Today we can identify on about a dozen or so full commentaries on the Book of Revelation written by the early church fathers and saints of our church before the Great Schism of 1054 AD. Latin commentaries were written earlier and we can identify those works by Victorinus, Tyconius, Venerable Bede, Caesarius of Arles and Apringius of Beja, to name a few. Greek commentaries are fewer in number compared to the Latin West, and they were written later after the emergence of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine Empire) from the 500s onwards. The reason for so few Greek Byzantine-era commentaries can be partially explained by the rejection of the Book of Revelation as canon in the Orthodox East for many centuries. However, earlier Greek interpretations like those from Origen are considered lost works. There is one recent discover of a Greek commentary called “Scholia in Apocalypisin” [2] written in the 500s which was initially thought to be attributed to Origen, but later evidence pointed to the commentary as having been written by Cassian the Sabaite, a monk and abbot from the monastery of Sabas in Palestine. With the spread of Islam in the seventh century, the Eastern church began to revisit the authenticity of the book as a number of Greek commentaries began to appear, as well as other new apocalypses and apocryphal works (like Pseudo-Methodius). The commentary of Oecumenius (c. late 500s AD) was the first full commentary of Revelation in the Greek language. Andrew of Caesarea followed with his full commentary in the early-to-mid seventh century, writing in response to the fears of the people with the rising tide of Islam, basing his work on a large portion of Oecumenius’s commentary, reusing many parts while making revisions or additions. And the commentary of Arethas of Caesarea a few centuries later (c. 900 AD) was largely dependent on Andrew’s commentary. All of these commentaries too a futurist view on the interpretation of the book, expecting the antichrist or rise of the beasts to occur in the future.
Thus, the three primary Byzantine-era Greek commentaries which are often referenced today are those from Oecumenius, Andrew of Caesarea, and Arethas of Caesarea. However, researchers have suggested later Greek commentaries were thought to have existed, but were either destroyed or lost after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. However, it appears that a shift in interpretation from Futurist to Historicist began in both the East and West as early as the 13th century, and it could be perhaps attributed to two events: 1) The fall of Jerusalem in 1187 AD to Saladin, and the 1204 AD Sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade. To further support this shift in the mindset of interpretive approaches to the Apocalypse, Garrick V. Allen[6] identified copies of a few different manuscripts at the monasteries of Mt. Athos showing marginal commentary/notes added to the copies of original Greek Byzantine-era commentaries of St. Andrew identifying 666 pointing to the Papacy or Mohammed. And these shifting thoughts by the Greeks in approaching Revelation leads us to another important discovery in the history of Eastern Historicist Eschatology which we will briefly discuss today, a commentary from the early 13th century on the Apocalypse by another great saint of our church: St. Neophytos the Recluse of Cyprus, and his commentary titled: Περί τη Άποκαλύψεως του άγιου ‘Ιωάννου του Θεολόγου σαφήνεια διά βραχέων or, “Clarity for short about the Revelation of Saint John the Theologian” which was written around the year 1207 AD.
Life of Saint Neophytos the Recluse
Neophytos ‘the Recluse’ was a pillar of Cypriot history. He was born in the mountain village in Cyprus to faming parents and lived between 1134–1214 AD, at the very end of the Byzantine Period for Cyprus (330 AD until 1191 AD). He was one of eight children. He lived during the twelfth century as a hermit in the mountainous hillside around Phaphos. Neophytos was an Orthodox monk, priest, and hermit, but he was also a hagiographer, letter-writer, poet, historian, an interpreter of the scriptures, composer, auto-biographer and administrator. Many of his writings were concerning the welfare and state of the poor. Today, Agios Neophytos Monastery is named in his honor, and was first established in 1159 AD. At the age of 18 he joined his monastery Chrysostomos (of Koutzouvendis) and was tonsured a monk.
“The Clarity” – St. Neophytos’ Interpretation of the Revelation of St. John
Neophytos Interpretation of Revelation is one of the last during the latter period of the Byzantine Empire which offers an interesting perspective and divergence from earlier Greek commentaries as it approaches parts of the book with a historical or “fulfilled” eschatological perspective, especially on the analysis of Revelation 13. Therefore, this interpretation could be considered a critical bridge and missing link between the two eras of Greek exegetical commentary, that of the Byzantine era which ended with the emergence of Turkish rule after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, and the new era which followed called the Post-Byzantine Exegetical Movement, consisting of numerous commentaries which took even more of a fulfilled or historicist approach with many chapters in the Apocalypse. According to the publisher of Ven. Englishman, “The Clarity” constitutes a “remarkable sample of the Cypriot contribution to biblical explanatory unique testimony about the lay people in Cyprus of reactions to the events of 1204, and one of its first manuscripts using local dialect and accent” [10]. It was republished in 1977 and a manuscript is preserved (codex Parisinus gr. 1189 (15th cent.) 77.57n-77n. According to V. Englezakis, it is a copy with autographed corrections by the author himself.
