Customer Reviews

Oecumenius: Commentary on the Apocalypse (Fathers of the Church)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This volume sets out to give the reader a reliable English translation of Oecumenius' Commentary on the Apocalypse. This task it accomplishes well. Dr. John N. Suggit, the translator, did a very poor job in his Introduction, and CUA Press did an equally poor job with the layout of the book.

Oecumenius' text is wonderful. Suggit's translation suffers under weight of a "gender neutral" sensitivity, but is all-around a very good one. Oecumenius seems to have worked with a slightly different text than what became the canonical "Apocalypse of St. John", and Suggit has pointed out these differences very well. Reading this text will undoubtedly give the student or preacher a wealth of insights into a mysterious Biblical text. The price of the book is well worth having this patristic commentary.

Suggit's work outside of Oecumenius' text leaves much to be desired. This work is largely unknown to the Western reader; why, then, is the Introduction in seven sections and spread over fourteen pages? This Introduction is the perfect opportunity to introduce the reader to Oecumenius, the text, the circumstances of the text, etc. Very little of this is done. In fact, Suggit often turns his reader to other authors. For instance, when he begins to write about the manuscript tradition of Oecumenius' work, he says, "The manuscript tradition is described in detail by de Groote" (15). One turns to the bibliography to find out who this mysterious character is, and finds, "de Groote, M. 'Oecumenii commentarius in Apocalypsin.' Leuven: Peeters, 1999." Instead of giving us the facts himself, Suggit lazily points the reader to another text that is not easily acquired outside of a large research library. He then mentions the presence of only one full manuscript dated to the twelfth century. The reader may ask, "In what language? Are there fragmentary manuscripts, and in other languages? Do they date earlier than the full manuscript? And on what grounds do we date the full manuscript to the twelfth century? Why was this considered important enough to save?" These questions, and their like, go unanswered. My final critique is that Suggit makes an amateur's mistake in Oecumenius' motive for writing. Suggit is at pains to distinguish Oecumenius (our author) from Oecumenius, bishop of Tricca. The author of this commentary, Suggit believes, was a layman. Suggit then writes, "In this regard [Oecumenius] is frequently moved as much by pastoral considerations as by his desire to discover the true meaning of Revelation..." (13). In the ancient Church, if Oecumenius WAS a layman, then he couldn't have been moved by "pastoral considerations", as he wasn't a pastor! Suggit may have meant that Oecumenius wanted to lead his fellow Christians closer to the Lord, but "pastoral" is a technical theological term. This is either bad scholarship, or Suggit is playing fast and loose with language.

Also, the layout of the commentary is horrendously confusing. I assume that it follows Oecumenius' own layout. The Biblical text needs to be distinguished from the commentary in a more noticeable way. There are random, parenthetical numbers throughout the Biblical text that often does not correspond to the same numbers in the commentary. It is quite strange. I feel I must fault CUA Press for this, since editing is their job.

I bought this book with high hopes, since the other texts I own in the "Fathers of the Church" series are rather good. My hopes were met with Oecumenius' own work. I was gravely disappointed by Suggit's work and the editing of the text.

If you want a solid, patristic commentary on a confusing book, do not hesitate to drop the cash for this volume. If you are looking for a good text, or for solid research on the text, steer clear.

This commentary by Oecumenius is wonderful! I have used it so many times, and I am very pleased with his interpretations. I think that he is the best kept secret as an ancient commentator, not only of the Apocalypse but also with his other commentaries.

I am very impressed with his Marian interpretation of Rev. 12 and his explanation of the 1000 year reign. His insights are not long and drawn out, and he is very good at bringing clarification to some obscure passages in one of the most complex books of the Bible.

John Litteral