appropriation of Oecumenius’s language has yet to be examined fully.Given the high incidence of textual interplay between the two works, it may not be far-fetched tosee Andrew’s commentary as a µίµησις of Oecumenius’s commentary. Although Andrew’s truemotives are not explicit, we can speculate that he was offering an alternative to Oecumenius’s per-ceived monophysitism and Origenist speculations. This, however, must also be examined andsubstantiated in a comprehensive manner. (See John N. Suggit, Oecumenius, Commentary on the

Apocalypse [FC 112; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006], 6–13; andDaley, Hope of the Early Church, 198). The strategic differences between the two commentaries

appear to indicate that Andrew sought to supplant Oecumenius’s work by bringing it into greaterconformity with his understanding of “Chalcedonian orthodoxy.” See Hernández, “Andrew of Caesarea and His Reading of Revelation.”

25 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 262, ll . 3–10 (my translation).







Andrew’s commentary reveals a number of things. First, he claims that scribesare atticizing the biblical text, presumably on the basis of known literary works orAttic manuals.26 Second, he attempts to discourage such scribal activity in two ways:by anathematizing scribes who make Attic changes to the text and by insisting thateven great literary works have their stylistic infelicities. In cases of literary inele-gance, Andrew avers, one trusts the poets and authors. If one can defer to giftedmortals on matters of style and diction, how much more so the divine author of Scripture?

Andrew’s statement raises a number of questions. Are Andrew’s remarks aboutatticizing based on firsthand observation? If so, is he referring only to the Apoca-lypse, or does the charge extend to the rest of the NT, perhaps even the LXX? Or isthe statement a mere rhetorical flourish, such as might occur at the end of a book?Andrew discloses neither the location nor the extent of the putative atticizing. The

reader must examine the nature of his claim.

IV. Atticizing in the Early Byzantine World,

the Apocalypse, and Andrew

That atticizing was a common literary practice during the early Byzantineperiod is well attested. Sixth-century writers such as Procopius and Agathiasengaged in the “imitation” (µίµησις) of classical authors.27 Procopius, for example,uses a classicizing Greek style that was far removed from daily speech, containingarchaic features such as the optative mood, the dual number, and a litany of Atticterms.28 Andrew’s countercultural barb against atticizing would have rung true—at least rhetorically. Whether scribes (as opposed to authors) were atticizing to the

degree Andrew’s statement implies is another question.The short answer is yes and no. The NT’s Greek manuscript tradition bears

traces of atticizing; yet they are neither as systematic nor as comprehensive as wasonce claimed.29 Moreover, the scribal tendency to atticize is only one of several

26 This appears to be the force of κανονιζόµενα, a cognate of κανών and a term used often forgrammatical or literary standards. See LSJ, 875.

27 Averil Cameron, Agathias (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), 57–74; and Cameron’s Procopius

and the Sixth Century (Transformations of the Classical Heritage 10; Berkeley/Los Angeles: Uni- versity of California Press, 1985), 33–46.

28 Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century , 43.29 For the view that scribal atticizing should be a major consideration for the creation of

textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the NT, see G. D. Kilpatrick, “Atticism and the Text

of the Greek New Testament,” in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze: Festschrift für Prof. Josef Schmid zum70. Geburtstag (ed. J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mussner; Regensburg: Pustet, 1963), 125–37; J. K.Elliott, “The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament: An Evaluation,” NovT 15 (1973): 298–99; idem, “Eclecticism and Atticism,” ETL 53 (1977): 107–12.







explanations for the creation of textual variants.30 If we consult one of the well-known Attic manuals, such as Phrynichus’s Ecloge,31 and ask whether the scribes of the Apocalypse32 atticized in a manner that reflects the booklet’s concerns, theresults are negligible. Of the 424 non-Attic terms banned by Phrynichus, the Apoc-alypse contains only eighteen. Of the eighteen, only four appear to be changed froma non-Attic to an Attic term, and then only in some manuscripts. The prepositionἄχρις, which Phrynichus dubbed “spurious,”33 is changed to ἄχρι in only a few places.34 The noun σάκκος, which is deemed “Doric” by Phrynichus,35 drops theadditional κ in only a handful of manuscripts.36 Phrynichus also rejects the use of the imperfect ἔµελλον with the aorist infinitive ποιῆσαι, preferring a constructionwith the present infinitive ποιεῖν, as proper Attic.37 If Phrynichus means that anaorist infinitive should never follow the imperfect ἔµελλον, then here too the resultsare mixed. Some manuscripts retain the aorist infinitive; others change it.38 Finally,

