Steven Avery
Administrator
WIP
Oecumenius Revelation commentary - Trisagion expansion - sixth century?
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Greek Commentaries on Revelation (2011)
By Oecumenius,, Andrew of Caesarea,
https://books.google.com/books?id=JORIkBaj9HcC&pg=PA23
TRANSLATED BY William C. Weinrich
EDITED BY Thomas C. Oden
SERIES EDITORS Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray
What is one to make of these various arguments and the evidence that supports them?
The evidence clearly does not go in one direction. However, the following seem to me to
be reasonable conclusions from the evidence:
1. Oecumcnius was a layperson of high imperial rank (comes); he was married and was respected as a person of intellectual capacity (“philosophos,” "rhetor," "scholasticus”).30
2. The Oecumcnius who commented on Revelation and the Oecumenius who was a correspondent of Severus of Antioch are the same person. One must agree with Lamoreaux that the evidence of the Syriac fragment, which explicitly identifies them, is strong. The argument of Castagno is materially weakened by not taking that important evidence into account, and until that evidence should be rendered doubtful the death of Severus in 538 remains the certain terminus ante quern of the commentary. The statement of Oecumenius that the prophecies of Revelation have not all been fulfilled although “a considerable span of time has passed, indeed more than 500 years” remains troublesome. The solution of Spitaler-Schmid that the reckoning is from the time of Christ is not persuasive. Lamoreaux helpfully points out Oecumenius's own discussion of the passage (Rev 1:1-2). Oecumenius quotes Psalm 90:4 to say that the word soon does not refer to any period of time but to the power and eternality of God.31 The five hundred years may therefore refer not to the time since the writing of Revelation but “rather to the length of the delay separating Christ's first and second coming."32 It is not an ideal solution, but
p. 24
Occumenius docs seem to introduce some imprecision into his discussion that erodes confidence in using this reckoning for establishing the date of the commentary and of Oecumenius himself.
================================
TRANSLATED BY William C. Weinrich
EDITED BY Thomas C. Oden
Lamoreaux that the evidence of the Syriac fragment, which explicitly identifies them, is strong. The argument of Castagno is materially weakened by not taking that important evidence into account, and until that evidence should be rendered doubtful the death of Severus in 538 remains the certain terminus ante quern of the commentary. The statement of Oecumenius that the prophecies of Revelation have not all been fulfilled although “a considerable span of time has passed, indeed more than 500 years” remains troublesome. The solution of Spitaler-Schmid
By Oecumenius,, Andrew of Caesarea,
https://books.google.com/books?id=JORIkBaj9HcC&pg=PA23
TRANSLATED BY William C. Weinrich
EDITED BY Thomas C. Oden
SERIES EDITORS Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray
What is one to make of these various arguments and the evidence that supports them?
The evidence clearly does not go in one direction. However, the following seem to me to
be reasonable conclusions from the evidence:
1. Oecumcnius was a layperson of high imperial rank (comes); he was married and was respected as a person of intellectual capacity (“philosophos,” "rhetor," "scholasticus”).30
2. The Oecumcnius who commented on Revelation and the Oecumenius who was a correspondent of Severus of Antioch are the same person. One must agree with Lamoreaux that the evidence of the Syriac fragment, which explicitly identifies them, is strong. The argument of Castagno is materially weakened by not taking that important evidence into account, and until that evidence should be rendered doubtful the death of Severus in 538 remains the certain terminus ante quern of the commentary. The statement of Oecumenius that the prophecies of Revelation have not all been fulfilled although “a considerable span of time has passed, indeed more than 500 years” remains troublesome. The solution of Spitaler-Schmid that the reckoning is from the time of Christ is not persuasive. Lamoreaux helpfully points out Oecumenius's own discussion of the passage (Rev 1:1-2). Oecumenius quotes Psalm 90:4 to say that the word soon does not refer to any period of time but to the power and eternality of God.31 The five hundred years may therefore refer not to the time since the writing of Revelation but “rather to the length of the delay separating Christ's first and second coming."32 It is not an ideal solution, but
p. 24
Occumenius docs seem to introduce some imprecision into his discussion that erodes confidence in using this reckoning for establishing the date of the commentary and of Oecumenius himself.
================================
TRANSLATED BY William C. Weinrich
EDITED BY Thomas C. Oden
Lamoreaux that the evidence of the Syriac fragment, which explicitly identifies them, is strong. The argument of Castagno is materially weakened by not taking that important evidence into account, and until that evidence should be rendered doubtful the death of Severus in 538 remains the certain terminus ante quern of the commentary. The statement of Oecumenius that the prophecies of Revelation have not all been fulfilled although “a considerable span of time has passed, indeed more than 500 years” remains troublesome. The solution of Spitaler-Schmid
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Studies of Oecumenius
Special note to Revelation 4:8
=================================
William C. Weinrich (b. 1945)
https://viaf.org/viaf/76437806/
Greek Commentaries on Revelation
=================================
David Edward Aune (b. 1939)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Aune
Give additional mss.
