The scholia in question are known in a single copy, Meteora, Metamorphosis 573, fos 245v–290r, covering Revelation i.1–xiv.5. Each scholion is attached to a lemma containing the biblical text. This text has been catalogued as a copy of the Greek New Testament, with the Gregory-Aland number 2351. The manuscript also contains other material, including works attributed to one Cassian, and a continuous-text copy of the Apocalypse (fos 210r–245r, given the Gregory-Aland number 2329). The manuscript has been dated to the tenth century.

The volume under review contains a preface (pp. ix–xi), exordium (pp. xii–xvi), introduction (pp. 1–94), followed by the scholia with the biblical lemmata (pp. 95–195). For each scholion, the text of both lemma and scholion is given with brief notes, followed by an English translation of the scholion. A following section (pp. 199–412) contains further extensive notes. The volume ends with a bibliography and indices to the scholia themselves (of authors cited in them, names occurring in them, terms used and biblical citations), then one of modern authors and a general index. The edition of the scholia corrects the errors of the scribe. The notes indicate differences between the lemmata and the continuous-text copy on folios 210–45.

This thorough coverage is matched by the breadth of the introduction which includes a description of the codex and its contents, background and orthography. This is followed by a lengthy section describing the attitudes to Revelation in early Christian authors from the second century down (pp. 10–60), including discussion of some matters referring to the Septuagint. The remaining pages deal with the scholia, their style, sources and authorship, with a discussion also of the biblical text found in the scholia.

It is the argument of this volume that the scholia were composed by Cassian the Monk: ‘An intellectual of Antiochene extraction, who was born in Scythopolis c. 470 and died an abbot of the renowned Laura of Sabas on 20 July ad 548’ (p. ix). Tzamalikos argues further that Cassian drew extensively on a lost commentary on Revelation by Didymus the Blind. The evidence for such a commentary, which is not listed in the patrologies which I have looked at, is given almost in passing (p. 17 and n. 131). The first argument, which seems to include the view that all the works attributed to John Cassian (whom Tzamalikos appears to consider never to have existed) were originally written in Greek by this Cassian, requires a far more detailed consideration than there is space for in this review. In any case, the arguments have already been set out in two previous publications by Tzanalikos (A newly discovered Greek Father: Cassian the Sabaite eclipsed by John Cassian of Marseilles and The real Cassian revisited: monastic life, Greek paideia, and Origenism in the sixth century, Brill 2012) [see Review Article at pp. 376–6 above]. Instead a few suggestions will be offered with regard to the volume under review.

The scholia have been edited once before (C. Diobounitis and A. von Harnack, Der Scholien-Kommentar des Origenes zur Apokalypse Johannis nebst einem Stück aus Irenaeus, Lib. V. graece Leipzig 1911). The attribution of the scholia to Origen is regarded by Tzamalikos as unlikely, on the grounds that terms which have appeared as likely to be evidence of Origenism are not sufficiently distinctive, while other aspects of the language are not Origenian. It is a little unfortunate that this part of the argument is garnished with overly political statements, but the rebuttal itself is reasonable. The evidence in favour of Didymus is similarly indirect, but based on more thorough evidence.

One argument for which evidence is not so full or convincing is Tzamalikos's suggestion with regard to the codex in which the texts are found. In the first place, the statement on the first folio that this is the book of Cassian the Monk is taken as certain evidence that all the writings contained in it (the first 209 folios contain several works including the Synopsis Scripturae once attributed to Athanasius) were written by Cassian. The presence of a note on folio 295v in a later hand ‘by Monk Cassian the Roman’ is taken as further evidence. However, the matter requires further consideration. The history of the compilation of the codex needs further study. We need images of every page (only folios 210r–295r are available to this reviewer) in order to seek evidence for this. The note on folio 295v proves nothing: it only tells us that the person who wrote the note believed this, or was replicating the preliminary statement. Tzamalikos also states that the codex is a direct copy of the original ‘book of Cassian’. There is little or no evidence given in favour of this (ascertaining much of the detail of the editor's arguments is rendered difficult by the somewhat confusing arrangement of the material and the way in which important statements are made quite briefly).

A further query concerns the relationship between the continuous text copy of Revelation and the text of the lemmata to the scholia. Why are both present here? Is there any relationship between them or is the codex a compilation of disparate parts? Better understanding must await further results from the project in Wuppertal to make a critical edition of the Apocalypse for the Editio Critica Maior of the Greek New Testament.

There may also be more to be said with regard to the genre of the scholia. As a set of observations, based in particular on the work of Didymus, they may have something in common with the tradition of the catena, a compilation from earlier writers. On the other hand, catenae generally even contain the names of their sources. However, the degree to which this may be described as an independent work is worth considering.

Finally, full attention should be paid to the wider implications for the study of the development of Christian thought included in this volume, a topic in which the author's extensive knowledge is shown at its best. So rich a writing, dating from the first half of the sixth century, with ideas and material from the Alexandrians and Antiochenes and Cappacodians and elsewhere, will lead to a reconsideration of our view of this period. Whatever questions remain – and the surprising conclusions of Tzamalikos's research demand thorough consideration and no quick responses – the evidence of the scholia themselves remains.