The Clarity (or Clearness) appears to have been written after the events of 1204 AD, since it speaks of the Fall of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade. If indeed one takes into account the confession of the author and the articulate points or “Clearness”, it is by the way the interpretation was structured that Neophytos wanted to “discover” some difficult points in the book. This collection contains an analysis of the entire Apocalypse divided into fourteen sections (or chapters). For example, he considers Revelation 12 and 13 as a single unit since there are some overlaps between the chapters with the “42 months” times statement, and the birth described in Revelation 12 and the action/reaction to that birth by the antichrist is further elaborated upon in Rev 13:1-10.
The Clarity – Interpretation to the Number 666
Neophytos mentions the calculation in a section titled “Concerning the infamous beast and its number of its name” where he calculates the following names: Evanthas, Titan, Lateinos, and Benedict. Each of these names add up to 666. These appear in earlier Greek and Latin Commentaries, mostly derived from Irenaeus. He appears to associate the 666 calculation with the second “lamb-like” Beast of Revelation 13 which arise from the “earth.” But he considers the first beast rising from the “sea” with seven heads and ten horns to be the antichrist. Despite the brevity of the interpretation here, the information provided about the by Neophytos are to be considered a “historical” interpretation, and are presented briefly as follows below:
Interpreting the Woman and Male Child of Revelation 12
Neophytos, with surprising analysis, demonstrates a newly-proposed interpretation unlike previous Greek commentaries where he considered the “woman clothed with the sun” of Revelation 12 to not be the Theotokos, but instead the mother of the antichrist. He justifies this interpretation with the fact that the devil pursues the woman “to devour the male child as soon as he was born” and that the newborn was to be his accomplice. In fact, it persual of the child reaches the point that present as a cause of war between the dragon-devil and Michael, and that Michael prevented the dragon from pursuing the infant, when it “was caught up to the throne of the Lord”. According to Neophytos, the child, or the antichrist, “do not go as to bow down and worship the Lord”, but was to be given as the leader of the heterodox and lawless people. He writes the following: “let no one be mislead that this woman is the Mother of God, she is but the antitheotokos, the corrupt and the mother of the Antichrist. For the true Theotokos Christ was born in the flesh, not tortured as it appeared, but glorified and preserved in virginity. The devil, seeing the woman so brightly decorated, realized that the woman was a co-conspirator and co-partner of this, and, in addition to the woman, he ate the baby born from her. So that he came to his master, he hurried after him, and being hindered by Michael, he helped him to fight” – Englezakis Ven., pp. 100-101. [10]. The male child “returns” from the sea in “fantasy form”, itself with that of his father, the devil, seven-headed and with ten horns. This beast, “manifest that the antichrist is”, because of the great authority he takes from his father, he appears as an opponent of the saints, a murderer of Elijah and Enoch and a blasphemer before God.
The ‘Beast Rising From The Earth’ of Revelation 13
Neophytos now presents a remarkable shift over previous commentators, the beast that rises from the earth and granted authority by the Dragon, he says, “this is Mahomet, that of the devil and him antichrist apostle and prophet, you taught the sons of Hagar what God hates and Satan loves.” The Dragon, therefore, according to Neophytos, is an allegorical and metaphorical description of the devil, “a beast from her sea forever: the antichrist, and ‘false prophet’, a beast that rises from the earth is Mahomet, the apostle and prophet and servant of the devil and antichrist.”
Thus, Neophytos interpretive stance becomes particularly interesting, planting the seed on a fulfilled interpretation of the beasts of the Revelation 13. And the number 666, which moves within the framework of the now formed on the subject than previously. Even this seemingly new proposal, the hint of it “Mohamed,” as a “false prophet and apostle of the antichrist,” moves the goal-posts in the tradition of Greek Orthodoxy: From the very first centuries the heretics were called “precursors of the antichrist”. And John of Damascus mind (+750), among the sects he counts, the “planned religion of the Ishmaelites”, the founder of which, the false prophet Mohammed. It is worthwhile mentioning that Ioannou Damaskinou (see Peri Iresen ra, PG 94,764-773) states that after John of Damascus identification, he says: “It is sufficient to mention that since then almost every reference to Muhammad is accompanied by the adjective “false prophet“, and just as often by the “precursor of the antichrist“. And let us not forget that Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem FIRST identified the Little Horn and Abomination of Desolation to be the fall of Jerusalem in 637 AD to Omar and the religion of Islam. But now, finally, five or six centuries later after the appearance of Mohammad, who was proclaimed to be the last and greatest prophet of Allah, it now instead interpreted by a Greek Orthodox saint of our church and now Mohammed is expected to be the “false prophet” associate of the Dragon described in chapter 13:16 in the prophetic text of St. John the Theologian.