Check location and provenance.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1ErDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA272
2351 - Great Meteoron Monastery, 573, fol. 245v-290 Meteora
L1678
=================================
John C. Lamoreaux
https://www.smu.edu/dedman/academics/departments/religious-studies/people/faculty/lamoreaux
The Provenance of Ecumenius' Commentary on the Apocalypse (1998)
John C. Lamoreaux
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1584585
https://books.google.com/books?id=JORIkBaj9HcC&pg=PA23
As corroboration Lamoreaux points out that nowhere does Oecumenius affirm the Council of Chalcedon or Leo's Tome. This and other evidence leads Lamoreaux to date the commentary’ of Oecumenius between 508 and 518. 29
29 Lamoreaux, "Provenance," 101.
(THIS IS A QUIRKY ANALYSIS, HERE IS LAMOREAUX)
Castagno, however, has problematized this interpretation, arguing that, although both Severus and Ecumenius show many points of
contact in their Christological definitions,33 these similarities are better
explained by supposing Ecumenius to have written after the Fifth Council
(553) and its victory for Neo-Chalcedonianism, a victory which rendered
more acceptable a less strictly dyophysite interpretation of Chalcedon.34
Many of Ecumenius' formulae, it is suggested, can be found echoed in the
anathemas of the Fifth Council. Similarly, one does not find in Ecumenius'
commentary any open denial of the Chalcedonian definition or the Tome
of Leo.
=================================
Adele Monaci (Castagno)
https://unito.academia.edu/AdeleMonaci
I Commenti di Ecumenio e di Andrea di Cesarea: due letture divergenti dell'Apocalisse, Memorie dell'Accademia delle Scienze di Tprino, serie V, vol. 5 (1981),II. Classe di Scienze morali, Storiche e Filosofiche, pp.303-426
https://www.academia.edu/5031172/I_...enze_morali_Storiche_e_Filosofiche_pp_303_426
"Apocalisse di Ecumenio e di Andrea" (1980)
=================================
Spitaler-Schmid
====================
Peter Villiers
https://www.academia.edu/Messages?atid=25092869
PBF
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...r-de-villiers-oecumenius-revelation-4-8.3516/
=================================
John Neville Suggit (1922-2023)
https://books.google.com/books?id=GGpSK6yLzvUC&pg=PA3
=================================
Thomas Clark Oden
=================================
Marc De Groote
“Die Quaestio Oecumeniana"
Sacris Erudiri 36 [1996 1: 67-105).
=================================
Laurence Viances
univ-grenoble-alpes.academia.edu
Notes sur le commentaire d’Œcuménius à l’Apocalypse (2014)
Vianès
=================================
Pirtea, Adrian C.
oeaw.academia.edu
=================================
Robert Adam Boyd
"The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version" (2022) ?
=================================
Diskamp is on Andreas
Special note to Revelation 4:8
=================================
William C. Weinrich (b. 1945)
https://viaf.org/viaf/76437806/
Greek Commentaries on Revelation
=================================
David Edward Aune (b. 1939)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Aune
Give additional mss.
Check location and provenance.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1ErDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA272
2351 - Great Meteoron Monastery, 573, fol. 245v-290 Meteora
L1678
=================================
John C. Lamoreaux
https://www.smu.edu/dedman/academics/departments/religious-studies/people/faculty/lamoreaux
The Provenance of Ecumenius' Commentary on the Apocalypse (1998)
John C. Lamoreaux
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1584585
https://books.google.com/books?id=JORIkBaj9HcC&pg=PA23
As corroboration Lamoreaux points out that nowhere does Oecumenius affirm the Council of Chalcedon or Leo's Tome. This and other evidence leads Lamoreaux to date the commentary’ of Oecumenius between 508 and 518. 29
29 Lamoreaux, "Provenance," 101.
(THIS IS A QUIRKY ANALYSIS, HERE IS LAMOREAUX)
Castagno, however, has problematized this interpretation, arguing that, although both Severus and Ecumenius show many points of
contact in their Christological definitions,33 these similarities are better
explained by supposing Ecumenius to have written after the Fifth Council
(553) and its victory for Neo-Chalcedonianism, a victory which rendered
more acceptable a less strictly dyophysite interpretation of Chalcedon.34
Many of Ecumenius' formulae, it is suggested, can be found echoed in the
anathemas of the Fifth Council. Similarly, one does not find in Ecumenius'
commentary any open denial of the Chalcedonian definition or the Tome
of Leo.
=================================
Adele Monaci (Castagno)
https://unito.academia.edu/AdeleMonaci
I Commenti di Ecumenio e di Andrea di Cesarea: due letture divergenti dell'Apocalisse, Memorie dell'Accademia delle Scienze di Tprino, serie V, vol. 5 (1981),II. Classe di Scienze morali, Storiche e Filosofiche, pp.303-426
https://www.academia.edu/5031172/I_...enze_morali_Storiche_e_Filosofiche_pp_303_426
"Apocalisse di Ecumenio e di Andrea" (1980)
=================================
Spitaler-Schmid
====================
Peter Villiers
https://www.academia.edu/Messages?atid=25092869
PBF
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...r-de-villiers-oecumenius-revelation-4-8.3516/
=================================
John Neville Suggit (1922-2023)
https://books.google.com/books?id=GGpSK6yLzvUC&pg=PA3
=================================
Thomas Clark Oden
=================================
Marc De Groote
“Die Quaestio Oecumeniana"
Sacris Erudiri 36 [1996 1: 67-105).
=================================
Laurence Viances
Laurence Vianès - Profile on Academia.edu
Laurence Vianès, Université Grenoble Alpes: 112 Followers, 71 Following, 32 Research papers. Research interests: Greek Patristics, Patristic Exegesis, and…
Vianès
=================================
Pirtea, Adrian C.
Adrian C . Pirtea - Profile on Academia.edu
I am currently a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, where I am affiliated with the Institute for Medieval Research,…
=================================
Robert Adam Boyd
"The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version" (2022) ?
=================================
Diskamp is on Andreas
Last edited: