ANDREW OF CÆSAREA: Metropolitan of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, author of a commentary on the Apocalypse which has some importance in exegetical history. He has been variously thought to have flourished between the fifth and the ninth centuries. His time was certainly after the Persian persecutions and the strife between Arians and the orthodox "New Rome." A reference of the prophecy of Gog and Magog to the Scythian peoples of the extreme north, "whom we call Huns," has been thought to indicate the period before the rule of the Huns was broken; but the parallel in Arethas (MPG, cvi. 756) shows that Huns was used as a generic name for barbarian invaders. The only sure criterion by which the earliest possible date may be determined is Andrew's citation of authorities. The latest of these is the so-called Dionysius the Areopagite, whose writings are first certainly mentioned in 533; so that Andrew can not have written before the middle of the sixth century. He cites as witnesses to the inspiration of the Apocalypse, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, Hippolytus, Gregory Nazianzen, and Cyril of Alexandria. His striking omission of Origen is explicable, in the light of his dependence on the latter's bitter opponent Methodius, by the recrudescence of Origenistic controversy in the sixth century. Other authorities are Epiphanius, Basil, Eusebius, and Justin; of non-Christian writers, he once cites Josephus.


Andrew's expository method is set forth in the introductory dedication to his brother and fellow worker Macarius. The Apocalypse, he says, like any other inspired Scripture, is at once historical, tropological, and anagogical; but the last aspect is most prominent in it, and requires unfolding. The expositor must, however, observe his limits. God has made his revelation in Christ susceptible by the human intellect; and so history and mystery are not to be treated alike. But the explanation may at least console and edify the reader by showing the transitoriness of all earthly things and by teaching him to long for the glories of the future. Andrew's exposition is accordingly characterized by the effort to arrive at a Christian interpretation of history, by an interest in its facts, and by a cautious restraint in the elucidation of prophecy. But in spite of this, his conception that the Apocalypse as a whole offers a clear revelation of the divine government of the world colors his exposition throughout. His style is usually glossarial, though here and there he adds an edifying excursus. Where necessary, he gives different views, leaving the reader to take his choice; but his commentary is much more than a mere catena, the quotations occupying a relatively small space. From the standpoint of textual criticism, as was first recognized by Bengel, the commentary has an importance of its own. Matthaei noticed that the glosses of Andrew had not seldom crept into the manuscripts; and F. Delitzsch was inclined to attribute the uncertainty of the cursive texts of the Apocalypse to the influence of the commentaries of Andrew and Arethas (q.v.). The commentary is in MPG, cvi.