Phrynichus also calls the use of σαλπικτής “approved” Attic over against the formσαλπιστής.39 Again, scribal activity here appears to be mixed.40

In short, most of the terms considered non-Attic by Phrynichus are neverchanged to the preferred Attic term by the scribes of the Apocalypse. Changes aremade in few manuscripts, but even in those cases where an Attic switch is all but

30 Other explanations include a tendency to harmonize or to alter the Greek toward theSeptuagint. See E. C. Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in idem, Studies in Method-ology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS 9; Leiden: Brill, 1969), 154–55; C. M.Martini, “Eclecticism and Atticism in the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” in On

Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida (ed. Matthew Black and William A.Smalley; Approaches to Semiotics 56; The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 151–55; G. D. Fee, “Rigorousor Reasoned Eclecticism—Which?” in Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in

Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. J. K. Elliott;NovTSup 44; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 184–91.31 Eitel Fischer, ed. Die Ekloge des Phrynichos (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer

Grammatiker 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974).32 “Scribes of the Apocalypse” refers to any scribes responsible for transcribing the work in

the manuscript tradition throughout its transmission history.33 Phrynichus, Ecloge 6: Μέχρις καὶ ἄχρις σῦν τῷ σ ἀδόκιµα. µέχρι δὲ καὶ ἄχρι λέγε.34 In Rev 2:25, ἄχρι is attested in the following MSS: ) C 1611.2053.2329.2351 pc.35 Phrynichus, Ecloge 225: Σάκκος ∆ωρεῖς διὰ τῶν δύο κκ, Ἀττικοὶ δὲ δι’ ἑνός.36 In Rev 6:12, σάκος is attested in the following MSS: 175.325.517.456.459.627.628.680.935.

2033.2048; for σάκους in Rev 11:3, see 025.336.792.1876.2033.2043.2082.2256.37 Phrynichus, Ecloge 313.38 In Rev 3:2, ἔµελλον ἀποθανεῖν is attested in MSS ) A C 1854.2050.2053.2329.(2351) MAlatt

sy h sa; ἔµελλον ἐποθνῄσκειν pc. See H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collationsof All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, together

with the Testimony of Versions, Commentaries and Fathers. A Complete Conspectus of All Author-ities (2 vols.; London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), 2:92.

39 Phrynichus, Ecloge 162: Σαλπικτὴς τὸ δόκιµον διὰ τοῦ κ, οὐχὶ δὲ διὰ τοῦ σ.40 In Rev 18:22, σαλπικτῶν is attested in MS 2059.







certain, we cannot detect a tendency to atticize.41 A comprehensive examination of scribal habits in each manuscript of the Apocalypse (presumably on the basis of singular readings) is necessary to substantiate such a claim. So far, studies of the textof Revelation in p47, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi have uncovered nosuch pervasive tendency.42

Phrynichus would not have been the only available standard for atticizing inthe early Byzantine world. One can imagine the literati of the period consulting a

variety of works.43 Moreover, Phrynichus’s own qualifications as an expert “atti-cizer” have been called into question.44 Finally, Andrew gives no indication of hisown sources for proper Attic Greek—other than his allusion to the κανονιζόµενα(“the rules”). Nonetheless, Phrynichus is a good place to start. Given the availabletext-critical studies on the atticizing tendencies of NT scribes, Andrew’s chargemay be overblown. Ironically, Andrew registers his complaint against atticizing by

atticizing. He libels the scribes, labeling them παραχαράττοντες (“counterfeiters”),an unapologetically Attic term.45

41 To this we might add the observation that some of Phrynichus’s preferred Attic expres-sions involve a change to a completely different word or phrase, such as that the suggestion thatµεγιστᾶνες be rendered µέγα δυναµένους (Ecloge 170). Such wholesale changes for the sake of anAttic expression, however, have not been found so far within the Apocalypse’s manuscript tradi-tion. Further, we might question the degree to which a scribe, predisposed to faithfully copyinghis exemplar, would have been at liberty to make more dramatic and disruptive changes. Whileswitches in consonants or vowels are routine in the text of the NT, the wholesale insertion of dif-ferent words or phrases appears to be far less common, though it is attested. Had atticizing beenas prevailing a trend as charged, perhaps we might have expected to see more disruptive alterationsto the text.

42

Hernández, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences, 82–86, 120–23, 131, 150–55; Royse,Scribal Habits in the Early Greek New Testament Papyri, 197, 357–58, 397–98, 544, 614, 704.43 For a useful summary of available Attic writers and manuals, see Kilpatrick, “Atticism

and the Text of the Greek New Testament,” 125–37.44 Ibid.45 Note Andrew’s Attic spelling of παραχαράττοντες with -ττ- rather than -σσ-. Typical of the

literary conventions of the early Byzantine period, Andrew’s commentary exhibits its fair share of Attic style and diction. However, as the quotation appears to indicate, he draws a sharp distinc-tion between his use of Attic Greek in the commentary and the inappropriate atticizing of theGreek text of the Apocalypse by scribes. Such a distinction appears to have had its roots in thecomplex linguistic heritage left to the Byzantine world by the fathers of late antiquity. RobertBrowning’s assessment to that effect is applicable here: “The Hochsprache was firmly establishedas the proper medium for all important or dignified communication. But at the same time anundercurrent of rejection of the literary tongue was associated with a certain powerful manifes-tation of popular piety” (“The Language of Byzantine Literature,” in idem, History, Language and

Literacy in the Byzantine World [Northampton, UK: Variorum Reprints, 1989], 108). It appearsthat Andrew’s condemnation of atticizing scribes is a perfect example of the former, even if largely rhetorical. See also Francisco Rodríguez Adrados, A History of the Greek Language: From Its Ori-

gins to the Present (trans. Francisca Rojas del Canto; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 226–28; V. Rotolo, “The







V. Andrew and Revelation 3:7

Andrew identifies two concrete examples of textual variation that make a dis-cernible difference in the reading of the Apocalypse. His treatment of these variantscontrasts markedly with the ire reserved for atticizing scribes.

The first variation appears in his commentary on Rev 3:7. Andrew’s Greek text of the Apocalypse states that Jesus carries the “key of David.” Some manu-scripts, however, have Jesus carrying the “keyof Hades.”46 The former reading findssupport among the earliest and best witnesses of the Apocalypse’s manuscripts.47

Our critical editions have therefore opted correctly for “key of David.”48 The vari-ant probably arose as a scribal harmonization toward Rev 1:18, where Jesus holdsthe keys of death and “Hades.”

Andrew is aware of both the variant (preserved in “some copies”) and its the-ological utility. He comments:

[Christ’s] kingdom has been called “the key of David” for this is a symbol of authority. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is also the key of the book of Psalms and of every prophecy, through whom the treasures of knowledge are opened. [Christ]receives the first key according to his humanity, and the second, according to hisdeity, which is without beginning. But in some copies [τισιν τῶν ἀντίγραφων]instead of “of David,” “of Hades” is written; thus, the authority of life and deathis confirmed in Christ through the key of Hades.49

Faced with a genuine textual variant, Andrew bypasses any discussion of scribal activity, textual corruption, or even the priority of readings. Instead, he offersa theological commentary on the variant reading. None of his alarm over scribaltampering surfaces in a clear and acknowledged case of textual corruption.

Andrew’s chief concern is with the corruption of Chalcedonian Christology. Thetextual variant serves as an opportunity to reaffirm Christ’s authority over life anddeath.

VI. Andrew and Revelation 15:6

Andrew’s handling of the textual variant in Rev 15:6 reflects a similar ten-dency. In this passage, the angels are clothed with “pure bright linen” (λίνον καθαρὸν

Fortunes of Ancient Greek in the Middle Ages,” A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginningsto Late Antiquity (ed. A.-F. Christidis; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1225–40.

46 τοῦ ᾅδου, 2050 pc.47

There are actually two variants here: one with the article and one without. Both, how-ever, are genitive and do not alter the meaning of the text. The first is ∆αυίδ A C 1611.1854.2053.2329 pc; the second is τοῦ ∆αυίδ ) M Or.

48 UBS4 and NA27.49 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar , 38, ll . 10–17 (my translation).







λαµπρόν). Some manuscripts, however, read λίθον instead of λίνον, so that the angelsare clothed with a pure bright “stone.” Unlike the variant in 3:7, this one is not soeasily dismissed. Support for the variant includes some important witnesses,50

including Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, and Oecumenius.51 Moreover, λίθον is clearly the more difficult reading. One can easily see how λίνον arose as a replacement forλίθον, but not the opposite. Yet it appears that for the editors of the critical editionsof the Greek NT the lectio difficilior is so difficult that it borders on nonsense andis therefore rejected as a corruption of λίνον.52

Setting aside the question of the “original,” we note that Andrew’s text alsoagrees with our modern critical editions and that—as with 3:7—he is equally awareof the variant and its theological utility. He writes: “Out of this temple the angels . . .go out clothed in either ‘linen’ or ‘stone,’ just as some of the copies [τινα τῶνἀντίγραφων] contain.”

Andrew then incorporates both readings into his commentary, explaining thatthe angels are so clothed, “because of the absolute purity of their nature [reflectingκαθαρόν]; their nearness to Christ the cornerstone [reflecting the variant λίθον];and the brightness of their virtue [reflecting λαµπρόν].”53

As in Rev 3:7, Andrew forgoes a decision that privileges one reading overanother and offers a theological exposition of both. Andrew’s modus operandi isnot altogether different from the text-critical method of Origen, who occasionally accepted and commented on multiple readings.54 Christ’s identity as the “corner-stone” (ἀκρογωνιαῖον) provides an additional incentive both to accept and to com-ment on the variant.55 The reading appeared to be sanctioned by Scripture.56

50 λίθον A C 2053.2062 pc vg sy.51 The importance of these witnesses for the Apocalypse cannot be overstated. According to

Schmid, the combined attestation of AC surpasses the value of all other witnesses and standsnearer to the original than all other text-types. The text of Oecumenius’s commentary is virtually identical with these two witnesses: “AC, womit der Text des Oikumenios im ganzen identisch(und die Vulgata nahe verwandt) ist, überragen an Zeugenwert alle übrigen Textformen. An einererheblichen Zahl von Stellen haben AC allein den Urtext bewahrt. Ihr überragender Zeugenwertberuht darauf, dass ihr gemeinsamer Text bewusste Korrekturen überhaput kaum enthält.Insofern steht dieser Text dem Urtext näher als alle anderen Textformen” (Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, vol. 2, Die alten Stämme [Münchener theolo-gische Studien 1, Historische Abteilung Ergänzungsband 1; Munich: K. Zink, 1956], 147).

52 As stated by Metzger, speaking on behalf of editors of the United Bible Societies fourthrevised edition of the Greek New Testament, “[It] makes no sense” ( A Textual Commentary on theGreek New Testament [2nd ed.; New York: American Bible Society, 1994], 680).

53 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar , 161, l . 19 and 162, ll . 1–4 (my translation).54 See Bruce M. Metzger, “Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings

in the New Testament Manuscripts,” in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Chris-

tian (ed. Bruce M. Metzger; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 88–103.55 See Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:6 actually has λίθον and ἀκρογωνιαῖον in apposition.56 Oecumenius makes the same connection in his commentary, so he, rather than Andrew,

appears to be ultimately responsible for the link. The difference is that Oecumenius is comment-ing on his text, whereas Andrew comments on a variant. See Suggit, Oecumenius, 136.