Concluding Thoughts
Saint Neophytos’s book titled “Clarity for short about the Revelation of Saint John the Theologian” presents to us an interesting shift in the mindset of the last of the Greek commentaries during the Byzantine era, from that of futurist commentaries of Oecumenius, Andrew of Caesarea, and Arethas of Caesarea towards an interpretation of events which are considered fulfilled events, i.e. some of those things which “shortly already came to pass.” This interpretation would lead the way towards those additional commentaries during the Post-Byzantine Exegetical Movement which interpreted and defined the two beast of Revelation 13 to be Islam (Mohammed) and the Papacy (Lateinos). Saint Neophytos appears to be the Greek Orthodox Saint of our church to interpret the beast that rises from the earth, according to John “false prophet,” to mean that “apostle and servant” of the Dragon, the antichrist, whom Neophytos recognizes in his face as Mohammad.
Thus, “Clarity” presents to us for the first time once an actual historical figure is connected, Muhammad, in this case, with the Apocalypse and one of its beasts of Revelation 13, that which it rises from the earth and, according to Neophytos, plays a role of a false prophet, forerunner and servant of the antichrist. An idea which was virtually non-existent in any commentary on Revelation, both in the Greek East and Latin West, prior to the thirteenth century, but perhaps helped to shape the course of Historicist Eschatology throughout Europe. An idea which was also at the forefront for a new direction for many Eastern and Western Commentaries of the Apocalypse at the Dawn of the Reformation and the final Disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. And thus, Saint Neophytos should be considered the forerunner and father of Historicist Eschatology.
SOURCES
- Evangelia Amoiriaou, History of the Interpretation of “the number of the beast” (666) (Rev. 13:18). From Exegetical Memoirs on Revelation from the 2nd to the early 19th century in the Eastern Church. Doctoral Theses submitted to the Department of Theology of the Theological School of A.P. Thessaloniki (1998)
- P. Tzamalikos, An Ancient Commentary on the Book of Revelation, A Critical Edition of the Scholia in Apocalypsin, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom (2018). ISBN 978-1-108-73000-6
- Asterios Argyriou, Les exégèses grecques de l’Apocalypse à l’époque turque (1453-1821). Esquisse d’une histoire des courants idéologiques au seindu peuple grec asservi. Thessaloniki, 1982
- A. Argyriou, Αναστάσιος ο Γόρδιος και το σύγγραμμά του: Περί του Μωάμεθ και εναντίον των Λατίνων, Athens 1969
- A. Argyriou. Anastasios Gordios, Sur Mahomet et contre les Latins. Athens, 1983
- Allen, G. V. (2020) An anti-Islamic marginal comment in the Apocalypse of “Codex Reuchlin” (GA 2814) and its tradition. In: Karrer, M. (ed.) Der Codex Reuchlins zur Apokalypse: Byzanz – Basler Konzil – Erasmus. Series: Manuscripta Biblica (5). De Gruyter: Berlin; Boston, pp. 193-198. ISBN 9783110674118
- Neilos Sotiropoulos, The Coming Sharp And Two-Edged Sword, Holy Monastery of Simon’s Petra, Holy Mount Athos, Greece, (1973)
- Apostolos Makrakis, Interpretation of the Revelation of St. John the Divine. Hellenic Christian Education Society, Chicago, IL, 1948
- B. Hugget, Cyprus – History Unearthed – Neophytos ‘the Recluse’, https://historyunearthed.wordpress.com/neophytos-the-recluse/ (2014)
- “The Anecdotal Record of St. Neophytos the Recluse in the Apocalypse”, Yearbook of the Center for Scientific Research, Nicosia 8 (19/75-77), p. 73. (The same can be found in: Ven. Englezaki, Twenty Studies for the Church of Cyprus (4th to 20th centuries). Athens 1996, pp. 165-222, M.I.E.T., A.G. Leventis Foundation).
© 2023 by Jonathan Photius
Neo-Historicism - End Times Eschatology From A New Eastern Orthodox Christian "Historicist" Perspective 