VII. Andrew and Revelation 1:5: A Possible Variant?

One final example of textual variation requires consideration. In the openingdoxology of Rev 1:5, praise is directed toward “the one who loves us and released[λύσαντι] us from our sins.” Some manuscripts, however, read “washed” (λούσαντι)us from our sins.57 A scribal inability to distinguish between the pronunciations of the two is blamed for the textual corruption.58

Andrew does not mention a textual variant in his comments. His wordplay,however, is suggestive and may indicate a familiarity with the variant. Andrew writes: “Glory is appropriate to the one who ‘released’ us [λύσαντι] from the chainsof death . . . and ‘washed’ us [λούσαντι] from our blemishes of sin.”59

Andrew appears to do here what he has done with the textual variants of 3:7

and 15:6: co-opt competing readings into his theological commentary. The only difference is that Andrew makes no mention of a particular variant in 1:5. Ourknowledge of the Apocalypse’s textual tradition, coupled with Andrew’s identicalexpository practices elsewhere, leads us to suspect that he is aware of its presence.Andrew’s knowledge of the variant appears almost certain when one considers hisclose reading of Oecumenius’s commentary. Oecumenius’s text of the Apocalypsereads “washed” (λούσαντι), the very word Andrew juxtaposes with “releasing”(λύσαντι).60

VIII. Conclusion

Andrew’s text-critical practices offer every indication that he did not operate

with the same assumptions or concerns as traditional textual criticism.61 His iden-tification, discussion, and acceptance of multiple textual variants contrast markedly with his blistering criticism of scribes who atticize the Scriptures. Attic changeswould have produced no semantic difference to the text; yet, for Andrew, theseposed the greater threat. The commentary’s postscript heightens the irony. At theconclusion of Andrew’s commentary, an anonymous editor raises concerns overthe circulation of multiple versions of Andrew’s work. Andrew had apparently lost

57 λύσαντι p18) A C 1611.2050.2329.2351 MA h sy; Prim; λούσαντι P 1006.1841.1854.

2053.2062 MK lat bo.58 Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament , 255.59 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar , 16, ll . 8–9 (my translation).60 Oecumenius also speaks of “washing” and “releasing” in his commentary, but he employs

different words and refrains from Andrew’s evocative wordplay. Commenting on his text of Rev 1:5, which contains “washed” (λούσαντι), Oecumenius speaks of the one who “set us free fromour transgressions” (τοῦ γὰρ ἀποπλῦναι ἡµῶν τὰς ἁµαρτίας).

61 Traditional textual criticism is concerned with the restoration of the “original” or “earli-est attainable” text of the NT and tracing its transmission history.







some drafts in his possession and found it necessary to restore the original word-ing from memory. The final compiler now frets over the inevitable discrepanciesthat have resulted, but assures readers that the “meaning remains the same” (τῆς δια-νοίας τῆς αὐτῆς).62 The redactor’s final remarks shed light on the vicissitudes of tex-tual transmission in late antiquity.63 They also shed additional light on Andrew’stext-critical practices. Andrew restored the wording of his commentary when nec-essary; he did not restore the wording of the Apocalypse when he had the chance.Textual variation was an opportunity to comment on the theological significanceof multiple readings.

Andrew’s handling of variants also contributes to the discipline’s discussion of textual variation. Textual critics are often elated when a significant textual variantis uncovered, especially if it can be conscripted into a greater cause. These oftenserve as “windows” into another time and place, when things were still in flux and

presumably being fought over.64

Andrew’s text-critical practices indicate, however,that what fascinates us may not be what held the attention of the ancients. We findmeaning in textual variation and imagine the communities that would espouse oreven create such variants. We imagine scenarios of bitter battles over orthodoxy. Butwith Andrew, textual variation appears to have been an opportunity to certify whatwas already known to be “true” for an early Byzantine bishop. The potential threatof a textual difference was easily mitigated by appeals to Origenic modes of exege-sis, the sayings of the fathers, and the dictates of Chalcedon. Even Andrew’s com-plaint about “atticizing scribes” appears to say more about perceived culturalpretension than about the text of the NT or attested scribal practices. In short,Andrew’s discussion of variants challenges contemporary assumptions about thesignificance of textual variation and offers an alternative model for understandingthe appropriation of the NT. Multiple textual data were not a problem to be solved;

they were opportunities for exploring a variety of interpretive possibilities, facili-tated by the various senses of Scripture.

IX. Further Study

The full text-critical relevance of Andrew of Caesarea’s Commentary on the Apocalypse remains to be explored. Additional areas in need of study include

62 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar , 267, l . 15.63 See Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian

Texts (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1995); and Markus Mülke, Der Autor und sein

Text: Die Verfälschung des Originals im Urteil antiker Autoren (Untersuchungen zur antiken

Literatur und Geschichte 93; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008).64 Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social His-

tory of Early Christianity,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays onthe Status Quaestionis (ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1995), 361–79.







Andrew’s citations of the NT and the LXX,65 his use of patristic sources, and the ori-gin and character of the Andrew “recension.”66 None of these items has receivedattention since the publication of Schmid’s monograph in the 1950s. With this brief examination of Andrew’s assessment of textual variation, however, we continue ouradvance beyond the discipline’s traditional boundaries and probe the appropria-tion of the Scriptures by various communities of faith that lie beyond the first few centuries of early Christian expansion—a task for which NT textual criticism isprimed.

65 Today there is an entire series, The Text of the New Testament in the Greek Fathers (cur-rently under the editorship of Michael W. Holmes), devoted to the study of NT citations in patris-tic literature, using methods pioneered by Gordon D. Fee and Bart D. Ehrman. Schmid’s work with its proliferation of citations would appear to be an ideal candidate for such a study.

66 E. C. Colwell issued a call for a reexamination of Schmid’s characterization of the Andrew

“recension” over six decades ago. In his sixth conclusion, Schmid argued that the Andreas andByzantine text-types are not revised forms of the two earlier text-types (p47-Sinaiticus and ACOec) but revisions of older texts equal in antiquity. Colwell counters, however, that all Schmid hasreally shown is that the Andreas and Byzantine text-types are not “entirely” derived from earlierones. Moreover, Colwell notes that some of Schmid’s evidence for the relationship between thefourth-century corrector of Sinaiticus and the Andreas text depends on the prior conclusions of Bousset’s study (Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament [TU 2/4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894])—an earlier work that (at Colwell’s time) had not been reviewed in light of current understandingsof the history of text-types. In addition to this, Colwell calls for clarification of what Schmid meansby “revised forms” of early text-types in the case of the Andreas and Byzantine text-types. As forSchmid’s seventh conclusion—that a stemma of text-types cannot be made, Colwell thinks thatthis indeed can be done with the evidence Schmid has provided, “at least in large outlines.” SeeE. C. Colwell, “Method in Establishing the Nature of Text-Types of New Testament Manuscripts,”in idem, Studies in Methodology, 45–55. Exactly what method will best suit an exploration of the

relationship between Andreas’s text-type and the others in Revelation’s manuscript traditionremains to be determined. One possibility is the application to the Apocalypse’s manuscript tra-dition of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method developed at Münster—a task that has yetto be undertaken. See Gerd Mink, “Eine umfassende Genealogie der neutestamentlichen Über-lieferung,” NTS 39 (1993): 481–99; idem, “Was verändert sich in der Textkritik durch die Be-achtung genealogischer Kohärenz?” in Recent Developments in Textual Criticism: New Testament,Other Early Christian and Jewish Literature. Papers Read at a NOSTER Conference in Münster,

January 4–6, 2001 (ed. Wim Weren and Dietrich-Alex Koch; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003), 39–68;idem, “Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition: The New Testament. Stemmata of Vari-ants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses,” in Studies in Stemmatology II (ed. Pieter vanReenen, August den Hollander, and Margot van Mulken (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben- jamins, 2004), 13–85.



